Should ‘anything’ goes continue to be the standard we often allow, the nation may wake to another crisis far bigger than the 2000 Florida folly. Perhaps then we will demand to know just who subverted the safeguards in our election laws. But wouldn’t it be better if—with the lessons of Florida and even more recent election snafus and scandals so obvious—we did something now?
American political journalist and columnist
But few in the media or in urban government seem concerned about the designed sloppiness of our election system. Our current ‘honor’ system in voter registration and voting, and the lax enforcement of voting laws (in which prosecutors shy away from bringing election fraud cases unless the evidence is almost literally handed to them on videotape), is analogous to having counterfeit bills circulating and the Treasury Department not wanting to be bothered until the printing press is located.
Works in ChatGPT, Claude, or Any AI
Add semantic quote search to your AI assistant via MCP. One command setup.
State officials such as secretaries of state should be granted investigative subpoena powers to look into both vote fraud and disenfranchisement issues. Historically, election officials have relied too heavily on candidates to identify election problems. Most election boards do not have the authority to conduct vigorous investigations of fraud, and must rely on local district attorney’s offices, which usually are heavily engaged in criminal cases, and not interested in prosecuting election fraud for fear of being labeled partisan or racially motivated.
It does not take a visionary to see that, in the absence of clear rules, we can expect campaign lawyers to attempt to turn the most implausible legal theory into a court ruling in their favor. Vague rules on provisional voting could create a nightmare in which the results of a presidential race aren’t known for days. Recall the 35 days it took Colorado officials to decide just one congressional race.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires the Federal Voting Assistance Program (a Department of Defense program) to administer UOCAVA, and requires the Justice Department to enforce it. One of the most significant problems with UOCAVA is that it does not specify when states are required to mail absentee ballots to overseas military voters. Every federal agency and nonprofit group examining the issue, including the Election Assistance Commission, had concluded that, to provide enough time for absentee ballots to be returned from overseas, they would need to be sent out at least 45 days before a state’s deadline for receiving absentee ballots. Yet nearly one-third of states refuse to follow the 45-day standard, and at least 10 states gave military voters less than 35 days to receive, cast, and return their ballots.
Unfortunately, the 2008 election was not an anomaly. In 2006, only 22 percent of nearly 2.6 million military voters cast ballots, compared to 41 percent of the general voting-age population. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that only 16.5 percent of an estimated six million eligible military and overseas civilian voters requested an absentee ballot, and only 5.5 percent of these ballots were returned and counted. Data from 24 states on the 2010 election shows that only 4.6 percent of eligible military voters cast an absentee ballot that was actually counted.
O’Keefe’s video from the NJEA event records [Wayne] Dibofsky recounting that he was at the offices of the Jersey City Education Association (NJEA), coordinating get-out-the-vote efforts for the 1997 mayor’s race, when a man arrived and announced that he had two voting machines to deliver. Dibofsky told him the JCEA office was not a voting precinct. The unidentified man winked at him and said ‘I don’t care; I was told to deliver these machines.’ When Dibofsky asked more questions, he was told, ‘It does not matter.’ The two voting machines, Dibofsky recounted, ‘were already locked, loaded, and voted,’ which he said meant they had ‘vote tallies that were already added,’ ready to be printed out as the end of the day. ‘Nobody came through; we weren’t a voting location. They came back later on, they took the machines, I called the [city] clerk’s office,’ Dibofsky recounted. ‘They said, just leave well enough alone. And I knew that meant, Keep quiet. That was a tough district for a Democrat to win in, and they carried the district with those voting machines. And nobody came in and voted. That’s Hudson County.’
In neighboring Vermont, O’Keefe struck again in March, during the state’s presidential primary. His assistants were freely offered ballots at several locations without being asked to produce identification. In his videos, O’Keefe then documented the same people ordering drinks in bars or trying to rent a hotel room. In each case, they were asked for an ID.
In New Hampshire, three of [ James O’Keefe’s ] assistants visited precincts during the state’s January 2012 presidential primary. They asked poll workers whether their books bore the names of several voters, all deceased individuals still listed on voter registration rolls. Poll workers handed out 10 ballots, never once asking for a photo ID. The ballots were immediately given back, unmarked, to precinct workers. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch James , who had vetoed a state photo ID bill, sputtered when asked about O’Keefe’s videos, focusing on the messenger, rather than his message—that polls are dangerously vulnerable to fraud. ‘They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if in fact they’re found guilty of some criminal act,’ he roared.
Attorney General Holder is a staunch opponent of laws requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls to improve ballot security. He calls them ‘unnecessary,’ and has blocked their implementation in Texas and South Carolina under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, citing the fear that such requirements would discriminate against minorities.
It was the day of Washington, D.C.’s presidential primary, April 3, 2012. A 22-year-old white man with a beard entered a polling place in the District, carrying a hidden camera. He walked up to the check-in desk and asked a poll workers if an Eric Holder was registered there. He gave U.S. Attorney General Holder’s address, which he had gleaned from public records. The worker began to hand him a ballot, at which point the young man said that he wanted to show his identification. ‘You don’t need it,’ the poll worker replied. ‘It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.’
The NPV plan strikes at the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic—one where popular sovereignty is balanced by structural protection for state governments and minority interests. It like would violate the Constitution’s Compact Clause. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies that already are in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, like the Electoral College—should be preserved.
A veteran Justice Department prosecutor told one of the authors that while there was never an official memorandum delineating the Clinton administration’s policy on [voter fraud], the unofficial word had come down from the Clinton political leadership to the career prosecutors that there was ‘no interest’ in pursuing voter fraud cases.
The 93 offices of the U.S. Attorneys located throughout the country share responsibility for prosecutions with the Election Crimes Unit. But given their many other responsibilities, vote fraud is not high on their priorities, particularly because they are well aware of the enormous criticism prosecutors receive from the civil rights community when they pursue election cases, as happened during the Bush administration. There is a Designated Election Officer in each office, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, who is supposed to deal with election crimes. But the vast majority have never investigated or prosecuted a voter-fraud case, and have no experience or interest in doing so.