Jury selection in the Rensselaer County ballot fraud against two Troy Democrats is set to begin Tuesday.
Former City Councilman Michael LoPorto and Democratic County Elections Commissioner Edward McDonough will be tried for their alleged actions to steal votes for Democratic candidates in the Working Families primary by forging absentee ballots.

What does it behoove a free country when our right of one man one vote is compromised? At one level, we have those that would buy our politicians, and at another, those that would steal our voting power.

As this is such an exceedingly rare crime, what do you suggest we, as a country, do differently?

"Minnesota Majority's Report on Felon Voter Fraud Convictions
Stemming from Minnesota's 2008 General Election
October 13th, 2011 - Prepared by Dan McGrath
Page 1
Executive Summary
More than two years after Minnesota Majority filed complaints with county attorneys throughout
Minnesota citing evidence of ineligible felons voting in the 2008 General Election, convictions for these
election crimes are still emerging from our legal system. The statute of limitations for these 2008 crimes
will run-out this November after which no additional illegal voters will be able to be charged.
As of August 10th, 2011, 113 individuals are now known to have been convicted for voter fraud
committed in 2008. We believe this is the highest number of voter fraud convictions obtained in any
state for a single election cycle since 1936. "

I do not believe attempted voter fraud is a big, burgeoning problem going out of control. Common sense and the practical safeguards we presently have are sufficient, in my opinion.

It is the Republicans who believe that any Democratic win must have been the result of massive voter fraud since, from the Republican viewpoint, there is no other way Democrats could garner enough votes to beat a Republican opponent fair and square. That many Republicans believe that doesn't mean it is true, however.

Kate

The link is a PDF

As November approaches, expect more of the same...

Because we all know that Latinos would ordinarily be voting for the immigrant-bashing, arrest-'em-all-if-they-look-Hispanic GOP if not for massive voter fraud.

Enjoying great salaries, the best in health care benefits and fat pensions while all the while keeping the base stirred up in order to protect their own privilege. Constantly misrepresenting themselves for self profit.

Now that's fraud that is meaningful.

Can I get an AMEN ?

But does that mean we don't concern ourselves with smaller, perhaps less significant incidences of fraud?

We the people need to stop letting the politicians (both parties) throw red herrings to the crowd.

Peace

Often, she was not able to get home until very late due to all the regulations that had to be met but she didn't mind. It was part of the process. The year that sticks out in my mind on this subject was when three new Observers suddenly showed up to accommodate new voters that had registered that year. The problem was that more than twenty five showed up with no registration valid for that precinct. The system was that while their votes could be taken, they were not included with those votes that were properly documented but were put in a folder for possible challenge. There had often been one or two votes that were challenged but twenty five was unusual. The new Observers had fits and it took days to show these voters had also attempted to vote at other precincts where they were not registered. Some of the votes went unchallenged because in some Precincts the Poll workers were intimidated by the new Observers but not all. It was weeks before it could be shown that all of the challenged votes were for the same candidate (you could see the info on the voter but not the vote itself until it was proven the voters were invalid). In total, more than two hundred votes were thrown out. That candidate did not win, by the way, but only by a few votes. If my mother and her fellow workers had been intimidated, he would have won.

Yes, voter fraud does happen. Only one of the new Observers was retained for the next election. The issue that election related to Unions.

You are discounting the NAACP and various Latino groups that are charging that the GOP's push for ID requirements is targeting their populations with the aim to reduce their turn out at the polls.

Wow! What an amazing principle!!! Imagine life in the USA if we all believed this.

Catch and remove a cancer and "it did not succeed and therefore there is nothing to fix."

Thwart a terrorist plot and "it did not succeed and therefore there is nothing to fix."

Move along now.

Should we spend more tax payer dollars fighting a boogeyman, thus GROWING government even more ?

Peace

this article sets the stage: SAGUACHE : Last fall's general election in sparsely populated Saguache County already is one of the most scrutinized in Colorado history, having prompted a report by the secretary of state, a statewide grand jury investigation and at least three lawsuits.
Yet this week Saguache is setting a new precedent for election transparency in Colorado, playing host to what state officials believe is the first public review of voted ballots and other election materials of its kind.
And when the days-long recount of the approximately 2,500 ballots is complete - possibly late today, maybe Thursday - absolutely none of last fall's results will change.
That's OK with Steve Carlson, the 2010 Republican candidate for county commissioner who went home on election night thinking he'd won, only to have the results flipped a few days later. While his race is one of the two controversial races being recounted, Carlson insists what's at play here is something more important than a commissioner's seat.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18792982

That was last fall. This past week, the County Clerk was recalled in a special election

The recall of Saguache County Clerk Melinda Myers offers some lessons about transparency and the good sense of voters.
Myers, who oversaw a messy election in which she prevailed over a challenger, was booted out of office this week with a resounding 68 percent of the vote.
We suspect voters were dismayed not only by the controversial outcome in the 2010 election, in which results were reversed days after the polls closed, but by the clerk's fight to keep ballots secret.
We supported a public recount of the ballots in an effort to build public trust in the process.
And we think county clerks, who are pushing for legislative action this session to restrict public access to voted ballots after elections, ought to take note of the Saguache recall. / snip

I've saw last week as well that they've made voting for over-seas residents and the military much easier - sending out the ballots 45 days prior to the election, and doing away with the mandatory notarized signatures. That last bit made it almost impossible to vote because I'd have to drive all the way to the embassy to get a ballot notarized.

Now there's a potential loophole someone could drive a truck through, but again I'd think that the election observers are going to have a hard look at that as well.

