Features > April 18, 2007

The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud

The Bush administration purged U.S. attorneys for failing to prosecute crimes that didn’t occur

By Joel Bleifuss

On March 6, six of the eight attorneys testified before the House Judiciary Committee. From left to right, Carol Lam, David Iglesias, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Bud Cummins and John McKay.

On April 6, 2006, in Washington, D.C., Karl Rove gave a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association and issued this dire warning:

We are, in some parts of the country, I’m afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses. I mean, it’s a real problem, and I appreciate all that you’re doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the ballot—the integrity of the ballot—is protected, because it’s important to our democracy.

When Rove talks about protecting “ballot integrity,” that is shorthand for disenfranchising Democratic Party voters. Over the last several years, the Justice Department, with the help of White House operatives, has sought to boost GOP electoral fortunes by orchestrating a national campaign against voter fraud. But the administration overreached on Dec. 7, when President George W. Bush fired eight U.S. attorneys, a political scandal that some say could become this president’s Watergate.

When Republicans talk about voter fraud they are referring to illegal voting by individuals, as opposed to vote fraud—systematic attempts to steal an election by an organized group of partisans. This emphasis on voter fraud has convinced eight states to pass laws requiring voters to present official photo identification in order to cast a ballot—laws that studies have shown suppress Democratic turnout among voters who are poor, black, Latino, Asian-American or disabled.

Understanding that one way to win closely contested elections is to keep Democratic voters away from the polls, the Republican Party has tried to stoke public fears of voter fraud. On Feb. 15, 2005, the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a report, “Putting an End to Voter Fraud,” which said, “Voter fraud continues to plague our nation’s federal elections, diluting and canceling out the lawful votes of the vast majority of Americans.” To remedy the situation, the Senate Republicans advised Congress to “require that voters at the polls show photo identification.”

But voting experts maintain that voter fraud is not a national problem. In March, Lorraine C. Minnite, a professor of political science at Columbia University, released “The Politics of Voter Fraud,” a report she prepared for Project Vote, an advocacy group based in Arkansas. She writes:

The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud. It is being used to persuade the public that deceitful and criminal voters are manipulating the electoral system. … The exaggerated fear of voter fraud has a long history of scuttling efforts to make voting easier and more inclusive, especially for marginalized groups in American society. With renewed partisan vigor, fantasies of fraud are being spun again to undo some of the progress America has made lowering barriers to vote.

This is borne out by a study from the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, which found that in the 2004 election, voters in states that required documentation of identity were 2.7 percent less likely to vote than voters in states where documentation was not required. Specifically, the study, commissioned by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, found that Latinos were 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian-Americans 8.5 percent less likely to vote and blacks 5.7 percent less likely to vote.

What’s more, despite GOP claims to the contrary, voter fraud is a very rare occurrence. In 2002 the Justice Department established the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to ferret out fraudulent voters. On Oct. 4, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with great fanfare, proclaimed, “We’ve made enforcement of election fraud and corrupting offenses a top priority.” Yet according to an April 12 New York Times article, only 120 people have been charged with the crime over the past five years, leading to 86 convictions. Furthermore, the Times noted, federal attorneys say that most of the transgressions have been mistakes by immigrants and felons who simply misunderstood eligibility requirements.

The extent of voter fraud is further complicated by the fact that earlier this year the Election Assistance Commission changed the conclusions of a report it had commissioned. The original report by outside election experts concluded, “There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud.” The commission deleted that sentence and replaced it with, “There is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”

Rep. José Serrano (D.-N.Y.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the commission, is disturbed by this apparently politically motivated substitution. He told In These Times:

This possibly could be another Watergate. We have to ask the questions, “Why was this report doctored, and how does this play into the larger picture of voter suppression and intimidation?” By directing public attention to voter fraud you divert attention from the fact that Americans in certain communities are not able to cast their votes properly and that their votes are not being counted. Is this something that this small new agency thought of by themselves or did they get marching orders from somewhere else, perhaps as far up as the White House?

Firing prosecutors

It appears that, under Rove’s direction the White House has been planning to use U.S. attorneys to fan national fears of voter fraud. In his speech to the GOP lawyers, Rove listed 11 states that would play a pivotal role in the 2008 elections. Since 2005, Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of those states: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Arkansas and New Mexico.

What’s more, the firings of U.S. attorneys in New Mexico, Arkansas and Washington appear directly related to this Republican plan to exploit the issue of voter fraud and suppress Democratic turnout.

In Arkansas, Bush fired a sitting U.S. attorney in order to appoint Rove protégé Tim Griffin. (See “The Talented Mr. Griffin” by Greg Palast on page 31.)

In Washington, fired U.S. Attorney John McKay had refused to prosecute alleged voter fraud in the 2004 Washington governor’s race, in which Democrat Chris Gregoire beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes.

On March 6, McKay testified before the Senate that after the election Republicans pressured him to open an investigation. He said his office had examined the allegations of voter fraud and decided there was not enough evidence to pursue a case.

“Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor’s election, I would have resigned,” McKay told the Seattle Times. “There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”

In New Mexico, David C. Iglesias was equally suspect in the eyes of the GOP. Recall that in 2000, Gore beat Bush by 377 votes in New Mexico. Consequently, in 2004, Democrat-affiliated groups initiated voter registration campaigns in New Mexico. As a result, two boys, age 13 and 15, received voter cards in the mail. Iglesias responded by setting up a bipartisan task force to investigate. This didn’t satisfy attorney Mickey D. Barnett, who represented the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign in New Mexico. He told Iglesias he should bring federal charges against a canvasser who forged their signatures, which he refused to do.

