The ACORN Boogeyman Is Another Conservative Fraud
Tweet
But it will be the story they tell themselves if/when they lose the election.
“There’s no evidence that any of these invalid registrations lead to any invalid votes,” said David Becker, project director of the “Make Voting Work” initiative for the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Becker should know: he was a lawyer for the Bush administration until 2005, in the Justice Department’s voting rights section, which was part of the administration’s aggressive anti-vote-fraud effort.
“The Justice Department really made prosecution of voter fraud of this sort a big priority in the first half of this decade, and they really didn’t come up with anything,” he said.
51 Responses to “The ACORN Boogeyman Is Another Conservative Fraud”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Which is why the FBI is investigating them.
LMAO!
Yes, because the FBI isn’t subject to political whims or anything.
The Anonymous Liberal has a great take-down of this farce: There’s No Such Thing As Voter Fraud.
“There’s no evidence that any of these invalid registrations lead to any invalid votes,”
I guess Mr. Becker hadn’t heard of this case yet from the Wall St. Journal’s Market Watch:
The vote of Darnell Nash, one of four people subpoenaed in a Cuyahoga County probe of ACORN’s voter-registration activities, was canceled and his case was turned over to local prosecutors and law enforcement, Board of Elections officials said yesterday.
Nash had registered to vote repeatedly from an address that belonged to a legitimately registered voter, officials said during a hearing at which the subpoenaed voters were to testify.
The Post reported last week on the Cleveland-area probe and the subpoenas, which were sent out to four people — including two voters who said they were hounded by ACORN workers to register over and over, even when they warned they’d already done so.
Could someone walk me through the mechanics of how multiple registrations of the same name and address allow one to commit voter fraud? My understanding is that your name has to be on the voter roll at your precinct in order to vote, and once someone claiming that name and address comes to the precinct, that identity is checked off and no one else can vote under it. States that are convinced that lots of people are voting twice by using the names of the dead can have voter-ID laws — as Ohio and several other states do — that require one not only to have a name and address, but also a matching voter ID. (Come to think of it, I guess I better hustle and get an otherwise-unnecessary new driver’s license before Nov. 4, as I moved last fall and have an address elsewhere in the same city on my license.)
Good work, willie!
Now repeat that–just a few thousand times–and you’ll have evidence for that “destroy the fabric of democracy” charge.
[...] Willis thinks that because it doesn’t lead to a lot of voter fraud, that voter registration fraud is like, no [...]
The ACORN people themselves reported the suspicious registrations to the authorities. They asked for these few employees to be investigated and prosecuted.
These employees are basically low-paid walk-ins. They are expected to go out and get real registrations. And to get paid, they gotta show they actually worked. But as you might expect, some people think they can make an easy buck by not actually working and just filling out false forms.
ACORN is required by law to pass each of those registrations on to election officials, whether they appear to be real or not. They cannot throw away the registrations from Mickey Mouse.
But what they do is they call each of the people on the registration forms to find out if they are who they say they are and verify that they were the ones to fill out the registrations. They then divide the registrations into 3 piles. Verified registrations, registrations they checked but nobody answered the phone, and finally false registrations. That’s to make it easier for the election officials that they give these to.
According to the election officials, these false registrations will not result in a bad registration. They will not affect the election. Nobody will be voting as Mickey Mouse.
So what do we have here? Well, Obama is in no way even remotely involved in this. ACORN itself isn’t even involved, and did it’s best to prevent this and to prosecute bad employees. And the whole matter won’t even affect the election. Yet McCain at the debate and the right wing outlets have no misgivings about creating a false debacle to do anything to sway the election.
Here’s a theory on how the ACORN felonies can play out:
Suppose they turn in about 5,000 fake registrations in Lake County, Indiana. (Which they did.) There are about 150,000 registered voters there already. And let’s assume that it was all perfectly innocent of any intent to actually cast fraudulent ballots.
That means that come election day, 3% of the registered voters won’t show up. That means that the reported turnout in Lake County will be lower than it actually is.
That will be turned into statistical “proof” of voter suppression — the Republicans, who are NEVER helped by high voter turnout (the argument goes), did SOMETHING to keep those 5,000 people away from voting or discarded their votes or something else nefarious.
It’s been done before, and this will help it be done again.
And that doesn’t even touch upon the fraud of Mr. Nash.
J.
That will be turned into statistical “proof” of voter suppression — the Republicans, who are NEVER helped by high voter turnout (the argument goes), did SOMETHING to keep those 5,000 people away from voting or discarded their votes or something else nefarious.
