Voter fraud - 2000 election not as close as we thought
Voter Fraud
Kym Cason told 9News she registered herself 25 times and her friends 40 times. Cason claims she was trying to help her boyfriend earn money. He worked for a group called ACORN that paid workers by the hour but had a 5 application per hour quota. Cason told 9News, "everybody needs an extra dollar here now and they need to make their quota for the day."
Jim Fleshman, the regional supervisor for ACORN, told 9News tonight that the organization would fire any worker who did not deliver the required 5 applications per hour. ACORN claims to be a nonpartisan organization that works with low-income families.
9News also found a few bogus forms from the New Voters Project and the Colorado Progressive Coalition.
- ACORN surfaces in Colorado Voter Fraud Case
The preceding is from a lengthy compilation of voter fraud links assembled by Bill Hobbs. Fortunately, due to the diligent oversight of the 110th Congress and the lamestream media, informed Americans are by now well aware that voter fraud is a chimeric creation of an overly politicized Justice Department hell bent on punishing its enemies rather than enforcing the law.
Likewise, requiring voter ID is not only racist but would result in an undue burden on the poor and people of cholor (who apparently neither drive nor write checks). Thankfully, the progressive community is united in rejecting such draconian measures:
Voter ID laws are hardly the second coming of Jim Crow. In 2005, 18 out of 21 members of a federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of voter ID laws. Andrew Young, Mr. Carter's U.N. ambassador, has said that in an era when people have to show ID to travel or cash a check "requiring ID can help poor people." A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last year found that voters favor a photo ID requirement by 80%-7%. The idea had overwhelming support among all races.
One reason for such large public support is that the potential for fraud is real. Many people don't trust electronic voting machines. And in recent years Democratic candidates have leveled credible accusations of voter fraud in mayoral races in Detroit, East Chicago, Ind., and St. Louis.
Last week, election officials in San Antonio, Texas determined that 330 people on their voter rolls weren't citizens and that up to 41 of them may have voted illegally, some repeatedly. In 2004, San Antonio was the scene of a bitter dispute in which Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez charged his primary opponent with voter fraud.
In Florida, a felon named Ben Miller was arrested last week for illegally voting in every state election over a period of 16 years. The Palm Beach Post discovered that in Florida's 2000 infamous presidential recount, 5,643 voters' names perfectly matched the names of convicted felons. They should have been disqualified but were allowed to vote anyway. "These illegal voters almost certainly influenced the down-to-the-wire presidential election," the Post reported. By contrast, only 1,100 people were incorrectly labeled as felons by election officials, the Post estimated.
Everyone has reason to be concerned about a politicized Justice Department. But to set up a cartoon version of reality in which principled career lawyers at Justice were battling Bush political appointees bent on voter suppression is absurd. The Civil Rights shop at Justice has been stuffed with liberal activists for decades. Many of the former career Justice lawyers complaining about Mr. von Spakovsky today now work at liberal groups such as People for the American Way. And their imaginative, hyperaggressive enforcement of the Voting Rights Act hasn't fared well in court. During the Clinton years, when their theories were allowed to be put to a legal test, courts assessed Justice over $4.1 million in penalties in a dozen cases where it was found to have engaged in sloppy, over-reaching legal arguments. In one case, the Supreme Court noted "the considerable influence of ACLU advocacy on the voting rights decisions of the Attorney General is an embarrassment."
Wasn't touchscreen voting supposed to restore confidence to an electoral process hopelessly compromised by those notoriously confusing and unreliable butterfly ballots used in Democrat-controlled voting precincts (the same butterfly ballots, by the way, used to elect one William Daley in Cook County, though the votes that elected him were apparently not to be questioned)?
But on the eve of the 2006 election, Nancy Pelosi was openly suggesting that due to the very touchscreen voting Democrats had demanded, the outcome of that election could not be trusted. Oddly, once her own party was swept into office, these concerns suddenly vanished without a trace.
Funny, isn't it?
Posted by Cassandra at
villainouscompany.com |
