Same Day Voter Registration - Bad Idea

I'm all for getting more and more people to vote. But, same day voter registration doesn't make any sense. If you're not going to take the time to register to vote before Election Day, how interested are you? You're not is the simple answer.

Plus, the bill introduced by State Representative Joe Cervantes has one huge problem - the potential for voter fraud. Representative Cervantes tries to allay our concerns with the following:

Unfortunately, the same thinking that opposed access to voting throughout our country’s history is again opposing this effort. Some now claim, as they have in the past, that advances in providing access to working men and women to vote will lead to voter fraud. Factually, this simply isn’t the case. Recent studies of 12 states have shown that the incidence of voter fraud is low.

That being said, this doesn’t preclude the need for continued vigilance in protecting the integrity of elections. My bill provides additional mechanisms to prevent fraud by making voters show a photo ID at time of registration. By enacting same-day registration, we prevent further “gaming” of the electoral system that now occurs with registration at shopping centers, markets and by national organizations intending to influence election outcomes.

It's worth noting that he says the incidence of fraud is "low" in states that have implemented same day voter registration. He doesn't say it doesn't exist. He just says its low. Think about how many times in the last few elections the winner won by less than 200 votes. It happens a lot in New Mexico. If I were the one running, I wouldn't want low fraud being the deciding factor in whether I won or loss.

Also, something else to consider. We give drivers licenses to people who are not eligible to vote because they are not US citizens. How is same day registration going to take care of that. I was also struck by the fact we need photo ids for same day voting, but not for everyone else. If it is a good deterrent of fraud for same day voting shouldn't the same apply to everyone else as well?

Will Fraud Win the Election?

I've written numerous times about voter registration fraud this election cycle. Most recently about the the Obama campaign worker visiting from California who is (was) planning on voting absentee in New Mexico. Does that mean that I'm worried that fraud will win this election? In a word, "No."

However, I am concerned about the lack of interest in preventing and prosecuting voter fraud. When we start ignoring the little crimes, we create an environment that allows lawlessness to flourish. Before the Republican presidential primary campaigns had gotten underway, I was a big fan of Rudy Giuliani's. I was a fan not because of the leadership he showed post-9/11 (albeit admirable), but because of the leadership he showed pre-9/11. Specifically, the leadership in fighting crime in New York City.

Since I started attending New York University in the pre-Giuliani period, I experienced first hand the deterioration of a great city by the decision of previous administrations to ignore the little crimes (i.e. turnstyle jumping in subways and agressive panhandlers). I also saw the post-Giuliani improvement by concentrating on ridding the city of those crimes.

Now, this is not to say I stayed a fan of Giuliani as the campaign continued. I didn't. He lost me because of his interest in continuing taxpayer funded abortions. Notice, I didn't say his pro-choice stance, which I disagreed with but was willing to ignore - politics is all about compromise.

What does this all have to do with the outcome of today's election? Well, I do believe on a national basis we are going to see a Democratic sweep (hey, I'm partisan, but I'm also a realist), and I do believe the Democrats will be in a position to institute wide-scale change. I just don't believe we will all be better of as the result of it.

One of my fears is that while these changes are going on, those in power will become less and less concerned with the integrity of the process, and when that happens what starts as a little voter fraud will eventually snowball into wide-scale fraud that will result in the collapse of a system (think housing and stock markets).

Regardless, of which side of the aisle you are on, if you believe in a Democratic process, you better take an interest in the integrity of that process. Remember, balances of power shift all of the time. It is up to those in power to enforce the rules of the game. After all, keep in mind that power shifts are like a pendulum, the further they shift to the left in one cycle means the further they will shift to the right in another cycle. And, you won't like the results when that shift occurs again if institutional fraud is part of the game. And you know what? Neither will I.

