Speaking Of Voter Fraud...

by hilzoy

I had just finished reading Publius' wonderful post on election fraud, and I pulled up Kevin Drum's site, and what should I find but a link to a new NYT article on what seems to have become our topic du jour. This time, the NYT has tried to find out how many people have actually been convicted of voter fraud, and who they are:

"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."

Some of the stories are amazing, and not in a good way:

"Ms. Prude’s path to jail began after she attended a Democratic rally in Milwaukee featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton in late 2004. Along with hundreds of others, she marched to City Hall and registered to vote. Soon after, she sent in an absentee ballot.

Four years earlier, though, Ms. Prude had been convicted of trying to cash a counterfeit county government check worth $1,254. She was placed on six years’ probation.

Ms. Prude said she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole, she testified in court. Told by her probation officer that she could not vote, she said she immediately called City Hall to rescind her vote, a step she was told was not necessary.

“I made a big mistake, like I said, and I truly apologize for it,” Ms. Prude said during her trial in 2005. That vote, though, resulted in a felony conviction and sent her to jail for violating probation. (...)

The Wisconsin prosecutors lost every case on double voting. Cynthia C. Alicea, 25, was accused of multiple voting in 2004 because officials found two registration cards in her name. She and others were acquitted after explaining that they had filed a second card and voted just once after a clerk said they had filled out the first card incorrectly.

In other states, some of those charged blamed confusion for their actions. Registration forms almost always require a statement affirming citizenship.

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

“We’re foreigners here,” Mr. Ali said in a telephone interview from Lahore, Pakistan, where he lives with his daughter and wife, both United States citizens.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station, had received a voter registration form in the mail. Because he had applied for citizenship, he thought it was permissible to vote, his lawyer said. Now, he may be deported to Mexico after 16 years in the United States. “What I want is for them to leave me alone,” he said in an interview."

So we have convicted someone who voted because she didn't realize she was ineligible, and promptly called City Hall to rescind her vote when she realized her mistake. We have taken a legal resident who filled out a form quickly in the Motor Vehicles line, and sent him back to Pakistan. If we add in the guy who thought he could vote because he had applied for citizenship, we've got nearly 5% of the convictions obtained during a 5 year crackdown.

Give. Me. A. Break.

This is not worth disenfranchising anyone over. And it's certainly not worth wasting law enforcement resources on. There are murderers and embezzlers and people defrauding widows and orphans out there. We should try catching them, rather than wasting our time on this sort of travesty.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Weekly reminder: Here is a handy guide to HTML tags.

You can use "find" to go to "link something."

Here's how you link (you can copy this and paste it as necessary, if you can't remember): <A HREF="URL"> </A>

Put words as necessary between > <

Do that, and your links will be usable, not broken.

[OCSteve]

All: I suppose that I am lamenting the loss of what used to be called civics classes, already transformed to “social studies” in my time. I am shocked at how few people I interact with understand how our system works. When I go to relax and have a beer on Friday night and end up explaining that yes, there are three branches of government, I get discouraged.

LizardBreath: doesn't it worry you a little that you're using 'ability to overcome bureaucratic difficulties and knowledge of electoral procedure' as a proxy for 'sensible person whose vote we want

Yeah, I does. I don’t want a poll test or anything similar. Anyone who wants to vote – absolutely. I guess I mostly disagree with the “herding” by both parties. Democrats: “Rock the Vote” – Republicans will draft you”. Republicans: “Democrats suck on security, vote for us or you will die.”

John: It is just that there are certain rules that need to be followed to exercise that right.

Exactly. It is not like a surprise. Everyone knows when it is. Voters who care will have their ducks in a row. The ones herded to the polls will be the ones having problems.

Steve: what you end up with are twice as many dirty tricks

Good point. I should try not to hold it against the victim I know. But then I think…

Gary: I'm a little vague, from what you've said, whether, your personal preferences aside, you are equally interested in defending people's right to vote, and our system of democracy.