Then, Mr. Tea, good Republicans like you can come along and ask, “Who was prevented from voting? Can you come up with even one example?”
If whoever is offering this “statistical proof” can’t come up with better evidence, you can laugh and point.
Like we’re doing right now.
That means that come election day, 3% of the registered voters won’t show up. That means that the reported turnout in Lake County will be lower than it actually is.
That will be turned into statistical “proof” of voter suppression — the Republicans, who are NEVER helped by high voter turnout (the argument goes), did SOMETHING to keep those 5,000 people away from voting or discarded their votes or something else nefarious.
An interesting theory. Could you please link something to support your contention that statistics of low turnout are used as prima facie evidence of voter suppression? There’s an article linked on msn.com right now about the missing male voter. Yet of all the theories batted around about why men aren’t voting as much as women*, none of them include “Republican feminazis prevent men from voting through voter suppression.”
In my experience, when someone makes an accusation of voter suppression, they at least claim that there were big black SUVs circling the polling site in a poor neighborhood or something.
* My theory is that the overall reason people vote less today than they used to — the winnowing down of campaigning to a few swing states and the attendant sense in confirmed Red and Blue states that one’s vote is irrelevant — is particularly true for men. Men are more likely to weigh the action of voting for its consequences: will my going to the polls actually affect the election? Women are more likely than men to vote even when they know it won’t change the outcome because women are socialized to do meaningless things that are signs of being A Nice Girl. E.g., women are more likely to worry that a cleaning person will think them a slob and will make some effort to keep tidy a room that someone else is going to clean anyway.
PG,
Requiring Voter ID is a TERRIFIC idea. If you have to have an ID to drive a car, get on an airplane, rent a movie, cash a check, or buy a beer, surely asking someone to provide identification when voting shouldn’t be a big deal. Right?
Wrong. Apparently asking to identify yourself at the polling booth is racist. And if you don’t have to have an ID to vote, then “Snow White”, “Dick Tracy” and “QWERTY ZXCVB” can vote as many times as they want.
Oooooohh! OW. I guess Rooooove is running the FBI now.
LMAO! Is that all you have? Assumed motives? LMAO!
Go get your tinfoil hat.
We’ll see what happens with acorn. Not that you have any true interest in justice or fairness or anything like that though.
And if they’re doing no wrong, what are you afraid of?
LOL!
Jay Tea: Suppose they turn in about 5,000 fake registrations in Lake County, Indiana. (Which they did.)
Why do folks always leave out that federal law REQUIRES all of the registration forms to be turned in? ACORN is not allowed, again, BY LAW< to destroy any registration forms they receive.
Why do folks always leave out that ACORN reviews the registration forms and flags suspect registration forms that they turn in?
Why do folks always leave out that registration is not the same as voting and there are additional safeguards in place that should keep Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus from actually being able to cast a vote? A perfect system? Of course not. But bad registration form is not equal to illegal votes being cast.
No, no. Better to phrase it so it looks like ACORN is intentionally trying to rig the election.
That means that come election day, 3% of the registered voters won’t show up. That means that the reported turnout in Lake County will be lower than it actually is. That will be turned into statistical “proof” of voter suppression
Well, that’s stupid reasoning. Any reasonable person won’t equate someone not showing up to vote with that person having been stopped from getting to the polls. Legitimate complaints of voter suppression would be able to point to people who are already in line being told they can’t vote because the polls have now closed, people having to stand in line hours to vote because too few machines were available at certain polling places, people being mailed official looking packets telling them the wrong date or place for voting. You know, actual examples of people who are truing to vote not being able to, not just some stats.
We’ll see what happens with acorn.
I’ll go out on a limb and make a prediction: zero!
That’s right, nothing will happen with ACORN. Law enforcement might identify a tiny handful of workers who filled out a bunch of cards with fake names and they’ll be charged with a crime. But nothing will happen to ACORN because there will be no evidence at all that anyone at ACORN did anything illegal.
P.S. Were you addressing anyone in particular, mccann? Or just answering the voices?
If you have to have an ID to drive a car, get on an airplane, rent a movie, cash a check, or buy a beer, surely asking someone to provide identification when voting shouldn’t be a big deal.
Help me out, Farris. Which one of those things is a Constitutional right?
Oh no! Better throw out half a million valid registrations on the fear of 4 people illegally voting.
Quaker.
Yes. I was addressing someone.
It was not you.
