Kentucky candidates debates photo id and other issues at the link.  The two differ on a range of election-related issues. 

@ UPI.  Voter identification — considered a safeguard against fraud by some and an effort to disenfranchise voters by others — was a hot topic in state legislatures this year.

excerpt @ the link: 

In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.

@ the link.  Under the House bill, a free photo ID would be available through the state Department of Transportation. The bill would allow people without sufficient identification to cast provisional ballots, and then return to the county courthouse within six days to prove who they are.

The compromise bill will likely include a longer list of acceptable identification and is expected to be signed by the Republican governor. 

@ the link.  Erie County Sheriff’s deputies expect to make an arrest soon in a case of ballot tampering. The case centers on the marking of some absentee ballots at the local Board of Elections

At the link.  Mike Marshall, the man in charge of soliciting absentee ballots in the re-election campaign of Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan, resigned Friday after being indicted on vote fraud, perjury and forgery charges.

A Jennings County Grand Jury issued 66 indictments on Marshall, his son Christopher Marshall and a third Jennings resident, John Cook on Friday. The charges follow an investigation by the Indiana State Police, according to a press release from special prosecutor Aaron Negangard. The investigation stemmed from voter fraud issues regarding absentee ballots and applications submitted in Jennings County in 2010

The Democrat response:  Pate (Democratic Party Chairman) said he believed the indictment was political in nature.  “People make accusations all the time,” he said. “It’s like farting in an elevator and blaming it on the guy next to you,” he said.

the story gives a synopsis of what happened….

WHAT HAPPENED

McCauley questioned why there were so many counts listed on the indictment considering early media reports that the allegations came from only one absentee ballot last year.  Negangard said that one ballot brought the activity to light but multiple discrepancies were brought forth after police investigated.

Republicans in Jennings County challenged several absentee ballots that were submitted in 2010, according to Negangard. Democrats subsequently ran an advertisement in the North Vernon Plain Dealer accusing the Republicans of trying to deny those absentee voters their constitutional rights. One of those voters identified in the ad was a Marine named Ben Cook, who later signed a sworn affidavit stating he’d never cast a ballot. That initiated the larger investigation.  Negangard said none of Marshall’s charges were related to the Ben Cook matter, but actually to later findings.

Marshall faces 12 counts of forgery, a class C felony that could carry a maximum of eight years in prison; 20 counts of voter fraud and 13 counts of perjury – both of which are class D felonies, punishable by up to three years in prison each. Negangard said arrest warrants would be issued Monday if they haven’t already. Once those indicted are arrested, an initial hearing date will be set and the case would move through the legal system like any other.

The audiobook version of Injustice is shipping.  I received mine yesterday.  What a thrill to hear a pro like Johnny Heller read about the goings on in the Voting Section, the Justice Department and Noxubee County.  Heller is a top shelf audiobook talent, and he nails every bit of emphasis the author intended.  He cranks up the humor where intended, and horror where appropriate.  His bio:

Johnny Heller is a two time winner of the prestigious Audie Award, was named the top voice of 2008 and 2009 and selected as one of the Top 50 Narrators of the Twentieth Century by AudioFile magazine.  His adult and childrens book narrations have earned him multiple AudioFile Earphone Awards. 

If the EAC data on military voting is so important, why would Panetta’s DOD want to gut the agency?

Talk about kicking another agency when it’s down!  The DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) has made a dedicated effort, including a concerted lobbying attempt in the Congress, to grab power over election-related data from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).  During the debate on whether to eliminate the EAC for budgetary reasons, Congressional Democrats have repeatedly condemned the dissolution or dismemberment of the EAC, making the argument that the Commission still serves a valuable purpose, particularly with the collection of UOCAVA ballot and other election-related data from the states.  This data includes the actual census of absentee ballots sent, returned, and eventually (and hopefully) counted by state and county election officials.  

The Executive Branch is obviously not talking to the Legislative Branch.  DOD has clashed repeatedly with EAC staff and worked behind the scenes to Congress and election officials to undermine the EAC data, saying it paints too negative a picture. Now, the Panetta DOD is attempting to propagandize their “success” by highlighting another “rosy” DOD survey and wrest control of election data collection away from the EAC.  Indeed, the FVAP report directly questions the need for the data to be collected and analyzed by the EAC, a separate bipartisan agency created by the Congress and not reportable to the President.  

In its FVAP report to the Congress on Military and Overseas Civilians Absentee Voting, the DOD eschews the EAC data, collected directly from the states, and instead relies on survey responses from 12,000 military members and their spouses.  FVAP’s reports acknowledges that they have been criticized in the past over its small survey sample, but does nothing to correct that issue.  FVAP’s not only criticizes the EAC’s data, but it openly asserts that it wants to “obviate the continuation of a separate EAC report from the FVAP report.”  In other words, DOD wants to kill the EAC and take control of any non-DOD reports that would evaluate the effectiveness of its program.     

Nor are FVAP’s attacks on the EAC warranted especially given the signfiicant improvements made in collection since the 2008 election.  Despite having problems in 2004 and 2006, Congress has since referred to its election data as the “gold standard.”  It was relied upon by Senator Schumer and others to justify the MOVE Act.  

Yet, the EAC’s data paints an incredibly negative picture about FVAP and DOD’s efforts to comply with federal law.  Rather than take reasonable steps to address low military voting participation rates, FVAP would much rather spend a lot of money ($2.3 million for their most recent report – that is almost a $1 per military voters) to claim, “problem solved.”  FVAP has tried to paint a more positive picture of the situation by conducting its own flawed surveys to gloss over the continuing immense problems facing military voters.  While FVAP has made improvements in their surveys, the GAO still questions the underlying reliability of FVAP’s survey methodology.  As recently as 2011, GAO issued a report saying this about FVAP surveys on military voting: 

As part of recent improvements to its survey process, FVAP collaborated with survey professionals in another part of DOD to, among other things, re-word some survey questions and adjust sampling methods in an effort to improve the statistical validity and generalizability of the survey results.  Despite these improvements, concerns remain regarding the evaluative information resulting from the surveys. For example, even though the response rates for some of the surveys are low, FVAP does not conduct a non-response bias analysis that the guidance from the Office of Management and Budget has identified as a necessary step in determining whether survey findings are biased.”

DOD and FVAP’s actions are obvious:  They are now seeking to end the EAC’s collection of data from election officials, end any independent third party oversight, and eliminate the last remaining reason for the EAC’s full or partial continued existence.  To allow FVAP (the very same agency that is responsible for providing assistance to military voters) to wrest the collection of this data to its sole control would be tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.