PA GOP Describes Special Election Irregularities in Letter to PA SOS

The Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Robert Torres to investigate several "irregularities" during last Tuesday's special election in the 18th Congressional District.  Democrat Conor Lamb won the race by just 627 votes over Republican Richard Saccone, a small enough margin that even a relatively small number of confused or disenfranchised voters could change the outcome of the race.

An attorney and authorized campaign representative was prevented from observing vote counting in Allegheny County:

First, an authorized campaign attorney, Russell Giancola, presented several forms of permissible credentials but was prevented from observing the computation of the vote count in Allegheny County Tuesday night. . . . While attorney Giancola was finally able to obtain this compliance with the inappropriate preconditions, the delay deprived the campaign of the right to have counsel present during the computation reporting process.

Allegheny and Washington Counties failed to provide the notice to military and overseas voter required by the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act.  Voting machines were not calibrated properly:

Third, we received multiple complaints throughout the 18th Congressional District regarding calibration issues involving the voting machines.  Numerous voters have called the Party and the Saccone campaign to complain that they selected Rick Saccone on the voting screen, only for Conor Lamb to appear on the confirmation screen.  It is our understanding that some of these issues were not resolved during the Special Election.

Poll workers failed to follow provisional ballot procedures:

Fourth, the Party received numerous complaints about voters not appearing on the voter rolls, and being denied the ability to cast a provisional ballot at their polling place.  In at least one instance, a voter was denied a provisional ballot at his precinct and directed to vote at his prior precinct in the neighboring county where he used to reside before moving several months ago.  This violates voters rights under the Help America Vote Act and Commonwealth's implementing statutes and regulations. In addition, given the closeness of this election, denial of the right to vote for even a small number of eligible voters could cast the outcome of this election into doubt.

When the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court instituted a new congressional district map last month, it kept the previous lines for Special Election.  Both U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania declined to overturn that new map today (more about that on this blog tomorrow).  When voters tried to search for their polling place, they were incorrectly shown polling places under the new map:

Finally, as your office was made aware on election day, the Department of State's website www.votespa.com errantly directed voters to polling places matched to their address under the recently imposed Pennsylvania Supreme Court map . . . rather than the congressional district lines in use for the Special Election.  Since election day, we have heard from potential voters in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District who attempted to vote but were informed that they did not live in the district any longer. 

This illustrates some of the ills of court-ordered district maps - they create confusion for voters, generate administrative hassles (and opportunities for errors) for election officials, and disrupt constituencies mid-term.

We hope that the Pennsylvania Department of State takes these allegations seriously and investigates these irregularities so that the integrity of future elections is not called into question.

Democrats Ignoring Voter Protections for Fraudulent Votes

In what seems like a daily attack on the Vice Chair of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Kris Kobach, election integrity opponent Jason Kander made an alarming admission of liberal policies (emphasis ours):

Jason Kander, the former Democratic secretary of state in neighboring Missouri, says it's "not at all true" that poll workers in Kansas hand out provisional ballots to voters who would've been turned away in other states. He argues most election officials are aggressive about handing out regular ballots whenever possible.

Actually this is illegal, ignores the law and disenfranchises voters by taking away the safeguard of provisional ballots and allowing fraudulent votes to be counted.  Provisional ballots were the idea of former DNC Chair and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd who sponsored them as part of the Help America Vote Act.  As he proudly described this civil rights protection at a 2007 NAACP forum (emphasis ours):

Q: What would you do to ensure that all Americans are able to cast a free and unfettered vote and that that vote be counted?

A [Senator Dodd]: The right to vote and to have your vote counted is the right upon which all of the rights that we have depends. Nothing is more fundamental than this. I’m very proud to have stood with John Conyers when about four or five people stood with us several years ago to introduce the “Help America Vote Act.” It’s not a perfect piece of legislation, but we were able to pass the first voting improvement legislation in this country since the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. It’s very important that we do what we can here to expand that right and expand that opportunity. We need to go back and do more to make this right. I’m proud that we stood together to make sure that people have provisional ballots, that we have the right to have statewide voter registration and bring courts of civil rights actions against those who would deprive us of those rights.

Kansas has the right approach, which is to give out provisional ballots to those who would be turned away in other states, and all should be concerned by Kander's statement.  A good example of why is another time the story lets the cat of the bag on liberals' plans.  

The story cites the fact that Florida had fewer provisional ballots than Kansas to seemingly condemn Kansas.   Actually, this again exposes problems in Florida; some of which have surfaced in the last few months.  A prime example is in the Democrat Stronghold of Broward County where the Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes, an elected Democrat, admitted under oath:

Snipes acknowledged the processes her office have been using aren’t perfect and that some non-citizens and felons have voted despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters.

