Last week, Paul Schurick, the campaign manager for former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich, was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to violate election laws and two counts of election fraud for orchestrating a scheme of robo-calls intended to deter 100,000 Democratic African-American voters from voting in the City of Baltimore and Prince George's County Maryland.
The robo-calls, delivered in a woman's voice, assured Democratic voters that the Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley had already won the election as of 6:00 p.m. on Election Day 2010.
"Our goals have been met. The polls are correct and we took it back. We're OK. Relax. Everything's fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight."
At trial, Schurick argued his intention was to anger voters sympathetic to his candidate in order to motivate them to vote. A jury rejected his argument and found Schurick's intent was to mislead and discourage Democratic African‑American voters from going to the polls.
Schurick's conviction comes in the midst of a robust national debate about the importance of ballot security and how to protect American elections. Since January 2011, 15 states passed laws - with more legislation currently pending in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia, among others - that burden individual voters by making it harder for citizens to register and to vote. These efforts range from eliminating early voting on Sunday, to making it more difficult for citizens to register, to requiring a specific kind of government-issued photo ID to vote. In almost all cases these laws are justified as a means to prevent voter fraud. This justification fails.
Simply put: these laws do nothing to prevent voter fraud, while putting up unnecessary barriers to the ballot for millions. Making it all but impossible for the League of Women Voters to register citizens in Florida -- as a new law does -- will not prevent someone who wants to submit a false registration form from doing so, but it could keep thousands from ever getting on the voter rolls. Eliminating days available for early voting will not keep supposed "fraudsters" from the polls, but it will affect the 1-2 million voters who used those early-voting days to vote in the 2008 elections. Requiring a driver's license, gun permit, military ID or passport to vote (while not allowing student IDs or public benefit cards) will not improve the security of our elections, but it may prevent the 3.2 million citizens without the right kind of photo ID from voting. All total, up to 5 million American citizens may be affected by these laws, with no evidence that any voter fraud will be prevented.
These new laws raise concerns for the 2012 presidential election. Five million votes is greater than the margin of victory in 2 of the last 3 presidential elections. Moreover, there are a total of 175 electoral votes controlled by the states that enacted laws imposing new restrictions on voting and voter registration for the 2012 election - equaling 65 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to elect the next President.
Conversely, the "voter fraud" evangelicals ignore the very real problems created by voter deception. In a case before him in 2009, federal Judge Dickinson Debevoise found that voter intimidation tactics present an ongoing threat to participation in the political process" and continue to pose a far greater danger to the integrity of the process than the unproven and undemonstrated threat of voter impersonation and improper voter registration.
The distribution of misinformation about elections and voter eligibility undermines public confidence and discourages citizens from participating in the electoral process. Examples of voter deception include:
· In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers in an African American neighborhood inaccurately told voters they would be able to vote three days after the election.
· In 2004 in Ohio, flyers in Franklin County told voters that due to heavy voter registration, Republicans should vote on Tuesday and Democrats should vote on Wednesday.
· In 2006 in Virginia, voters living in areas with large minority populations received calls incorrectly reporting that their polling places had changed.
· In 2008 in Philadelphia, fliers posted near Drexel University incorrectly warned that police officers would be at polling places looking for individuals with outstanding arrest warrants or parking tickets.
· In the 2006 midterm election, 14,000 Latino voters in Orange County, California received mailings from the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, warning them in Spanish that "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration" without reference to the fact that a naturalized immigrant may legally vote.
Other types of suppressive voter activity by political operatives or private citizens are:
Voter caging: efforts to identify and disenfranchise registered voters solely on the basis of an undeliverable mailing;
Voter intimidation: conduct that intimidates or threatens voters into voting a certain way or refraining from voting; and
Discriminatory or intimidating voter challenges: formal challenges to the eligibility of persons presenting themselves to vote either at the polls or prior to Election Day in a way intended to intimidate voters or in an intentionally discriminatory pattern.
Paul Schurick's conviction evidences the type of activity that is well-documented and clearly demonstrated to be a real problem.
