JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY
The Voter Integrity Project
How to stop fraud and suppression? Ashcroft showed the way in 2002.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
The failed attempt by three federal judges to postpone California's recall election prompted this quip from National Journal's Hotline newsletter: "We're waiting for the day that pols can just cut out the middleman and settle all elections in court."
Courts are playing an increasing role in elections. Soon after Oct. 7, if either the recall or the vote for a replacement governor in the Golden State is close, the lawyers will certainly be back in court. And that's not the only race that may be litigated. This fall's race for mayor of Philadelphia also promises to be close.
Perhaps, then, Attorney General John Ashcroft would do well to repeat his 2002 Voter Integrity Program, which dramatically reduced both Republican allegations of voter fraud and Democratic complaints of suppressed minority votes.
Mr. Ashcroft successfully cut down on monkey business by training FBI agents and officials from U.S. attorney's offices around the country in techniques "to prevent election offenses and bring violators to justice," Including how to prevent discrimination against minorities. Last fall more than 300 federal officials came in for a day of training in Washington.
Before Mr. Ashcroft set a new course, many federal prosecutors were used to throwing up their hands and declaring voter fraud and insoluble or hopeless problem mired in politics. The U.S. attorney for northern Louisiana, Donald Washington, admits that "most of the time, we can't do much of anything [about ballot-box improprieties] until the election is over. And the closer we get to the election, the less willing we are to get involved because of just the appearance of impropriety, just the appearance of the federal government somehow shading how this election ought to occur."
It took guts for Mr. Ashcroft to hold his symposium because, unlike during the civil rights era, liberals now often view federal election oversight with hostility. Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights called efforts to fight voter fraud "a solution in search of a problem" and "a warmed-over plan for voter intimidation."
But the Justice Department stuck to its guns last year. When voters are disfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, they have had their civil rights violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting. So Justice deployed more than 400 lawyers to monitor polling places in 14 states last November, the federal government's largest oversight effort since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law. It also promised to respond immediately to allegations of fraud or discrimination. The effort paid off. Despite many close races, there was no repeat of the 2000 Florida recount debacle and no seating challenges in Congress.
Florida's bitter 2000 election dispute made clear the cost of inaction. The way to avoid disputed elections is to make sure as few problems as possible happen while votes are being cast. Sending federal election monitors where appropriate is one way. Another is issuing a warning just before Election Day that violators will be prosecuted--a threat that must be carried out after the election. Federal grants to states to pay to upgrade and standardize their voting machines is also a good step. Slowing the headlong rush to encourage absentee balloting, the preferred method for the unscrupulous to commit voter fraud, would also help.
Loosening laws on voter registration will likely increase problems and are clearly not popular with the general public. That's one reason why proposals by liberal groups to allow people to register and vote on Election Day failed overwhelmingly last year in both conservative Colorado and liberal California.
California has been home to some of the most brazen recent examples of voter fraud. The state is one of the few to make it illegal for poll workers to demand identification from any voter, thus creating a breeding ground for corruption. In 1997, a House investigation concluded that several hundred illegal votes were cast in the close Orange County congressional race between defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan and Democratic challenger Loretta Sanchez. But investigators couldn't prove there were enough phony votes to overturn the election.
Just last year, evidence surfaced that more than 1,300 irregular votes might have been cast in an Assembly election in Bakersfield, Calif., that Democrat Nicole Parra won by 266 votes. An investigation by losing GOP candidate Dean Gardner turned up written admissions by 76 people that they were not citizens but had nonetheless voted. Another 49 admitted that they were not registered at their correct address. A total of 69 voters admitted that they had voted twice. The evidence of this and other irregularities was turned over earlier this year to Kern County District Attorney Ed Jagels, who has yet to act on them. Mr. Gardner notes that Mr. Jagels's budget is controlled by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, whose chairman is Pete Parra, Assemblywoman Parra's father.
This year there could be new problems. The presence of Cruz Bustamante, the first major Latino candidate for governor in decades, and celebrity Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot may result in thousands of first-time voters demanding to cast provisional ballots even though they don't appear on voter rolls. Whether those votes are counted or not could be crucial in a close election.
A month after California votes, Philadelphia residents will decide whether to re-elect Mayor John Street. In 1999, Mr. Street, a Democrat, won a narrow 7,000-vote victory over Republican Sam Katz amid allegations of voting irregularities. Philadelphia has a long reputation of fixing elections as a means of controlling patronage and municipal contracts. The Philadelphia Inquirer has noted that the city has just over one million registered voters. Since that's just about the number of eligible voters the U.S. census estimates live in the city, experts believe there are upward of 80,000 fraudulent registrations.
"People working the polls don't ask for ID," says Jimmy Tayoun, a former city councilman who went to prison in the 1990s for corruption. "You can flood a lot of phony names on phony addresses, and there's no way they're going to check." In 1993, a federal judge had to overturn a special state Senate election in which Democratic precinct workers had gone door to door with absentee ballot forms and "helped" voters fill them out. Gov. Ed Rendell, then Philadelphia's mayor, explained away the irregularities by saying, "I don't think it's anything that's immoral or grievous, but it clearly violates the election code."
In the upcoming mayoral election, Mr. Katz is again challenging Mr. Street, and allegations of fraud are already flying. In August, a local judge tossed Constitution Party candidate John McDermott off the ballot after determining that more than 900 of his nominating signatures were fraudulent, many because they were from unregistered voters. Many of the others listed occupations such as "drug dealer" and "addict" and home address as "prison." According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Mr. McDermott's petitions had been "circulated by political allies of Mayor Street." His candidacy was clearly an effort to use the conservative Mr. McDermott's presence on the ballot to siphon votes away from Mr. Katz.
More mischief is possible come Election Day. People in the city who have not voted in the last two general elections are marked with an asterisk on the official voter rolls for each precinct. This is a roadmap for people who want to arrange for others to vote in their place. In most precincts both the judge of elections and the minority inspector of elections are likely to be Democrats. For their part, Mr. Street's supporters are also predicting that Katz partisans are planning to intimidate Hispanic and black voters in areas of the city where whites predominate.
In both California and Philadelphia, there's ample reason for Attorney General Ashcroft to reactivate his Voter Integrity Program. The laxity of our locally enforced election laws is an invitation to cheat or engage in voter suppression. It's up to local and federal officials alike when overseeing closely fought races to make sure that those who tamper with the integrity of the voting process know they run a serious risk of prosecution and prison.
opinionjournal.com |