And as it has been proven, ACORN is a corrupt fraudulent organization whose mission is to steal elections. They are trying to do it now, are under investigation in 15 states and by the FBI. And if you think this is to “prevent 4 or 5 illegal votes,” you’re just as corrupt as they are, and you hate America.
socialists respond right now.
And as it has been proven, ACORN is a corrupt fraudulent organization whose mission is to steal elections.
Really? When did that happen? The damn paperboy keeps throwing my newspaper on the roof.
The ACORN Boogeyman Is Another Conservative Fraud
How about the Vote From Home ’08 people, Oliver?
Is this voter fraud?
And if your answer is “12 people, out of how many millions?”, then please be so kind as to tell us what threshold you need to reach before it becomes voter fraud. 100? 1000? 10,000? Or is it any number if it potentially threatens a Democrat candidate?
Is this voter fraud?
Don’t know yet. Depends on whether the activists followed the law or not. Still being investigated.
Did you get a different answer?
Also, too, Mr. SoCal, please note that “Vote from Home” is not ACORN.
“And that doesn’t even touch upon the fraud of Mr. Nash.”
Jay Tea, your theory doesn’t even touch upon voter fraud period. According you, ACORN’s evil plan boils down to:
1. Fraudlently register millions of people.
2.
3. Steal the election.
Does that strategy look at all familiar to you?
If the most you can come up with is that ACORN plans to steal the election AFTER THE FACT by complaining strenuously about the results, you’ve got a long, long, long way to go before the fabric of democracy is even frayed a little bit at the edges.
Did you get a different answer?
And don’t forget to show your work.
Also, too, Mr. SoCal, please note that “Vote from Home” is not ACORN.
Only if you’ll note that nowhere did I claim that they were.
But the example does demonstrate that voter fraud is not just “Another Conservative Fraud”.
Shorter Dave: Look over there! Same thing, but different!
SF,
Whether Toobin thinks voter-ID laws are racist or not is not the question. The question was whether they were Constitutional, and a narrow majority of the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. They did so despite the evidence that ID requirements place a burden on marginalized voters (i.e. poor people who don’t own a car and therefore don’t have a current driver’s license) and are a solution looking for a problem, as the DOJ couldn’t find more than a few dozen instances of people’s voting when they shouldn’t have (and most of those were confused immigrants who hadn’t yet gotten citizenship).
Though I find voter-ID laws problematic, if passing them in every state in the Union will guarantee that Republicans never whine about mythical voter fraud (or equally mythical false claims of voter suppression) again, I’ll recommend that the money currently going into campaigns to fight such laws instead go into campaigns to
a) pass laws requiring states to issue ID for free; and
b) get every ex-felon and non-driver in the country a valid ID before the law goes into effect. States will be required to issue free IDs to felons upon release from prison. States that fail to comply with the requirements of free IDs for ex-felons and non-drivers, and the immediate issuance upon prison release, will be barred from enforcing the voter-ID requirement at election time.
Now, can the GOP promise that it will support those campaigns and stop whining if this happens? Or will the draw of the fantasy that ACORN doesn’t flag questionable registrations be too alluring to resist?
Only if you’ll note that nowhere did I claim that they were.
Fair enough. Please understand that I elected to err on the side of caution after you posted about Vote from Home in a thread titled “The ACORN Boogeyman is Another Conservative Fraud.”
And the example you provide demonstrates nothing unless the Vote from Home people have been charged with something since last time I checked, youbetcha.
If they’re not doing anything illegal, then why are you so concerned about them being investigated? There should be nothing to find, and everyone can go about their merry way and vote.
But you all know different don’t you? LMAO!
acorn = election thieves.
This will not end on nov. 4.
there will be no bipartisanship.
we will smear obama from day 1 if he wins.
god bless america.
too bad so many of you hate it.
If they’re not doing anything illegal, then why are you so concerned about them being investigated?
Very simple answer, mccann: I’m not concerned about the investigation of Vote from Home. I’m also confident that “investigations” into ACORN will come up with (at the risk of being repetitious) zero.
I do not like the investigations because they encourage people with IQs below room temperature to start claiming outlandish things like, “[I]t has been proven, ACORN is a corrupt fraudulent organization whose mission is to steal elections.”
Hard to imagine someone could be so easily misled, I know, but it happens.
If they’re not doing anything illegal, then why are you so concerned about them being investigated?
