Iowa Refers 80 Cases of Voter Fraud to Prosecutors

The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation has referred 80 cases of voter fraud to local prosecutors.

This comes after a long investigation and has yielded a few guilty pleas as well.

The story mentions a few narrow margin elections that could have been influenced by corruption.

The *Messages* are being sent.


Iowa Refers 80 Cases of Voter Fraud to Prosecutors

Vice President Biden claimed voter ID laws were evidence of “hatred” and “zealotry” during a Black History Month event yesterday in Washington.

Ignoring the fact that voter ID laws were declared constitutional in a 2006 Supreme Court decision written by John Paul Stevens, the Court’s then most liberal justice, Biden is continuing the fact-free assault on anti-voter fraud measures.

When such laws aren’t “hateful” they are “unnecessary.” The Brennan Center for Justice says “voter fraud is essentially irrational” so it almost never happens. Voter fraud is so rare “you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than find a case of prosecutorial voter fraud,” insists Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of the liberal Advancement Project.

Always vote early and vote "often" too !!

reply to post by xuenchen

Liberals aren’t convinced. They accuse Secretary of State Schultz of misusing his office resources to pursue insignificant amounts of voter fraud. “Schultz chose to spend his Secretary of State career collaring a relative handful of voters whose mistakes might have been cleared up with a public information campaign,” sniffed the liberal Quad City Times.

Insignificant amount of voter fraud? really?

I guess when that voter fraud is responsible for electing Democrats its insignificant... Now, if it was Republicans it would be something else entirely.

I am still waiting to see how Kansas's voter law turns out. Since the Feds have decided to declare war on states requiring a person to show they can lawfully vote by producing ID, Kansas took an interesting step. Instead of holding elections at the same time as Federal / Presidential, they split state voting from federal voting. That way they can require ID in order to vote in state / local elections.

Federal elections will not change.

Although im curious what the difference is between voting and entering federal buildings. The complain when states want to see ID, yet they are perfectly ok with requiring identification to enter federal buildings.

“And in a groundbreaking move, the Associated Press, the largest news gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. No longer ‘illegal immigrant.’ They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat.’ That is the newest — ‘undocumented Democrat.’”

- Jay Leno

Iowa, Illinois, Indiana...

I think we should have more investigations into voter fraud. I also want to know if these cases are isolated or if they are being coordinated from state / regional groups of the Democratic party.

By the way, if it were Republicans doing the same I would be calling for their investigation / prosecution as well.

I also think the areas that have voter fraud should review the election ballots to ensure that the person in office legally won the race. If it is shown they were put in office via fraud, they need to go. They also need to figure out a way to ensure one party does not sabotage another party by illegally voting (Michigan elections with Jeffery Feiger when he ran for Governor - A lot of Democrats voted for feiger to ensure he would be the candidate running against Granholm)

Hmm....
Separate State and Federal elections.
Show ID to vote in State elections.
Show proof one voted in the state election in order to vote in the federal?

Who is disenfranchised then?

abecedarian
Hmm....
Separate State and Federal elections.
Show ID to vote in State elections.
Show proof one voted in the state election in order to vote in the federal?

Who is disenfranchised then?

edit on 2/27/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Not quite...

Required to show ID to vote in State elections.
For Federal elections nothing will change.

Kansas floats two-tiered voting system as way to comply with Supreme Court ruling

October 21

By BRAD COOPER

The Kansas City Star


Kansas and Arizona are developing unusual voter registration systems to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that bars requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is working on a tiered system that would divide voters into two classes: one eligible to vote in just federal elections and the other eligible to vote in all elections, depending on the form that a voter completes.

The idea arose from last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that said Arizona could not require proof of citizenship for prospective voters using the federal registration form. It left open the question of whether states could require proof of citizenship on their registration forms.

The federal form does not require would-be voters to prove citizenship. They are required only to declare under penalty of perjury they are citizens.

Click link for remainder of article.

This idea came up back in 2013 and am not sure it went anywhere. Apparently Arizona is looking at the same idea for their elections.

As for the argument about requiring ID for state elections they can look at Texas as an example. They floated the idea of issuing state ID cards for voting, with the state picking up the tab. I support an ID card for voting since it is possible legitimate voters are being disenfranchised by those who are not eligible to vote. When it comes to supporting one candidate over another in addition to how money is spent at the state level - its to much of an impact to ignore the issue.