I suppose it would also work to just disenfranchise a large group--let's say Westerners. That would certainly cut down on voter fraud before it could even happen, wouldn't it. Of course, it would also disenfranchize lots of potential voters who were not planning to commit fraud, but what the heck, too many of them probably wanted to vote Democrat anyway--which, by definition, is a fraudulent vote.

Yeah, we get it.

By the way, do a bit of research. Republicans in various places that want to catch fraud before it is even committed are often very up front that their methods will cut into the young people's vote and minority votes--and they often admit, equally up front, that they believe those two categories of votes are too often Democratic. In fact, they will often congratulate themselves on how cleverly they are managing to dampen the Democratic vote by passing all these unnecessary vote ID laws. It is only when the national media starts paying attention that Repubicans go into denial, claiming they had no such plan in mind. Hypocrisy!

THe simple fact is that Republicans will tell us that young people and minorities tend to vote Democratic in large numbers, and by creating new regulations that curb young people and minorities, Republicans are making it very clear that they believe it is Democrats that are committing massive voting fraud to the extent that they are causing Republicans to lose races they otherwise would not have lost. (Ha! Wishful thinking!)

So, stop young people and minorities from voting, and that will stop voter fraud before it is ever committed. Prophylactic disenfranchisement, indeed!

Kate

I think all citizens should do this every few years

I guess I am not understanding what your point is MrsK. Can you at least see that voter fraud is not a major problem and when practiced is caught by the present system ?

Your OP says "what can be done about voter fraud" ? Several have pointed out that, although there is a minimal amount, there are already safeguards in place and that is why people who commit fraud are found.

What more can we do ... except expand GOVERNMENT with our tax dollars ?

I am against the expansion for a problem that is almost non-existent.

Peace

Sweeby, I've posted numerous times about the same thing occurring here, when the state passed laws requiring proof of citizenship to continue to receive benefits - all these very old people in wheel chairs w/o any birth certificates, about to get thrown out of the nursing homes.

And the forum decided that this couldn't possibly happen, because everybody they knew had birth certificates.

/lives in rural area with lots of old folks born on farms in other states.

NAACP takes aim at S.C. voter ID law, voter 'suppression' efforts

COLUMBIA - The NAACP argues that South Carolina's new Voter ID law, among other similar measures nationwide, is a coordinated and comprehensive assault on black and Latino voters.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said Monday that voters are more likely to be struck by lightning or record the spotting of a UFO than to witness voter fraud. The organization's objections are outlined in a new report, Defending Democracy: Ending 21st Century barriers to voting rights in America.

South Carolina was one of 14 states that passed 25 various voting measures in 2011 aimed at stamping out voter fraud, which the NAACP sees as a widespread legislative attack to suppress voters, "rooted in our nation's worst traditions of democracy," according to Ryan Haygood, the NAACP's director of political participation with the Legal Defense Fund. [...]

NAACP and other opponents say the laws, such as voter ID requirements, will disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and college students, some of whom do not have an ID that will be accepted at the poll. To obtain one can be an expensive process for those who do not have a birth certificate or have changed their name, opponents say.

The NAACP exposes voter suppression schemes

The NAACP will be sending a delegation to the United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights alleging a concerted effort to deny voting rights to black and hispanic Americans. Given how rarely anyone in the United States looks to the United Nations for justice, and how often the United States ignores the UN, this is both a significant and futile effort. But what's at issue is so egregious that the NAACP has chosen to shout it from a global stage.

In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president, the United States had one of the highest turnouts ever of black and Latino voters. Undoubtedly, this made a difference in the election: Obama won by a slim margin in many states that had traditionally voted Republicans. The high turnout of blacks and Latinos made the difference in crucial swing states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado and New Mexico. And southern states, which have a high percentage of blacks, are traditionally carried by the Republican party - but if enough blacks and Latinos vote, that isn't the case.

It does not seem like coincidence, then, that since 2008, many of these states have introduced laws that make it much more difficult to register to vote and to actually vote.

New report documents restrictions designed to suppress voting among communities of color

A new report reveals direct connections between the trend of increasing, unprecedented African American and Latino voter turnout and an onslaught of restrictive measures across the country designed to stem electoral strength among communities of color, especially in regions where full political participation can reverse the tide of policies that undermine rights of racial and ethnic minority communities.

Those findings are detailed in a joint report by the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund which examines scores of legislative proposals, ballot initiatives and voting laws enacted or proposed since the 2008 election. The report, Defending Democracy: Ending 21st Century barriers to voting rights in America, details a plethora of voter suppression initiatives, most of them pushed in states with large African-American populations and where voting turnout has surged. Copies of the report will be sent to the federal and state agencies that monitor, administer and enforce voting rights, including the US Department of Justice, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Election Assistance Commission, as well as Secretaries of State and Attorneys General in all fifty states. In addition, the report will be delivered to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate, and entities within the United Nations.

“It’s been more than a century since we’ve seen such a tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote. Historically, when voting rights are attacked, it’s done to facilitate attacks on other rights. It is no mistake that the groups who are behind this are simultaneously attacking very basic women’s rights, environmental protections, labor rights, and educational access for working people and minorities,” said NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Voting rights attacks are the flip side of buying a democracy. First you buy all the leaders you can, and then you suppress as many votes as possible of the people who might object.”

Pure projection. Heck they even steal their own elections.

I trust the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's analysis of the GOP schemes. After all, they've been down this road a few times before fighting voter suppression.

As someone once said, "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."

You are forgetting, mrskjun, that 75 - 85 years ago, social security didn't exist, quite a few people were born at home or on farms and didn't receive birth certificates, welfare didn't exist. In that generation of farmers, many of the men and their wives never held an official job - they just worked on the farm. Milking their cow didn't require a photo iD, SS number, etc.