Adding to Quaker’s comment that the overheated rhetoric and pointless investigations could have a chilling effect on the turnout of people who registered through ACORN, the vast majority of whom are able to vote legally but who may now fear that they now can’t vote or that they may be investigated themselves.
a) pass laws requiring states to issue ID for free; and
b) get every ex-felon and non-driver in the country a valid ID before the law goes into effect.
a) no problem.
b) These IDs shouldn’t be handed out like candy. It should be handled just like Voter Registration is now: if you want one, no problem. But YOU have to initiate the request, not have the government hand them out unrequited.
And before you ask, I have no problem allocating a fair amount of money to advertise the program (much like how the Feds are currently advertising the HDTV switchover.)
fafaroo….
if you haven’t broken the law, have registered legally and truthfully, you have nothing to worry about.
like i said, if you have so much faith in acorn, let this investigation go forward and then say “i told you so.”
innocent people with nothing to hide don’t try to stop investigations.
you’re acting like you don’t really believe what your saying when you call the acorn mess just a “republican ploy,” or whatever.
LMAO!
SF,
I think you mean unrequested, not unrequited, unless your plan is for voters to have to issue IDs to the government.
“But YOU have to initiate the request, not have the government hand them out unrequited.”
Why? Why does it bother you to have a mandate that the states that institute these voter-ID requirements have a corresponding obligation to ensure that marginalized voters actually have the IDs? How difficult is it to have every person released from a penal institution handed a valid state ID as he walks out the door? Why should an ex-felon, who probably is thinking more about how he’s going to get a job with a felony record than who he’ll vote for this year, have to initiate the request?
Many marginalized voters have plenty of interactions with government authority other than the DMV and passport office — why not use those interactions to ensure that those folks have the free ID you’re happy to give them? When a cop stops an 18-year-old in Harlem and asks for ID (as SCOTUS has said they can do for merely suspicious behavior, see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada), and the 18-year-old says he doesn’t have one, at least the cop can have something positive come out of this encounter by saying proactively, “Let’s get you an ID so you can vote. Now, hands behind your back so I can cuff you.”
I’d be OK with a provision that says if the state institutes measures to issue ID at all points of government contact, is found by testers to have done so, but still misses some folks, its voter-ID requirement will be upheld so long as it allows folks without ID to mark provisional ballots that only will be considered if the election is close. Such voters will have to show up the next day with a utility bill or similar mail that shows the name and address for the claimed registration, and will be issued ID for the next election.
SaveFarris: b) These IDs shouldn’t be handed out like candy. It should be handled just like Voter Registration is now: if you want one, no problem. But YOU have to initiate the request, not have the government hand them out unrequited.
Let’s encourage people to vote. Let’s push people to participate and vote. So let’s not make the voter have to initiate the request.
If we could keep track of people when they turn 18 to send them draft notices, we can send them voter registration forms. If we can require them to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18, we can require them to turn in the registration forms.
When someone gets a drivers license, have them check if they are registered to vote and if they are not, sign up up then and there. When someone is released from jail (assuming they would be allowed to vote) have them fill out the form and turn it in as they are released.
How is the Republic benefited by encouraging the uneducated, ignorant, or historically criminal to vote? Why do these people seem to always vote for Democrats?
And if they’re doing no wrong, what are you afraid of?
I find that the majority of people that use this argument usually have something to hide. Have any skeletons in your closet, Jmac?
How is the Republic benefited by encouraging the uneducated, ignorant, or historically criminal to vote? Why do these people seem to always vote for Democrats?
Gee, I wonder what demograph you’re talking about?
“innocent people with nothing to hide don’t try to stop investigations.”
I think you should tell that to Sarah Palin.
jmcann: And if they’re doing no wrong, what are you afraid of?
Why, living in a country where guilt is presumed and innocence has to be proven, of course. Where nobody should object to warrentless searches of their houses because, c’mon, if they’re innocent what could they have to hide?
When did you start to hate America, j?
Amused O: How is the Republic benefited by encouraging the uneducated, ignorant, or historically criminal to vote? Why do these people seem to always vote for Democrats?
So your concern isn’t that they vote, but that they don’t vote the way you want. Interesting.
But to respond to your first question, how is the Republic benefited by depriving people of their constitutional rights? And who gets to decide who is too uneducated or too ignorant? Mr. James Crow, perhaps?
Since you fear an uneducated, ignorant and/or criminal electorate, I assume you’re all in favor of drastically increasing the funding level of schools so that they can ensure everyone is truly provided with a quality education.
That will be turned into statistical “proof” of voter suppression — the Republicans, who are NEVER helped by high voter turnout (the argument goes), did SOMETHING to keep those 5,000 people away from voting or discarded their votes or something else nefarious.
Or we can look at other pieces of evidence.
