CBS4 Investigation Finds People Voting Twice

[redleghunter]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/10/25/cbs4-investigation-finds-people-voting-twice/


Excerpt:

DENVER (CBS4)– An ongoing CBS4 voter fraud investigation has uncovered a dozen cases where Coloradans are suspected of voting twice. Previous CBS4 Investigations revealed ballots cast in the names of Coloradans who had been dead for months– sometimes years- before votes were cast in their names.

In six of the new cases, voting records show the same people voting twice in Colorado elections. In another six cases, people are suspected of voting in Colorado and another state during the same election cycle.

Looks like they nailed at least one registered Republican and one registered Democrat.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Look, I do not which party you claim voting twice is UNACCEPTABLE.

 

[Drekkan85]

And once again, as has been said many times, the issue was not in-person fraud but absentee ballots cast by individuals of all party stripes voting not multiple times in the same race, but voting in multiple races (likely because of multiple properties/residences).

But even in this case it's a shockingly small number. This isn't 12 cases for this election, these are historic investigations of the 2012 and 2014 elections and at least one person mentioned had voted twice in 2015 for local elections.

So if you take up all of these cases, you have in all of Colorado, 12 cases spread across 3 election. That's 12 out of 4,584,181 votes. That's a rate of... such a small number my calculator goes into scientific mode.

But let's say we're super bad at finding this. And that we only catch 1 out of a 1000 cases of voter fraud. Using these numbers that's 12,000 out of 4,584,181. Which is... 0.26 % of votes cast.

Again, that assumes that we're super duper bad at catching these individuals.

TLDR: Misleading headline is misleading.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

One fraudulent vote is enough as far as I'm concerned.

I had my vote stolen. It's not a joke. And it sucks when it happens. So when people abuse the system like this, whether it's one person or 100 people, it's frustrating.

 

[Drekkan85]

One fraudulent vote is enough as far as I'm concerned.

I had my vote stolen. It's not a joke. And it sucks when it happens. So when people abuse the system like this, whether it's one person or 100 people, it's frustrating.

BUt that's a far too simplistic analysis. It would be great if I had a magic wand and could wave it to make everything go away. But I don't. Instead we have to deal with two problems: (1) resource allocation; and (2) side effects.

With regard to the first, a State naturally only has so many resources to allocate to elections. Preventing fraud also has diminishing marginal returns - you start with easier measures and then move tighter and tighter. At some point it stops being worht it to dedicate more resources. Especially because most States for GOTV and other voting expenses to be bundled with fraud prevention. So you have to strike a balance between spending money helping people vote legitimately that otherwise may not vote, or ferreting out electoral fraud. There has to be a balance.

With regard to two, you also have to factor in that tightening fraud rules naturally drives down turnout and ends up disenfranchising people that otherwise should be able to vote. You say one fraudulent ballot is too many. What if the rules required to prevent that one fraudulent ballot end up disenfranshing two people by mistake or over-broad application. Now you have a -1 vote balance. Was that worth it?

No - it's not. Saying "one is too many" is naive at best.

 

[redleghunter]

With regard to two, you also have to factor in that tightening fraud rules naturally drives down turnout and ends up disenfranchising people that otherwise should be able to vote.

Why would this happen?

 

[Drekkan85]

Why would this happen?

Take one oft cited claim - dead people voting. There are calls for aggressive purging of the voting rolls of "dead" persons. The problem is similar purges tend to catch innocent people in their wake. The best example of this are aggressive purges of the voting rolls for felons that have "snuck" onto the list (another type of fraud). Whenever these occur there are stories about individuals that have names similar to, or identical to, felons that end up being purged along with the felon/dead person.

Another example - voter ID. If implemented properly, voter ID does not have to be a big deal. The problem is, when you look at how it is implemented, the goal is as much to depress turnout of certain voting blocs. These are usually poorer and minority voters who don't have the required forms of ID. In addition, getting ID typically costs money and what free ID exists tends to be incredibly difficult to get (ID issuing offices are open 1 day a week, 1 week a month from 9-5PM with strict hours kept by staff).

If you made ID free and easy to get (available at any government office of any sort, open 6 days a week from 8-6PM) then you could do it. But then you start running into the former problem (resources). But without those measures you naturally end up disenfranchising some. It's always a balance.

 

[redleghunter]

Take one oft cited claim - dead people voting. There are calls for aggressive purging of the voting rolls of "dead" persons. The problem is similar purges tend to catch innocent people in their wake. The best example of this are aggressive purges of the voting rolls for felons that have "snuck" onto the list (another type of fraud). Whenever these occur there are stories about individuals that have names similar to, or identical to, felons that end up being purged along with the felon/dead person.

Another example - voter ID. If implemented properly, voter ID does not have to be a big deal. The problem is, when you look at how it is implemented, the goal is as much to depress turnout of certain voting blocs. These are usually poorer and minority voters who don't have the required forms of ID. In addition, getting ID typically costs money and what free ID exists tends to be incredibly difficult to get (ID issuing offices are open 1 day a week, 1 week a month from 9-5PM with strict hours kept by staff).

If you made ID free and easy to get (available at any government office of any sort, open 6 days a week from 8-6PM) then you could do it. But then you start running into the former problem (resources). But without those measures you naturally end up disenfranchising some. It's always a balance.

Purging the voting rolls of the deceased is quite easy. There are two verifiable ways. One way is match the voter database with the state death certificate database. How do you think the Social Security Admin finds out people die? They get a call from a living relative who is asked to send them a death certificate or have the funeral home or morgue report the death and issue a copy of the death certificate. Not difficult. Unfortunately we all deal with such circumstances.

IDs.

