Thread: Tom Fitton Warns of Massive Voter Fraud Danger in Current Presidential Election

Soon-To-Be-Released Book by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton Warns of Massive Voter Fraud Danger in Current Presidential Election

AUGUST 08, 2016

‘This is especially important because of the lack of interest of the Obama Justice Department in investigating and prosecuting voter fraud’ – from attached pre-release chapter of Clean House

(Washington, DC) – A soon-to-be-released book by New York Times bestselling author Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton warns that America may now be facing the greatest voter fraud danger in recent history. And it lays the blame for the crisis directly at the feet of President Barack Obama and his Justice Department.

The book – Clean House (to be released August 30 from Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions) – cites examples nationwide of attempts by the Obama Justice Department to thwart efforts to clean up voter rolls, require voter ID at the polls, and prevent voter intimidation. In a chapter titled “Voter Fraud – Stealing Elections – The Danger of Voter Fraud and the Fight for Election Integrity,” Fitton describes major legal battles to protect voter integrity in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland, and Indiana.

The book’s explosive “Voter Fraud” chapter reveals that:

• In Indiana, the Obama/Holder Justice Department opposed federally mandated efforts to clean up the voter lists – despite publically available information showing that “the number of people listed on voter registration roles in 12 Indiana counties exceeded 100 percent of the total number of residents of voting age in those counties.” – page 129

• In Florida, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in 2012 to stop the state’s efforts to comply with the National Voting Rights Act by removing “53,000 registered voters who were dead-as well as an additional 2,700 noncitizens.” – page 134

• And in Pennsylvania, when the New Black Panther Party stood in a doorway of a polling place clad in black paramilitary uniforms, brandishing a nightstick, arguing with passersby, and shouting racial insults at poll watchers, “the case was abruptly curtailed and all but shut down by the newly appointed officials of the Obama administration.” – page 120

According to Clean House, America’s voter fraud crisis is both widespread and widely recognized. The book cites a recent Pew Research Center study revealing that “approximately 2.75 million people have active voter registrations in more than one state” and “20 million – one of every eight – active registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.” And it cites a Rasmussen poll from August 2013 reporting that “only 39 percent of Americans believe elections are fair.”

“We have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts by liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower academics to dismiss it as a nonexistent problem,” writes Fitton in the “Voter Fraud” chapter. “But is it real, widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections. It also drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust in our government.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...tial-election/

Wow Lorrie! Great article!! This confirms the legitimacy of Trump's concerns about a rigged election. The Corrupt Media is trying to hit back on Trump, I heard one guy, Brian Stellars from CNN calling for an all out Media Blitz against Trump for even suggesting it because he claims it's "dangerous to democracy".

How twisted are these people??!! Pointing out voter fraud and bringing attention to the fact that Trump's opponents may try to rig the election is NOT a danger to democracy, it's the right to do to protect our democratic republic!! We want free and fair elections, not ones altered by voter fraud, schemes, scams and other tactics.

Look what they're doing in the polls?! That should tell American Voters everything. Anyone who really believes Trump is down 10%, needs to wake up and smell the crap being thrown at them by a totally Corrupt Media.

January 7, 2016

Democrats Are Preparing Massive Voter Fraud Efforts Nationwide

The Clinton campaign and Democrats have been bringing dozens of lawsuits against the effort by any state to clamp down on voter fraud. Specific targets of the left have been Voter ID laws and efforts by the states to clean up voter registration rolls that are overly bloated with ineligible voters, dead voters and voters who have left the jurisdiction.

Funding for much of the Democrat effort to prepare for massive voter fraud is being provided by liberal billionaire George Soros through various political foundations. As Democrats are increasingly losing the legal battles to prevent voter ID laws, the have been relegated to the roll of obstructionist and they are becoming increasingly outrageous with unwinnable lawsuits.

The filing of lawsuits against states all across the country provide a clear indication that the Clinton campaign and Democrats are preparing massive voter fraud efforts. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by the Obama Justice Department, the Democrat Party, the Clinton campaign and various other groups funded by liberal billionaire George Soros that seek to eviscerate election integrity protections. The lawsuits are just part of a coordinated effort by by the left to radically change the US electoral system to advance their liberal agenda.

Paving The Way For Voter Fraud

In much the same way an invading army bombards the defensive positions of their enemy for considerable time to soften and degrade the enemy before risking their troops in direct combat, Democrats have been softening the electorate and conservatives with media bombardment and lawsuits. For many years, Democrats and their mainstream media partners have softened the opposition to their measures, using a media blitz with multiple objectives.

Their primary and continuing objective has been to convince the electorate that there is no voter fraud, an objective with which they have had moderate success. To understand the magnitude of this effort, perform a Google exact-match search for the phrase 'voter fraud is a myth.' Google has 3,940 articles in their index that use that exact phrase. What are the odds? That is a great deal of content with the exact same phrase and message.

Their secondary goal has been to convince voters that voting rules of any kind constitute Republican voter suppression. Democrats and the mainstream media go to great lengths to sell this one, in part because it is a tougher sale, but in part because they enjoy making the claim. It's as if the very act of saying it makes them feel justified in committing voter fraud. Again looking at search trends, in the last eight years, 'Republican voter suppression' produces 11,500 exact-match Google search results and 'GOP voter suppression' produces 15,100 exact-match search results.

Their most aggressive efforts are dedicated to opposing maintenance of voter registration rolls and opposing voter ID laws. These initiatives pose a very real threat to successful voter fraud. Democrats combine media bombardment with a mind boggling assortment of frivolous lawsuits to oppose voter ID laws.

Cleaning Up Voter Registration Rolls To Prevent Voter Fraud

It seems that the most basic, most sensible efforts by State officials meets with the most venomous opposition from Democrats. I think anyone reading this article would agree that voter registration rolls for any given precinct, county or state should be comprised of living citizens who are registered to vote. They are most commonly called registered voters. It never ceases to amaze me that Democrats attack any effort to maintain or clean up voter registration rolls with such vitriol. But, they have no choice, because clean voter registration rolls leave precious little room for voter fraud.

Any time a state tries to clean up voter registration rolls, Democrats scream bloody murder, and claim Republicans are trying to purge voters. It seems Democrats get very, very upset anytime dead people are removed from voter registration rolls. They get positively apoplectic and, at times, come very close to defending the right of dead people to vote. Apparently, in Chicago, dead people have a very long history of electoral activity.

