[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 12:45:17 PDT 2016

Jim,

I think *Pabey v. Pastrick* proves the opposite of what you want it
to. First, the nature of this absentee ballot fraud recounted on page 1145
of the opinion is in the vein of exercising undue (and illegal) influence
over absentee voters, not conjuring fictitious individuals, registering
those false names and then proceeding to cast thousands and thousands of
illegal ballots, or impersonating actual voters listed on the rolls and
casting absentee ballots in their names, or having ineligible persons
register and vote en masse. What happened in 2003 in *Pabey* is unlawful
and reprehensible conduct, but it's different from saying massive numbers
of ineligible individuals, fictitious people or the deceased will cast
ballots and/or be impersonated and change the results of an election
through fraud. The closest it gets in their 10 items is (d) "the use of
vacant lots or former residences of voters on applications for absentee
ballots." But without more context, it's hard to say that constitutes
impersonation fraud, ineligible individuals committing registration fraud
or the fabrication of ghost voters to cast fraudulent ballots.

Second, and more importantly, the Pastrick supporters were caught (!!) and
the election was invalidated, i.e. law enforcement worked exactly as it
should. This demonstrates that even a small conspiracy in a small election
to engage in Boss Tweed-style strong-arming of actual voters into voting a
certain way (not the fabrication of fictitious voters or the impersonation
of real ones or ineligible voters casting ballots en masse) becomes easier
and easier to detect the larger the conspiracy becomes. And this misconduct
was discovered and thwarted, even at the level of a mayoral primary for
East Chicago, IN, with a little over 9,000 ballots cast, 1,950 of which
were absentee, a 278 margin of victory and 155 invalidated absentee
ballots. So, my question is (in addition to all the previous ones left
unanswered): how easy do you think it would be, now 14 years since HAVA
passed (not just a couple months after as in *Pabey*), to conceal an
absentee ballot fraud conspiracy to fabricate fictitious voters or
impersonate real ones or have ineligible voters cast absentee ballots en
masse, on the scale required to shift the results of a presidential
election even in a single state such as Indiana?

Are there instances of absentee ballot fraud? Yes. Does it happen in such a
coordinated fashion and on the scale being insinuated by Mr. Trump,
yourself and others, such that the outcome of a presidential election can
shift? No. You'll say, well it just hasn't happened yet. And I'll respond
that the plaintiffs in *Pabey v. Pastrick* had to produce *evidence* of
fraud to win their case and get the results thrown out, and as with our
litigation, our discourse should be held to an evidentiary standard. You
have said the candidate is within his rights to withhold judgment on how
he'll proceed following the *Election Day* results, since the vote hasn't
been tallied -- i.e. that he shouldn't be forced to *prejudge* the
initially reported outcome and what his options will be under the law. How
is that consistent with *prejudging* that there is already and will be
ongoing massive voter fraud that will change the results of the election?

Best,
Jon

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:54 PM, William Groth <wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com>
wrote:

> Jim glosses over a few relevant details. Pabey v. Pastrick did indeed
> reveal significant fraud in one Indiana county in a Democratic primary, but
> *all* involved mail-in absentee ballots. Two years later the
> Republican-controlled Indiana General Assembly passed what was then the
> strictest ID law in the nation, yet it inexplicably excluded from its ID
> requirements the only type of fraud Pastrick involved-- mail-in absentee
> ballots.
>
>
>
> Also, there are no federal laws “preventing” the purging of voter
> registration rolls. In fact, the NVRA specifically *requires* periodic
> purges but imposes rules by which such programs must be conducted. It’s a
> complete misrepresentation to state that because voting rights advocates
> insist that such programs be conducted in accordance with those federal
> rules, they are “adamantly opposed” to purging dead voters from the rolls.
> I know of no one associated with either party in Indiana who has advocated,
> publicly or privately, keeping dead persons on the voting rolls.
>
>
>
> The Indiana General Assembly has chosen to regulate most extensively the
> only type of voter fraud—imposter voting— that there is no evidence has
> ever occurred in the modern history of Indiana.
>
>
>
> I have been involved in a number of recounts and contests in Indiana over
> the past 15 years and have yet to see evidence of voter fraud. Innocent
> mistakes by voters and election officials, yet, but not voter fraud, with
> the only exception being former Secretary of State Charlie White, a
> Republican, who was convicted of multiple election law violations a few
> years ago and forced to resign his office.
>
>
>
>
>
> William R. Groth, Of Counsel
>
> Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, LLP
>
> 429 E. Vermont Street, Ste. 200
>
> Indianapolis, IN 46202
>
> Telephone: (317) 353-9363
>
> Fax: (317) 351-7232
>
> E-mail:  wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *
> JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:59 PM
> *To:* jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com
> *Cc:* SVladeck at law.utexas.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>
>
>
> 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-secretary-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> 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 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://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
> www.fairelectionsnetwork.com
> [image: https://twitter.com/fairerelections]
> <https://twitter.com/fairerelections>[image:
> https://www.facebook.com/FairElectionsLegalNetwork]
> <https://www.facebook.com/FairElectionsLegalNetwork>
>
> *The contents of this email should not be construed as legal advice.
>
>

-- 
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
www.fairelectionsnetwork.com
[image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/fairerelections>[image: Facebook]
<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/20161020/19cf873a/attachment.html>