Non-Resident Obama Campaign Workers to Vote in New Mexico

As we come into the final hours of the campaign, Palestra.net confirms at least one Obama campaign worker who is here temporarily has registered to vote in New Mexico and requested an absentee ballot. This particular worker has such deep ties to California, where he lives and works, that only two months ago, he served as a California delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

According to comments made in an interview County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver admits that out of state non-residents can register and vote in this election. Ms. Toulouse Oliver goes on to say:

It's not so much that it's allowed, that it is not enforced. There's really no enforcement measurement in place to evaluate whether someone's submitting a registration based on a temporary address.

In the interview, Secretary of State Mary Herrerra confirms what we all know. Namely, that these visiting out of state campaign workers should not be voting in our elections. The Obama campaign refused to confirm how many out of state workers, they've brought into New Mexico.

It remains to be seen whether or not the mainstream media will pick up this story. If they do, they should ask the Obama campaign in New Mexico to release a list of all out of state temporary workers, so that can be compared to our voter rolls.

Private Investiagation Justified

The Democrats in New Mexico who are responsible for prosecuting crimes (read: District Attorney and Attorney General) have turned a blind eye time and time again to voter fraud allegations. Not surprising considering that they'll be the biggest beneficiaries on Election Day of creative uses of fraudulent voter registrations.

It seems that every election cycle the problem is worsening, and every election cycle the Democrats, and one Republican former U.S. Attorney, cite a lack of evidence as the reason for a failure to prosecute. So, it makes perfect sense that local attorney Pat Rogers would try and help round up the evidence that Democrats conveniently seem to be unwilling to gather for themselves (subscription).

An Albuquerque attorney who has been accused in a federal lawsuit of intimidating two voters in an attempt to interfere with their right to vote said Wednesday he has not violated any law.

Pat Rogers, who advises the state Republican Party, is accused of helping disseminate private information about two voters and hiring a private investigator, Al Romero, who allegedly went to their homes and confronted them about their eligibility to vote, the lawsuit said.

This accusation against Pat Rogers is ridiculous. First, let's state the obvious... Someone's voter information is not private. It's public information available to anyone for a fee. Pay the County Clerk, and you too can get everyone's complete voter profile - where they live, when they've voted, their age, etc.

Politicians and their volunteers who go door to door are in essence doing their own voter verification. This is not considered intimidation, why should knocking on someone's door and verifying eligibility be considered intimidation? It shouldn't.

Voter fraud is a problem, and it's growing. The failure to prosecute is beginning to seriously undermining confidence in the system. Heck, people in New Mexico are now so confident that they won't be prosecuted, they're willing to admit registering their dog to vote (subscription):

Don Pizzolato didn't expect his dog to end up registered to vote.

Sure, he filled out the paperwork after he was approached a few years ago at Wal-Mart. But the Social Security number and birth date Pizzolato made up for his dog were fake.

"I fully expected the form to be returned to me," Pizzolato said Wednesday in an interview.

Instead, he received a voter registration card in the mail a few weeks later. Now, with all the debate over registration fraud, Pizzolato is going public with the tale of his dog, Tuckup Koepke.

"I just have one data point to go off of, but in my opinion, if it's this easy to thwart the system, I'm sure it's not an isolated case," Pizzolato said.

Is it any wonder Pat Rogers decided to investigate the fraud? If Pat Rogers hadn't, we would have never known about this story.

Busy Season for the Attorney General

This should be a busy election season for Attorney General Gary King. He has already had to push the Secretary of State to act on Eli Lee's creatively questionable use of not for profits, and now it remains to be seen whether he will begin investigations in the other efforts going on in New Mexico to undermine our elections.

I have long held that we don't need to create ethics laws. We just need to enforce the laws on the books, and I believe it is up to the Attorney General to put partisanship aside (justice is neither Republican nor Democrat) and fully prosecute those who break the law.

Dave Maass of the Santa Fe Reporter has a recent article about PRC candidate Jerome Block Jr. writing check after check to a county clerk:

The money in the fund comes from inspection fees placed on utilities and a tax on insurance premiums. In other words, publicly-financed candidates receive their money from the state government.

In Block’s case, some of it ended up in the San Miguel County Clerk’s Office.

According to Block’s campaign records, a few days after the June 3 primary election, Block cut a $300 check to San Miguel County Clerk “Pecos” Paul Maez for “campaign coordination.”