But the fact remains that swollen voter registration rolls are a very real, very expensive problem. The problem has attracted the attention of a public interest law firm that is now threatening to bring lawsuits against 141 counties in 21 states that have more registered voters than they do living residents. First of all, this is impossible on its face (the subset cannot be larger than the set). In fact, registered voters are 66.8 percent of the living population nationwide in the US, because not all adults register to vote and children never register to vote. You can see why counties with greater than 100 percent registration drew attention.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a law firm dedicated to election integrity based in Indiana, recently sent statutory notice letters to election officials in 141 counties putting them on notice of their discoveries. The group says if action is not taken to correct the questionable voter rolls, they will bring lawsuits against every single county on the list.

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud,” said J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of PILF. “Close elections tainted by voter fraud turned control of the United States Senate in 2009. Too much is at stake in 2016 to allow that to happen again.”

The statutory notice letters argue the counties are violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and urge them to correct the issue, claiming their voter rolls contain a substantially high amount of ineligible voters. The group used federally produced data to come to their conclusions.

“Voter rolls across America have been discovered that contain substantial numbers of ineligible voters, resulting in the possible disenfranchisement of legally eligible voters via ballot dilution that threatens to subvert the nation’s electoral process,” the letter sent to the violating counties reads.

“Based on our comparison of publicly available information published by the US Census Bureau and the federal Election Assistance Commission, your county is failing to comply with Section 8 of the NVRA,” it continues. “Federal law requires election officials to conduct a reasonable effort to maintain voter registration lists free of dead voters, ineligible voters and voters who have moved away.”

“In short, your county has significantly more voters on the registration rolls than it has eligible live voters and is thus not reasonably maintaining the rolls.”

More outrageous still, some counties have voter registration rates that exceed 150 percent of living residents. It came as no surprise that the counties with the greatest percentage of illegal registered voters are in Illinois. Franklin County contains the highest voter registration rate at 190 percent followed by Pulaski County with a 176 percent voter registration rate.

Mr. Adams, who is a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the civil rights division at the DOJ, said former Attorney General Eric Holder and current Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to enforce the law because they don’t have a problem with corrupted voter rolls.

“Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have deliberately refused to enforce this law because they have no problem with corrupted voter rolls,” Christian Adams told the Washington Free Beacon. “They don’t like the law, so they don’t enforce it. It’s a pattern that has come to characterize this Justice Department.”

Democrats Attack Virginia Voter ID Law

In order to give massive voter fraud efforts the greatest chance for success, the Democrat Party and the Clinton campaign, in conjunction with the Justice Department and numerous private groups funded by billionaire liberal George Soros, file lawsuits that oppose every single voter ID law in the country. Th
at's alot of lawsuits and they are frequently absurd.

In a recent filing in a lawsuit that opposes Virginia's voter ID law, the Democrats claim that Virginia’s voter ID law harms them because if the ID “is lost or stolen, or if they forget to bring it, they face greater hurdles to voting and, in many cases, may find themselves completely disenfranchised.” They go on to say that “many voters” “are discouraged in general by the imposition of the voter ID law and, therefore, it is the requirement that they present ID — whether they have the required ID or not — that causes them not to vote.”

In other words, Democrats contend that it is a violation of the Voting Rights Act to require a voter to remember to bring their ID to the polls and to take the ID out of their pocket when they get there.

Clinton Campaign Attacks Alabama’s Voter ID Law

Alabama has 44 driver's license offices statewide and had, until now, 31 part-time satellite offices. State budget constraints forced Alabama to close the part-time satellite offices, causing Hillary Clinton to spring into action against this obviously racist act by Alabama Republicans.

"I strongly oppose Alabama’s decision to close driver’s license offices across the state, especially in counties that have a significant majority of African Americans. Just a few years ago, Alabama passed a law requiring citizens to have a photo ID to vote. Now they’re shutting down places where people get those photo IDs. This is only going to make it harder for people to vote. It’s a blast from the Jim Crow past.

"We’re better than this. We should be encouraging more Americans to vote, not making voting harder. As President, I’ll push for automatic voter registration for every American when they turn 18, and a new national standard of at least 20 days of early in-person voting in every state. And I’ll work with Congress to restore key protections of the Voting Rights Act.

"African Americans fought for the right to vote in the face of unthinkable hatred. They stood up and were beaten down, marched and were turned back. Some were even killed. But in the end, the forces of justice overcame. Alabama should do the right thing. It should reverse this decision. And it should start protecting the franchise for every single voter, no matter the color of their skin."

Don't worry, it's not Jim Crow all over again. What the dishonest Democrat candidate didn't tell you in her little holier than thou tirade is that you can get a free voter ID card in every county in Alabama. But wait, there's more. The offices that issue free voter ID cards are in the same county buildings as the closed driver’s license offices. Imagine the African Americans who will be surprised to learn that Hillary thinks they are incapable of getting a Voter ID card on the left side of the hall, instead of the right side of the hall, in the same building in Alabama.

Perhaps the Democrats should work on policies that benefit their constituents and all Americans so they can quit lying and committing voter fraud to get elected.

http://intelligentuspolitics.com/dem...fraud-efforts/

We're going to have to work twice as hard and get out the biggest largest vote in the history of Presidential politics to overcome the fraud and the rigging. This election can not be "close". We've got to win it by a landslide.

I was in a car dealership the other day having some work done on my vehicle. The waiting room television was tuned into the Olympics, and since I was the only one there at that time I asked if I could change it to the news. A few minutes later a black American who works for the dealership came over and sat down. Some female news commentator or journalist, can't tell the difference these days on CNN, made an erroneous statement and I said softly, "that's not true, Maam." And I looked over and he was smiling and agreed with me. Then we started talking about Trump, jobs, outsourcing, trade deals and so forth. And he and his wife both support Trump.

Did I happen to bump into the 1% at the car dealership? No, I bumped into part of the 20 to 30 percent, perhaps more, of the black American community that supports Trump for all the right reasons, jobs, economy, border security, national security, peace, etc., etc., etc.

Why Trump May Be Absolutely Right That Election Could Be Rigged



August 7, 2016

A documentary film premiered earlier this year at the Tribeca Film Festival that takes a look into election integrity issues, including voter irregularities and risks associated with electronic voting machines. Amid reports of high profile hacks at organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party, and Donald Trump’s assertions that the election might be rigged, election integrity issues are sure to remain a key topic this election season.

