25th Sep 2012 at 12:51 | By Collin Roth
Voter Fraud Cases Don’t Fit The Media Narrative
By Collin Roth
According to Jason Stein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, ”Convictions of voter fraud in Wisconsin in recent years have not kept pace with Republican claims of its prevalence in the state.” So despite real cases of voter fraud, a crime with a very high burden of proof, Mr. Stein and his paper have concluded that it is just not a real problem.
Using the statements of Wisconsin Government Accountability spokesman Reid Magney, Stein attempts to paint a picture that the incidents of voter fraud that have occurred in Wisconsin are all just cases of individuals who made a mistake by voting when they were not eligible (i.e. felons voting).
Stein quotes Magney saying:
Put another way, the convictions are of voters who improperly voted on their own, not for any kind of ballot-stuffing or an organized ring committing large-scale fraud, Magney said. Local, state and federal authorities and prosecutors have examined the issue without unearthing widespread fraud here.
Of course, the problems and instances of voter fraud taking place in Wisconsin are well documented for those willing to look at the evidence. Just recently, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) issued an amicus brief for the photo ID case heading to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Beyond the damning evidence of the Milwaukee Police report detailing fraud in the 2004 election and ACORN fraud in 2008, WILL’s brief documents three voter fraud cases just in the last two years that have not received widespread media attention. One such case is one unearthed by Media Trackers whereby out-of-state SEIU operatives voted illegally from a hotel in Glendale using out-of-state ID’s and hotel bills. The case remains under investigation by the Milwaukee County District Attorney.
As the WILL brief states, “The fact that successful prosecutions are rare has mostly to do with the difficulties of detection and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean that voter fraud does not exist or that it is not a serious problem.”
But that of course does not fit narrative from the Left and the media. First, that voter fraud doesn’t exist. And when fraud does occur and is prosecuted, it is simply not “widespread,” and therefore not a problem.
For all of the sanctimonious talk of disenfranchisement, there is no clearer case of disenfranchisement than to have one’s voice cancelled out by a stolen or ineligible vote.
Related Articles | You may also like
Discussion | 8 Comments
Leave a Comment
Your reply will be added to the comment above (Below any other replies to this comment) -
Robert Earle said
Sep 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM
“One such case is one unearthed by Media Trackers whereby out-of-state SEIU operatives voted illegally from a hotel in Glendale using out-of-state ID’s and hotel bills. The case remains under investigation by the Milwaukee County District Attorney.”
If you have already determined that those people “voted illegally”, maybe you should call the Milw DA and tell them they don’t need to investigate any more.
(BTW: at the time their registration took place, no ID – whether in-state or out-of-state – was necessary to register. And of course, with the Voter ID law on hold, that is still the case. What is necessary is either a WI DL/ID number if one has been assigned, or the last four digits of a SSN. Even if the WI DL/ID exists, it need not be ‘shown’, only the number need be put onto the form.
Beyond that, at least one of them – Clarence somebody – showed a military ID, which would be neither “in-state” nor “out-of-state”, AND which *would* be valid under the Voter ID law.)
JJ said
Sep 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Are you arguing that the SEIU operatives voted legally?
Robert Earle said
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Based on what I saw on the two registration forms I saw posted here way back then (I don’t remember if the third was posted), I am saying that I have no reason to think that they didn’t register and vote legally.
But I’m fine with the Milw DA investigating.
The two forms had notations on them, written by the poll worker who registered them, which indicated that the receipts they had from the motel showed that they had been there for the required ten days (now 28 days required).
And as I said, the one also noted that the person had shown a Military ID, which would also satisfy the Voter ID law, if it had been in place at the time.
If you’d like, I can try to dig up their registration forms, if Media Trackers still has them available. But as a poll worker and an SRD, they looked OK to me.
JJ said
Sep 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM
How was a search warrant obtained?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/01/05/UPDATE–Search-Warrant-for-SEIU-Operative-Who-Voted-from-Wisconsin-Hotel
Robert Earle said
Sep 25, 2012 at 9:47 PM
A search warrant is just that – part of an investigation. It means there might be something there, and that something warrants a closer look.
That is a LOOONNGGG way from Media Trackers declaring that they “voted illegally”.
But I’ll note one other thing that I hadn’t realized until I had another look at Haynes’ registration form and the search warrant.
The search warrant says “that Mr. H lived at the Residence Inn intermittently from January 2011 to April 2011.” The “I certify…” section of the registration form at the time said “resided at…for ten days immediately preceding the election.” The new registration form (the 6/2011 revision is the one I have in front of me right now) says “resided at …for 28 consecutive days immediately preceding….” with the word “consecutive” underlined.
Clearly, the authors of the Walker Voter ID law (part of which is in effect, that being the part that changed the requirement from 10 to 28 days) made an explicit change to clarify “consecutive days”.
As I said, looking at Haynes’ form and assuming that “residence in paperwork” means the poll worker saw paperwork from the hotel that showed Haynes to have been there ten days, I see nothing wrong with his registration form. Maybe there’s some problem with Haynes’ time at the hotel being non-consecutive. Maybe the DA simply wants to see the hotel reservations/bills for himself, and the hotel said they had to get a warrant (as a ‘company policy’, etc.)
Once more, I am saying that I have no reason to think that they didn’t register and vote legally.
Robert Earle said
Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Not sure why that ‘Breitbart’ posted such a small part of that particular warrant, but you can see the full thing here; some info which differentiates Haynes’ case from the other two (who apparently are not under investigation, despite what Media Trackers says).
http://mediatrackers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Haynes-Search-Warrent.pdf
JJ said
Sep 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM
So you’re saying that you “had no reason to think that they didn’t register and vote legally,” while the search warrant indicates that “there might be something there, and that something warrants a closer look.”
Is that correct?
Robert Earle said
Sep 26, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Have I not been clear?
I’m saying that based on what I see on his registration form, and assuming that the poll worker saw evidence of ‘residence’ in the ‘paperwork’ from the hotel, I do not see anything wrong.
The search warrant, as you can read within it, is based on statements from the other two with regard to Haynes plans – or lack of – with regard to staying in WI. The DA decided he had/has reason to investigate further. But that ‘reason’ is not based on the registration form.
But you are now ignoring the main point: Media Trackers said that they had “voted illegally”. That search warrant makes it clear that the DA does NOT think the other two did anything wrong at all, and that – so far at least – there is merely a suspicion of wrongdoing on Haynes’ part.
What Media Trackers said is flat wrong, period.