And as I've stated now several times, it was a mad house, for months, as these old people tried to get their documentation in order so they wouldn't be thrown out of the nursing homes.

But you weren't there, I was.

Here's a book with actual research that shows it's not true.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100774960

I blame it on Fox News. The more you watch it the less informed you are.

Thats what I had to do with my own daughter, getting her on CHIP. Her birth certificate, from the hospital 3 miles away from the county clerk's office, wasn't enough proof. Those nefarious illegal immygrants might be forging birth certificates, you know. (Freakin' idiot legislators). My other kids were born over-seas and all had passports - so it was easier to get a passport than get Children's health insurance coverage.

After 3 months of running around, I too signed signed an affidavit that yes, my daughter was born in that hospital down the road and was a US Citizen, along with a copy of my passport.

Yes, prosecute away, sentence them to the max to set an example if found guilty.
But the one person/one vote where people walk into a polling station to vote should not be required to show a photo ID. Any type of ID should do, particularly a voter registration card of which everyone should have if their state requires it.
Also, to avoid future election screw-ups and esp fraud we need to get away from this new fangled electronic crap that's just begging to be corrupted. Get back to real ballots that can be counted as well as properly re-counted when needed....hell, maybe we should have everyone dip their finger in ink to keep it honest....

And while I'm on the soapbox let's make Election Day a Full Day, 24 hours not a 1/2 day , and move it from a dipchit Tuesday and put it on the weekends, or better yet keep it on Tuesday make it a REAL Holiday, it's the ONLY DAY we have Real Power.

But yes, signing an affidavit was the final resort in proof of citizenship.

And to repeat once again, and what is the most important aspect of this: the state estimated they spent close to 20 million dollars doing all the paperwork for verification of citizenship, put a couple hundred thousand elderly, physically disabled, mentally ill, etc people who depend on Medicaid, food stamps, etc. for survival through the wringer, and they found that nothing changed, the rolls increased as their demographic models projected, that illegal immygrants weren't, in fact, having any measurable effect at all.

But don't let one states' experience and twenty million dollars of wasted time and money steer you away from the talking points.

Go and read about all them Bush appointed attorney's generals that he fired. They were supposedly prosecutin' the Republicans and not the Democrats.

Sheesh, enough already!

-Ron-

SMH

Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota

In fact, only three of these states are Red states, the rest are Blue...but it's the Republicans that are trying to disenfranchise voters?

I haven't read the intervene posts because we have just finished covering, ad naseum, the same subject.

From John Nichols of The Nation: ALEC Exposed: Rigging Elections

Republicans have argued for years that "voter fraud" (rather than unpopular policies) costs the party election victories. A key member of the Corporate Executive Committee for ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force is Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which began highlighting voter ID efforts in 2006, shortly after Karl Rove encouraged conservatives to take up voter fraud as an issue. Kansas Republican Kris Kobach, who along with ALEC itself helped draft Arizona's anti-immigration law, has warned of "illegally registered aliens." ALEC's magazine, Inside ALEC, featured a cover story titled "Preventing Election Fraud" following Obama's election. Shortly afterward, in the summer of 2009, the Public Safety and Elections Task Force adopted voter ID model legislation. And when midterm elections put Republicans in charge of both chambers of the legislature in twenty-six states (up from fifteen), GOP legislators began moving bills resembling ALEC's model.

At least thirty-three states have introduced voter ID laws this year. In addition to Wisconsin, Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina and Tennessee have passed similar bills. Only a veto by Democratic Governor John Lynch prevented New Hampshire from enacting a law the Republican House speaker admitted was advanced to make it harder for "liberal" students to cast ballots, and that one state representative described as "directly attributable to ALEC."

Next.

Their constitutional rights are being denied

The 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 was signed into law May 25 and is effective starting with the state's primary in February. Under the law, Wisconsin voters will need to present a certain type of photo ID, which many eligible voters do not have. Many photo ID alternatives are excluded. For example, the law does not allow technical college and veteran ID cards. More than 380,000 students are in Wisconsin's technical college system, and over 15 percent of them are minorities.

.....Gessler[new secretary of state], a Republican who made a career as a private attorney championing partisan interpretations of election and campaign finance law, argued that state law requires clerks mail ballots to only active registered voters. Gessler said he was seeking to prevent fraud but he supplied no evidence that any fraud had occurred in Colorado in recent elections, much less fraud that suggested mailing ballots to inactive voters in any way increased the likelihood of fraud.

Inactive voters in Colorado are those who have registered but who have failed to cast a ballot in the previous even-year election.

Roughly 2.4 million Coloradans voted in the presidential election of 2008. The 2010 midterm election, however, drew only 1.8 million voters. There are now roughly 1.2 million voters categorized as inactive in Colorado. A disproportionate share of those inactive voters live in Democratic Party dominated Denver County. ....

So in other words, if you do mail in ballots, and for some reason you skip voting in one, they strike you off the voter rolls.

On October 7, Judge Brian Whitney threw out Gessler’s lawsuit, ruling that the Secretary of State’s interpretation of election law in the case was insupportable. Gessler has not said whether or not he plans to appeal the decision.

That Gessler’s actions seemed rushed and even slapdash bolstered the impression among legal analysts and members of the press that Gessler was acting baldly to suppress votes in the state, joining Republicans in states coast to coast who this year have spearheaded an historic raft of similar efforts.

Maps of inactive voters in Denver broadcast by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow highlighted the fact that Gessler’s injunction against mailing inactive voters ballots, had it been upheld, would have overwhelmingly affected minority voters in the city, voters with less access to the internet, for example, who move often and who are clustered partly in Representative Duran’s House District 5.