The opening scene of the trailer for Jason Grant Smith’s documentary film I Voted? really encapsulates how little the average voter thinks about how the vote is actually recorded.

“If [a voter] really stopped to examine, or of someone presses them on this, ‘Well, how do you know that your vote was recorded the way you intended?’ They have to say, ‘Well gee, I don’t know,’” former Congressman Rush Holt explains in the opening scene.

They then cut to a parking lot where a young woman is asked, “When you cast your ballot, how do you know that they are getting it right?”

“That they are getting it right? Oh, well isn’t that their job to get it right?” the somewhat confused young woman responds.



A separate segment a bit later in the trailer with an activist named Frank Heindel really drives the point home.

“There is no way to prove that what you touch the button for is actually your vote,” Heindel says. “It runs through a secret proprietary software program that we have no idea what it is doing to our vote totals at the end of the day.”

In an interview with LawNewz.com, filmmaker Jason Smith explained that the goal of the film was to alert the public to the potential problems with the current voting systems used throughout the country. One major focus of the film is the inability of election officials in some areas to actually prove the outcome of the election is accurate.

For example, Smith points to Donald Trump’s recent remarks about a “rigged system,” saying they are especially significant in the event the election is decided amid some sort of electronic voting irregularity. The confusion and doubt surrounding such a scenario would be potentially worse than the 2000 election in Florida.

The reason?

Several key swing states use electronic voting systems with no backup paper trail. That type of system makes it virtually impossible for election officials to provide proof of how the election results were achieved.

The best way to prevent this type of scenario, Smith says, would be for states to incorporate voting systems with a paper trial.

“We need to have paper based voting with meaningful post election audits that are software independent,” Smith said.

A “software independent” audit refers to a type of system that uses a separate vote counting program to tabulate a recount. This way, if there is flaw in the original vote counting software, the back up audit system software is more likely to catch the irregularity.

As LawNewz.com explained earlier this week, threats from cyberattacks or hacking into the voting system are not exactly far-fetched conspiracy theories. It is true that there are no confirmed incidents of a voting machine actually getting hacked in a manner that manipulated an election outcome. However, there are multiple examples of incidents that lead experts to question the safety and reliability of voting systems across the country.

In fact, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday recommended the federal government consider designating the election system as “critical infrastructure.”

“I do think we should carefully consider whether our election process is critical infrastructure, like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Sec. Johnson said, according to USA Today.

Such a designation would reportedly allow DHS to take steps, working with state and local election authorities, to provide additional protections against cyberattacks and protect the integrity of the voting process.

Additional information about the film can be found at the website ivotedmovie.com. Audiences will be able to see the full movie in late September or early October, although a specific release date has not been set.

http://www.washingtonstarnews.com/wh...uld-be-rigged/

The machines can be tampered with as we know. Not requiring ID can result in elections being won by a small number of cheaters.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tes-in-chicago

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: 100,000 Stolen Votes in Chicago

By Hans A. von Spakovsky
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hans A. von SpakovskyManager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Where Chairman Mao believed that all power comes from the barrel of the gun, the late Mayor Richard J. Daley believed that all power comes from the barrel into which precinct totals have been tossed.

-David Nyhan, The Boston Globe, December 16, 1982

The "Truth About Voter Fraud," according to activ*ist groups like the Brennan Center, is that "many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire…. The allegations simply do not pan out."[1]

Chicago, however, is known for its fires, and there was a roaring one there in 1982 that resulted in one of the largest voter fraud prosecutions ever conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The telltale smoke arose out of one of the closest governor's races in Illi*nois history; and as for the fire, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast.[2] Sixty-five individuals were indicted for federal election crimes, and all but two (one found incompetent to stand trial and another who died) were convicted. [3]

This case of voter fraud is worth studying today be*cause it illustrates the techniques that political machines and organized political groups use to steal elections. Even in the present day, this threat is not hypothetical: Tactics similar to those documented in the Chicago case have come to light in recent elections in Philadel*phia and in the states of Wisconsin and Tennessee. The Daley machine may be legendary in modern times for its election fraud prowess, but these recent cases show that the incentives and opportunities for fraud have not lessened. Guarding against these tac*tics can make the difference between a fair election and a stolen election, particularly where the mar*gins of victory are narrow and just a few fraudulent votes can change the outcome.

Background

In 1982, Illinois was the setting for "a hotly con*tested" gubernatorial race between Democratic Senator Adlai Stevenson III, son of former governor and presidential hopeful Adlai Stevenson II, and Republican James Thompson.[4] "Big Jim" Thomp*son, the incumbent, was "a 15-point favorite going into the voting";[5] and yet on election day, Adlai Stevenson came within 5,074 votes of capturing the governorship out of 3.67 million votes cast statewide-a 0.14 percent margin.[6]Stevenson had carried Chicago by 3 to 1, with a winning margin of 469,000 votes, although Thompson won 60 percent of the vote in the rest of the state.[7]

After the results were in, Stevenson immediately filed suit, contesting the results of the election and asking for a recount. He conceded defeat only when the Illinois Supreme Court two months later rejected his request for a statewide recount.[8]

Stevenson claimed there was evidence of voter fraud in areas of the state outside of Chicago. Although those claims "did not pan out," it was clear that "the prospect of a close [judicial] look at the conduct of voting in Chicago did not please many of Chicago's Democratic kingpins, already under pressure because of the federal [criminal] investigation of charges of vote fraud in the [1982] election.…" For that reason, "many committeemen privately had expressed a hope that Stevenson would lose his bid for a recount."[9]

Both campaigns had complained to the FBI, but the federal investigation was really sparked by a party worker from Chicago's 39th Ward who was upset by his precinct captain's broken promise to award him a city job for his participation in the vote fraud. The worker told a Chicago newspaper, and then the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, "what he knew about vote fraud in that precinct."[10]

Good reporting by the local media helped fuel the investigation. One wire story concerned "a man listed as voting at a Skid Row precinct in the 27th Ward [who] had been dead for more than two years." He was listed as living at the Arcade Hotel, and his signature was among those of 47 other voters listed as living at the hotel. However, the "[o]perators and residents of the hotel told the Sun-Times that 41 of the 47 people did not reside at the Arcade."[11]

In its reporting, the Chicago Tribune discovered that the supposed home address of three voters in the 17th Precinct of the 27th Ward was a vacant lot. The paper also discovered that votes had been cast for seven residents of a nursing home who denied having voted-their signatures on the ballot applications were all forgeries. In fact, one resident had no fingers or thumbs with which to write a sig*nature.[12] The fraud was so blatant that the resident without fingers or thumbs "was counted as having voted twice by the end of the day."[13] Not surpris*ingly, Stevenson easily won the 17th Precinct, by a margin of 282 to 30.[14]

These stories illustrated what was to be a recur*ring theme in the grand jury investigation: the theft of identities and the casting of fraudulent votes on behalf of dead voters, prison inmates, and people who had moved, as well as forged ballots cast on behalf of the elderly and the handicapped. Even fictitious voters were invented and ballots cast in their names.