San Miguel is the only county Block won in the six-way Democratic primary. Block used Maez’ official clerk’s office address on the report.

That same day, Block also cut a $2,500 check to the country-western band Wyld Country, in which Maez is a guitarist. According to Block’s campaign, the payment was for a rally in San Miguel County just prior to the primary election. Block deferred questions to his recently appointed campaign manager Jonathan Valdez.

Block used nearly 10% of his taxpayer funded (not government funded Mr. Maass) campaign funds to write checks to the county clerk in the only county he actually won in a primary. If this doesn't scream for an investigation by the Attorney General, then I don't know what does.

Oh wait. I do know something else that is just as atrocious...

Election season after election season the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) gets a pass as it strives to undermine the election system by paying people to turn in fraudulent voter registrations or intimidate voters. And, Scott Sandlin's recent article shows that this year is no different:

Clovis native Rebecca Sitterly registered to vote soon after returning to her native state in 1979 and jumped right into Democratic politics about the same time.

So the former Bernalillo County district judge was surprised to get a July 3 call from a community nonprofit that was checking on her new registration.

When Sitterly said she hadn't filled out a registration form � indeed, she'd been regularly voting in the same place on Mountain Road NW in Albuquerque for nearly 20 years � a supervisor with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now promised to destroy the card, Sitterly said in a phone interview.

"He said, 'Don't worry, it won't go anywhere,' " she said.

More surprises were in store. She got a call from the Bureau of Elections in the Bernalillo County Clerk's Office three weeks later, asking again about the registration card, which was missing its required Social Security number.

"They were finishing out the card � they weren't calling about the fraud," she said.

Sitterly went to the sixth-floor clerk's office, got a copy of the card and discovered that it understated her age by three decades.

So, let's review, shall we?

We have a "former" Democratic political consultant, Eli Lee, running not for profits and pledging to spend a million tax deductible dollars to "educate" voters. We have a Democratic candidate for the PRC [side note: there is no Republican in this race, so I don't have a partisan motive here] writing big checks to sitting county clerks to help him win the election. And, we have ACORN continuing their well documented efforts to pay good money to submit fraudulent voter registration forms in an effort to undermine the election process.

My only question... When is someone going to jail?

Paper Ballots Solved Nothing

In 2006, we made the change from clean and simple electronic voting back to an antiquated paper ballot system. I thought the move to paper ballots was ludicrous at the time, and I still do.

There are so many alternative solutions that make more sense. But, who are we kidding? It wouldn't be New Mexico if there wasn't institutionalized election fraud with unreasonable delays election after election. Not too mention, it is in the best interests of those who don't really want to see an increase in voter turnout to make the voting process as painful as humanly possible.

The point of this whole rant... Well, it looks like paper ballots have done absolutely nothing to increase voter confidence. After all, it's kind of hard to be confident in a system in which ballots are still being mysteriously "lost" (subscription):

Attorney General Gary King's office is investigating what happened to 182 ballots that are missing from the June primary election.

Phil Sisneros, a spokesman for the attorney general, said Monday there was an investigation but he could not provide any details. Previously, the Attorney General's Office would only say the matter was under review.

Two election reform groups — Verified Voting New Mexico and United Voters of New Mexico — called Monday for a thorough investigation into the missing ballots. They said that was necessary to maintain voter confidence in the fairness of elections, particularly with the state preparing for a general election in November in which New Mexico is likely to be critical in the outcome of the presidential race.

The paper ballots are missing from two precincts in Cibola County and local elections officials have no explanation for what happened.

The ballots were counted by a voting machine tabulator on Election Day, and there's an electronic record of the votes because of the tabulator's memory card, which was used in a recount in a state Senate race.

Hmm, funny how that worked out... We know that there was fraud, or at the very least incompetence, because of the electronic record of the votes. Kind of makes you sit up and question the logic behind moving away from electronic records, doesn't it?

