Voter Fraud Information Thread

[April]

COLO. ELECTION CLERKS AT WAR WITH THE PUBLIC

COLORADO CLERKS ASSOCIATION

The Colorado Clerks Association (supported by taxpayer dollars) has come out publicly AGAINST the most basic principles of democratic self-governance, claiming that they, and they alone have the right to examine ballots. They have now attempted to rebuff even the Secretary of State from a ballot examination.

Unlike other states (California, for example), the Colorado Clerks argue that their clerks association is private. They hold secret meetings and correspond secretly, claiming that the public does not have the right to attend or review what they do.

* * * * quote * * * *
"The Colorado County Clerks Association is a secret private group that circumvents Colorado's Sunshine Laws, uses paid lobbyists, refuses public observers at their meetings, may be diverting public resources to their own needs, and develops government policy behind closed doors with no opportunity for public debate,"
* * * * *
writes Al Kolwicz of the Colorado Voters Group. More:
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/conten ... y-clerks-a ssociation-please-take-note

THE PUBLIC HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE BALLOTS

For self-governance to work, the public must be able to see and authenticate four things:
- Who can vote (the voter list)
- Who did vote
- Chain of custody
- The count

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has now come out with a strong statement against concealing ballots from the public:

* * * * quote * * * *
"Is election integrity better served through open, public scrutiny that holds election officials accountable? Or are we better served when local officials deny the public access to election materials?

"As Secretary of State, last month I held a Saguache town hall meeting to discuss the 2010 election for country commissioner and clerk and recorder. My office had planned to publicly review the ballots...unfortunately, the Saguache clerk and recorder denied my access to the ballots, thus triggering a lawsuit under the Colorado election code...

"The public will be invited to watch every step. Unfortunately, my plans have provoked fierce opposition from election administrators. I'm both surprised and disappointed.

"First, the surprise. Clerk Myers publicly promised to make ballots available for public review -- if my office approved. But once I took her at her word, she quickly backtracked, denying public review and also obstructing my statutory authority to review the election.
* * * * *

This isn't just about the rights of a Secretary of State to review. This is about PUBLIC rights, as the Secretary of State notes:

* * * * quote * * * *
"Both Myers and others [ie, the head of the Colorado Clerks Association] claim that my review will cause public harm, create confusion, and erode voter privacy. This is silly. Ballots are anonymous, and we can easily deal with the rare ballot that has someone's name on it. Don't just take my word for it. Last year, El Paso County invited members of the public to review voted ballots -- just like others throughout the country. And it worked. There was no loss of secrecy, no confusion, and no harm.

"Bluntly stated, there is no 'high priesthood of ballot guardianship.' Just like the secretary of state, clerks are elected officials who must operate under rules of public accountability and public scrutiny."
* * * * *

PUBLIC BALLOT INSPECTIONS WILL NOT REVEAL HOW YOU VOTED

Scott Doyle, clerk and recorder in Larimer County and president of the Colorado County Clerks Association, implies that public ballot inspections will violate voter privacy:

* * * * quote * * * *
"Ballots are votes, and Colorado has decades of precedent to ensure votes are counted correctly and voters' privacy is secure," he writes, in opposition to allowing public inspection of the ballots.
* * * * *
More:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17694150

As an election official, Doyle knows that the Colorado Constitution requires ballots to be anonymous. Public examinations of anonymous ballots does nothing whatever to violate voter privacy.

UNIQUE BAR CODES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS DO COMPROMISE PRIVACY TO INSIDERS (BUT DO NOT AFFECT PRIVACY WITH PUBLIC INSPECTIONS)

Perhaps Colorado clerks and one of their favored vendors, Hart Intercivic, know that if the public examines the Hart ballots we'll see that Hart's mail-ballot system is violating voter privacy.

Citizens who have received Hart ballots in the mail have shown that Hart is placing unique bar codes on each voter's ballot. This compromises voter privacy for mail-in ballots, enabling insiders to build databases that show the ballot choices for each mail-in voter. Perhaps THAT is why the Colorado Clerks are so skittish about letting the public see the ballots.

Public ballot inspections can't reveal to the public how people voted, even if there are unique bar codes on the ballots. Insiders will be able to see, but not the public. It is just as unconstitutional for insiders to violate voter privacy, however.