Grand Jury Findings

On December 14, 1984, Chief Judge Frank Mc*Garr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Dis*trict of Illinois publicly released the federal grand jury's report on the 1982 election-only the third time in the history of the court that a grand jury report had been made public.[15] The evidence re*vealed substantial vote fraud in Chicago during the November 2, 1982, election and found "that similar fraudulent activities have occurred prior to 1982."[16]

What particularly struck FBI agent Ernest Locker was how routine vote fraud was for the pre*cinct captains, election judges, poll watchers, and political party workers he interviewed. They had been taught how to steal votes (and elections) by their predecessors, who had in turn been taught by their predecessors. Based on his investigation, Locker came to believe the claims, hotly debated among historians, that Mayor Daley threw the 1960 presidential election for John Kennedy with massive ballot stuffing in Chicago.[17] This type of voter fraud, stated Locker, "was an accepted way of life in Chicago."[18]

Soon after the investigation started, it became evident that this was not a case of isolated wrongdo*ing, but rather a case of extensive, substantial, and widespread fraud in precincts and wards through*out Chicago. The FBI investigators concluded that their regular tools-interviewing witnesses, obtain*ing documents, and using handwriting experts to analyze signatures on documents-would not be up to the task. After all, to conduct a complete investigation, they would have to review "virtually all of the 1,000,000 ballot applications submitted in the City of Chicago in the November election" as well as the voter lists maintained by the election board for all of Chicago's 2,910 precincts (compris*ing approximately 1.6 million voters) to check for the names of voters registered in more than one pre*cinct, as well as registered voters who were dead.[19]

So the FBI employed a new and unique tool in vote fraud investigation: a computer. Because this had never been done before, the FBI had to write a computer program that would match data between the list of registered voters, the list of individuals who had voted, and other databases. To that end, the FBI and federal prosecutors obtained death records from the Bureau of Vital Statistics; local, state, and federal prison records; the national Social Security list; Immigration and Naturalization Service records on aliens; driver's license records; and even utility (gas, electric, water, and telephone) records.[20]

Locker was shocked at the sheer magnitude of the number of fraudulent votes and the fact that fraud occurred in every single Chicago precinct.[21] More than 3,000 votes had been cast in the names of individuals who were dead, and more than 31,000 individuals had voted twice in different locations in the city.[22] Thousands of individuals had supposedly voted despite being incarcerated at the time of the election, and utility records showed that some individuals who voted were registered as living on vacant lots.

Armed with that information, Locker did some*thing unprecedented: He convinced his supervisors to dedicate all of the agents in the FBI field office in Chicago for an entire week to nothing but review*ing all of Chicago's voter registration cards and bal*lot applications.[23] So many signature comparisons were needed that the FBI flew in handwriting experts from its headquarters in Washington.[24] The Justice Department and the FBI have never concentrated that much manpower and resources, before or since, on investigating a voter fraud case.

Teams of FBI agents were paired with Assistant United States Attorneys and assigned to investigate specific precincts, locating and talking to voters who had supposedly cast votes in the polling place.[25] They quickly learned that voters' signatures on ballot applications "had been forged wholesale in many precincts."[26] The investigation also "revealed that there were an extremely large number of tran*sients, incapacitated people, and senior citizens in whose names votes had been fraudulently cast" when they did not themselves vote.[27]

The investigation uncovered a variety of voter-fraud techniques.

Preying on the Disabled and Elderly. The evi*dence showed that the conspirators evaded detec*tion by casting ballots for those persons who would be the most unlikely to challenge the theft of their franchise. In the Seventh Circuit's Olinger decision, for example, the court described how the votes of elderly and handicapped voters who lived at a residential facility were stolen in a special absen*tee election:

Hicks [the Democratic Party precinct captain] told the election judges that the residents of Monroe Pavillion were "crazy." He instructed appellant and the other election judges to ignore the wishes of the residents. Instead, the election judges were told to "punch 10" on the computerized ballot for every resident. Punching 10 on the ballot resulted in a vote for each of the Democratic candidates on the ballot. On October 30, 1982, appellant and the other election judges, with Hicks in attendance, conducted the special election at Monroe Pavillion. In over two hours of voting, approximately 52 residents voted. Appellant and the other election judges cast nearly all of those votes for the straight Democratic Party ticket by punching 10.[28]

As described in the Olinger decision, votes of the elderly and disabled were regularly stolen at the residences where they lived. Their wishes were ignored, and the judges of election, under instructions from the precinct captain, punched a straight Democratic ticket. Most significantly, several Assistant State's Attorneys served as elec*tion observers but did not detect the fraud because they "believed it was the job of the judges of election to assist the voters and accu*rately register their choices for candidates." They failed to realize, however, that these "assistors" were actually ignoring the voters' preferences.29]

Impersonating Absent Voters. The dominant form of vote fraud was accomplished with ballots cast for absent voters.[30] The fraud often began with the legally required canvasses conducted in many precincts prior to the election:

Although the canvass disclosed that a number of persons who were registered to vote in the precinct had died, moved away, or for some other reason had become ineligible to vote, these persons were not struck from the list of eligible voters. Finally on election day the defendants, either personally or by acting through others, caused numerous false ballots to be cast for the straight Democratic ticket.[31]

On the day of the general election, dishonest precinct captains kept careful track of who came to the polls to vote. Runners working for the precinct captains not only supplied rides for voters, but also noted "who would not be coming to the polls because they were too sick, were too drunk, had recently moved away, or had died."

