Junius #141

Junius, fils
The American People
2 July, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am still using the book Stealing Elections, How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. (P), by John Fund.

In Chapter Ten, which starts on Page 129, Mr. Fund tries to deal with events in Washington State in the 2004 race for Governor, which was, by any standard, both a photo finish and a goat rope. Once again, Mr. Fund is long on “might,” “could have,” and “perhaps,” and short on any proof of voter fraud. This does not seem to bother him. The election controversy involved difficulties in the system of counting provisional and absentee ballots. More than 60% of the heavily Democratic King County voters vote via absentee ballots. Anyway, to summarize, initially it seemed that the Republican candidate had won. Then, uncounted votes were discovered which put the Democratic candidate in the lead. Repeat the previous two sentences a few times and you have it. Ultimately, the Democratic candidate was declared the winner by a razor-thin margin. Once again, Mr. Fund’s assumption seems to be that any count which put the GOP candidate in the lead was legitimate and any count which put the Democratic candidate in the lead was highly suspect. In this election, were fraudulent votes cast? According to Mr. Fund (and these are his exact words) “a handful” of prosecutions were undertaken. I’m willing to take his word for it. He neglects, however, to provide any sort of proof, relying heavily on the antics of a Republican Blogger. He also neglects to provide any information as to the OUTCOME of the prosecutions.

Fund DOES present a great deal of believable statements to the effect that the vote count was inefficiently conducted. He ends the chapter with the traditional pot-shot at ACORN, pointing out that some of its temporary workers submitted fraudulent voter registration documents, a fact which ACORN admitted. Still, massive VOTER fraud, by Mr. Fund’s own words, did not take place. A “handful” does not count as massive. “The 2004 election became a focus of media attention again in early 2007 when news broke that eight federal prosecutors including John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, had been fired. Republicans had hoped that after the election McKay would begin a federal investigation into alleged voter fraud, but he did not; McKay stated afterward that he would not convene a grand jury for purely political reasons and emphasized HE HAD NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD IN THE GOVERNOR'S RACE.” (Emphasis added) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004 and Bowermaster, David (March 13, 2007). "McKay "stunned" by report on Bush". Seattle Times. Retrieved March 19, 2007). In the subsequent re-match between the two candidates in 2008, the Democratic candidate won handily. Mr. Fund, finally, neglects to mention that the prosecutors (there were more than one) fired were POLITICAL APPOINTEES. That means they were appointed by the regime of one George W. Bush.

Chapter Eleven of Fund’s book is also long on statements and somewhat short on demonstrated and proven voter fraud. The chapter deals with Missouri and, if most, or even part, of it is true, that state comes across as inefficient in its administration of the electoral process across the board. It contains the usual accusations against ACORN along with charges against another voter registration organization, Americans Coming Together (ACT) and throws in George Soros because a.) he’s handy, b.) he’s a Democrat, and c.) his name distracts readers from such GOP paragons as the Koch brothers. One of the strongest statements made is a quote from (then) Missouri Secretary of State, Matt Blunt where Blunt hurls around all sorts of impressive sounding statistics without backup or a foot-note indicating the source. Mr. Fund, conveniently, forgets to mention Mr. Blunt’s party affiliation. Here’s a hint. He’s not a Democrat. The chapter contains a lot of what could be called electoral fraud (if Fund’s statements are true – they are not referenced) and a lot more evidence of inefficiency, but not one instance of a conviction of voter fraud.

Chapter Twelve is of historical interest but has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Chapter Thirteen is interesting in that it lambastes both parties without, however, going to the trouble of going into specifics or documenting sources. Chapter Fourteen is much the same except that it is shorter and deals with President Carter’s first political campaign (a Democratic primary for a state senate seat).

Fund’s final chapter (unnumbered) is titled “Conclusion,” and it is one of his best. He makes, or, rather, repeats, some recommendations to make the electoral process more efficient. He references the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). “HAVA’S most important reforms require that states meet two ‘minimum standards’ in conducting their elections. One mandates that states set up a centralized, statewide voter registration list to avoid duplications and limit how often a flawed voter list prevents someone from voting. By late 2004, only a dozen states will have completed the creation of these lists. The other generally positive reform in HAVA is a requirement that every voter in every state be allowed to cast a ‘provisional’ ballot if he or she shows up at a precinct and finds that his or her name is not on the registration list.” (Fund, Page 189). Another thing Mr. Fund mentions and recommends is a voter photo ID. I have already covered this in a previous letter. I would be more than happy to agree with Mr. Fund, but only under certain conditions. The ID should be free. The need for a voter photo ID should be publicized well in advance. It should go into effect in the election subsequent to the one immediately following the law mandating its passage. Each state should be required to notify, by mass mailing, each voter of the need and, also, where and under what conditions said ID may be acquired. Finally, the ID should be easy to get and, if necessary, update – not easy in the sense that an individual can show up, say “Hey, I need a photo voter ID,” but easy in terms of time and effort. Remember, the act of getting such documentation can take all day if you count travel and wait time. For many, this means time off from work, not always easy to get.

Mr. Fund also opposes same-day registration to vote. I disagree with him, although I would include the proviso that same-day-registration voters be required to cast provisional ballots, not to be counted until the information on the registration is verified. Mr. Fund opposes what he calls the “lawyering up” of elections, placing most of the blame on (who else) the Democrats who, he alleges, have legions of lawyers on call to deal with complaints of voter suppression and unfair denial of the right to vote. Perhaps if the GOP did not have such a history of attempts at keeping legitimate voters from exercising their right to vote, these lawyers might have to find other fields in which to excel. As if now stands, they are necessary. The remaining 20 or so pages of Mr. Fund’s book do not in any way concern voter fraud and contain nothing with which I disagree.

Now, let’s look at this matter from another standpoint.

To be continued.


I am, Ladies and Gentlemen,
your most humble and obedient & etc

Junius, fils