[EL] more on the Brooklyn grand jury/election fraud issue
Lori Minnite
lminnite at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 07:42:16 PDT 2011
I think Brad's skeptical approach to laws based on isolated scandals is
the right approach. When isolated cases of corrupted elections and
corrupted electoral processes are used, as they are ad nauseum by
political operatives and propagandists to argue on false pretenses that
more procedural requirements in the voting process will deliver
electoral "integrity" or some other desirable societal outcome, they
harm public understanding and ultimately, the democratic process.
The story behind the 1984 Brooklyn grand jury report that Mr. von
Spakovsky discusses and has so far failed to produce for others to read,
is one of official and party corruption that was aimed at defeating
progressive black reformers in Brooklyn who at the time, were attempting
to steer the legacy of the black freedom movement into local electoral
politics. Voter ID is irrelevant when you have the kind of public
corruption involved in that case.
There are some lessons for the voter fraud/voter ID debate here:
1) official (i.e., government or party) collusion in conspiracies to
corrupt the electoral process are eminently detectable and should be
prosecuted; official corruption and party corruption are threats to the
integrity of elections, in the same way as and needless bureaucratic
requirements that result in depressed turnout are threats to the
integrity of elections;
2) for purposes of thinking through problems and solutions, varieties of
electoral fraud should be distinguished by the party committing the
fraud - this is important for avoiding misplaced and potentially harmful
remedies. It's amazing to me that people who report and comment on
voter identification laws never seem to consider the possibility that
people intent on committing election fraud might have the means of
manufacturing fraudulent ID (and isn't there a problem out there with
fake ID - and how fake must the ID be to get it passed a poll worker?).
Or, as was the spectacular case in Gary, Indiana in 1966, when Richard
Hatcher was almost defeated by another corrupt Democratic party machine
organization that attempted to use voter impersonators - the scheme
depended on the corruption of poll workers who were tools of the party
organization and were ordered to let the impersonators vote (had they
shown up - we write about this case in _Keeping Down the Black Vote_) .
Finally, lesson #3: the question of motive is often only superficially
addressed by those who think a government-issued ID might have prevented
the events in Brooklyn that were the subject of that grand jury report,
or would prevent real efforts to commit fraud today. What motive do
individual voters have for casting a fraudulent vote and risking
criminal penalties? On the other hand, the Brooklyn Democratic machine
was seriously threatened by the rise of the black reform movement in
central Brooklyn - a lot was at stake (if you're into these stories,
Wayne Barrett and Jack Newfield are a good source - see _City for
Sale_). It went to great lengths, including the corruption of
elections, to try to prevent movement leaders from getting elected to
public office. Requiring voters to show a government-issued ID to poll
workers -- who we have to probably falsely presume are not corruptible,
and have the proper training in recognizing fake IDs -- is irrelevant to
preventing fraud If individual voters have no motive for risking a
criminal conviction, and a party organization is so intent on preventing
the election of an opponent, they most surely could manufacture
fraudulent ID documents (since we all know college kids are able to do
this to gain entry to bars and clubs).
All this, a futile plea for democratic values and rationality in
law-making...
Lori Minnite
On 6/24/2011 8:21 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> "The Brooklyn example is not looking like such a great one of
> impersonation voter fraud going on without notice of diligent elected
> officials."
> -As a documented voter fraud skeptic, I must nonetheless ask, who said
> voter ID laws were only aimed at "impersonation fraud going on without
> notice of diligent elected officials"? I don't recall Spakovsky's
> piece being limited to fraud going on without the notice of diligent
> elected officials.
> It seems to me that the Brooklyn case is a pretty compelling piece of
> evidence for voter ID. The question is whether the problem is really
> widespread enough to justify the solution. I generally think that laws
> based on zero tolerance or isolated scandals, no matter how
> compelling, tend to produce more harm than good.
> /Bradley A. Smith/
> /Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law/
> /Capital University Law School/
> /303 E. Broad St./
> /Columbus, OH 43215/
> /(614) 236-6317/
> http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of
> Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Fri 6/24/2011 12:29 AM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and commentary 6/24/11
>
>
> Want More Flavor About the Brooklyn Fraud Described in the 1984
> Grand Jury Report, the Collusion of Election Officials, and
> Prosecutions for Impersonation Vote Fraud?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19584>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19584> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jim Sleeper'srecollections
> <http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/31/treat_or_trick_elections_offic/index.php>
> jibe with the grand jury report and the NY Times reporting at the
> time. Sleeper's story
> <http://jimsleeper.com/articles/scoops&revelations/Vender%20Beatty.pdf>from
> the /Village Voice/ in that period notes some impersonation fraud
> /and/ some convictions:
>
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/beatty.png>The Brooklyn
> example is not looking like such a great one of impersonation voter
> fraud going on without notice of diligent elected officials.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19584&title=Want%20More%20Flavor%20About%20the%20Brooklyn%20Fraud%20Described%20in%20the%201984%20Grand%20Jury%20Report%2C%20the%20Collusion%20of%20Election%20Officials%2C%20and%20Prosecutions%20for%20Impersonation%20Vote%20Fraud%3F&description=>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud squad
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, Uncategorized
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>
>
> Two from FollowtheMoney.org <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19579>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19579> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Best practices
> <http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=444> for state
> campaign finance disclosure and a 50-statesurvey
> <http://www.followthemoney.org/content/bestpractices/index.phtml>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19579&title=Two%20from%20FollowtheMoney.org&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "National Political Committees Must Return Donations from
> Stanford" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19576>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19576> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg reports
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/u-s-political-committees-must-return-1-7-million-in-stanford-donations.html>:
> "Five Democratic and Republican national political committees must
> return more than $1.7 million in contributions received from indicted
> financier R. Allen Stanford to his court-appointed receiver, a federal
> judge ruled."
