[EL] Accepting the results of the election
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Oct 20 09:59:16 PDT 2016
Regarding voter fraud in Indiana, see Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138
(2004) attached. This case involved massive voter fraud by Democrats in a
Democrat primary sufficient to overturn the primary election, primarily using
absentee ballots. Of course the potential for this is much greater now
since the passage of federal laws preventing the purging of voter
registration laws. And of course Democrats are adamantly opposed to purging dead,
nonresident, etc voters from voter registration rolls. I have lived in my
current home in Zionsville for 3 years and the prior residents are still on the
registration rolls. So one of the safeguards against voter fraud has been
undermined and, since it has been done before recently, it could raise its
ugly head again. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/20/2016 11:40:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com writes:
Re: Indiana. The Indiana General Assembly doesn't seem to have thought
much of the risk of absentee ballot fraud because it exempted absentee voters
from the ID requirement so they don't have to supply copies of their ID. By
contrast, Wisconsin and Alabama's voter ID laws cover both in-person and
absentee voting but I believe they're the only 2 strict photo ID states that
have done so.
More to the point though, what would thousands of instances of absentee
ballot fraud look like? Absentee ballots are mailed out. Do you imagine that a
small band of 25-50 co-conspirators would receive/collect these ballots
from thousands and thousands of addresses to which the ballots were mailed?
Do you imagine they're all being mailed to a few central locations such as
abandoned warehouses or commercial properties or apartment buildings or just
single residences and no one in the Secretary of State's office will
notice that hundreds or thousands of absentee ballots are being mailed to single
apartment buildings or commercial properties or warehouses? SOS offices
seem pretty vigilant about investigating that kind of mass registration at
one location because it's so unusual and rare. Or do you imagine there are
thousands and thousands of co-conspirators each of whom is casting an extra
fraudulent absentee vote in addition to their own ballot?
You must know that under federal law, every registration form from a
first-time mail-in registrant must survive a HAVA match or satisfy the HAVA ID
requirement. If you're matched, you're exempt from the ID requirement; if
there's a non-match, then you must submit or present a copy of your current
and valid photo ID or a copy of a valid ID that shows your name and current
address such as a bank statement, utility bill, government document, etc.
All registration forms are matched against the BMV or SSA's records. How easy
or hard do you think it would be to falsify thousands and thousands of
registration forms with the Indiana DL/ID # or SSN for a person who is already
in the BMV and/or SSA databases? Or do you imagine the co-conspirators
will have previously submitted the forged paperwork to add false names to the
BMV and SSA databases? Or do you imagine the co-conspirators are
impersonating real individuals who are already in the BMV and SSA databases and their
actions will be able to evade the attention of thousands and thousands of
those actual individuals, their household members, relatives, etc.? Or
instead of obtaining exemption from the HAVA ID requirement by way of a BMV or
SSA database match, do you imagine these people will simply not be in the
BMV and SSA databases (such that there is a non-match with whatever numbers
are supplied on the registration form) and the co-conspirators will mail in
fraudulent HAVA ID for thousands and thousands of false names? And these
fictitious individuals will be associated with real addresses but the
confirmation mailers sent out to these thousands of real addresses will not be
returned as undeliverable?
To be fair, I do know of at least one instance of registration and voting
fraud in Indiana's recent history:
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/05/former-indiana-secret
ary-state-charlie-white-begins-home-detention-sentence/73388328/
I can't wait to see the results of the investigation in Indiana.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM, <_JBoppjr at aol.com_
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:
Regarding your questions of me:
(1) First, as I have pointed out, liberals and Democrats have refused to
accept the results of the 2000 election and no liberal or Democrat, or
anyone one in the media that I know of, have been "horrified" or considered that
a dire threat to Democracy. You say that that refusal is justified and I
understand that that is the position of the left. But it would have been
absurd to expect that Gore must accept the results of the election, without
doing a recount in Florida, just as it is absurd to expect Trump to agree
to do this either. Yes I do think there is a gross double standard at play
here.
By the way, here are a few more elections where Democrats refuse to accept
the results of.
Click here: 8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged
(2) Yes, I agree with your point that voter fraud can be committed without
registration fraud. But one way to commit voter fraud is to commit
registration fraud first. What you do is register a fictitious person and then
vote them either at the polls or by absentee ballot. A voter ID requirement
can stand in the way of voting the fraudulent registration by someone
showing up at the polling place but this does not prevent voting by absentee.
So in this instance, the fraudulent registration is the precursor to the
voter fraud.
And whether there is evidence of recent rigging or stealing of elections,
you could start with all the Democrats and liberals who claim there is, in
the link above.
For my part, it is uncontestable that there has been vote fraud in our
country that has effected the outcome of elections, including possibly the
Presidency (see Nixon loss in 1960 as a result of vote fraud in Illinois). I
have done a number of recounts where there was vote fraud that effected the
election and the people involved were prosecuted. I do think that our
election laws have significantly reduced the incidents of this but the
concerted attack on these fraud prevention laws raises the specter the historic
voter fraud will raise its ugly head again. So, unlike the Democrats, I want
to continue with these fraud prevention measures.
Obviously, you and others have set the bar much higher by demanding
evidence right now of voter fraud that is actually occurring today. Well, little
voting is occurring yet and, if voter fraud occurs, it can effect an
election and there is no going back. So I support reasonable fraud prevention
measures to prevent that from happening. I believe that advanced
registration and voter ID requirements, among others, are in that category. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/20/2016 9:33:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_kogan.18 at osu.edu_ (mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu) writes:
Jim,
As others have already pointed out, it seems strange to draw some sort of
comparison between Democratic complaints about the 2000 election and Trump’
s claims that the election is “rigged” via voter fraud. If your standard
for judging the fairness of election outcome is whether the winner of the
vote count is the person most voters intended to support, than there is
clear evidence that Gore should have actually won and lost only because the
poor ballot design in Palm Beach County. By contrast, there has no evidence
that there is voter fraud on a scale anywhere approaching what would be
needed to have altered the outcome of any (recent) presidential election. To
claim that one set of concerns (backed up by empirical evidence) and the
other (backed up by conspiracy theories and innuendo) are somehow comparable
seems pretty disingenuous.
I can’t speak for others, but what I found equally problematic is your
claim that “thousands of instances of voter registration fraud in 56 of our 92
counties that is obviously a precursor to massive voter fraud” (emphasis
added). If by obviously a precursor, you meant that logically registration
fraud must chronologically precede voter fraud (which you later implied was
what you meant), that is simply inaccurate. There could be voter fraud
without registration fraud (e.g., an employee at a nursing home takes the
absentee ballots of the legally registered seniors citizens who live there and
fills them out without their permission). If you meant that massive voter
fraud always happens when there registration fraud as an empirical matter,
which was how I originally interpreted your statement, than that is also not
true, for the reasons that Rick laid out earlier.
Vlad Kogan
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists._uci.edu_ (http://uci.edu/)
_http://department-lists.uci_ (http://department-lists.uci/)
..<WBR>edu/mailman/listinf.<WBR>ed
--
Jon Sherman
Counsel
_Fair Elections Legal Network_ (http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/) *
1825 K Street NW, Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 248-5346
_jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com_
(mailto:jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com)
_www.fairelectionsnetwork.com_ (http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/)
(https://twitter.com/fairerelections)
(https://www.facebook.com/FairElectionsLegalNetwork)
*The contents of this email should not be construed as legal advice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/b2f20fe7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PabeyvPastrick.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 216357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/b2f20fe7/attachment.pdf>
View list directory