Precinct captains supplied the names of those absent voters to other participants in the fraud, and "ballots either were punched on the voting machines by people posing as the voter, or were punched with ball point pens or other similar objects in a private place outside the polling areas by the precinct captain or his workers."[32] Some of the defendants even "went into washrooms, where they practiced forging the signatures" of those whom they believed would not vote.[33]

Registering Aliens. Aliens who were illegally registered were another source of potential votes "for the unscrupulous precinct captain." The grand jury found that many aliens "register to vote so that they can obtain documents identifying them as U.S. citizens" and had "used their voters' cards to obtain a myriad of benefits, from social security to jobs with the Defense Department."[34] In fact, three aliens were charged "with attempting to get U.S. passports by using their voter registration cards."[35]

U.S. Attorney Dan Webb estimated that 80,000 illegal aliens were registered to vote in Chicago.

[36] Dozens of aliens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting,[37] and one individual was indicted for recruiting an illegal alien to register to vote.[38]

False Registrations. Another way to obtain names that could be voted on election day was to have people falsely register to vote in a precinct. One party precinct captain, for example, had two city workers who were seeking to transfer their job locations register in his precinct even though they did not live there. Even the assistant precinct captain was falsely registered.[39] In some instances, the conspirators asked actual residents at the addresses where voters falsely claimed to reside to "place name-tags on their doors that bore the names of the non-resident registrants."[40] Other canvassers were indicted and charged with certi*fying the addresses of voters when no such address existed.[41]

Casting Fraudulent Absentee Ballots. Precinct captains would ask their workers "to encourage voters to apply for absentee ballots whether or not they had a valid reason to do so and to turn the blank ballots over" so that the captains could vote the ballots. One worker noticed that two of the absentee ballots he delivered to a precinct captain had already been filled out: One "was straight Democratic, but…the other contained some Republican entries. The precinct captain caused the second absentee ballot containing Republican entries to be torn up."[42]

Buying Votes. The going rate for a vote in one particular Chicago ward was two dollars, and some precinct captains kept a supply of dollar bills ready on election day solely for buying votes. Alcohol was also used as an incentive to get people to the polls, with one hotel manager ordering "the liquor in advance from the precinct captain."[43]

Altering the Vote Count. Changing the actual vote count was another method of fraud. For example, one precinct captain and his son held their own fraudulent election after the polls closed by repeatedly running two ballots through the voting machine. At that time, Chicago was using punch cards for ballots, and punch card counting machines in the precincts totaled the votes cast (similar to the way optical-scan paper ballots are totaled today by computer scanners in the precincts). One ballot was a straight Demo*cratic "punch 10," and the precinct captain ran it through the counting machine 198 times. In order to avoid suspicion, he also ran a ballot con*taining some Republican votes through the machine six times.[44] All of the votes in that pre*cinct were fraudulent except for those two origi*nal ballots.[45]
Lessons Learned

Three factors, in particular, contributed to the successful electoral fraud of former Mayor Daley's political machine.

Interference by Party Officials.Precinct cap*tains in Chicago did not work for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. They were polit*ical appointees of the ward committeemen and therefore answered only to the committeemen and their political party. A precinct captain's loyalty was not to running a clean and fair election but to the political party that controlled his ward. Despite not working for the election board, precinct captains often opened and supervised the polls on election day and directed or influenced the door-to-door canvasses "required by law in order to determine the accuracy of voter registration."[46]

Because the election board approved all of the individuals submitted by the precinct captains and their political party to serve as official election judges, the precinct captains controlled the polling places even though it was the election judges who were legally responsible for the administration of each polling place. This patronage system tied the administration of elections into the political system that ran the city and dispensed jobs. This structure, in turn, created the means and the incentive to "steal votes on Election Day."[47]

Lack of a Bipartisan Election System. Chicago witnessed the complete failure of its "bipartisan system [that] is meant to protect the election pro*cess from vote fraud."[48] This system assumes that there are two active political parties, each watching the other and overseeing all activities that occur during the election process, from voter registration to the administration of polling places on election day, to ensure that the law is followed and no fraud occurs.

For example, the canvasses that occurred before the election to check the accuracy of the voter reg*istration list would provide "the intended biparti*san checks and balances only if it is conducted by two people representing opposite parties."[49] But in Chicago, the Republican Party was not strong enough in many sections of the city to function as a counterbalance to the Democratic Party. As a result, Chicago's voter registration list did not receive bipartisan scrutiny and contained many ineligible persons, including voters who had moved, were deceased, were not U.S. citizens, did not reside where they were registered, or were registered in more than one location.

Similarly, there were supposed to be both Demo*cratic and Republican judges of election in the Chi*cago polling places, but many of the "Republican" slots were actually filled by Democrats masquer*ading as Republicans who had been chosen by the Democratic precinct captains. As a result, the "Republican" canvassers and election judges actu*ally assisted their Democratic counterparts in com*mitting fraud.[50]

Biased or Inexperienced Poll Watchers. Poll watchers are intended to be the guardians of a clean election "by participating as critical observ*ers."[51] A well-trained and vigilant poll watcher should have been able to spot some of the types of voter fraud that occurred in the polling places in the 1982 Chicago election. However, many of the poll watchers in the worst Chicago precincts were individuals who had been appointed by precinct captains and were often part of the voter fraud con*spiracy, even helping to cast fraudulent ballots.

There were also truly neutral poll watchers in Chi*cago during that election, but their lack of training and their inexperience in conducting elections allowed fraud to go on without detection. In one par*ticular precinct where a legitimate poll watcher was present the entire day, the grand jury found that:

The precinct captain passed slips of paper to a cooperating judge of election who filled out ballot applications when the pollwatcher was not observing her. Various precinct workers surreptitiously went through the line multiple times. Ballots were punched outside of the polling area.[52]

The grand jury commented that the subsequent mayoral election in 1983 appeared to have occurred without substantial evidence of voter fraud and that each of the "candidate[s] had a squadron of poll watchers who observed polling place activities with an eagle eye."[53] Of course, that mayoral election may also have been free of fraud because U.S. Attor*ney Dan Webb enlisted U.S. marshals, agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, FBI agents, and more than 80 Assistant U.S. Attorneys to "patrol polling places and investigate vote fraud complaints on Election Day."[54]

According to one of the federal prosecutors in the case, the major reason that Harold Washington was elected the first black mayor of Chicago in 1983 was because the Daley machine's grip on the elec*toral process was broken by the federal prosecu*tions stemming from the grand jury investigation.[55]
Grand Jury Recommendations

In commenting on the voter fraud that occurred in Chicago, the grand jury expressed its disgust at "the flagrant disregard for our democratic system which is the hallmark of this crime." It was "shocked and dismayed at the boldness and the cavalier attitude with which these offenses have been carried out." It urged all citizens to watch for vote fraud and report irregular activities in their polling places and to "step forward and participate in the election process by becoming precinct cap*tains, judges of election, and pollwatchers." [56]