>
> You can access the judge's order here
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Janvey-Order.pdf>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19576&title=%E2%80%9CNational%20Political%20Committees%20Must%20Return%20Donations%20from%20Stanford%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
>
>
> "The Hatch Act: Showcasing the Absurdity of Congress"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19573>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19573> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jeff Patch blogs
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/168179-the-hatch-act-showcasing-the-absurdity-of-congress>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19573&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Hatch%20Act%3A%20Showcasing%20the%20Absurdity%20of%20Congress%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in conflict of interest laws
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Constitutional Myth #5: Corporations Have the Same Free-Speech
> Rights as Individuals" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19570>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19570> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Garrett Epps blogs
> <http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-5-corporations-have-the-same-free-speech-rights-as-individuals/240874/>
> on /Danielczyk/.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19570&title=%E2%80%9CConstitutional%20Myth%20%235%3A%20Corporations%20Have%20the%20Same%20Free-Speech%20Rights%20as%20Individuals%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "House Votes Not to Confer More Power on Feckless FEC"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19567>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19567> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This item
> <http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=423:house-votes-not-to-confer-more-power-on-feckless-fec-6-23-11>
> appears on the CLC Blog.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19567&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Votes%20Not%20to%20Confer%20More%20Power%20on%20Feckless%20FEC%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Election Assistance Commission
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>, federal election commission
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | Comments Off
>
>
> NC Governor Vetoes Voter ID Law <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19564>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19564> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Another
> <http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2011/jun/23/north-carolina-governor-vetoes-voter-photo-id-bill/>
> Democratic governor vetoes a voter id law passed by a Republican
> legislature.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19564&title=NC%20Governor%20Vetoes%20Voter%20ID%20Law&description=>
> Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>
>
> 1984 New York Grand Jury Report on Voter Fraud Now Available
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19560>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19560> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Thanks to the hard work of the UCI Law librarians, and the cooperation
> of the Brooklyn District Attorney's office, I am pleased to provide a
> link to Kings County grand jury report, In the Matter of Confidential
> Investigation R84-11
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/1984_grand_jury_report-r84-11.pdf>.
>
> This is the report Itried <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19393>toget
> <http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/election_expert_cant_find_report_on_1984_voter_impersonation_case_cited_by_von_spakovsky.php>
> from Hans von Spakovsky and the Heritage Foundation with no success.
> von Spakovsky had relied on the grand jury report in an effort to
> justify voter identification requirements. (Hewrote
> <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/012191.html>: "One doesn't have
> to look far to find instances of fraudulent ballots cast in actual
> elections by 'voters' who were the figments of active imaginations. In
> 1984, a district attorney in Brooklyn, N.Y. (a Democrat), released the
> findings of a grand jury that reported extensive registration and
> impersonation fraud between 1968 and 1982.")
>
> It is a fascinating read, about what appear to have been the last days
> of a corrupt Brooklyn Democratic party machine. Most of the fraud
> alleged involved the cooperation of election officials or inspectors,
> or the downright incompetence of election workers. (One of the most
> colorful episodes recorded involved party workers hiding in the
> restroom ceilings at the Brooklyn Board of Elections, waiting to phony
> up voter registration cards after an election to manufacture evidence
> for an election contest.)
>
> It is not clear to me why von Spakovsky did not respond to requests to
> turn over the grand jury report because the report contains the only
> apparently successful effort in the last 40 years of which I'm aware
> to actually affect election results through impersonation fraud.
> Perhaps the reason is that the way in which the fraud was done almost
> certainly could not happen today, thanks to basic safeguards put in
> place by election officials (such as checking the names and addresses
> of new registrants and ensuring greater security of voter registration
> materials). And of course when election officials collude with those
> committing fraud, a voter i.d. requirement would not help in the
> slightest.
>
> The fact that most of this fraud took place 40 years ago and nothing
> like it has been discovered since is a good argument that schemes like
> these cannot successfully be done anymore. Vote buying schemes,
> fraudulent registration schemes, and absentee ballot fraud /do/ get
> discovered and prosecuted. There's no reason to think this kind of
> fraud, if it happened, would not at least occasionally be discovered
> and prosecuted as well. At most we find a handful of isolated
> cases---nothing organized, and certainly nothing to swing elections.
>
> Still, the grand jury report is the best evidence that the Fraudulent
> Fraud Squad has, and now it will see the light of day.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19560&title=1984%20New%20York%20Grand%20Jury%20Report%20on%20Voter%20Fraud%20Now%20Available&description=>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud squad
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Romney backers launch super PAC"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19557>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19557> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> /WaPo/ reports
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-backers-launch-super-pac/2011/06/22/AGTkGchH_story.html>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19557&title=%E2%80%9CRomney%20backers%20launch%20super%20PAC%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> Wonder What the Supreme Court Will Do on Monday in McComish?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19554>
>
> Posted on June 23, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19554> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here' <http://www.slate.com/id/2289193/>s the oral argument preview I
> wrote for /Slate/, "Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again."
>
> I'll be writing about the /McComish/ decision on Monday, when the
> decision is expected to be released at 10 am eastern. Stay tuned.//
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19554&title=Wonder%20What%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Will%20Do%20on%20Monday%20in%20McComish%3F&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Visiting Professor
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>
> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School
> http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110624/3838defb/attachment.html>
View list directory