This is what registrars all over the country should be doing – finding out if registered voters at vacant lots are real.  In this case, they weren’t.

Steven Kurlander has this piece at the Huff Post calling for a “shoot for the moon” utopian solution to American voting – namely devoting enormous federal resources so people can sit at home or work and vote by computer.  Never mind the enormous security problems associated with this, he also uses a statistical sleight of hand to inject race into the debate:

“The study found that black and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long as whites to cast ballots; urban voters stood on line more than twice as long to vote as their rural counterparts; and Democrats and Independents on average were delayed 20 percent longer than Republican to vote.”

Really?  “Nearly twice as long?”  Here is the vast statistical disparity: 13 vs 20 minutes.

Notice the Huff Post story never mentions the actual numbers.  Why not?  Meow might be the collective reaction.

I somehow doubt a 13, 20, or even 25 or 43 minutes wait to vote is going to warrant the spending of millions (or billions) of federal dollars to develop a way for people to sit at home to vote.  There is value to a unified single day where all Americans come out of their basements, and apartments to vote together.   That some are attention challenged does not warrant a giant federal spending program.

 “NYC Board Of Elections Shakeup: The Plot Thickens.”  New York Daily News.

Lowell Sun.

Bootstraps.   Heaven forbid the folks who have actually litigated Voting Rights Act issues, or served to oversee DOJ litigation offer an amicus. Sad but predictable from the academy.  It seems the less actual experience one has litigating Voting Rights Act issues, the more valuable the opinion is to the “scholars.”

The government funded Public Broadcasting Service wants to know “your story” about the Voting Rights Act.  “The Supreme Court will examine a constitutional challenge to the act in one of the most-watched cases this year. The case asks whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still necessary and whether voters still risk disenfranchisement in certain parts of the country,” the website notes, and therefore they are collecting oral histories about the circumstances which led to the passage of the Act.

They offer a helpful sample, from a paid federal observer who recounts his experience offering assistance.  I recall an interesting time when some aggressively opposed federal observers providing testimony in court about their observations.  PBS, on the other hand, must be a suitable forum to recount their observations.

Yet one can read a court affidavit of a federal observer here. 

True the Vote has asked the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio to send the case of Melowese Richardson’s multiple voting in the federal election to the grand jury for an indictment for federal felonies.  Richardson is a Democrat activist, election official and Obama supporter in Ohio.  She admitted on camera to casting multiple ballots for President Obama in November 2012.  Expect the drumbeat to grow louder for DOJ action against Richardson.

Behold vote fraud denier Rick Ungar at Forbes.  He attacks John Fund in Forbes for pointing out that Meloweese Richardson admitted voting twice in Ohio for President Obama.  His outrage is premised on the presumption of innocence, and since Meloweese Richardson hasn’t been convicted of anything, we can’t refer to her as a vote fraudster.  About that double vote she made, voting absentee then in person? Ungar says she was confused.

What Ungar doesn’t tell readers of Forbes is that Richardson also admitted voting for THREE OTHER PEOPLE twice, including her brother and daughter.

This is how vote fraud deniers work:
1) attack anyone who points out criminality in elections.  Ungar calls Fund’s piece a “hit piece.”
2) Give the criminal the benefit of the doubt.
3) Accuse those who speak of the criminality of trying to “disenfranchise” voters. 

It is a well worn and familiar template, and one that no longer works when someone as brazen as Richardson speaks to the camera about her crimes.

But alas, one suspects Ungar never saw the video.  The National Review piece embedded the video, but if Ungar is being intellectually honest, he must not have taken the time to watch it.  Or, he isn’t being intellectually honest.  Either option doesn’t speak well of the quality of writing at Forbes.

Questioning motives often leads to nasty “voting wars”, misleading headlines, and hyperbolic quotes run by the media.  On the issue of whether Republicans similarly push for absentee ballot fraud measures, in addition to statements by John Fund, a cursory search of the Internet shows that Kansas Secretary of State Kobach made a successful push in his election fraud bill to require integrity procedures for absentee mail ballots. 

The Republican secretary of state promised during his campaign last
year to propose legislation requiring voters to show photo
identification at the polls and to require people to provide proof of
citizenship when they register to vote for the first time in a new
location.

But he said Wednesday that it will require voters who request mail-in
ballots to provide a driver’s license or identification number. Also,
he said county officials will have to verify their signatures.

So wrong perceptions can be easily dispelled with a little research. On why voter ID seems to get more attention from the Left and the media; perhaps it is the reflexive opposition of some to any form of identification and willingness to question the motives of voter ID supporters as “Jim Crow.”  That is a lot of motive-questioning.

Republicans seem to be doing an adequate job in suggesting absentee ballot fraud prosecutions and legislation.  Those interested in voter integrity and accuracy in voting seem to have the most interest.  Both parties in legislatures across the country should continue to address the issue to increase voter confidence and reduce the chance of fraud. 

Gov. Sean Parnell introduced legislation Wednesday that would move up
Alaska’s primary to give election officials more time to get ballots to
military and overseas voters.  Link