What public ballot inspections will do in Colorado is this: They will expose to Coloradoans that insiders can harvest your political privacy.

NOT ALL BALLOT BAR CODES ARE BAD

Unique bar codes probably won't violate privacy for ballots cast at polling places. They absolutely compromise privacy with mail-in ballots, which Colorado uses heavily.

Not all ballot bar codes are unique, and only a unique identifier can be tied back to the voter. Some bar codes just indicate precinct, and those do not violate your privacy at all.

Hart ballots do use unique identifiers. We know this because two people living in the same household, in counties that use Hart Intercivic, get absentee ballots with different and unique bar codes.

"THE DARK AGES OF ACCOUNTABILITY"

Regarding the clerks' unease about letting the public see ballots, Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll writes:

* * * * quote * * * *
"Here's my guess: Gessler intends to let the public witness the recount, and most clerks recoil at the idea of letting the public anywhere near ballots, even after formal requests under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).

"If ballots aren't open records, however, then this state is in the Dark Ages of accountability.

"The fundamental issue is whether CORA allows the people of Colorado to inspect the election records necessary to verify the elections by which their government is chosen," maintains attorney Robert McGuire in a legal brief involving a request by a mayoral candidate in Aspen to see digital copies of municipal ballots from 2009.
* * * * *
More: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17702 ... z1Hi4IVghW

The lawsuit Carroll references is the Marilyn Marks suit, a landmark open records action sponsored by the Black Box Voting Aspen Project. We have now expanded THE ASPEN PROJECT to become THE COLORADO PROJECT, to enable support for legal action to be used to fight Saguache County's attempts at secrecy.

Marks writes:
* * * * quote * * * *
"The mounting legal costs [for Saguache County taxpayers] represent a shameful misapplication of public funds in Saguache County, which is among the poorest counties in the state.

"Unfortunately, Myers has the backing of the three member Board of County Commissioners who continue to claim that the election was fully transparent. They control the purse strings and have stated that the legal costs can be covered by 'surplus funds' of the county. Local officials fighting state authority and citizen oversight of elections hardly seems to be justifiable public policy."
* * * * *

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP FIGHT SECRECY BY COLORADO CLERKS

If you support the Secretary of State's decision on behalf of public right to know in Saguache County, please write to him to express your appreciation at: saguache@sos.state.co.us


http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/message ... 1302961674

[April]

Kansas task force on election fraud law convenes

TOPEKA | Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach says he hopes to have regulations drafted by the fall to guide elections officials in administering the state's new voter ID law.

Kobach convened a task force Tuesday of 17 county elections officials to review the law, which will require voters to show photo identification at the polls starting Jan. 1.

Also under that law, starting in 2013, people registering to vote for the first time will have to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.

Kobach championed both policies, but he notes the law doesn't cover all contingencies.

For example, the rules will tell election workers what to do when photos on people's IDs look nothing like them.

Kobach says he wants to tap the experience and instincts of county election officers.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/28/29 ... z1QcRfPjwN

[April]

[April]

Texas law makes it a misdemeanor to assist more than one voter, much less the informal but well-organized schemes that have become traditional. Trouble is: misdemeanors are rarely prosecuted and the fines are insignificant compared to the $30,000 that a hard-working politiquera can earn working for multiple candidates. But, legal niceties aside, can such manipulation actually change electoral outcomes?

Eric Opiela thinks so. In 2004, he ran as a Republican candidate for the Texas legislature in a district that included Jim Wells County. Winning by 60% in other counties, he drew only 35% in Jim Wells. Worse yet, an election-day victory of 5,000 votes was reversed the day after — a mysterious defeat by 800 votes. An aggressive attorney, Opiela not only demanded a recount but also discovered oddities consistent with “vote warehousingâ€

[April]

Anti-illegals activist targets voter fraud

The Washington Times
December 16, 2010
By Valerie Richardson

Outside of Kansas, Kris Kobach is best known as an expert on immigration issues.

He's the author of Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law, a longtime counsel to the Immigration Law Reform Institute and a staunch hero within the border-security movement.

Inside Kansas, he wears another hat entirely.