To reduce the incidence of voter fraud, the grand jury made three concrete recommendations:

• Sever the relationship between party precinct captains and election judges. Judges hired by the election board to conduct canvasses and administer polling places on election day should be paid professionals whose loyalty and responsibility are to the election board, not to the local political party or elected city officials.
• Require all voters to provide a thumbprint when registering and when voting. Voters would place a thumbprint on a small pretreated box on the ballot application (not the ballot itself) when they vote. According to the grand jury, this was the only way to counter the wide*spread forgery of voters' signatures that occurred in this voter fraud conspiracy. The grand jury pointed out the virtues of this protection:

No fingerprint would be placed on the actual ballot; therefore, the ballot would still be totally secret as it is now. The voter would not be required to put his finger in ink in order to register his print. The process is totally clean and is not intrusive. Many banks already use this identifying process on check cashing cards to verify the identity of the card user.
Requiring a print on every ballot applica*tion would be a tremendous deterrent to vote fraud and no more of an invasion of privacy than a handwritten signature. It is impossible to forge a print. Finger*print experts cannot be fooled. If the pre*cinct captain voted for absent voters using the prints of paid volunteers, for example, the print of the absent voter could be compared with the print on the ballot application. If people in the poll*ing place participated in the fraud by placing their prints in the boxes, they would be readily identifiable.[57]

The advantages of this system are obvious, particularly since it would eliminate the diffi*culty of trying to determine who forged a sig*nature and thus cast a fraudulent ballot on election day or a fraudulent absentee ballot through the mail.

• Void ballots after counting them. In the Chi*cago fraud, ballot outcomes were altered by running the same Democratic punch card ballot through a precinct tally machine multiple times. The grand jury suggested that counting machines be altered to "irrevocably mark each counted ballot" to prevent it from being run through the machine again.
  
  Although most jurisdictions have moved away from punch card voting machines since the 2000 presidential election, the paper ballots and pre*cinct-based optical scanners used in many states today are subject to the same type of abuse.

National Implications

The Chicago voter-fraud conspiracy and the grand jury's report on it offer lessons that are rele*vant today in understanding how voter fraud works and how to combat it effectively.

Partisan Election Boards. The importance of a truly bipartisan system of checks and balances in which members of both major political parties (and minor parties to the extent that they have available membership) have representatives at every polling place is key to guaranteeing the integrity of elections. Equal representation on the boards of elections that oversee the administration of elections is just as important. In a 1993 case in Philadelphia, for exam*ple, Democratic members of the county board of elections "applied the election code in a discrimina*tory manner designed to favor one candidate."[58]
Unfortunately, there are still many jurisdic*tions-particularly large cities like Philadelphia- that are controlled by one political party and have too few members of the other party involved in the administration of elections. Transparency, as accomplished by bipartisan oversight and the work of well-trained election observers, is the hallmark of election integrity.

Voter Misidentification. While the grand jury's thumbprint recommendation has not been adopted in the United States, it has shown great success in reducing voter fraud in Mexico:

To obtain voter credentials, the citizen must present a photo, write a signature and give a thumbprint. The voter card includes a picture with a hologram covering it, a magnetic strip and a serial number to guard against tampering. To cast a ballot, voters must present the card and be certified by a thumbprint scanner. This system was instrumental in allowing the 2000 election of Vicente Fox, the first opposition party candidate to be elected president in seventy years.[59]

This system was essential to stopping the mas*sive voter fraud that had occurred in Mexico's elec*tions for much of its history. Whether such a requirement could overcome civil liberties and pri*vacy concerns in America is uncertain; however, such a requirement combined with a photo ID would eliminate many forms of voter fraud that continue to occur across the country.

Unreliable Registration Lists. The Chicago voter fraud also demonstrates the importance of maintain*ing voter registration lists by regularly deleting the names of voters who have died or moved away. Otherwise, the lists will contain a large pool of names that can be used to steal an election by the casting of fraudulent votes. Many states, such as Indiana and Missouri, have neglected the mainte*nance of their voter registration lists for years.

For the first decade that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was in effect, the Justice Department never filed a single enforcement action against any state for failing to maintain its list and purge ineligible voters. Recent lawsuits by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice against jurisdictions that had failed to purge ineligible vot*ers as required by the NVRA have been sharply criticized as attempts to "disenfranchise" voters.[60]

New technology and readily available Internet databases could resolve another persistent problem found by the grand jury in 1982 that still exists in registration lists all over the country today: phony voter registration addresses. Election jurisdictions do not routinely run comparisons between their voter registration lists and the information that is available in tax or utility records or through geolo*cation services such as Google Earth.

As was demonstrated by the FBI in the Chicago case, such data matching can quickly turn up registration addresses that are vacant lots or busi*nesses-evidence of possible registration fraud. Similarly, if 100 individuals are registered at an address that is a single-family residence, that is clear evidence of fraud. The techniques devel*oped by the FBI in 1982 should be incorporated into the processes used by states today to verify the accuracy of the information in their voter reg*istration lists.

Recent cases in Wisconsin and Tennessee show that the tactics used in Chicago to steal votes have not been forgotten and are still in use today, despite the election "reforms" of recent years.

In Wisconsin-a state that John Kerry won by only 11,000 votes-the technique of running com*parisons between the voter registration list and other databases was employed in a 2004 investiga*tion of possible voter fraud in Milwaukee.[61] The Milwaukee Police Department's Special Investiga*tions Unit, working with the U.S. Attorney's Office, the local district attorney, and the FBI, used Google databases, motor vehicle records, telephone direc*tories, Assessor's Office records, and U.S. Postal Service records to investigate allegations of voter fraud. They uncovered a variety of problems:

• 5,217 "students" who were registered to vote at a polling place located within the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who listed as their resi*dence an on-campus dormitory that housed only 2,600 students;
• At least 220 ineligible felons who had voted;
• 370 addresses that were not legal residences in the city;
• Residents of other states (such as a voter from Chicago) who registered and voted in Milwaukee;
• Numerous staffers from out of state who were working for the Kerry campaign or the Environ*mental Victory Campaign, a political action committee, and who illegally registered and voted in Milwaukee; and
• Hundreds of homeless individuals registered as living at office buildings, at store fronts, and in multiple locations who were "able to vote in different districts and, by sheer number, could have an impact on a closely contested local election."[62]

In Tennessee, a state senate race in 2005 that was decided by only 13 votes led to the expulsion of the winner from the legislature after it was found that votes had been cast by individuals who were dead at the time of the election, felons whose vot*ing rights had not been restored, voters whose resi*dences were vacant lots, and voters who actually lived outside of the district. Three election workers in one precinct were convicted of 12 felonies for faking votes by making false entries on election documents and other misconduct, including forg*ing the signatures of deceased voters on ballot forms and falsely certifying vote totals.[63]

These election workers engaged in the same type of fraud that was used in Chicago in 1982, and, again, this fraud could have been avoided if deceased voters had been deleted from the registra*tion lists and registration addresses had been checked. Having bipartisan election workers and poll watchers in the polling place might have also prevented such actions.

