[FoRK] Newsroom score: American Taliban

Gregory Alan Bolcer greg at bolcer.org
Wed Aug 29 10:20:45 PDT 2012



On 8/29/2012 9:56 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Is there also a conspiracy by local government not to report this voter
> fraud to the Federal government?

No, it's been reported and prosecuted.  In fact, criminal charges and 
lawsuits are a good indication.


> Recent stories have cited 86 or 26 verified cases of voter fraud,
> nationally, in the last 6 or so years.  Were they all in Garden Grove?
> If not, what's wrong with the local election board that has prevented
> them from reporting these problems?  Where are links to proof that this
> has happened?

House report on congressional voter fraud in the 46th Congressional 
District.  House of Representatives found that 547 non-citizens had 
voted in the election.

“An INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in 
California’s 46th  Congressional District revealed that “4,023 illegal 
voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election..."

I don't have time to go find all the links, but google.com 
+site:house.gov is the starting point.

>
> As long as the effect of actual voter fraud is less than the effects of
> disenfrancisation by any supposed remedy, and especially when it is far
> less, such remedies are wrong and generally illegal.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but people generally hope that 
elections are fair.   If election counting is going to go into the legal 
realm then all sides should be able to prove they are legally abiding by 
current laws.

I did find something really interesting.  A map of state felony 
disfranchisement laws.

http://www.aclu.org/map-state-felony-disfranchisement-laws

I don't think felons should be allowed to vote.  I think you lose that 
right.  Especially with a violent crime.

>
> Here's what I found in 2 minutes:
> Essentially, practically no voter fraud up through 1996:
> http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-31/local/me-59552_1_voter-fraud

I read that article too.  "Wide" voter fraud.  I think that aligns with 
the data, the actual numbers are really small.

I like this article below[1]: their bottom line supports joe's 
assessment that it's a very, very small percentage (despite the 
abundance of news stories[2]).  However, the last election cycle there 
was a very high profile case of voter fraud and in 2007 Democrats were 
screaming for voter eligibility enforcement (contradicting joe's 
assessment).

Greg


[1] http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Analysis.pdf

The 1996 Dornan/Sanchez Contest for the U.S. House of Representatives,
Orange County, Calif ornia
Orange County, California, is the fourth largest county in the United 
States, with 2.8 million people counted
in the 2000 census, more than one-quarter of them Latino. The 46th 
Congressional District is nestled in
the heart of Orange County and includes centers of Latino concentration, 
Santa Ana, the county seat, and
most of Garden Grove and Anaheim, giving the 46th district a population 
that is nearly two-thirds Latino.
Vast growth and demographic change, along with careful redistricting by 
Democrats in California’s state
legislature, have facilitated political change in Orange County. Orange 
County was once a Republican
stronghold, a core constituency for the Republican party in presidential 
elections because it could swing
California to the party.44 As late as 1988, voters in the 46th district 
gave 62 percent of their votes to George
H.W. Bush. By 2000, however, a 24 percent Republican margin in 
presidential elections had been replaced
by a 12 percent Democratic margin when Al Gore won the 46th with 54 
percent of the vote to 42 percent
for George W. Bush. The increasing ability of new immigrant and Latino 
voters to define Orange County
politics and the transformation in party dominance toward the Democrats 
set the stage for an explosive
case of alleged voter fraud in 1996.
The contested election between the nine-term Republican incumbent Robert 
K. Dornan and a little-known
businesswoman named Loretta Sanchez involved a blizzard of allegations 
of registration fraud, non-citizen
and illegal immigrant voting, double voting, voting from nonresidential 
addresses, illegal inducements to
register and vote, voter intimidation, ballot box tampering, and 
absentee ballot fraud, all under the canopy
of a bitter and protracted partisan battle that quickly bled into 
national politics.
12 Dēmos: A Network for Ideas & Action
One day after the November 5, 1996, election, Dornan led Sanchez by 233 
votes, but 12,000 absentee and
provisional ballots had yet to be counted. A week later, when about 
3,000 ballots were still left to tally, the
Associated Press called the election for Sanchez, who had moved into the 
lead with a 929-vote margin. As
the count proceeded, Dornan repeatedly raised the issue of “non-citizen” 
voter fraud and vowed to take his
re-election fight to the floor of the House of Representatives if he 
lost. He added that his Republican colleagues
were looking for a case to use in challenging the recently implemented 
National Voter Registration
Act, signaling the likely entry of national political forces into the 
fray.45 Dornan specifically charged that
a well-known Latino rights group and the Democratic Party signed up 
illegal voters in a drive he argued
may have led to “the first case in history where a congressional 
election was decided by non-citizens.”46 His
lawyer later called the case “what we think is the single largest 
example of voter fraud in a federal election
in the last 50 years, and, yes, maybe in this century.”47
On November 22, 1996, the Orange County Registrar of Voters certified 
Loretta Sanchez the winner by
984 votes,48 and a 14-month battle to deny Sanchez a seat in the House 
was joined. State electoral and law
enforcement agencies were the first to open investigations into the 
alleged election irregularities. Then, on
December 26, 1996, Dornan filed a three-page Notice of Electoral Contest 
in the House of Representatives
requesting an investigation of the election. This was within keeping of 
his prerogative and the constitutional
authority of the House under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1, which 
provides that each House of
Congress shall be the judge of the “elections, returns and 
qualifications” of its members. Under the rules
of the federal Electoral Count Act, the contest is first heard by the 
Committee on House Oversight, which
conducts its own investigation, and then by the whole House, which 
disposes of the contest by resolution
or majority vote. In the 105th Congress, the eight-member committee was 
chaired by Rep. William M.
Thomas, a Republican from Bakersfield, California, and dominated 
five-to-three by Republican members.
Thomas created a three-person task force comprised of Rep. Vernon Ehlers 
(R-Mich.) and Rep. Robert Ney
(R-Ohio), and, later, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) to conduct the 
investigation and recommend a course of
action to the full committee. Along with the Orange County D.A. and 
secretary of state investigations, the
House committee’s investigation took a year to complete and produced, in 
the end, a disputed finding of
fraud that was too insubstantial to convince the Republican dominated 
House to upset or reverse Sanchez’s
victory.49 On February 12, 1998, the House voted 378-33 to dismiss 
Dornan’s contest.
The Dornan-Sanchez electoral dispute fits squarely with what political 
scientists Benjamin Ginsberg and
Martin Shefter call “politics by other means.” Politics by other means 
involves the use of legal strategies
and the courts, revelation, prosecution and investigation, and the media 
to win.50 The fraud allegations and
subsequent 14-month investigations by state, county and federal 
government agencies cost American taxpayers
well over $1.4 million.51 In the end, very little voter fraud was 
convincingly substantiated. On April
29, 1998, California’s Republican secretary of state announced that the 
people identified by the task force
as illegal, non-citizen voters in the 46th Congressional District 
election of 1996 would not be prosecuted for
voter fraud, the secretary deciding that they had registered in error 
and not from criminal intent.52


[2] http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html


More information about the FoRK mailing list