This is the standard for Texas:

• Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)

• Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS

• Texas personal identification card issued by DPS

• Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS

• United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph

• United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph

• United States passport

And for those who cannot meet the above standard:

Currently, Texas voters who do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID have additional options when casting their ballots. As provided by court order, if a voter does not possess and is not reasonably able to obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID, the voter may vote by (1) signing a declaration at the polls explaining why the voter is reasonably unable to obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID, and (2) providing one of various forms of supporting documentation.

Supporting documentation can be a certified birth certificate (must be an original), a valid voter registration certificate, a copy or original of one of the following: current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck, or other government document that shows the voter’s name and an address, although government documents which include a photo must be original and cannot be copies. If a voter meets these requirements and is otherwise eligible to vote, the voter will be able to cast a regular ballot in the election.

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2016/092116.shtml

I voted yesterday and the polling officials came out on line to ask if anyone needed assistance with the alternate method.

 

[Ironhold]

Also voted yesterday in Texas.

All I had to do was show them my state driver's license, and they scanned it to get my information. Once that was done, I just had to sign an iPad and I was good to go.

 

[USincognito]

I voted in Texas today and the process was slowed because I had a new poll worker who was still getting his sea legs.

It took a whole two minutes.

 

[Thursday]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/10/25/cbs4-investigation-finds-people-voting-twice/


Excerpt:

DENVER (CBS4)– An ongoing CBS4 voter fraud investigation has uncovered a dozen cases where Coloradans are suspected of voting twice. Previous CBS4 Investigations revealed ballots cast in the names of Coloradans who had been dead for months– sometimes years- before votes were cast in their names.

In six of the new cases, voting records show the same people voting twice in Colorado elections. In another six cases, people are suspected of voting in Colorado and another state during the same election cycle.

Looks like they nailed at least one registered Republican and one registered Democrat.

That's why we need photo ID to vote.

Only those who want to be able to cheat oppose photo ID for voting.

Have you ever seen anyone protesting photo ID for air travel?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why would this happen?

Because the GOP looks to specifically exclude the types of IDs that minorities are most likely to have and to only allow ones which are more difficult for minorities to get. In my state they even did research to find out exactly which types of IDs fit into each category. The goal there is pretty obvious.

 

[KCfromNC]

I've also got to say I'm impressed by how few suspected cases they could even find.
Has there ever been a state-wide election where 6 votes make a difference? If not, what's all the fuss about (he asks knowingly).

 

[redleghunter]

Because the GOP looks to specifically exclude the types of IDs that minorities are most likely to have and to only allow ones which are more difficult for minorities to get. In my state they even did research to find out exactly which types of IDs fit into each category. The goal there is pretty obvious.

Speculation.

I can refute your subjective observation with one of my own:

I voted on Tuesday. When I parked my car, three vans from the local AME church pulled up, got out and went in line to vote with me.

All of the AME members were African American and they all voted. No issues. Texas requires one of 7 picture ID sources. If one lacks one there are alternative methods (gas/electric/water bill) to verify identity and vote.

 

[Drekkan85]

Speculation.

I can refute your subjective observation with one of my own:

I voted on Tuesday. When I parked my car, three vans from the local AME church pulled up, got out and went in line to vote with me.

All of the AME members were African American and they all voted. No issues. Texas requires one of 7 picture ID sources. If one lacks one there are alternative methods (gas/electric/water bill) to verify identity and vote.

The helpful thing is we don't have to look at anecdote. We can look at the legislatures themselves. North Carolina was found to have specifically gone through the list of ID and then eliminated those most prevalent among African American communities as valid forms of ID.

It is why the voting law was thrown out - it was found to be founded upon racial bias using the words of the legislators themselves. What's truly terrifying is that the court seemed to imply that if the legislators had simply said they were trying to eliminate ID carried by democrats typically, and not explicitly referred to African Americans, that may have actually been ok (though that's conjecture).

As for your earlier comment on voting purges - take a look at Florida just before 2000. Yes you can try and design purge systems that minimize errors, but as that shows, there will likely be innocent voters purged from the rolls along with those that are ineligible.

 

[Arcangl86]

That's why we need photo ID to vote.

Only those who want to be able to cheat oppose photo ID for voting.

Have you ever seen anyone protesting photo ID for air travel?

And how exactly would photo ID have helped here?

 

[USincognito]

That's why we need photo ID to vote.

Photo ID does nothing to address mail in ballots (which were half of the examples) or two state voting (which were the other half).

Only those who want to be able to cheat oppose photo ID for voting.

Malarky. Many of us who don't support it (I place myself in that camp rather than "oppose" realize it's the wrong solution to a problem that isn't as pervasive as the tin foil hat right would have us believe. Photo ID doesn't stop mail ballot fraud and it doesn't stop two state voting fraud.

Have you ever seen anyone protesting photo ID for air travel?

Air travel isn't a constitutionally protected right.

 

[KCfromNC]

Speculation.

I'd love to see another explanation of why the GOP legislators in my state specifically researched which types of IDs are hardest to get for minorities before enacting a law requiring those types of IDs to vote. Maybe it was just a coincidence.

Please, I'm all ears. This should be entertaining.

 

[KCfromNC]

And how exactly would photo ID have helped here?

It would have kept brown people from voting. Duh.

Oh, wait, we're supposed to pretend this is about voter fraud. Uh, Benzagi! E-mails!

 

[redleghunter]

I'd love to see another explanation of why the GOP legislators in my state specifically researched which types of IDs are hardest to get for minorities before enacting a law requiring those types of IDs to vote. Maybe it was just a coincidence.

Please, I'm all ears. This should be entertaining.

Which are?