He's the newly elected Secretary of State, having ousted Democratic incumbent Chris Biggs by a margin of 59 percent to 37 percent.

Why would someone who's devoted his career to fighting illegal immigration want to become chief vote-counter for the state of Kansas?

Suffice it to say that Mr. Kobach devoted his campaign to one issue, and that issue was voter fraud - and it too has a large immigration angle.

The specter of illegal immigrants casting votes in U.S. elections has long frustrated Republicans, and Mr. Kobach is now poised to do something about it.

Even before he's sworn in, he's already hard at work drafting voter-fraud legislation that he says will be most the comprehensive in the nation.

"This will be head and shoulders above anything any state has ever done to secure the voting process," he said.

"My hope is to create a model with regard to stopping voter fraud that can be used by other states, like we did in Arizona" with immigration.

His election comes at a professional cost.

He likely will lose his tenured seat at the University of Missouri at Kansas City law school in order to take the Secretary of State's job, given that "a leave of absence usually doesn't last four years," he said.

Even so, Mr. Kobach, 44, said it wouldn't have been enough to draft the Kansas voter-fraud bill as an outside consultant, as was the case when he wrote Senate Bill 1070, the Arizona immigration bill.

"For election laws in Kansas and most states, if the secretary isn't pushing for major reform to happen, then it isn't going to happen. It takes more than a few legislators," Mr. Kobach said.

"You really have to have a Secretary of State pushing for it, especially with legislation this groundbreaking."

Kansas lawmakers attempted to enact a voter-fraud bill in 2008, but it was vetoed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat.

In November, however, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican, was elected governor on a platform that included combating voter fraud.

Mr. Kobach's plan is three-fold:

He wants to require photo identification at the time of voting, to make proof of citizenship a requirement at the time of voter registration, and to streamline the enforcement process to make it more efficient, such as by allowing states and not just counties to prosecute voter-fraud cases.

Other states have implemented some of those provisions, but "no state has done all three," said Mr. Kobach.

He plans to have his bill ready to be pre-filed by Jan. 1, before the Legislature convenes Jan. 10.

Both houses of the Legislature are controlled by Republicans, and Mr. Kobach said he's "very optimistic the legislation will pass."

Still, the proposal's success would have to come over the opposition of the Kansas Voter Coalition, a newly formed group of liberal organizations aimed at capsizing Mr. Kobach's movement.

The coalition's members say the photo-identification requirement will result in disenfranchising voters, particularly the elderly, the disabled, minorities and the poor.

Eleven percent of registered voters nationwide have no photo identification, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

In Kansas, that figure is probably higher because many older, rural voters were born at home and don't always have birth certificates, which are necessary for many forms of photo I.D., said Ernestine Krehbiel, president of the League of Women Voters of Kansas.

"The unintended consequences of this are going to cause hardship and decreased voter turnout," Ms. Krehbiel said.

Thomas Witt, president of the Kansas Equality Coalition, said he is also worried that transgendered people could be turned away at the polls because their identification might not reflect their gender.

"Birth certificates do not reflect their gender," Mr. Witt said.

"I've already heard from transgendered people having a hard time voting because they haven't changed all their documents. Right there, you're having people being disenfranchised."

During the campaign, Mr. Kobach's foes asked whether a voter-fraud law was necessary, given that the state has had only six convictions since 2002 and some of those cases involved people voting in Kansas and then another state, a situation Mr. Kobach's proposal wouldn't cover.

Cracked Ms. Krehbiel, "As one of our coalition members said, you have a better chance of being bitten by a great white shark than finding a voter-fraud case in Kansas."

Mr. Kobach countered that Kansas voters must be concerned about the issue given that they elected him overwhelmingly.

"I won by a landslide, and I clearly made stopping voter fraud my No. 1 issue," Mr. Kobach said.

"I feel like I have a mandate, and I hope legislators will also see that."

On the other hand, Ms. Krehbiel said, his election could be attributed to other factors.

"He's very young, attractive and personable. He speaks very well," said Ms. Krehbiel. "While he claims this mandate is a result of his platform, I don't think that's why he won."

Mr. Kobach appears to have the law on his side.