Conclusion

Voter fraud in Chicago, in just one election, led to 100,000 phony votes,[64] bringing the defendants in this case within 5,000 votes of stealing the gov*ernorship of Illinois. This case of widespread fraud was broken wide open only because of the failed promise of a city job to one of the participants and the dogged determination of a United States Attor*ney who was willing to commit the time, resources, and manpower required for a massive investigation and multiple prosecutions. The Justice Department has never engaged in such an intense investigation since then, to the detriment of the electoral system.
We will never know whether, when Mayor Daley was still alive and in full control of Chicago's elec*tion machinery, he manufactured the 8,858 votes that won Illinois for John Kennedy in 1960.[65]The 1984 grand jury report certainly shows that it could easily have been done, and the fact that the indicted defendants told investigators that their predecessors had taught them how to commit fraud makes it seem likely. As retired FBI agent Ernest Locker, Jr., observed, massive voter fraud was a way of life for the city's political machine and shows that "what happens in a small area can sometimes change history."[66]

Worth quoting in full is the final comment of the Chicago grand jury's report on its voter fraud investigation:

Every vote that is fraudulently manufac*tured disenfranchises the legitimate voter and makes a mockery of our political pro*cess. Vote fraud is like a cancer, and it must be treated so that it will not destroy our con*stitutional right to vote, the basis of our American heritage.[67]

That observation is no less true today than it was in 1982.

Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years. Before that, he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. He also served as a county election official in Georgia for five years as a member of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections.

---

[1] Justin Levitt, The Truth About Voter Fraud 3(Brennan Center for Justice 2007).

[2] Douglas Frantz, Vote Fraud in City Outlined at Hearing, Chi. Trib., Sept. 20, 1983, at A1; Mark Eissman, U.S. to Probe Primary Vote Fraud-Federal Laws May Have Been Broken, Chi. Trib., Mar. 11, 1987.See also Ken Bode, The Vote Thieves, NBC Evening News, Jan. 31, 1984.

[3] See In re Report of the Special January 1982 Grand Jury 1, No. 82 GJ 1909 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 1984) (hereinafter Grand Jury Report); U.S. v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); Inter*view with Ernest Locker, Jr. (Mar. 18, 2008. One of the young federal prosecutors in the case at the time was Craig Don*santo, who now heads the Election Crimes Unit in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Today, he has more than 30 years of experience as a career prosecutor and is recognized as the foremost expert in the United States on the prosecution of election crimes. He is the author of the Justice Department handbook on the prosecution of election crimes used by all of the Offices of United States Attorneys, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, which is in its seventh edition. Ernest Locker, Jr., now retired, was the FBI agent in Chicago in charge of this investigation.

[4] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 3.

[5] David Nyhan, Ballot Counting, Chicago Style, Boston Globe, Dec. 16, 1982.

[6] Associated Press, U.S. Probes Ghost-Voting in Illinois on Nov. 2, Boston Globe, Dec. 30, 1982.

[7] Nyhan, supra note 5.

[8] Daniel Egler and Michael Arndt, Adlai Concedes Defeat-Bid for Recount Loses by 4-3 in Supreme Court, Chi. Trib., Jan. 8, 1983; In re Contest of the Election for the Offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor Held at the General Election on Nov. 2, 1982, 444 N.E.2d 170, 93 Ill. 2d 463 (Ill. 1983).

[9] Egler and Arndt, supra note 8.

[10] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 3.

[11] Associated Press, supra note 6.

[12] Tim Franklin and Andy Knott, More Election Fraud Uncovered-3 Voters Listed Vacant Lot as Their Home Address, Chi. Trib., Dec. 31, 1982, at A15.

[13] William B. Crawford, Jr., and Tim Franklin, U.S. Grand Jury Indicts 10 in Chicago Vote Fraud Probe, Chi. Trib., April 8, 1983, at B1.

[14] Franklin and Knott, supra note 12.

[15] William B. Crawford, Jr., Report Says Polls, Pols Don't Mix-Grand Jury Report Links Patronage, Vote Fraud, Chi. Trib., Dec. 18, 1984, at A1.

[16] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 1.

[17] See, e.g., Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote, A History of Election Fraud, and American Political Tradition 1742- 2004 242-249 (Carroll & Graf Publishers 2005).

[18] Interview with Ernest Locker, Jr. (Mar. 18, 2008.

[19] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3,at 5; Barbara Mahany, FBI Examines Voting Lists, Chi. Trib., Feb. 9, 1983, at NW2; William B. Crawford, Jr., and Jerry Crimmins, Huge Vote-Fraud Probe-FBI to Check Every Voter, All Precincts, Chi. Trib., Jan. 20, 1983, at 1.

[20] Interview with Ernest Locker, Jr. (Mar. 18, 2008.

[21] According to Locker, they could have prosecuted thousands of cases in every single Chicago precinct, something they did not have the manpower to do, so instead they concentrated on identifying the precincts and wards with the highest volume of fraudulent activity. Id.

[22] Bode, supra note 2.

[23] Interview with Ernest Locker, Jr. (Mar. 18, 2008.

[24] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 5.

[25] Interviewing voters is, unfortunately, something that the FBI and the Justice Department are extremely reluctant to do today because, even in the face of obvious voter fraud, they are likely to be accused by the media and certain advocacy organizations of trying to intimidate voters. The political leadership of both agencies is not usually willing to risk incurring such accusations.

[26] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 5.

[27] Id. at 5-6.

[28] Olinger, 759 F.2d at 1297. On election day, Hicks also distributed the names of registered voters who had moved away or died so that fraudulent ballots could be cast in "the names of the phantom voters." Id.