I would defend to the death any American citizen’s right to vote. My beef is more with the whole herding thing I guess. Drive people to the polls who don’t know, don’t care, go in and pull the handle. I would love to see that effort put into teaching the same people Civics 101.

Hilzoy: but also e.g. recent immigrants

The recent immigrants I know - know about 400% more about how our country works than the 10th generation folks I know. They are studying for their exam…

Jes: I am with you. Paper, hand count, etc.

LJ: Thanks on the check thing.

[hilzoy]

OCS: "The recent immigrants I know - know about 400% more about how our country works than the 10th generation folks I know." -- Agreed; I just meant that they don't necessarily know that elections are always on Tuesdays, since that's not the sort of thing one would normally know about except by having voted a lot.

Also, fwiw, on those occasions when I've spent a lot of time with generally disenfranchised people, many of them not only didn't have bank accounts, but didn't know many people who did, and didn't think of getting a bank account as one of those normal things that people normally do. It would be as unfamiliar and thus daunting as, say, figuring out what sorts of permits one needs to get in order to construct a power plant.

[KCinDC]

OCSteve, I don't consider knowing "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November" to be such an important part of knowing "how our country works".

[rilkefan]

"It would be as unfamiliar and thus daunting as, say, figuring out what sorts of permits one needs to get in order to construct a power plant."

Just the other day I passed by the neighborhood power-plant-permit-issuing-place, but it was pretty daunting - I've seen movie about people breaking into those, and I know they have all sorts of security.

[Steve]

It seems relevant to point out that two of my close colleagues, successful and well-educated lawyers, had not the slightest idea that leap year occurs in years that are multiples of 4 (leaving aside the various 00-based exceptions, which I didn't even get into). Realizing something like that makes me more sympathetic towards people who might not realize that we always vote on Tuesdays.

[LizardBreath]

successful and well-educated lawyers,

Really, what do you expect?

[OCSteve]

Elections on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November: Just pulling that one point out of the air (or somewhere else). But come on…

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Aside from the principled objection Gary and Jes are making, which is an awfully good one, doesn't it worry you a little that you're using 'ability to overcome bureaucratic difficulties and knowledge of electoral procedure' as a proxy for 'sensible person whose vote we want'? The two things seem to me to have very little to do with one another."

That depends on how difficult the bureaucratic difficulties are. Requiring that you at some point in the four years before an election go through the process of being able to identify yourself isn't that horrific.

The problem here is that Gary seems to think that repeating the word 'right' again and again solves the entire issue. You have a right to bear arms, that is subject to some noticeable identification issues when you buy a gun. You have a right to free speech which ends up limited by various things like not having a license to commit fraud just because you are using your mouth. Lots of rights have basic duties attached to them, and sometimes one of those can be that you identify yourself or register beforehand.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I just meant that they don't necessarily know that elections are always on Tuesdays, since that's not the sort of thing one would normally know about except by having voted a lot."

Speaking as the husband of a recent immigrant, immigrants are intimately aquainted with the fact that specific dates and deadlines matter, and that you'd better know what they are BEFORE they arrive. The ones who don't absorb this lesson end up deported, after all.

With the exception of millage elections where elections officals are going out of their way to minimize turnout among people who don't have kids in school, election dates are not a state secret. Anybody who's paying enough attention to cast even a moderately informed vote is going to know when the election is.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I'm not sure which thread had this request, but here is the ugly registration loophole as it existed in Wisconsin in 2004 (I can't tell if it has been closed by now). Details in general are here

In any case, the problem is with vouching for someone's identity and residence:

On page 17 we learn: "an individual who registers with a municipal clerk more than 13 days before an election is not required to provide either identification or proof
of residence; however, proof of residence is
required for those registering with a clerk within 13 days of an election"

On page 19 we learn: "Individuals who register in person at the municipal clerk’s office before the statutory registration deadline are required to complete a registration form but are not required to provide identification or proof of residence. Similarly, registered voters who have changed their names or moved within the same municipality may appear in person before the municipal clerk and provide their new name or address. Because neither identification nor proof of residence is
required, municipal clerks rely upon early registrants to truthfully report information on the registration form and to affirm they are qualified electors at the time they register."