“I’m watching this very closely,” Duran said. “This is just incredibly important. There’s no reason why legally registered voters should have to jump through additional hoops.”

My son votes with an absentee ballot and missed the dead line for the last election, didn't get the ballot mailed on time. So we went into the county clerk to re-register. This article is dated, but she verified that if mail-in voters don't vote, they're off the rolls. So we got him reinstated.

Anyway, coming soon to a state near you.

Most everyone, particularly older people, have to go to the doctor sooner or later. I don't know about everywhere, but whenever I take my mother to do the doctor she has to show her photo ID at the Dr's office.

So do I.

So do my daughters.

Most everyone goes to the doctor.
Others get social security cards or replace social security cards, and need photo IDs for that.

It's not that big of a deal.

Poor people should not be allowed to vote and neither should young people didn't you know Dave?

The less people vote the better for the Republicans.

So do my daughters.

What? I don't have to show a photo id at the doctor's office!

-Ron-

"Approximately 11% of the entire population of the US do not have photo ID's. Approximately 38% of the entire population of registered voters bothered to vote in 2008. This is a silly argument"

...and of that number what percent is voter fraud? Agreed it's a silly argument.

Just make sure they're not allowed to take part in any vote casting and counting process un-supervised. That's all it takes.

And in the last case above it only cost 20Mil to find nothing.

What a deal !

But some think that it would just be a 'minor inconvenience' for her to organize a yet-defined means of getting a photo id.

No. The fewer fraudulent votes, the clearer to voice of the people.

Nik it has already been shown (at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars) that there is little to none voter fraud.

Talk about government waste ... arghhhhhhhhh

Here is a shining example of how dedicated Republicans are to vote accuracy and integrity. Two weeks and three days after the Iowa caucuses, Iowa Republicans have announced that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes. Maybe.

The Republican Party of Iowa announced Thursday that Rick Santorum finished ahead of Mitt Romney in its Jan. 3 caucuses, meaning the contest resulted in a virtual tie between the two candidates.

After more than two weeks of certifying the results, the former Pennsylvania senator pulled ahead of Romney by 34 votes despite Romney being declared the winner on Jan. 3 by an 8 vote margin.

The final official numbers stand at Santorum with 29,839 and Romney with 29,805, but the results from eight of the 1774 precincts could not be located and certified, leaving lingering questions as to who is the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.

Eight precincts missing? How convenient. For whom, I'm not sure. Depending on where those precincts were located, it could have affirmed Romney as the winner or widened Santorum's lead. Unfortunately, we'll never know because not only can they not locate the paper ballots used to vote, they can't find the vote tallies either.

Perfect example indeed.

They even steal their own elections, no way they can be trusted.

As soon as absentee voting starts, someone is going to be at the local nursing home getting votes, but I swear I don't know how you get 80% of residents voting, when 90% of them have dementia.

eyes rolling

I'd MUCH rather have my money go to Solyndra!

I'm wondering if the OP is getting worried that Obama will win the Presidential election after all and - just in case of THAT worse case scenario - is laying out the ground work for how it must have happened?

Seriously, that is how the OP and this discussion point if hers strikes me.

If Obama wins, I must make notice of the topic of the threads that follow.

Just in case anyone is wondering, though goodness knows I didn't vote for him, I never thought that "Bush (or voter fraud) stole the election" and said so at the time, and say so now.

Even Bill Maher agreed with me at the time and said so, which really surprised me.

But if Obama wins, I wonder if the idea of "stealing the election" will be revisited. It's beginning to sound like a distinct possibility.

I don't think it's that. If you go to the conservative sites, they all spout the same collection of mantras. I think for people vulnerable to those mantras, they just repeat them...sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously.

-Ron-

I do have to show my insurance card though.

White was indicted in March, accused of fraud, perjury, theft, voting in the wrong precinct, submitting a false voter registration change of address and casting a "false, fictitious or fraudulent ballot."

"Charlie White registered to vote at a place he didn't live. That was in contravention of the law," said Karen Celestino-Horseman, a lawyer for the Indiana State Democratic Party, which brought the allegations against White at the Indiana Recount Commission. "It was not his residence."

RE: What can be done about voter fraud?

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Mon, Jan 30, 12 at 16:22

mylab, I have no intention of not holding the republicans to the same standards. Just saw on the news the republican Indiana Secretary of State is set to stand trial for voter fraud. 7 counts of felony voter fraud. It just keeps popping up. Just because I don't think Obama is a good president, and I don't hate him, doesn't mean that I think all republicans are good or that all democrats are bad. I know that is a hard concept for many on this forum...my party is so pure and yours is so awful. But I don't see it that way.

;)

Voter ID is a great thing, but as we know, the GOP is "disenfranchising" minorities by implimenting it. Let's see, I need a photo ID to drive, buy alcohol, use a credit card, buy guns & ammo, buy tobacco products (although I don't smoke), among many other important things in daily life. But, I can walk into a polling place and just say "I'm so & so, and live at so & so" and they say "ok". Voting is the biggest responsibilty and right we as Americans have, and it should not be compromised by easy to commit fraud. If we need a photo ID for all of those other thing, we certainly should for voting.

I have a real hard time believing that because you're a minority, you can't get a photo ID. If I was a minority, I would be absolutely insulted by my supposed leaders saying that I'm being disenfranchised by voter ID, because it's a politically correct way of saying minorities are not capable of obtaining an ID either due to laziness or lack of intelligence.

*

BINGO

We have a winner.

I suspect that some doctor's offices have instituted a Photo ID Policy at their office due to drug seekers or some form of insurance fraud.

