Sound Politics blog - Voting Monkey Business
One of the episodes in last week's vote count was the Judge Dean Lum's ruling that King County Democrats could obtain from the county a list of provisional voters with non-conforming signatures, contact these voters and submit revised registration documents to cure the signature problems. This ruling produced several hundred additional votes for Gregoire from questionable sources.
A knowledgeable reader, who has been following these proceedings closely, sent me a long e-mail explaining how Judge Lum's ruling opened the door to increased voter fraud. He forwarded a copy of a Democratic affidavit that revealed an actual case of voter fraud. Furthermore, his comments highlight some fundamental flaws in the voter registration system that raise important questions about the credibility of our current electoral process to call a winner in a closely contested election.
A few key points from the e-mail.
One problem with Judge Lum's ruling is that it permitted third parties (specifically the Democratic Party) to submit revised voter registration documents instead of requiring the voter to personally deliver the documents to an election worker. Here is how this increases fraud risk:
The problem from third party collection of new registrations resides with persons who illegally voted for another using a provisional ballot. The signatures may not match because the person signing the ballot isn't the person registered with the county. If third parties come to an address listed on the provisional ballot there is no guarantee they will be contacting the actual voter registered with the county or there is the possibility that fraud was committed but that the actual voter was complicit in the fraud or will be afterwards. A family member may not legally vote a provisional ballot for another family member but may be motivated to do so if they know that the inconvenience of voting will deter the real voter. If the family member is asked to cure an illegally voted provisional ballot by supplying a new signature, and the new registration signature is not compared to the old registration signature a fraud will have been accomplished. Similarly a fraud artist could vote many provisional ballots for persons who, from polling lists obtained late on election day, it was apparent would likely not be voting, and could list a different address on the provisional ballot. When approached by third parties, the fraudulent voter could fill out many new registrations with a signature that corresponds to the provisional ballot and the real voter would not discover the error until it was too late to affect the election.
There was one documented case of voter fraud in an affidavit submitted by a Democratic Party representative to Judge Lum:
Jeremy Sher's affidavit at page two, subheading 5 of the affidavit. He describes a Parkinson's Disease patient so debilitated that she can neither speak nor write yet he concludes that she is "mentally strong." His qualifications for such a diagnosis are not provided. Her ballot is completed and signed by her husband (an illegal act by the way, others can witness but not sign ...). So this description of voter fraud, if only technically voter fraud, was used by the WSDCC as a rationale for permitting third party collections of new registrations post-election for the purpose of curing non-conforming provisional ballots. It is questionable whether a person at the advanced stage of Parkinson's Disease described by Mr. Sher was sufficiently possessed of their mental facilities to competently fill out a ballot or even designate their preferences to a third party. It might be interesting to consult with an MD on this.
But most disturbing to me, beyond this particular case of voter fraud, is the rationale used by Judge Lum to permit the Democrats to act as a third-party voter verification agency. I quote directly from the a href="http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Dems%20v%20KC%201.pdf" judge's ruling:
A word needs to be said about possible voter fraud. The Court does not place a huge amount of weight on the allegations that both parties are delivering provisional ballots to election offices. What is clear is that there is no actual evidence of voter fraud presented to this Court, and that the Republican party's suggested remedy (that the voter actually come down to the office rather than having a 3rd party deliver it) does not protect against voter fraud since King County does not certify or verify the identities of even those people who show up in person.
King County does not verify the identities of people who change voter registration information. I don't know to what extent the county verifies the identity or eligibility of new voter registrations. But I suspect it doesn't do very much.
So who's voting? Is every one mentally competent? How many votes are being cast by guardians? How many non-citizens are voting? How many people are voting on behalf of non-existent housemates? How many college students are voting both at home and at school? What are King and other counties currently doing to detect and/or minimize any such fraudulent votes? Are the numbers of fraudulent votes enough to change the outcome of a close election? |