Sean,
The decision to enfranchise the ignorant has already been decided. My question was how is the Republic benefited by the participation of the ignorant or by felons.
I am not frightened by the woefully ignorant, but I have my doubts about the politicians who seek to gain power by seeking favor with felons.
As for educational funding, if one is taught to read then the world is your university. Any competent teacher can give a child the basic tools to learn. If a child is in school and hasn’t learned to read by the time they are 7 years old then the question is why are those teachers still employed?
So again the question, what is the benefit of encouraging the ignorant to vote? And why do they apparently overwhelmingly vote Democratic?
AO, given that the most educated parts of the U.S. correlate with the most liberal parts of the U.S., I find your thesis quite hard to believe. Amazing that in one breath the left is full of effete, college educated snobs and in the next full of the ignorant.
“we will smear obama from day 1 if he wins.”
Cheney in dragThe ironically named Joy McCann. AKA Little Miss Attila, j mcannGet used to the taste of that barrel in November, Joy.
Z_ad,
Not a thesis, a pair of question only. Your comments although worthy of an interesting conversation have nothing to do with the points I brought up.
So again the question, what is the benefit of encouraging the ignorant to vote? And why do they apparently overwhelmingly vote Democratic?
To the first question, in a democratic Republic, the more the better.
The second part of your question can be easily refuted by the demo of recent Palin/McCain rallys.
Duros,
“To the first question, in a democratic Republic, the more the better.” A wee bit of circular logic. Why are more opinions from the ignorant or the criminal classes better for the nation?
As to the second part of your comment I don’t think the Democrats would be so heavily invested in recruiting ignorant and uneducated voters or push so hard for felons being allowed to vote if they did not think the Democratic party would harvest the majority of the ignorant and criminal vote.
Why is it the majority of felons vote for Democrats and why is that good for the rest of us?
Circular logic?
The more voters the better, i.e., in a representative democracy. Everyone gets a vote. Ignorant or criminal doesn’t enter into the picture.
As to the second part, you’re gonna have to cite something that proves your assertion that the majority of felons vote for Democrats, ‘cuz I think you’re just blowing smoke.
As the video I linked to shows, the Democrats don’t have a lock on the ignorant and uneducated. This time around, they seem to be all in the Big Tent.
AO,
I am not frightened by the woefully ignorant, but I have my doubts about the politicians who seek to gain power by seeking favor with felons.
But politicians don’t seek to gain power by seeking favor with felons. There’s pretty much a one-way ratchet in criminal legislation that endeavors to make penalties higher and more crimes subject to imprisonment and the death penalty. The only counter in our current political system to these trends is the judiciary, which, being tasked with overseeing the herding of millions into prisons and the execution of hundreds by lethal injection and other means, does occasionally pause to consider whether the process is in perfect accord with that little thing called the Constitution, but otherwise is a passive bystander.
Some of us don’t believe it is wise for politicians to compete for votes on the basis of who can be “tuffer on crime,” particularly when people like you believe it a good thing to block those who are coping with the results of such tuffness from also having a voice in the democratic process. It’s the equivalent of having the laws on heterosexual rape written only by women; there’s not much of the other side’s perspective to explain how someone can make a good faith mistake about whether he’s received consent, etc. Almost nobody believes he will become a felon; if you study criminal psychology, you’ll find that even people plotting felonies at this very moment are convinced that they will get away with it and never be caught, much less prosecuted, indicted and convicted.
In other words, if you succeed in blocking felons from voting, their perspective on whether our system works — which I do believe is a perspective we should include, just as men should give their perspective on the burden of proof in hetero rape prosecutions — will be systematically excluded. You believe that’s a good thing. I don’t.
test
Amused O.: So again the question, what is the benefit of encouraging the ignorant to vote? And why do they apparently overwhelmingly vote Democratic?
OK, I give up. Tried posting details of the correlation between education level vs liberal/conservative and the post just won’t show up. Perhaps they’re sitting in an approval queue somewhere for OW to release and a couple copies of the posting will show up all at once if he does so.
Short version: A sizable majority of the most educated cities in the US are liberal. Only one of the most educated cities shows up on a list of the most conservative. Several are on the list of most liberal.
At the other end, of the least educated cities 11 voted for Bush in 2004, 7 for Kerry and 2 essentially tied. In half of his wins Bush got over 65 % of the vote, Kerry never got over 59%.
More data would really have to be analyzed before any definitive statement could be made, but it clearly appears educated folks
are liberal/Democratic and less educated are conservative/Republican.
In other words, Amused, you are exactly wrong.