Indiana's voter-fraud law, which requires voters to show unexpired, government-issued photo I.D.s at the polls, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008 and again by the Indiana Supreme Court in June 2010.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 93&start=2

[April]

Pearce recall petitions indicate massive voter registration fraud

BY LINDA BENTLEY | jUNE 15, 2011


‘None of these purposes is served when individuals who are not citizens register to vote’


Searching by address revealed three active voter registrations, one of which is on the permanent early voting list, for a woman with the first name Benita and a birth date in March 1968, under three different last names at the same single family residence.

So, it appears Benita, when she registered under the last name Lantigua, didn’t fill out the registration form completely.

Yet, her registration was entered and shown as active with Benita Lantigua on the Permanent Early Voter list.

Benita Dorador filed for divorce against Carlos Enriquez Arellano Lopez in 2000.

However, she registered to vote under the name Valenzuela in 1996.

Because she filed for divorce against Manuel Humberto Valenzuela in 2005, it would indicate she married Valenzuela after she divorced Arellano Lopez and couldn’t be Benita Valenzuela in 1996, unless she was married to both men at the same time.

There were plenty of other examples of people signing the petition with Latin names who could barely print, let alone sign, claiming a birthplace of Mexico, Guatemala or “Not Provided.â€

[April]

They will be at it again for 2012 under their new names!


ACORN REBRANDING TABLE

ACORN Housing Corp. changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers ofAmerica Inc.

State-level chapters that have incorporated as new nonprofi t corporations:Arkansas: Arkansas Community Organizations

California: Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island: New England United for JusticeDistrict of Columbia, Maryland: Communities United, Communities UnitedTraining and Education Fund

Louisiana: A Community Voice

Minnesota: Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change

Missouri:Missourians Organizing for Reform & Empowerment (MORE)

New York: New York Communities for Change


Pennsylvania Neighborhoods for Social Justice (PNSJ) andPennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change (PCOC)

Texas: Texas Organizing Project and Texas Organizing Project EducationFund

Washington: Organization United for Reform (OUR) Washington

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1304376160.pd

[April]

http://youtu.be/9SKr_lT7Bvg

[April]

Patricia Poprik, vice chairman of the Bucks County Republican Party in Pennsylvania, speaks about an ongoing absentee ballot controversy fueled by Democrats via the fictitious "Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Office."




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTpkiXCX ... re=related

[April]

Obama Gives New Grant to ACORN; Did He Violate Federal Law?
By Matthew Vadum on 6.30.11 @ 1:34PM

Why is President Obama apparently defying federal law by funding ACORN?
Judicial Watch discovered that the Obama administration is flouting the will of Congress by giving federal taxpayer money to ACORN.
Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave a $79,819 grant to the largest branch of the ACORN tree, ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC). AHC filed papers last year legally changing its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). It's the same old organization with a brand new ACORN-free name.
Worse yet, the grant funds a political agitation and indoctrination program. Here's HUD's euphemistic description of the program:
Education and Outreach Initiative grants (EOI) - HUD awarded $6.8 million to organizations that educate the public and housing providers about their rights and obligations under federal, state, and local fair housing laws. Groups will also conduct fair lending workshops, community meetings, and individual counseling activities focused on homeowners at risk for discrimination.
According to HUD, the grant money came out of fiscal 2010 appropriations.
That's a big problem.
As I reported previously, in 2009 Congress passed four separate appropriations bills that contained language blocking federal funds from flowing to ACORN during federal fiscal year 2010, which ran from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010. All four of the laws prevent ACORN and its affiliated groups from receiving federal taxpayer dollars.
The funding prohibition in Public Law 111-117 (PDF) applies specifically to HUD. It spells out in pretty clear terms that ACORN shouldn't be getting any government funding. Let's see just how clearly it spells it out:
Division A - Section 418. None of the funds made available under this Act or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. [p. 80 of PDF]
Division B - Section 534. None of the funds made available under this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries. [p. 125 of PDF]
Division E - Section 511. None of the funds made available in this division or any other division in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries. [p. 279 of PDF]

Yet despite the ban, President Obama, who worked for ACORN as an employee and as the group's lawyer, found it in his heart to hand over $79,819 of your money to his thug friends at ACORN.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/30/ob ... -to-acorn#