Ontario changed our Health Cards several years back to photo ID because there was a lot of Americans using stolen or borrowed health cards to get medical care here. I assume the same thing could be happening in the USA between insured and uninsured people.

And some people will jump from doctor to doctor getting pain prescriptions for a bad back (or some other problem) using different names. The photo ID may help prevent that.

For years, the right wing has been trying to stop Black people, other people of color, young people, and the elderly from voting -- and now some of America's biggest companies are helping them do it. These companies have helped pass discriminatory voter ID legislation by funding a right wing policy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ALEC's voter ID laws are undemocratic, unjust and part of a longstanding right wing agenda to weaken the Black vote. Major companies that rely on business from Black folks shouldn't be involved in suppressing our vote. Please join us in demanding that these companies stop funding ALEC.

Why do you think that minorities, young people, and elderly can't get an ID? Do you believe they are too lazy? Too dumb? What is it?

Nobody with an ounce of sense believes it.

If it were true, Democrats would be in a rush to reach all those masses of folks supposedly in danger of being "disenfranchised" by photo ID requirements.

They would be running public service announcements in states where photo ID is the law. Or they would be demanding states that have instituted photo ID laws run informational announcements. Party workers and volunteers would be busily calling every registered Democrat voter in every precinct to let them know who can help them get a government issued ID if they don't already have one.

They would already be publicizing help numbers, getting these ID-less people taken care of ASAP. But they're not doing that, which tells you all you need to know about the "threat" posed by photo ID requirements.

So just imagine that you don't know where you were born, and in what year, and maybe you were raised by some uncle because your folks died in a car wreck when you were three. You would make it without an ID until you wanted a drivers license. Then what do you do?

This afternoon, I was in the Drivers License Photo ID place, asking what it would take to renew my daughters ID, which was taken when she was 3. In front of me, a woman was trying to get a photo id for who ever was with her, a 16ish teenager, and was there with a photo copy of a birth certificate. I don't know what form the state employee was meticulously filling out, but they were working on it when I walked in and I waited 5 minutes. After she finished, she told them that at least now, the person was 'entered into the system' . Then. to go over to the other building, across town, where they needed to use the photo copy of the birth certificate to see if they could get a certified copy, and told them to come back after something or other had cleared.

So clearly there is a process, but its far from as easy as some people want to believe. And it would sure be a lot harder if you didn't have a car, or couldn't spend the 4-5 days standing in line.

For the my daughter, a minor, since she already has a state issued ID and a passport, it was just bring that in along with my drivers license with current address, and 'make sure you've got her social security number'.

You bring up dumb and lazy. Obviously you have an angle on it. Why do we need voter ID now after all these years?

-Ron-

As for the dumb and lazy, you're not reading into things enough. I am asking people who think voter ID disenfranchises minorities, why they feel that minorities can't get an ID. I just want to know, but nobody seems to want to answer that.

As for going through centuries without needing ID, you're right, we have. Problem is, elections are a lot different now. For one, people are a lot less honest now then they used to be. Also, there is so much money involved now, that there is a lot more at stake for certain special interests, and they'll stop at nothing to make things go their way. How come we need an ID to buy alcohol? Why can't I just state my name, address, and tell them I'm 21, and get my booze?

The Wisconsin Constitution only allows the legislature to exclude ... two named classes from voting: felons and people ruled incompetent.

Your argument about there being countless stories of folks going to vote, only to find out that they "voted already" is nothing but bull intended for the uninformed.

-Ron-

I'm sure that if you found the people that this actually happened to, you'd still say it was bull. The Wisconsin voter ID law is pretty much the same as all the other states who have it, so what's the big deal. I personally know a dedicated democrat who lives in a state with voter ID. She finds no problem with it, because it's always been there, and finds it laughable that people here in WI are crying about it. It's no different then the concealed carry, once people get used to it, it won't be such a big deal. Besides, I'm sure Illinois will welcome them with open arms, just as we in WI are welcoming all their businesses with open arms.

The 2004 election was hotly contested in Wisconsin, and various irregularities led to inflated claims of widespread fraud. At the same time, Wisconsin citizens were debating a proposal to require restrictive identification of each voter at the polls, and the fraud claims were used to support the call for ID. We examined each of the allegations of fraud by individual voters -- the only sort that ID could possibly address -- to uncover the truth behind the assertions.

The allegations yielded only 7 substantiated cases of individuals knowingly casting invalid votes that counted -- all persons with felony convictions. This amounts to a rate of 0.0025% within Milwaukee and 0.0002% within the state as a whole. None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls.

Speaking of jobs in Wisconsin:

The numbers are in, and they don't look good... for Walker or Wisconsin: we lost 9,700 jobs in October -- a record loss -- while Illinois managed to lead the nation by creating 30,000 jobs. Source

No, usually when that happens - actually having someone go in and vote in your name, then you show up, would be cause for a considerable uproar. The election judges would be questioned, they would try and find out who it was, all that. Because thats a felony, and subject to heavy fines and years in jail.

WASHINGTON, April 11 - Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped "Offender," when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff's or judge's races paid voters for their support.

Wow. 86 convictions.

Some of these voter ID laws seem so rushed - like they're trying to get it done in time to block out the other party for the next election. I'm just saying ....

- there were something like 500 cases found recently where someone had died, and those absentee ballots had been sent in anyway - I'd guess it would be the widow/widower.

20 years ago, when the Democrats were worrying about absentee ballot fraud, they made it so that your signature on the envelope had to notarized - for me, that required a 2 day round trip to the embassy, and so I could vote - thats a major hassle.

If I'm not mistaken, that was taken before the Supreme Court and struck down - Where in the Constitution does it say anything about what is needed for voter identification?