Another example is college tuition assistance. If I were to go to college in a neighboring state I would be required to pay out of state student fees. However, if I am not in the country legally then I qualify for in state tuition fees.

We do not have a national sales / use tax so the argument that migrants pay into the system is not accurate.

I am for immigration, so long as it is lawful and in compliance with state / federal rules. When the Federal government refuses to enforce federal law / constitutional requirements / immigration law what else can a state do?

reply to post by xuenchen


This article also says this:

Since the investigation was initiated by GOP Secretary of State Matt Schultz a year and a half ago, five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges.

Iowa Refers 80 Cases of Voter Fraud to Prosecutors

The article does not state whether or not more cases would be brought forward, but the total number of cases is 20, if you count those currently being processed. But we can stick with 80 and do the math on both...

The population of Iowa in 2012 (estimate) = 3,074,186

80 = .00002602 or .0026% of the population committing potential voter fraud =
20 = .0000065 or .00065% of the population are convicted/facing charges

Let's look at actual voters in 2012 in Iowa for the Presidential election:

Obama 822,544 Romney 730,617

Thats a total of 1,553,161 ballots cast

So, the percentage of fraud from ballots cast as opposed to total population is: .000052 or .0052%
This is equal to 5.2 people committing voter fraud for every 1,000,000 people voting in the state of Iowa.

It leaves me with the question of why would so much time and energy and rhetoric go into Voter Fraud when, in Iowa, only 5.2 people out of every 1,000,000 are even POSSIBLY doing it (those 80 cases have not been tried, only presented). How, in a state-wide election, are 20-80 people spread throughout the populace going to swing an election?? How would that have helped or hurt either candidate in the presidential election? I suppose if there was one tiny city of 200 people and all the voting fraud took place there it would totally matter, but... ??? I wonder how much money and time are going into this at the legislative level - is it really worth it? It says here that Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz spent $150,000 of taxpayer money on this. It also says this:

Eighteen months and $150,000 later, a rigorous voter fraud investigation commissioned by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) has failed to produce any statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in Iowa, according to The Des Moines Register.

Since taking office in 2011, Schultz has made safeguarding the ballot box from fraud a top state priority, striking a two-year deal with the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation in 2012 that directed $280,000 of federal funds toward voter fraud inquiries. Additionally, a full-time agent was hired and assigned to pursue voter fraud cases.

Although Schultz had expected to unveil “a lot” of voter fraud cases, the investigation so far has yielded just five guilty pleas and five dismissals, The Des Moines Register reported late Sunday.

Of the five guilty pleas, three of them involved felons who had completed their prison terms but whose voting rights had not yet been restored when they went to vote.

In another case, a woman cast an absentee ballot for her daughter, who had recently moved to Minnesota and told her mother that she had missed the registration deadline there. After learning her daughter ultimately did vote in Minnesota, the mother self-reported the double-voting incident to the local county auditor’s office, resulting in a $147.75 fine, according to The Des Moines Register.

In the fifth guilty plea, a man was incidentally charged with voter fraud after a drunk driving arrest revealed that he had stolen his dead brother’s identity to obtain a driver’s license.

Schultz’s critics have attacked his efforts to ferret out voter fraud as a waste of state money and time.

“Secretary Schultz’s actions not only waste a tremendous amount of money that should be used to increase access to voting in Iowa,” Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, told The Des Moines Register. “Ultimately, they make it demonstrably harder for eligible people to vote.”

peace,
AB

I believe identification should be required to vote. Think about this for a second: in many places a person can get arrested for failing to prove who they are. You could be walking down the sidewalk, get stopped by a cop, and if you didn't bring your wallet or purse with you, and therefore cannot prove who you are, you can be taken to jail in some places in the US. Now how is it that it is so important to prove who you are when you are doing nothing wrong, yet one doesn't have to prove who they are, or that they are a legal resident, when they are doing the ONE thing that they actually can do to influence the government of this country...

It is both astounding and idiotic. And the corruption in the US government is proof that we should take the Founding Fathers' advice, and institute a better form of government. Actually, the government that the US has is just fine, but the problem arises because certain laws have been done away with, certian laws are ingored in some instances, and politicians refuse to pass laws that would potentially affect themselves.