One of those processes is likely not using provisional ballots correctly.  Sounds like Kobach and Kansas' “more aggressive [approach] than other states at getting [provisional] ballots in the hands of would-be voters” is better than Kander's, which even a former DNC Chair would disagree with.  

Vote Fraud and Poor Election Administration in California: Recent Examples

California has long had problems with vote fraud and poor election administration.  Why does California have so many issues?  Single-party rule in the state is one possible answer.  Here are some of the remarkable recent examples of problems. 

California has widespread problems with voter registration, leading to issues for the June 7 primary:

Questions about the security and integrity of California voter information have surfaced after Riverside County’s district attorney described several online tampering incidents in which residents’ party registration was changed without their knowledge. . . . Many voters who said their party affiliations weren’t correct ended up using provisional ballots, which take longer to count because the voter’s eligibility has to be verified, or not voting at all.

Another indication of the inaccuracy of California's voter registration rolls is that hundreds of dead people have been voting in many recent elections:

A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County. “He took a lot of time choosing his candidates,” said Annette Givans of her father, John Cenkner.  Cenkner died in Palmdale in 2003. Despite this, records show that he somehow voted from the grave in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010.

There was double voting during the June 7 primary:

The June primary election exposed an unacceptable potential for voter fraud in California that the state Legislature must immediately fix.  In just three counties, Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara, 194 people voted twice, suggesting the abuse statewide might run into the thousands. 

There were widespread problems during the June 7 primary:

California voters faced a tough time at the polls Tuesday, with many voters saying they have encountered broken machines, polling sites that opened late and incomplete voter rolls, particularly in Los Angeles County. The result? Instead of a quick in-and-out vote, many California voters were handed the dreaded pink provisional ballot — which takes longer to fill out, longer for election officials to verify and which tends to leave voters wondering whether their votes will be counted.

Exacerbating the issues, California may have mishandled early and provisional ballots after the June 7 primary:

Internet sleuths of varying expertise have attempted to prove that the millions of ballots left uncounted on election night contained a Sanders victory over Hillary Clinton, but were prevented from being added to the count. The fact that 2.5 million early and provisional ballots were not yet counted when the networks called the primary has become another reason to doubt that the media can fairly cover the race. 

California has opened the door to more fraud through mandatory voter registration:  

California has found a way to drive up voter participation. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the New Motor Voter Act last October that automatically registers individuals to vote when they obtain a driver’s license and — taking nondiscrimination up a notch — driver’s licenses are available to illegal immigrants. Technically, noncitizens aren’t eligible to vote, but the law decrees that one who does “shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.”

Because of its 53 House races and numerous important state legislative races, California's election administration will be very important in November.

Provisional Ballot Mock Trial Entertains and Informs at RNLA Conference

The relatively early morning Saturday starting time did not deter one of the more informational and entertaining panels at the recently concluded RNLA Election Conference held last week in New York City. The Provisional Ballots Mock Trial simulation provided conference attendees an inside look at various scenarios and arguments that arise with sometimes-arcane provisional ballot protocols.

Voters cast provisional ballots when there is some question about eligibility. As the trial demonstrated, possibilities include questions about party registration, voting in the wrong precinct, voters moving to new precincts, or some other situation where they do not appear on the appropriate voting rolls. Provisional ballots themselves raise a series of questions when they are not filled out correctly, for instance, lack of appropriate signatures, missing affidavits, ballots not being sealed correctly, secrecy envelopes missing, and voters providing inappropriate ballots as instructed by poll workers.

As demonstrated through the mock trial all of these scenarios regularly happen in the provisional voting process and can make a difference in a close election.

The mock trial focused on Office of Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in fictional Broadway County, Pennsylvania. RNLA Board of Governor member Katie Goldman represented one candidate and RNLA Southeast Pennsylvania Chair Linda Kerns represented the other. Ron Hicks, RNLA Counsel, represented the County as Solicitor. The Election Board consisted of Christine Svenson, RNLA Illinois Chapter Chair, this writer, and Joseph Nixon, Co-Chair of RNLA’s Texas Chapter.

Ms. Goldman and Ms. Kerns took opposing sides as each deftly navigated the various pitfalls associated with provisional ballots. Mr. Hicks argued in each case the votes should remain uncounted following the official decision of the County’s Election Bureau Manager. In each instance counsel had to balance the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 52 U.S.C. §21082 enacted to encourage voting and the consequences of administrative error that sometimes occurs with elderly or inexperienced poll workers against fealty to state laws meant to ensure the integrity of the process.