And if there is even one, single legal voter out there with out a photo id, why would you want to take away his Constitutional Right to Vote?

At my link is a detailed list of voter fraud investigations, done by the Brennan Center for Justice. If you're interested.

But I guess that does not count as "government waste", hey it's only money. Our money.

Ask yourselves who does this law impact the most? Minorities, young people and the elderly. Yes, we all know how Republicans feel about all of this "voter fraud" going on...so it needs to be controlled.

I'm more concerned about the Kathy Nickolauses of the world. She's still working her 'magic'.

-Ron-

If you were born in the U.S. and there is no birth certificate on file, you will need several different documents to substantiate your citizenship. You will need:

A letter from the vital records office of the state of your birth with your name and what years they searched for your birth certificate.

An official of the vital records office needs to issue a Letter of No Record.

In addition, you will need early public records to prove your birth in the U.S.

I don't know what that later means. I guess your parents keep all those receipts from daycare.

I thought I heard Gingrich cry 'uncle' - I mean say that it may not be the best thing going.

Good question. What could possibly go wrong?

I say we stop the nit picking and move to an honor system in this country for everything, not just voting.

Let's put paying taxes on the honor system. We can make tax cheating exceedingly rare, too, just like election fraud. All we do is apply the same principle to tax collections. The less information the IRS has about taxpayers, the less fraud they will find.

Let's put airline passengers on the honor system, too, so we can cut down on terrorism attempts. No more wasting time checking IDs or bags. Terror in the skies will be as rare as tax and election fraud, and yes, the same principles apply here. The "need to know" if anyone is carrying a bomb is a waste of time. Stop asking passengers questions and screening luggage. Will fraud detection go up? Or down?

It is true that our lax system correlates with few findings of fraud. That's all it takes to persuade progressives that fraud isn't worth addressing.

The conservatives I know wouldn't try such a nonsensical argument on their most naive middle schooler, let alone other adults. Nevertheless, it continues to be a persuasive and oft repeated argument with progressive adults.

I'm nowhere near progressive (or whatever they're calling themselves this week), but I'm dead set against forcing people to "show their papers, bitte" in order to exercise their fundamental rights.

Voting, like free speech and free association and the right to be secure in one's own person, home, and papers, is sacrosanct.

Giving additional powers to government bureaucracies - the power to determine whether or not you're "allowed" to vote -- sounds like a nightmare to me and I would fight it every way possible. It's creepy, and it's bass ackwards - the burden should be on the government to show that you're not qualified to vote, not upon the citizens to prove their "legitimacy".

In this particular situation, as a practical matter, it's like killing a fly with a hammer. It's overkill, since voter fraud is rare and difficult to pull off. The offenders got caught and they are being prosecuted, although even the prosecution in this case was shady in its own right, but at least someone is being prosecuted.

Despite fantasies to the contrary, voter fraud, like any conspiracy, is resource-intensive and requires that a whole bunch of people be complicit and remain silent. Those things rarely work well together (lots of people being silent, that is). As we see in this case, even a few people couldn't shut up long enough to pull it off.

Well, you could march a division of ACORN activists through that loophole!!!
And I bet they will!!!!

Remember, back in the good ol' days, when only white, male land owners could vote? 3/5ths for each slave, so the big money plantation boys could count for more? And now look who's president.

I like it....the honor system for voting, and ALL other things. Why have to show ID to by alcohol? I'm 21, and so is the kid next to me, I promise. Get him some cigarettes too while your at it. Let's get rid of poll workers too. Let people check their name off of the registry themselves, and take one ballet each, because it's not fair that I have to even tell someone who I am, and how dare they hold the ballots as if I would take more than one!

This is the first time in the hot topics forums that I feel like we're getting somewhere!

I understand your sentiment and your objection, lionheart. I agree with you. Our continued freedom depends upon preserving all of the rights you listed above. However, I see voting as being apart from the other rights you mention in important ways: Everyone is entitled to the last three rights you listed. But not everyone is entitled to vote in our federal elections. That is a right reserved for citizens. It is sacrosanct, because it is the only real power citizens have over their politicians.

Our right to vote is worthless if we allow politicians to prevent us from distinguishing between legitimate voters and voters with no such entitlement. Failure to limit federal voting to our citizens is negligent, inexcusable, and reeks with disdain for the American people.

I think you are right to be worried about living in a country where "show me your papers" is something to fear. The good news is that this threat does not come from clean elections and people who guard the integrity of their electoral processes. The threat is not from politicians who get re elected by serving a legitimate constituency. The threat comes from politicians who fear neither the ballot box, nor the electorate. When the entire electoral process has become so corrupted that elections no longer reflect the will of any legitimate constituency, the people are no longer in power.

Maybe that is why voter ID is more popular with the electorate than with politicians. Voter ID strengthens the power of the people. It returns power to the American people, where it belongs.

That is sad. I just with they'd worry about cleaning up their own act, instead of assuming that the rest of the country is as corrupt as their neighborhood.

Also, I find it amusing how when I propose the idea of the honor system, just like voting, for buying guns, something we have a right to do, that it goes pretty silent. I want some lefty answers!

If you would like to discuss the 'honor system' for buying guns, I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about buying guns w/o going through a back ground check? If you want to do that, just look in the classified ads of newspapers for individuals selling guns - there are no checks at all.

About the guns; above I added to Nikoleta's point about many of you disliking people having to "show their papers" to vote, which is a right. I noted that owning guns is a right, so why should we have to "show our papers" for that then? Sure, I realize one can buy guns, no questions asked, by simply doing a private sell/buy. But what if I want a new one, one that nobody privately is selling? I have to go to a gun store, and in order to purchase it, I must "show my papers", and then do a background check (2 if buying a handgun).