Bad enough, so it appears it would be quite easy to register in multiple locations under different names and never risk getting caught. But what really makes it bad is:

"an individual who registers at the polls on
Election Day is required to provide proof of
residence."

But wait, that is good right? Hold on. The loophole is coming: page 23

"However, unlikethose who register in person with the clerk or through special registration deputies before the statutory registration deadline, all individuals registering on Election Day must provide proof of residence or have their residency corroborated in a signed statement
by another qualified elector.

This elector is someone who appears on the rolls. Someone who if registered 2 weeks before the election never had to show ID either. Combined that looks like an invitation to fraud of exactly the type that could never be proven beyond reasonable doubt without having private investigators track you.

Also "Nearly one-quarter of survey respondents did
not properly record proof of residence for ElectionDay registrants." Yikes

And "One-fifth of Wisconsinvoters in the November 2004 elections registered to vote on Election Day." Double Yikes! That looks like at least 5% of voters didn't properly record proof of residence.

[Phil]

Someone who if registered 2 weeks before the election never had to show ID either. Combined that looks like an invitation to fraud of exactly the type that could never be proven beyond reasonable doubt without having private investigators track you.

So ballpark it for me, Sebastian. Toss me a number -- a real quantity, say, +/- 15%: How many people do you think are or were using these rules in a fraudulent manner?

[wonkie]

The process of deliberately setting up roadblocks so that only those who are defined by the powers that be as "sensible" can vote is an old one. That's what the poll tax was for. Earlier in our history there were property requirements as well. It is similar to the assumption behind the electoral college: people are too duumb to chose the President so they will only be empowered to choose a person of (economic) consequence in the community to choose for them.

The investigation showed that there was no widespread inelegible voter fraud. So why the effort to make it appear that there was?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think we should be setting up barriers to voting which have no purpose except to act as barriers, but I don't think we should be obsessive about policies which have some independent justification, but slightly inconvenience those who'd vote. Demanding that somebody who'd cast George Whatshisname's vote prove that he IS George Whatshisname is not an outrage, even if it might, if George is very indifferent about voting, make him decide not to bother.

[Catsy]

Demanding that somebody who'd cast George Whatshisname's vote prove that he IS George Whatshisname is not an outrage, even if it might, if George is very indifferent about voting, make him decide not to bother.

This is all well and good, taken at face value. The problems arise when we try to decide /how/ to make George prove he is who he says he is. I have no problem with requiring photo ID to vote, provided we budget a free photo ID subsidy for the homeless and for people whose qualify for state assistance based on income. We would also need to ensure that people who are in rural areas, who are not mobile or who lack transportation to their local DMV, who work during DMV hours, or for any other reason have a meaningful barrier to doing this in person have a way to make it happen, even if it means a longer verification process.

There's a flip side to setting up barriers for the purpose of reducing poor and minority turnout, and that's refusing to take steps necessary to mitigate or eliminate the unintended barriers that exist from implementing reasonable voter ID verification. One is actively malicious, the other is unintentionally harmful--but both are unnecessary if the policies are implemented with forethought and compassion.

[Nell]

Ugh: a Poli Sci professor of mine recounted the test he was given in the south in order to vote

As recently as the mid-1950s, the voter registrar in my rural county kept "the wrong people" from voting by handing them a blank sheet of paper to apply for registration. You had to know what to fill in.

The man who told me this happened to him is an anchor of our party, a New Deal Dem, born in the county and just returned from the Korean war. Until he told me about this I'd always assumed that form of voter suppression was only used against black citizens. He's a union man (postal worker), and the union made sure members and their families and friends knew how to fill in the blank paper.

[Jesurgislac]

According to Avedon Carol, 1 in every 87 voter fraud cases in the US involves Ann Coulter....