How bad can fraud be? It's an interesting question since the process in Oregon is flawed so deeply.
There was a time--before Vote By Mail--when precinct persons actually had an important job to perform. We ensured the integrity of the ballot.
During the run-up to election day, precinct committee men and women went door-to-door in their precincts, visiting Democrat, non-party affiliated and Republican homes. The reason was to provide a check of the information provided party workers by the county's election's clerk. If the house looked empty, you turned this info into the county clerk and the name was removed from the rolls. If you found that the "Jensens" no longer lived at 1392 Merit Lane, you provided that information to the clerk. And if the new owners were Republican, you provided them with a voter's registration card.
Later, on Election Day, you spent the day at the polls. Since you had already identified all the valid residents of your precinct, when an invalid voter came into vote, you would "challenge" that ballot. That ballot was kept separately from the genuine ballots to determine the validity of the voter's ballot. If you no longer maintained a residence in that precinct, you were no longer eligible to vote. Period. You know that if you move you have a period of time to notify the DMV of your new address. You're required to do so. Same with your voter's registration. Even if you live in the same precinct, you invalidate your own ballot by failing to follow the rules for voter registration. You either are, or are not, legally registered to vote. What is the remedy for voluntarily de-registering yourself as a voter after a move? Re-register. Duh.
So the debacle that's been playing out in Ohio has been a play in two acts. A massive voter registration effort by ACORN, and an alarming increase in the number of fraudulent voter registrations. With an additional kicker: the Secretary of State's direction that not only could one register without any verification of the legality of that registration, but additionally, that the new registrant could cast a ballot at the same time.
Taken to court, the Secretary of State prevailed, until an en banc review(pdf) by the Sixth Circuit Court took place yesterday.
Why would you be a Democrat and a Judge? To make the party circuit, of course.
Judges Moore and Martin will be cocktailing with the elites this evening. They did what they could in an attempt to lay a ground-work for overcoming this decision. The problem will be finding a party with standing to seek review of the en banc decision. Don't think it's going to happen.
What is particularly egregious--in my opinion--is Judge Moore's recognition that there are 485,000 new voter registrations...and is unable or unwilling to concede that this level of new registration presents in and of itself reason to fear dilution of individual voters' rights, with a statistically significant number (between 72,500 and 145,500) of these new registrants being invalidated under previous statistical experience without examining whether or not there may be reason to assume that these current new registrants may be even more suspect due to illegal efforts by community organizations (like ACORN) to illegally register new voters.
It isn't necessary to "google" Judges Moore and Martin's pedegrees. If you assume they were appointed by either Presidents Clinton or Carter, you'd be correct.
Perhaps the majority would have been more effective in wooing Judges Moore and Martin had they referred to "penumbras and eminations" rather than the clear language of the law.
We can only wait for the first appointee of an Obama Supreme Court to find out how bad things are going to become.
It isn't often one is able to quote William Gladstone, but in this case the minority is clearly wrong in its efforts to further the cause of fraudulent registration practises. Here is clearly a case where "justice delayed is justice denied." Even though the Left really, really, really wants to protect these fraudulent practises.