There is no voter fraud! And if there is, it's a TINY amount! Insignificant!

[Adam]

Tillis, Berger Issue Joint Statement On Newly Discovered, Alarming Evidence Of Voter Error And Fraud

Raleigh, N.C. – House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) issued a joint statement Wednesday in response to more alarming evidence of voter error and fraud discovered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

Initial findings from the Board presented to the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee today show:

• 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
• 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
• 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

These findings only take into account data from the 28 states who participated in the 2014 Interstate Crosscheck, leaving out potential voter error and fraud in the 22 states that do not participate in the consortium.

Additionally, during an audit of death records from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Board discovered:

• 50,000 new death records that had not previously been provided to the State Board of Elections.
• 13,416 deceased voters on the voter rolls in October 2013.
• 81 deceased voters that had voter activity after they died.

But there's no need to identify voters and know who's actually casting the ballot....

[scott]

It doesn't matter to those on the winning side.

[Norm dePlume]

35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.

Yeah, that should be stopped, but voter ID won't stop it. People who have residences in two states and vote in both most likely are voting under their own real name in both (why else would the names match?), so the ID would simply confirm their identity. Probably in most cases they're sending an absentee ballot to one of the states (rather than traveling to both on election day). You'd have to have reciprocal agreements between states to notify upon registration so the other state could remove the earlier registration.

[Adam]

Yeah, that should be stopped, but voter ID won't stop it. People who have residences in two states and vote in both most likely are voting under their own real name in both (why else would the names match?), so the ID would simply confirm their identity. Probably in most cases they're sending an absentee ballot to one of the states (rather than traveling to both on election day). You'd have to have reciprocal agreements between states to notify upon registration so the other state could remove the earlier registration.

Psssttt...

You can't get away with having DLs in two states. Just ask any trucker.

[Norm dePlume]

Psssttt...

You can't get away with having DLs in two states. Just ask any trucker.

Yeah, well, ID's are not always drivers licenses. We're talking about voter ID's right? I believe it would be unconstitutional to require a drivers licence in order to vote.

That brings up a good point, though. When I last moved from one state to another, and I went to get a drivers license in my new state, they asked to see my drivers license from my old state. They took down my info and they issued me a new drivers license without me having to take a test (even including the motorcycle endorsement). Apparently they have a reciprocal agreement with my old state that lets them check my driving record in that state and they recognize the testing in that state as good enough for them.

And I presume as part of that process they alerted my old state that they were issuing a new driver license and the old state should invalidate the old one. I don't see why states can't do the same thing with voter registration.

[scott]

Yeah, well, ID's are not always drivers licenses. We're talking about voter ID's right? I believe it would be unconstitutional to require a drivers licence in order to vote.

That brings up a good point, though. When I last moved from one state to another, and I went to get a drivers license in my new state, they asked to see my drivers license from my old state. They took down my info and they issued me a new drivers license without me having to take a test (even including the motorcycle endorsement). Apparently they have a reciprocal agreement with my old state that lets them check my driving record in that state and they recognize the testing in that state as good enough for them.

And I presume as part of that process they alerted my old state that they were issuing a new driver license and the old state should invalidate the old one. I don't see why states can't do the same thing with voter registration.

Because any time someone suggests that there should be anti-voter fraud measures the folks on the left go ballistic.

[Norm dePlume]

Because any time someone suggests that there should be anti-voter fraud measures the folks on the left go ballistic.

Yes, voter ID and registration purges are anti-voter. But I'm talking about anti-fraud measures.

[Adam]

Yes, voter ID and registration purges are anti-voter. But I'm talking about anti-fraud measures.

That's right: it's just entirely too mean to get dead people off of the voter rolls. Anyone who thinks dead people shouldn't vote is a lifist! If you think that dead Black people shouldn't vote, then you're a racist lifist!

[scott]

Yes, voter ID and registration purges are anti-voter. But I'm talking about anti-fraud measures.

See?

[Norm dePlume]

See?

The OP has identified an apparent problem. Please explain how voter ID would address the apparent problem the OP identified.

[scott]

The OP has identified an apparent problem. Please explain how voter ID would address the apparent problem the OP identified.

Requiring ID allows multiple votes to be traced to individual people. Right now it's almost impossible to prove a single person voted more than once.

[Norm dePlume]

Requiring ID allows multiple votes to be traced to individual people. Right now it's almost impossible to prove a single person voted more than once.

This makes no sense in context of the OP. The OP offers not proof but suggestive evidence that some people cast votes in more than one state under the same name. They didn't need voter ID to come up with this evidence, and it isn't clear how voter ID would improve the evidence presented. And since the problem described in the OP involves people voting in multiple states, it wouldn't raise flags any quicker if voter ID were involved. It would still require the states to compare voting records after the fact (which as we've seen, they are already doing without involving voter ID).

[scott]

This makes no sense in context of the OP. The OP offers not proof but suggestive evidence that some people cast votes in more than one state under the same name. They didn't need voter ID to come up with this evidence, and it isn't clear how voter ID would improve the evidence presented. And since the problem described in the OP involves people voting in multiple states, it wouldn't raise flags any quicker if voter ID were involved. It would still require the states to compare voting records after the fact (which as we've seen, they are already doing without involving voter ID).

There won't be a conviction if the defense says, "someone else voted using my name." That won't happen if ID is required.

[Gingersnap]

I am an Election Judge. I am a Lead Judge. I've been doing this for a while.

There is a lot of voter fraud and we (the official "we") can't do one thing about it. The voter laws in my state are laughable. You can bring any assembly of documents to verify your voter status. We can't say no and we don't.

What I do is relegate any sketchy documentation to a provisional ballot and let the Secretary of State sort it out. I don't have the feeling that they are all that scrupulous.

The fact is that today, in 2014, there are precious few old black women born in barns who have never held a driver's license, are unwilling or unable to get an ID card from the State, or who do not have any documentation of native citizenship. It's pretty much 00000000.1%.

What we do have are scads of Mexican nationals who bring a utility bill and some welfare document. That counts.

In Colorado, you can call any political, religious, or charitable organization and they will pick you up (even if you live in East Jesus) and take you to any DMV to get an ID. Atheists will do this. Satanists will do this. If you are over 60 or if you make under a certain income - that ID is free. It's $10 bucks and change otherwise or the cost of 2 packs of smokes or a 2 person fast food meal.

There is no reason why a voter today cannot have real photo ID. Even then, I doubt they grill people so you can still be a fraud if you try. This would merely cut down on lazy frauds.

[Norm dePlume]

There won't be a conviction if the defense says, "someone else voted using my name." That won't happen if ID is required.

Unless some serious record keeping of the ID check were involved, I don't see the simple fact that there are ID checks being very persuasive in court. People make mistakes. In fact many of the possible double votes from the OP are likely mistakes by poll workers marking off the wrong name.

I can see one scenario where ID check could have an effect. Say Mr. Allen moves from North Carolina to Kansas, selling his N.C. house to Mr. Barnes. Mr. Allen then registers to vote in Kansas, but North Carolina never took him off the rolls. Shortly before election day, Mr. Barnes receives a voter information packet in the mail addressed to Mr. Allen. "Hmm," thinks Mr. Barnes. "I bet that Mr. Allen that used to live here is still registered to vote here. I could go and vote in his name." Meanwhile, Mr. Allen, not knowing what Mr. Barnes is up to, goes ahead and votes in Kansas. This would show up in the Interstate Cross Check as Mr. Allen having voted in both Kansas and North Carolina. But if Mr. Barnes had to show an ID, he'd be less likely to try and vote in Mr. Allen's name.