[29] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 12. This is a recurring problem. In 1998, former Congressman Austin Murphy of Pennsylvania was convicted of absentee ballot fraud in a nursing home. John Fund, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy 44 (Encounter Books 2004).

[30] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 7.

[31] Howard, 774 F.2d at 840. The type of massive investigation undertaken by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office to review in detail a jurisdiction's voter registration list to check it for the names of voters who have moved, died, or registered in more than one location has also not been undertaken since the Chicago case.

[32] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 8.

[33] Crawford and Franklin, supra note 13.

[34] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 8-9.

[35] Crawford and Franklin, supra note 13.

[36] Frantz, supra note 2.

[37] Marianne Taylor, 28 Indicted on Charges of Vote Fraud, Chi. Trib., Apr. 7, 1983, at B13. Eighteen of the aliens were from Mexico, three from Belize, two from Costa Rica, two from Nigeria, and one from Haiti.

[38] Barbara Brotman and William Recktenwald, 5 Indicted in Vote Fraud, Chi. Trib., Feb. 18, 1983, at 1. One alien who was born in Belize and voted in the 1982 election testified in 1985 before a state senate task force about the ease with which he and his two sisters registered to vote. None of them were ever required to show any identification when they registered, and they simply listed false birthplace information. Desiree F. Hicks, Foreigners Landing on Voter Rolls, Chi. Trib., Oct. 2, 1985.

[39] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 9.

[40] Howard, 774 F.2d at 840.

[41] Taylor, supra note 37.

[42] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 10.

[43] Id. One runner testified that "he was driving two winos back from the polling place when they got into a fist fight in the back seat of his car over whether to spend their pooled dollars on hamburgers or a bottle of wine." Id. at 11.

[44] The only Republican votes on the ballot were for Governor James Thompson and former Attorney General Tyrone Fahner. Brotman and Recktenwald, supra note 38.

[45] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 11.

[46] Id. at 13.

[47] Id. at 17.

[48] Id. at 18.

[49] Id.

[50] Id. at 18-19.

[51] Id. at 19.

[52] Id.at 20. One of the federal prosecutors provided an amusing example of how another legitimate poll watcher was fooled. Some of the defendants supplied him with coffee all day, and every time he went to the bathroom, the defendants stuffed the ballot box with phony votes.

[53] Id. at 21.

[54] Brotman and Recktenwald, supra note 38.

[55] Unfortunately, that effect may have been short-lived. By the 1987 mayoral election, there were already new claims of wide*spread voter fraud and allegations that Washington and his allies had opposed efforts to reform the system "by blocking legislation to hire professional [election] judges and cleanse voting rolls of illegal registration." See Mark Eissman, U.S. to Probe Primary Vote Fraud-Federal Laws May Have Been Broken, Chi. Trib., Mar. 11, 1987.

[56] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 2.

[57] Id. at 23-24.

[58] Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1994); see generally Larry Sabato and Glenn R. Simpson, Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics 278-283 (Times Books 1996).

[59] Fund, supra note 29, at 5-6.

[60] See, e.g., Greg Gordon, Justice Department Actions Expected to Draw Congressional scrutiny,McClatchy, Jan. 9, 2008.

[61] See Special Investigations Unit, Milwaukee Police Department, Report of the Investigation into the November 2, 2004, General Election in the City of Milwaukee.

[62] Id. at 16-17, 21, 25, 27, 31, 41, and 49 (emphasis added). Although the Milwaukee Report does not identify which political campaign was involved, information in the report describing the individuals makes it clear that it was the Kerry campaign. For example, the description of campaign worker 6 on page 49 matches Andy Gordon, who was the Kerry campaign's Deputy Political Director in Wisconsin. See also Democracy in Action, Kerry General Election Wisconsin Campaign Organization, at www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry/kerrgenwi.html (last visited May 11, 200. Similarly, though the report does not identify the 527 organization involved, it cites a press release from the Environmental Victory Campaign that makes the connection.


[63] Marc Perrusquia, Judge: Let's Air Details of Fraud-Public Has Right, Colton Says in Ophelia Ford Election Case, Com. Appeal, May 22, 2007; Marc Perrusquia, Thirteen More Votes May Be Illegal-Senate Republican Gets Data on Dist. 29 from Private Eye, Com. Appeal, Feb. 7, 2006; Marc Perrusquia, Poll Boss Had Felony on Record-Not an Eligible Voter; Works for Ford Family, Com. Appeal, Feb. 1, 2006;Report of Ad Hoc Comm. on Senate District No. 29, Election Contest, April 17, 2006, Minutes of Wednesday, April 19, 2006, Seventy-Second Legislative Day, Tennessee Senate, at 2997-3001.


[64] Ernest Locker says that the 100,000 fraudulent-vote estimate was actually very conservative, based on the detailed analysis and review conducted by the investigators and handwriting experts in different precincts. He believes a much larger number of phony votes was likely cast. Interview with Ernest Locker, Jr. (Mar. 18, 2008.

[65] Sabato and Simpson, supra note 58, at 277.

[66] Interview with Ernest Locker, Jr. (Mar. 18, 2008.

[67] Grand Jury Report, supra note 3, at 26.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tes-in-chicago

We've got to win by many millions. LETS GO TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!

Trump's got this, if we've got his back.

SAVE AMERICA!!

VOTE DONALD J TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!

Video: Voter Fraud

VOTER FRAUD CAPTURED ON VIDEO

BY ADMIN/
AUGUST 9, 2016/ POLITICS


James O’Keefe has made a name for himself using undercover cameras and ambush style techniques to capture events at the most purest of moments. On Tuesday, O’Keefe published to YouTube his newest video focusing on voter fraud.

O’Keefe’s videos often make headlines on conservative websites, and the Left has accused him of using “creative editing” to push a false narrative in the past, but in his new video appears very straight forward and speaks the truth, which is: ‘Voter fraud is alive and well.’

In his new undercover video, O’Keefe who is dressed like the famous rap-artist Eminem, enters a voting facility somewhere in Michigan and attempts to vote as Eminem.

As seen in the video, O’Keefe walks up to the voter sign-in station and presents himself using Eminem’s real name. Immediately, he is asked for photo ID. He replies, “I forgot my ID at work, can I still vote?” He is told, ‘yes.’




Sign up to get alerts about Dennis Michael Lynch's upcoming Donald Trump film and breaking news.




http://dennismichaellynch.com/voter-...ured-on-video/