It seems to me that the same logic should apply; buying/owning firearms is a right, but one can't buy from a gun store without an ID. So wouldn't that be disenfranchising to minorities, young people, and the elderly who want to buy a gun and have no ID? Need an ID for ammunition too. What do you think?

Yeah, we've all heard about that!

As for the honor system suggestions you made - by all means, run it up the flagpole (as in get someone to sponsor a bill for it) and see who votes for it. I have no opinion on that. Just cause you put something out there doesn't mean you have to get some "lefty answers" - whatever that is. Dude, this isn't the 90's.

I actually agree with the voter ID, unless they make the form of ID so darn difficlt for the very voters who need the power of the vote to be able to do it because of endless paperwork snafus -

Here we need a picture ID and a bill which arrives at our home address with our last name on it - water bill, gas bill, any of those will due.

but, with the two forum members, I do note the similarity of words and terms. Yes, I'm suspicious that this is yet not really an issue of great importance in reality but a quarreling point conservatives across the land will be using right up to election day regarding voter fraud.

I hope I'm wrong and this is another topic which will quickly pass onto the next page.

Yeah, we've all heard about that!

Speaking of Kathy Nickolaus...

Ethics Investigation

After her resignation and grant of immunity from prosecution as part of the criminal investigation, municipal officials in Waukesha requested an ethics investigation into her actions as a state employee who used state funds (tax dollars) to purchase lists of registered voters, which were then reportedly used both for contact with constituents and for political fundraising. These computerized lists were called “polling lists” because they provided a full directory of all of the registered voters in a town, along with their mailing address and the history of whether or not they vote. At the time, Nickolaus maintained that ordering voter lists was part of her regular job for the Republican Caucus and in the Assembly’s chief clerk’s office. Despite the scandal, she won her race for the county clerk position in this reliably Republican county.

Past Examples of Nickolaus' "Human Error" as County Clerk

Sending out pre-marked sample ballots, 2005

In October 2005, Nickolaus sent out a sample ballot that was pre-marked for one candidate (a Democrat) in the county executive race. At the time, the Journal-Sentinel wrote the sample ballots "gave voters some unintended advice: which candidate to vote for." The tainted ballots were published in newspapers in Brookfield, Menomonee Falls, Mukwonago and Sussex. Nickolaus provided the same explanation for her mistake in 2005 as she did in 2011: "It was just human error."

Misreporting Election Results, 2006

In 2006, Nickolaus accidentally declared the losing candidate as the winner in a Republican primary race for the state house. At the time, the error was attributed to problems implementing new voting machines, but the Republican candidate wrongfully declared the winner, Christine Lufter, said "there was obviously a huge problem . . .and why it affected the [race in Nickolaus' district] more than any other is confusing." The Journal-Sentinel wrote that "Nickolaus said some returns from the City of Waukesha inexplicably had data recorded in the wrong column, which momentarily skewed results.

Nickolaus criticized for unilateral control of election system and ignoring security concerns, 2009-2010

In August 2011, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote Nickolaus unilaterally “decided to take the election data collection and storage system off the county's computer network - and keep it on stand-alone personal computers accessible only in her office . . . Nickolaus’ decision to go it alone in how she collects and maintains election results has some county officials raising a red flag about the integrity of the system.” At an August meeting of the Waukesha County Executive Committee, an expert on election systems criticized Nickolaus for confusing secrecy with security.

According to the Journal-Sentinel, her election data system relies on an 11-year-old telephone modem and unsupported 16-year-old software with rare security updates. An independent audit criticized her election data security procedures (such as backing up information and not sharing passwords), and in January of this year the Journal-Sentinel reported "Nickolaus' response to audit recommendations aimed at improving election security in her office was not a hit with the County Board leaders.” After Nickolaus brushed off criticisms, the County Board Chair “erupted in exasperation,” saying "[t]here really is nothing funny about this, Kathy," he said, raising his voice. "Don't sit there and grin when I'm explaining what this is about."

Voter fraud is when someone actually casts a vote when they shouldn't. It does happen, but very, very rarely - as posts in this thread have pointed out repeatedly, there is very little fraud that takes place. And given the number of Attorneys General out there, as well as very alert Republican and Democratic judges, observers, etc,, you'd think that if it was a problem, they'd find a lot more. They don't. And in the few cases it does happen, it gets nation-wide coverage as they trot the bad guys off to jail. So lets keep this straight, we're talking about voter fraud, not registration fraud.

Petitions are another issue, anybody can sign one, they have to go through and verify each name / address legal right to vote on the issue / and signature before they are counted. In most cases, anywhere for a third to a half the signatures are thrown out. Thats nothing to get worked up over.

As for the right to buy fire arms w/o correctly identifying yourself, I suppose one could argue that 'Fast and Furious' is just an extension of civil rights.

I can't find it now, but there is a list of what passes for the right identification for voter registration. Phone and electric bills with name and address, rent receipts, all that are needed to prove that you live where you do and are eligible to vote for the issues concerning that address. You can also have a Photo ID with that information, but that wasn't necessary before. I still don't see how insisting on a photo id would prevent much of anything.

You mean Democrats haven't already done it???

I repeat --- this new Electronic voting BS will screw US in the end, either by defective software or deliberate electronic fraud. No paper and "re-counts" will be meaningless.

People can lose the right to vote or purchase a firearm.

Why should one process require stringent identification methods to avoid fraud and the other, not?

This is the most clearly stated defining of the difference between a Democrat and a Republican that I think I've read. It goes to the root, it says it all.

-Ron-

Yes, lets worry about photo ids. innocent until proven guilty Prove you're a citizen. Thats what the Constitution tells us.

