<x-flowed>As a political scientist who has studied voter fraud I can tell you
there are no reliable, officially compiled national or even statewide
statistics available on voter fraud. I wish it were different, but
these are the facts. Researchers working on voter fraud must construct
their own datasets by culling information about allegations,
investigations, evidence, charges, trials, convictions, acquittals and
pleas from local election boards and local D.A.'s, county by county and
sometimes town by town across the U.S. The task is painstaking which
explains in part why nobody has done it yet. Such a dataset is
desirable because hard data are persuasive, at least with reasonable
people. On the other hand, I do not think the lack of such data means
we can't observe PATTERNS from the available non-statistical data and
draw reasonable conclusions about the low incidence of voter fraud in
U.S. elections today. And I think I go fairly far down this road in the
2003 Demos report I co-authored, Securing the Vote, which Rick has been
kind enough to post a link to in the past, and which Ari, in his post on
this issue does as well.
If fraud is such a persistent concern of those who run elections and a
widespread cause for concern among a large number of voters who believe
there is a great deal of fraud in elections, as Rick and many others
assert, why don't government agencies responsible for election
administration collect statistics on voter fraud? They collect
statistics on other serious matters, certainly other crimes. Voter
fraud is a crime in every state in the nation and there are serious
federal laws and criminal penalties that apply as well. As you election
lawyers know, there are hundreds of examples drawn from state election
codes and constitutions that illustrate the precision with which the
states have criminalized voter and election fraud. For example, in
Texas, a person can be convicted of a third degree felony if he or she
Òvotes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the
person is not eligible to vote; knowingly votes or attempts to vote more
than once in an election; or knowingly impersonates another person and
votes or attempts to vote as the impersonated person.Ó CaliforniaÕs
election code has dozens of provisions that prohibit illegal activity
associated with elections. It prohibits fraudulent registration,
including registering under a false name, registering under a false
address, and registering a non-existent person. It makes it a felony
for a person to vote in an election that he or she is not entitled to
vote in, to vote more than once, or impersonate another voter.
Moreover, it is a felony in California to Ògive, offer, or promise any
office, place, or employment, or promise to procure or endeavor to
procure any office, place, or employment to or for any voter, or to or
for any other person, in order to induce that voter at any election toÓ
vote or not vote for a particular candidate. Pennsylvania law gives the
power to monitor elections to county boards of elections, and imposes a
substantial number of penalties on people engaging in election fraud.
Giving or receiving money in exchange for voting a certain way in an
election can bring up to seven years in prison and $15,000 in fines.
Any person convicted of perjury Òregarding any material matter or thing
relating to any subject being investigated, heard, determined or acted
upon by any county board of elections, or member thereof, or by any
court or judge thereof, judge of election, inspector of election, or
overseerÓ can receive up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Any person voting when they are not registered to vote, or voting more
than once can be punished the same. Nineteenth century language in the
Alabama Constitution that disqualifies from voting Òall idiots and
insane personsÓ and those convicted of crimes like murder, arson, and
rape, but also wife battering, bigamy, sodomy, miscegenation and
vagrancy, also disqualifies from voting any person convicted of Òselling
or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or
offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a
false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to
procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of
suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any
person as an elector.Ó In Minnesota, it is a felony to submit more than
one absentee ballot, assist another in submitting more than one absentee
ballot, or alter anotherÕs absentee ballot in any way.
But, the skeptic asserts, law enforcement officials don't bother with
voter fraud, they don't have the resources to do the investigations,
they are under much more pressure to find the murderers, rapists and
thieves who commit more serious crimes. Well, I've interviewed some
elections officials and law enforcement people for my work on voter
fraud who adamantly do not agree with this argument. For example, back
in 2002, Phil Carter, a Special Assistant Attorney General in the State
of Mississippi at the time replied to the question of whether voter
fraud is not prosecuted because to do so would take resources away from
the investigation and prosecution of other more serious crimes in this
way: ÒI do often hear that voter fraud allegations are not prosecuted
because investigators and prosecutors are busy pursuing more serious
crimes. While voter fraud is a serious problem, I donÕt believe
Mississippi has an inordinate number of these cases.Ó And Bill Jones,
the former Secretary of State of the State of California replied to a
similar question, "Based on our records over the last decade, the
Secretary of State has expended significant resources to investigate
voter fraud. The suggestion that voter fraud is not prosecuted because
it takes resources away from fighting other more serious crimes, does
not hold true in California." He went on to add that his office and
California's county district attorney's offices had developed an
excellent rapport, and because the Secretary of State's office "has
become expert at securing convictions before we present cases" to the
local D.A.'s, the local D.A.'s "are typically very motivated to
prosecute."
More research is always good. More research on whether law enforcement
prosecute voter fraud would be welcome. But let's say you can establish
that there is no or only weak evidence to support the claim that voter
fraud is not prosecuted. If it is investigated and prosecuted and the
stats here tell a story of no or little fraud then the next argument you
hear from the skeptics is that well, voter fraud is the perfect crime.