Illegals Impact on Tight Elections

The State of New Mexico has issued an estimated 30,000 drivers licenses to foreign nationals - a large number of which we can assume are illegal immigrants. These licenses can be used as identification to allow these folks to vote.

The State Republican Party has been in a legal war with Governor Bill Richardson's administration over the right to inspect those public records in order to compare them against the voting rolls to ensure that only those eligible to vote are in fact registered to vote. They're losing the battle on what appears to me to be a partisan legal decision (subscription):

District Judge Valerie Mackie Huling of Albuquerque ruled recently that state and federal anti-stalking laws trumped public records arguments and the GOP's attempt to make sure non-citizens aren't voting.

So, why am I saying this has the appearance of partisanship?

Robert Johnson, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, said in an interview prior to his death earlier this month that he was puzzled by the ruling because "the state argued that these records are sacrosanct.

"These records are not locked away," Johnson said. "There are at least two data collection companies that offer access to these records to a wide range of entities willing to pay for it."

The State won't allow the GOP to use the public information to verify the integrity of our voter rolls, but they'll turn a profit by selling it to a third party who can in turn resell it again. There is something seriously wrong with this logic - some may even find it unethical.

The Facts Are on His Side

You may not like what Palast has to say but the facts are on his side.

This was in a comment by David Jacobs left yesterday. Now, Mr. Jacobs is a frequent commentator on this blog, and I sincerely appreciate the dialogue. But, to argue that Mr. Palast has facts on his side is a bit of a stretch. Granted, Mr. Palast can spin the facts with the best of them, and like our own Joe Monahan, he pretends to be reporting the facts in an unbiased investigative manner, but nothing could be further from the truth.

It may surprise some people to know that I actually own one of Mr. Palast's book, The Best Money Democracy Can Buy. However, it was a New York Times best seller on politics, and I am always curious what the other side is putting out there.

Here is what I discovered... If you are removed from the facts (i.e. don't have first hand knowledge), then Mr. Palast's "investigative reporting" is very believable. However, if you are living what he is reporting, then it quickly becomes clear for what it is... Democratic Spin.

Case in point can be found in this exchange from the David Iglesias segment on Democracy NOW:

AMY GOODMAN: And Healther Wilson, of course, also called, and Heather Wilson at the time in an extremely close race for her political life as a congress member from New Mexico.

GREG PALAST: Well, in fact, from my investigation, she didn't win. There was voter fraud, and that the majority of the votes went to the Democrats.

Do you hear that sound? It is the sound of the last of Mr. Palast's credibility going down the drain. Anyone who is going to go on record stating that Republicans are in a position to steal an election in the NM's 1st CD is either a fool or the ultimate spinmeister. Since I don't think fools can write a NYT best seller, I'm going to acknowledge Mr. Palast's tremendous spin abilities.

One of my very first posts as a political blogger pointed out the absurdity of claims that Republicans could steal elections in New Mexico, and in the 2006 elections in the Land of Enchantment the same reality existed as in 2004. The same powerful Democrats were in all of the same election controlling positions, so the absurdity of the premise remains the same.

2004 Election Fraud Concerned Democrats

It turns out that the election fraud perpetrated in New Mexico in 2004 was a concern to Democrats as well as as Republicans (Hat tip: American Spectator). In fact, it was a big enough deal that recently released documents by the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary show that Senator Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) office called not once, but twice before the election in 2004 to determine the status. See the released supporting documentation below:



So, what does this all mean? Well, the folks over at the American Spectator have this take:

Is there anything wrong with this? Probably not. But it shows that it can be an entirely innocent and normal thing for senators to inquire, during election season, about the status of investigations with political ramifications. It takes at least some of the sting out of the breathless allegations against Domenici.

Granted, there are two differences in the cases. First, Domenici called Iglesias directly, whereas it was Bingaman's chief of staff who called and it was to the legislative affairs office at Justice, not to Iglesias, that he made his call. Second, there is no evidence that Bingaman did anything further that could be interpreted as putting political pressure on Iglesias or on DoJ, whereas it appeared that Domenici forwarded his complaints to the White House.