Wait, Now I'm confused. Is buying a gun a right or a privilege?

One is how voter lists are compiled. Dead people showing up on voter lists isn't voter fraud it's bureaucratic incompetence.

Pretending to be that dead person and voting is fraud.

I suspect there is much more of the former than the later.

This is a very true statement, and I'd like you to add a little more detail to it. Obviously, republicans, well most anyway, defend our 2nd ammendment right. Democrats, and not ALL, usually want to clamp down and/or ban guns outright. As to your statement on requiring more stringent rules for one thing, and not the other, I'm curious to hear more.

jerzeegirl, I'm not sure if you've read the bill of rights or not, but search it up, and check out the 2nd ammendment. Firearms are indeed a RIGHT, not a privilege.

As to the fraud, sure, the ratio of registration fraud to actualy voting fraud may be lopsided, but to say fraud is not a problem is ignorant. Take recall petitions for example. Is it voter fraud to sign fake names, other people's names, sign multiple times, and so on? Technically no, it's not "voter" fraud, but it is FRAUD. Lets use David's example of a thrid to a half being thrown out. If that happens here in Wisconsin, the recall elections go away. However, it won't happen due to the difficulty to prove the fraud in the short time frame givin by our left wing government "accountability" board. So, the recall elections will happen, possibly due to fraud, and cost the taxpayers millions. Does that sound like "not an issue" as far as fraud is concerned?

I recognize that you said "not all", but what statistics do you have that says Democrats "usually want to clamp down and/or ban guns outright"?

I understand what you're saying, Nik, but I'm really loathe to create another bureaucracy that has the power to deny a fundamental right just because you haven't surmounted an ever-increasing number of hurdles.

In the case from the OP, the very politicians who would make the rules are the ones who perpetrated the fraud. With absentee ballots, at that. None of this could have been prevented with an ID, unless you devise a way to fraud-proof absentee ballots and eliminate corrupt, highly-motivated politicians (which isn't such a bad idea).

I would suspect that more fraud is committed by devious politicians and their native born buddies than by non-citizens. Exactly how many illegals (or legals who have a visa) are stampeding to the polls? It would be interesting to know that.

As it is now, it's not like anyone can walk into any polling place and just vote. It's the job of election inspectors to challenge someone whose name is not on the voter list or whose signature is suddenly different. If your name is not on the voting list you simply cannot vote. They will give you a provisional ballot which will go to the county for further research before it's counted.
--------------------------------------------------------

"Now I'm confused. Is buying a gun a right or a privilege?"

LOL, to paraphrase something I heard not long ago, that post was a pyromaniac in a field of straw.

IMO, you have the right to buy a gun, unless you're a criminal or mentally deficient in some way.

Depending on the state, you can't vote if you're on probation or under house arrest. Only two states allow incarcerated felons to vote - Maine and Vermont. If you're mentally incompetent you may not be able to cast a vote.
-------------------------------------------------------

"I can't find it now, but there is a list of what passes for the right identification for voter registration. Phone and electric bills with name and address, rent receipts, all that are needed to prove that you live where you do and are eligible to vote for the issues concerning that address. You can also have a Photo ID with that information, but that wasn't necessary before. I still don't see how insisting on a photo id would prevent much of anything."

I'll confess it's been about 100 years since I registered, but that's what I needed also. When you live in a small town for decades, however, you go down to register and everyone asks about your family, so it's unlikely that they will find, let alone unquestioningly register, someone who shouldn't be allowed to register.

Move that process to some state or federal level ID-cranking mill and you've lost your first line of defense -- the people who know you and/or know your town and its goings-on. They have a pretty good idea of who lives where and who has moved in and out of the voting precinct.

That doesn't happen at DMV or the Social Security Administration. No one will engage you in conversation by saying "Oh, you moved into old so-and-so's building. How's he doing these days?" or "What do you think of the new school building?" Local chit-chat that lets you know if someone might be misrepresenting themselves.

If you are part of a militia (why do you guys always leave that part out?) Regardless, I didn't ask whether the right to BEAR arms is a right or privilege; I asked if the right to BUY arms is a right or privilege. Different you know.

-Ron-

Republican Secretary of State Charlie White has held on to his office for more than a year despite being . . . [found] guilty of six of seven felony charges, including false registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot, theft and two counts of perjury. . .

White's attorney, Carl Brizzi, said he will ask the judge to reduce the charges to misdemeanors because his client has no criminal background and has a long record of public service. . . .

A Marion County judge has ruled that White should be replaced by Democrat Vop Osili, the man he defeated by about 300,000 votes in the November 2010 election, but that ruling is on hold pending an appeal.. . .

"If we aren't going to enforce election law against the secretary of state of Indiana, who are we going to enforce it against?" [assistant prosecuting attorney] Sigler said.


Ah yes, some politicos just rise too high to have the rules for the masses apply to them. So much for Republican patriotic "values."

No doubt about it--required voter photo ID would have stopped this problem before it occurred. (Wouldn't it????)

Kate

Some day, the proverbial big S-in-the-can will be thrown at the irregularities in Ohio, Florida, and perhaps other states where the fraud in Party/power-based and not due to a bunch of poor immigrants.

Marshall, you are just too cool! : )

Kate

"""kate>>>

Adding to the intrigue was the fact that the school was founded by and named after casino titan and Jewish activist Sheldon Adelson, who has prolonged Newt Gingrich's struggling campaign by pumping $10 million into a pro-Gingrich super PAC. GOP officials said Adelson came up with the idea for the special caucus last month, but he denied it. snip

About that honor system......

Lion, What kind of bureaucracy are you anticipating we would need? What would it do?