It is routinely committed but impossible to detect. The perpetrators
are lurking among us - everyday people you meet on your way to work, or
at the post office, or your kid's school. It's kind of like being in an
episode of the Twilight Zone. The voter fraud criminal is, in fact, a
ghost who leaves no fingerprints, no papertrail, no glove, no DNA, no
nothing. And, well, that's just the way it is -- a Hail Mary but it
sometimes works. I haven't yet figured out how to counter this argument
(again, in the absence of data showing a finding of fact about the
incidence of voter fraud) except to point out that clearly, election
fraud is not impossible to prove or prosecute. Successful prosecutions
have proceeded from many kinds of evidence that can brought to bear Ð
eyewitness testimony; evidence from bank records showing large
withdrawals by the accused when vote buying has been charged; the
possession by Òballot brokersÓ of large stashes of absentee ballots made
out in other peopleÕs names and addresses; clear evidence of the
violation by elections officials of rules governing proper procedures
for handling voter registration applications, election machinery and
technology, absentee ballots, and the like; expert testimony by
handwriting specialists asked to verify signatures on ballots, etc., etc.
Maybe fraud isn't such a big problem. Maybe American electoral lore has
everybody excited, though I doubt that's really the problem. And by the
way, the Rasmussen poll and others like it say very little to me about
what it is voters actually think about fraud. The word "fraud" can mean
many different things to different people and often simply serves as a
convenient and socially acceptable way in which to express not so
socially acceptable views about issues of race and class in American
elections.
Until evidence is produced -- and I think the burden is and should be on
those who level these allegations -- that voter fraud threatens the
integrity of American elections I will not be convinced that stricter
I.D. requirements are worth the cost they will inflict on people at the
bottom of the social hierarchy. What problem are such I.D. requirments
solving? I know this question has been asked and unsatisfactorily
answered many times, in my view. And I realize I'm echoing people on
the list who've responded before I've finished writing this long-winded
note, but if there is fraud in the absentee ballot area how does
biometric I.D. reduce it? If elections officials, candidates and
campaigns are committing "voter" fraud why burden voters with having to
acquire biometric I.D.? What other fundamental right do Americans need
a biometric I.D. card to exercise? Most people want fraud-free
elections that express the true will of the majority. I seriously doubt
that perceptions of fraud in elections (again meaning different things
to different people, so not a valid or reliable measure) have much to do
with declining levels of confidence in government -- there are too many
other more likely explanatory variables for that one. If there is no
evidence that voters are committing fraud in ways that undermine this
goal -- and so far none has surfaced -- why the calls for more I.D.?
The remedy should be proportionate to the problem, which means, of
course, accurately identifying the problem.
Lori Minnite
Rick Hasen wrote:
Steve Ansolabehere and Mike Alvarez made the following observations in
a 2002 Demos report: "ÒVoter fraud is a persistent concern of those who
run elections. Fraud is hard to detect and to measure. It may involve
only enough ballots to win an election, and there may be no paper trail
that would allow election officials to determine what exactly
occurred.Ó R. Michael Alvarez & Stephen Ansolabehere, California Votes:
The Promise of Election Day Registration 14 (2002), available at:
<http://www.demosusa. org/pubs/california_votes.pdf> (last visited Feb.
16, 2005).
But the difficulty of proving actual fraud doesn't mean it doesn't
exist. Beyond anecdotal studies, there have been some recent newpaper
studies of double voting by voters living in two states. (For
citations to those newspaper studies, and more discussion about the
fraud issues, seee the text accompanying footnotes 113-116 of my Beyond
the Margin of Litigation draft posted at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=698201).
The bottom line: we know some fraud happens but we don't know how much
of it there is. But we also know that a large number of voters believe
that there is a great deal of fraud in elections. (see pages 7-10 of my
article for some rather stark statistics in this regard).
Voter i.d. can help to alleviate concerns about fraudulent voting and
help restore some voter confidence in the process. The problem with
voter i.d. alone is that while it helps some voters with confidence, it
can suppress the votes of others, particularly the poor and mobile, who
will have greater difficulty providing i.d. It doesn't help to
alleviate concerns about vote fraud by raising fears about vote
suppression.
That's why a part of my proposed solution for falling voter confidence
is government issued voter i.d. with biometric information (like
fingerprints). If you show up with your finger, you don't need an i.d.
card. And I'd couple it with universal voter registration accomplished
by the government. These two items alone could reduce as much as 60%
of the litigation surrounding our elections and do much to restore
confidence in our elections.
One other argument that is made against voter i.d. is that it does
nothing to stop fraud by election officials. That's right. We need
protection from that as well, as well as the appearance of bias by
elected officials. For that reason, at the least all state chief
elections officers should abide by the IDEA Code of Conduct, and
refrain from participating in any political activities (like serving as
a chair of a presidential candidate's state committee). And ideally,
we should move to nonpartisan administration of elections, with checks
to make sure that no fraud happens at the level of election officials.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: Ari Weisbard <aweisbard@demos-usa.org>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:38 pm
Subject: RE: Evidence Of Voter Fraud
Demos did a fairly exhaustive search to document such cases in
2003. You can find it at:
http://www.demos-usa.org/pub111.cfm
There has been very little systematic evidence of any widespread
individual voter fraud (as opposed to election official, campaign
or machine fraud). I also have found little other systematic study
of the issue.
--
Ari Weisbard
Policy Analyst
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action
220 5th Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-419-8774
FAX: 212-633-2015
Email: aweisbard@demos-usa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Mulroy [mailto:smulroy@memphis.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:09 PM
Cc: election-law
Subject: Evidence Of Voter Fraud
I have been reading about the GOP proposals for photo ID
requirements
for all voters, and also calls for a national registration ID
(with
photos and fingerprints, according to some accounts). I was
wondering
who has data quantifying the actual amount of voter fraud (as
opposed to
fraud by voting officials) which has occurred in recent years. I
recall
asking this in the past and not getting anything specific; is
there new
evidence? SJM
</x-flowed>