But the fact remains that it is just flat-out inaccurate to assert that senators are necessarily out of line to express concern about politically tinged investigations. The Democrats' pretense to the contrary is not just hypocritical, but a rank descent into character assassination of a sort that can, by tying up resources, distract attention from the actual job of law enforcement.

For those of you out there who are trying to pretend voter fraud did not occur in 2004, please take special note that it was Democrat County Clerk Mary Herrera "who asked to meet about 3,000 suspicious registrations." And, the lack of prosecutorial action by David Iglesias in after a year's passage is what led to Senator Domenici's well documented first complaint in September of 2005 to the Department of Justice.

How Much More Proof Do You Want?

Several weeks back, I put up the video that showed the press was covering the 2004 Voter Fraud problems. The problems that disgruntled former, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias never saw fit to get around to prosecuting. At least one blogger feels that seeing the evidence documented in the evening news is just not enough proof.

So, I'm wondering if this Albuquerque Tribune article from earlier this years might constitute proof that we have a voter fraud problem in New Mexico that would have warranted prosecution by Mr. Iglesias:

The new state elections director's anecdote about personal brushes with voting fraud have riled a number of county clerks and left others scratching their heads.

At a meeting of county clerks in Santa Fe on Jan. 23, Daniel Ivey-Soto recounted several conversations he'd had over the years with people who told him they'd used other people's identities to cast multiple votes, according to Ivey-Soto and others in attendance.

"I have been in conversations with people who have told me that, at various times, they've voted more than once on Election Day," Ivey Soto said in an interview this week. "It happens. Apparently some people were shocked by that."

Santa Fe County Clerk Valerie Espinoza, a Democrat, was one of them.

"To make those comments to a group of county clerks was really just unbelievable," she said. "As a lawyer, he knew that voting fraud is a felony, and if you know someone who does that, why don't you tell the attorney general?"

Otero County Clerk Robyn Silva, a Republican, echoed those comments.

Okay, obviously this is an issue that is offensive to both sides of the aisle - at least those that care about fair elections. Oh, and lest anyone say this was a joke that got out of hand:

Other clerks said they thought Ivey-Soto might have been joking.

He wasn't.

Ivey-Soto, who took over as election chief three weeks ago despite having no experience running elections, said he recounted the conversations to make a serious point.

"In any system where people are allowed to express their opinion, you're going to get a certain amount of fraud," he said. "On `American Idol' you get people who call in to vote 16 or 17 times."

He said the conversations about voting fraud happened more than three years ago and suggested some may have been protected by attorney-client privilege.

Ok, am I the only one who finds it unnerving that the state's election director believes a certain amount of fraud is ok? Folks, he actually compares New Mexico voter fraud to American Idol, where people are encouraged to vote as many times as possbile for their favorite candidate.

With attitudes like this running rampant in Democratic circles that control state elections, is it really any wonder that people were frustrated by the lack of action by Mr. Iglesias? A Republican U.S. Attorney in a Democratic state plagued by public corruption scandals and voter fraud should be a proactive prosecutor, not a guy who is so inactive (subscription) that New Mexicans don't know what he does:

At his farewell news conference, Iglesias joked that he was often referred to as the "District Attorney" and that many New Mexicans were unfamiliar with what his position actually was.

From a public relations standpoint, the Department of Justice did not handle the firings of the U.S. Attorney's well. And, in the case of David Iglesias, part of the problem is that they kept him in the job too long.

YouTube Video Proves Inglesias Failed

David Iglesias must really be hating YouTube right now. Yesterday morning, he had an op-ed show up in the New York Times in which he wrote:

"...much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico...What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Within hours, The Wednesday Morning Quarterback, put up the video that provides the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Mr. Iglesias failed to do his job after the 2004 voter election fraud.




Well, in all fairness, maybe Mr. Iglesias never saw the video. After all, he did cite to reporters when this all began that his fondest memories of being U.S. Attorney would be the trips he got to take abroad. I'm sure with the busy travel schedule, it was hard to find the time to actually do that whole prosecuting thing.