When the often-spirited arguments concluded after each voting scenario the Election Board decided which votes would be counted. Reflecting real-life circumstances, the Board often struggled to reach consensus with most votes ending as 2-1 to accept or reject the particular ballot.

Adding to the drama the solicitor found unexpected “surprises” in envelopes once opened like missing inner “secrecy” envelopes forcing counsel to reargue votes they thought had already been decided.

The audience enjoyed the spectacle often interrupting the proceedings to ask questions and inquire about different scenarios. The participants too shared anecdotes throughout the proceeding to enrich the experience further.

Overall both participants and audience members rated the mock trial high on both the educational and entertainment aspects. It will hopefully provide a more knowledgeable base of Republican lawyers to fight for Republican ballots in future provisional voting contests.

By Paul Jossey

Why the Use of Provisional Ballots is Important

In the 2004 election, there were allegations that supporters of John Kerry for President in Ohio at a few ballot locations were handing out flyers to voters leaving predominantly Democrat polling places AFTER voting stating: “If you feel you vote did not count, please go to one of the following places and vote provisionally.” 

As President George W. Bush won Ohio, little follow up was done to corroborate these reports or allegations.  President Bush had no desire to talk about a Presidential election after a clearly victory.  Meanwhile some supporters of Senator Kerry were yelling to fight after election day over the large number of provisional ballots.  The Kerry campaign resisted this. 

However, that tactic may not have been forgotten. 

At least 26 voters from one Ohio county cast two ballots in the November election, but no extra votes were actually counted.

Hamilton County elections officials say they caught the double votes and are investigating why they happened. If voters intentionally cast more than one ballot, they will be referred to prosecutors for possible criminal prosecution.

Two brief comments on this. 

1. While we don’t know for sure what happened yet, election officials may be focusing on the wrong place.  Most of the above voters were elderly who cast absentee and provisional ballots, a follow up question may be: Why did they do this?  Were they encouraged to do so like in the 2004 allegations?  Were they taken advantage of by unscrupulous political operatives?  We have seen this with vote solicitors encouraging ineligible felons to vote in the past. 

2.  After Democrats in Congress supported the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which mandated states use provisional ballots, a few liberal advocacy groups have been staunchly opposed to this practice. They have called for everything short of completely eliminating the use of provisional ballots.  Prior to the existence of provisional ballots, most of these votes would have counted and there is nothing that could have been done about it. 

"The system worked the way it should," said Tim Burke, chairman of the Board of Elections and leader of the county's Democratic Party. "The appropriate number of votes were counted. Whether these particular voters acted properly, they did not impact the election because only one vote was counted."

If opponents of provisional ballots had their way, the system would not have worked. The truth is provisional voting in these instances offers a practical compromise between protecting the integrity of the ballot and preventing fraud while affording accessibility and that voters aren't turned away. 

Judge Exposes Democrat Lies on "Purges"

 

Every year Democrats complain about “purges” of lists.  Judge Claude Hilton of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia set not only the Democrat Party of Virginia straight but wrote an opinion that should set every Democrat Party straight when they make wild and spurious charges against state and local officials merely trying to do their jobs. 

First Judge Hilton lays about the bottom line:

There exists a valid state interest in preventing voter fraud, and “[i]t is well established that purge statues are a legitimate means by which the State can attempt to prevent voter fraud.”

As in almost all the cases against stopping voter fraud, the extreme remedy of allowing vote fraud to go forward to protect a small few who were mistakenly removed from the list is ridiculous.  As Judge Hilton puts it:

Plaintiff has not provided evidence of any qualified voters who have been deprived of their right to vote.  If a voter is removed from the voter rolls in error, there are several mechanisms in place to protect that voter’s rights, including provisional ballots and registration reinstatement.  Indeed, the few incidents wherein an individual was removed from the voting rolls erroneously have been corrected. 

Lastly Judge Hilton touches on what many Democrats and liberals are really fighting for in these cases and cases involving voter ID.  It is not the minuscule few who are wrongly excluded, the law has adequate remedies there, it is for those who want to fraudulent vote, especially those who do not reside in the state. 

Those individuals who are registered in another state and have thus been correctly removed from the Virginia voter rolls have suffered no harm.  An individual does not have the right to vote in state where he or she does not reside. . . The Commonwealth has a valid interest in ensuring that individuals who are registered to vote in Virginia are not also registered to vote in another state.