Skip to comments.Comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion
Posted on 08/06/2014 7:35:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Voter ID laws are back in the news once again, with two new opinions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court late last week dealing with the state's ID requirement, which would allow people to vote only if they provide certain forms of government-issued ID. The Court made some minor changes to the law but otherwise upheld it. However, the ID requirement is still on hold pending a federal lawsuit.
Part of this litigation and any rational debate about the issue generally hinges on two things: costs and benefits. The costs of these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state (some are far more burdensome than others). The ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court blew it. Twice.
Ive been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, Ive been following reports wherever they crop up.
To be clear, Im not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, Ive found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
All based on the premise that we know all incidents.
Current law doesn’t allow for knowing how deep the problem runs.
If you don’t have voter ID and don’t have blabbermouthed multi-voters, it is almost impossible to detect. The only real way to find this is to look for dead people still voting, which is a tremendous task.
With the commie ‘RATS always telling us that our vote is “sacred” and that ONE VOTE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE, ONE fraudulent vote is too much.
He should have checked all billion of the votes if he wants to use that entire population in his results.
Otherwise he should give the number of votes he actually checked.
If Philadelphia has 120% turnout, the number of incidents is at least 1/6 of the total vote and almost certainly greater.
Nice of the dear professor from Illinois to state the Wisconsin Supreme Court blew it twice. Maybe he should run for a judgeship.
I also like that he takes for a given that this is a cost/benefit analysis.
No. It is, what does the law require, and does the law require anything against the constitution? Cost/Benefit is a political decision, outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
He is a liar, a paid and professional “voter id” political hack.
I see. So if you define voter fraud as only the most uncommon type of voter fraud, and then you investigate, you won’t find very much of it. Funny how that works.
Now, maybe the Post can get around to investigating how many Democrats register and vote in two different states by abusing absentee ballots?
That’s great, I’m going to steal that pic and start throwing it in libs’ faces when they cry “Voter ID is racist”!
“So far, Ive found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country.”
Without uniform voter ID laws in place there is no way of catching the fraud. How many tickets for driving without a license would be issued if it was illegal for cops to check?
When you make it illegal to collect evidence you haven’t proved the absence of crime.
But, the biggest voter fraud that ID is supposed to check is the illegal vote by non-citizens, and specifically, illegal aliens who have no documentation at all.
This is what happens when you have your assistants, who are probably useful idiots do research for you.
You know how you can tell when someone is wrong? They try to self validate that they are right.
Looks like Justin Levitt is the new poster child for the legions of foolish “see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil” Democrats who enthusiastically approve of and support illegal acts that further the interests of the Democrats.
I understand the pathological phenomenon somewhat, because criminals make up such an important voting bloc within the Democratic Party base, and so of course they will cater to the needs and desires of those criminals.