In a New York Times op-ed, Iglesias wrote:

What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible—namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political grounds.

Manufacturing voter fraud

The issue of fraudulent voters undermining American democracy did not spontaneously erupt. To promote national concern about voter fraud, in March 2005 GOP operatives with ties to the White House established a 501(c)4 organization called the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund (ACVR). The group went public by establishing a Web site, ac4vr.com. (The site has since been taken down for unknown reasons.)

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I didn’t know Pat Rogers was on the short list to replace Iglesias, but I’m not at all surprised. He was the plaintiffs’ attorney in the 2004 Larranaga voter fraud case, which I discuss here:

  http://christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3181

  ("Hypothetical Fraud: Behind the Firing of David Iglesias,” Christian Century, April 17, 2007)

  The arguments used in Larranaga have frightening implications.

  Meg E. Cox

  Posted by Meg E. Cox on Apr 18, 2007 at 10:05 AM

  Hey, Hot Flash ! Gore Lost ! Kerry Lost ! The Sore Loserman ticket went down to defeat in 2000 because Joey L’s peepul in South Florida too stupid to work the butterfly ballot. Get over it !

  Posted by blondemike on Apr 18, 2007 at 10:09 AM

  Here in Washington State, we had a very close governor’s race in 2006. The Democratic candidate won after a second re-count (the one Gore never got in 2000)
  The election was certified by the Republican Secretary of State, who found no evidence of voter fraud. Then the state Republican Party filed suit in a hand-picked venue: a rural county, with a Republican leaning judge. The judge dismissed their complaint WITH PREJUDICE (which means “you don’t have a case, quit wasting the court’s time)
  Still the local rant-wingers can’t leave it alone. Talk radio is full of “voter fraud” allegations. (In the trial, the only folks that could be produced who voted illegally voted for the Republican candidate)
  Then the Bush administration fired the US Attorney for our district for not pursuing the fraud complaint that was dismissed outright in the State courts.
  I just thank God for the honest Republican office-holders (the Secretary of State and the Judge) who put America above politics. Would that the “loyal Bushies” were the same.

  Posted by ohb0b on Apr 18, 2007 at 8:44 PM

  “This emphasis on voter fraud has convinced eight states to pass laws requiring voters to present official photo identification in order to cast a ballot—laws that studies have shown suppress Democratic turnout among voters who are poor, black, Latino, Asian-American or disabled.”

  It sounds like a non-sequiter to say that requiring presentation of ID prior to voting inhibits poor, black, Latino, Asian, or disabled voters from casting a ballot. It suggests that those people are somehow singled out by the requirement, or are somehow less able to follow through on it than other people not listed. Why would that be? They’re not any less able to get ahold of the ID card, nor are they any less able to remember to bring it with them to the polling station.

  Would poor, black, Latino, Asian, or disabled Republicans be somehow advantaged by such a law? How? If people want to vote Dem, they will, and if they need to show their ID beforehand, they will.

  I’d like to see more about the “studies” underlying that point.

  On the other hand, malfeasance with regard to collecting and tabulating votes that actually were cast is much more central to the issue of honest elections. Even if it isn’t actual malfeasance, sloppy or foolish tabulation practices are enough to warrant measures being taken to prevent such things. I’m against computerized voting machines being the sole method of tabulation for this very reason, because it’s not possible to absolutely prevent hacking, freaking of software, system failure that results in lost data, etc. Which party benefits or loses in a given election is beside the point.

  If Mr Rove or anyone else really wants to “clean up” American elections (hell, from his statement you’d think he’s been wringing his hands over the issue for years, rather than just since Nov 2006), how about ensuring that every single vote that is cast gets properly counted regardless of who it’s for, including complete hard-copy backups (not just stupid paper receipts to voters, that could never all be recovered and recounted!) with multi-party oversight of the tabulation process?

  As for the fired US Attorneys, the move looks like what was intended to be a superb piece of misdirection… that backfired.

  Posted by Kuya on Apr 19, 2007 at 1:00 AM

  I’m with you, Kuya, on the need for paper ballots (not just “paper trails").

  If you’d like to read up on voter ID, I suggest starting with the Brennan Center study, summarized in this report to the Department of Homeland Security:

  http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_48288.pdf

  Certain groups are less likely than others to have state-issued photo ID with a current address. Think about it. If you don’t drive, you’re less likely to have one. People with less money and people with disabilities are less likely to drive. If you move often, it’s less likely that your ID has a current address. Students and people with less money are most likely to move frequently. As a group, African-Americans have less money than other Americans; they are also less likely to drive and more likely to move frequently. See how it adds up?

  Not everyone has the necessary documentation to get state-issued photo ID. On Indian reservations it is more common than elsewhere for babies to be delivered at home. Sometimes no birth certficate is issued. Some states require a birth certificate as proof of identity for native-born Americans seeking a state ID.

  Guess who’s affected most by laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voting? Married women. 32 million women do not have a document proving their citizenship that carries their legal name.

  This would be a problem regardless of whether affected groups were more likely to vote Democrat or Republican. But so happens that most of the affected groups tend to vote Democratic and that the voter ID laws are being pushed mostly by Republicans.

  Posted by Meg E. Cox on Apr 19, 2007 at 1:24 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 21 posts.

Member Login

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Keep the Heat on Obama
  
• EPA on Trial
  
• Bush’s Selective Mourning
  
• Piling it High
  The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day
• Political Vice Squad
  
• Red-Boating Obama