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 If you no longer maintained a residence in that precinct, you were no longer eligible to vote.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.
4 comments:
I believe it's past time to voter registration ... and ballot signature gathering for that matter ... to "Biometric signatures".
You already have the foundation for it in place. Anyone who's been in the military, been on either side of the "justice" system, or bought a firearm had to have their fingerprints taken and stored in some database. Some states are requiring it for driver's licensing.
Why not implement a national biometric database for voter registration? The only reason I can think of, is because it would be more secure than using signatures. Imagine a sorting machine like the post office uses ... only it would scan fingerprints instead of addresses. The fingerprint on the outside of the ballot envelope isn't on file, or already been matched from another envelope - that ballot gets sent to a secured lock box, which can later be opened for audit purposes.
Even better, you have to put a fingerprint on the ballot itself. Confidentiality can be kept by not associating names with valid fingerprints.
Of course, since most people don't have fingerprint kits at home, this solution would mean the end of "vote by mail" - but since this system was designed to increase fraud ... and anyone who's too lazy to go to the polling station doesn't deserve to vote (IMO) ... I don't see a problem here.
Wally, you can't be serious. The ACLU and other Leftists would be screaming invasion of privacy and filing more legal actions than you can count in no time. The media would glom onto the meme like a ball of breeding cockroaches.
For one thing, the claim would be that it invalidates the idea of a secret ballot. Left unsaid is that the very people yelling the loudest would be those who favor the "card check" approach toward unionization.
Dear Walter,
Not to pile on...but let me pile on.
Being an American means you can be trusted to be a law abiding citizen. Because it's "our" law, not "their" law.
I think you've spent some time either behind the Iron Curtain, or in the East. The difference between the East and the West is stark, especially when you compare freedom of movement.
This is a fundamental freedom for Americans, for me, it's enumerated in Article IV of the Constitution, as well as in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Freedom of movement is a fundamental right. To be required to prove citizenship is an abridgement of that right.
We have some contrarian views in America. Sure, they may not make sense to everyone, but they make sense to me. You can't be free if you have to prove your right to be free at any or all turns.
Conundrum? Sure. But we gotta learn to deal with it. Especially as more and more citizens attempt to more to this country illegally.
Max--
Doesn't "glom" have a silent "b"? Anyway, it's not the identity per se of the person I'm trying to talk about, it's the fact that in Oregon the role of checking on voter registration has fallen to the bureaucratic class, which as loyal members of a union movement, can't be trusted to do their job with any level of fealty to the public,rather than their private, interest. We require less of our public employees than we do of our bank's employees.
And that isn't smart.
.
Max -
Of course you're right the ACLU andothers would cry about the invasion of privacy. But as I said, that wouldn't be their real reason. I also pointed out one possible solution to the privacy issue.
Their real reason, as I pointed out, is that it would virtually eliminate fraudulent voting.
Guy -
The only country I've been to outside the United States is Canada.
As to "freedom of movement" ... that's long been limited, as many of our other "inalienable rights". You have to get a license to drive, don't you? And what's a license other than a form saying you have permission from the gov't? You have to get a permit to park in PUBLICLY-OWNED parks and forests. They're even talking about limiting the number of visitors to certain PUBLICLY-OWNED parks/forests. You can't walk across the Astoria-Megler bridge without a permit. But licensing drivers isn't enough - you have to register your vehicle.
Hell ... American citizens have to have a permit from the gov't to get back into their own country.
To be required to prove citizenship is an abridgement of that right.
That sentence was talking about "freedom of movement". But take it to your original topic - vote fraud. Wouldn't having to prove your citizenship also then be an abridgement of your right to vote?
Because if that's the case, there can be no vote fraud. Everybody could register whether they were legal to vote or not. Because if we say "you have to prove you're eligible to vote" ... we then place a limit on that right.
Here's the hard truth ... voting is not a right. Since voting is an aspect of a form of government, voting isn't a Right. It's a priviledge.
Even if you don't agree with my assessment ... what is the difference between requiring a signature to match what's on file, and requiring a fingerprint match? Only that a fingerprint is MUCH harder to forge.
Post a Comment