Niomi Rosenberg, one of jurors from the Schurick trial said it best: "Suppression of the vote is a very big problem. Our country is founded on the right to vote."
Keesha Gaskins serves as Senior Counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Republicans believe that they are always entitled to win, Right Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAF) believe that the majority of Americans share their views and that America is a conservative nation despite that of the last 5 presidential election cycles, Republican candidates has failed to win the popular vote 4 times (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008).
Republicans-Con's voter "fraud" claim is just like their “War on Christmas,” its a cycle and a time to sell fear, entitlement, and hate. Every conversation drips of hyperbole, sarcasm, or irony. They go from talk show to News shows and cast their political opposition as extreme caricatures, and where every attack is spoken with dire and apocalyptic tones.
The GOPer who is from the 22nd Congressional district in Texas voted TWICE in 2004, once in Virginia where he was living, and then in Connecticut where he had lived with his parents before. The wealthy and those who move around a lot have th privilege of voting many times since there is NO data base between states to weed out duplicate voter registration in different states.
We need to do what Mexico does and have a Federal Voter ID card. That would cut down on a lot of this multiple voting by the privileged.
How do they use that power? To crush the middle class that FDR created.
The solution is simple. Any State that changes their voter registration laws must have ALL voters qualify via the new regs - meaning that all voter registrations are canceled, and everyone needs to start with an equal playing field. After all, if my neighbor has been a Registered Rpub for 40 years, how do we KNOW he qualifies as a voter now? He could have gotten on the rolls back when the requirements were all loosey goosey.
I wonder if an Executive Order can cover that.
I got one of these calls too and I am white and don't live in PG or Baltimore.
I called my local representatives office and I was far from being the first to complain.
I am glad they convicted him, now I hope he does real time in prison
So disabled are denied voting rights, and the elderly who cannot drive to polling centers.
Oh wait! What of mail in ballots? But how to they check THOSE IDs? Oh, they don't! So really this is about just attempting to suppress those that lean toward democratic candidates! This issue seems to mainly arise in states that are RED at risk of going BLUE.
FACTS: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf
"In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires anyone registering to vote to provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship," such as a driver's license, a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization documents, or any other documents accepted by the federal government to prove citizenship for employment purposes. The state issues a "Type F" driver's license to individuals who are legally present in the United States but are not citizens. Since Proposition 200 took effect, 2,177 non-citizens applying for such licenses have attempted to register to vote. [42] Another 30,000 have been denied registration because they could not produce evidence of citizenship.[43]"
link: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-threat-of-non-citizen-voting
The FACT is that the Constitution says in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment that if the a state impedes the right to vote, they risk losing representation in Congress. Of that 30,000 number quoted, most probably were eligible to vote. Illegals have little motive for identifying themselves to authorities, so there is little motivation for any to register to vote.
It's the right who disavows both reason and morals.
So let us keep these laws against voter fraud. I am sure that the GOP will not mind if we also pass a requirement that voters must pass a high school civics test to get a voter's license. That will exclude enough Republicans to level the playing field again.
Agree, or disagree?
Concurrently, no one who does not have the right to vote should be allowed to.
That is why we need voter ID laws in every state. If you have the right to vote, you should have no problem showing ID to prove it; as an American you should be proud to show ID to perform that most sacred of rights; voting.
If you oppose showing ID to vote, you support voter fraud; Agree?
No, this is a boogie man threat. Using the fear of 'voter fraud' while the conservatives launch a campaign that seeks to restrict legal voters is just a two pronged attack against democracy.
If you are a proud American, you should have no problem showing ID to vote.
If you oppose having to prove you are who you say you are to vote, you support voter fraud.
Why don't they use that phrase anymore?
Maybe because those rights like voting, pertain to Citizens?
"The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination."
link: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+Rights
- Maybe the pesky word legal has something to do with it.
Maybe there's an illegal-dictionary.dot.com that will give us the right definition.........
Look, have you ever registered to vote? I did! Online! No ID required! Nothing. BUT that Voter ID card (that has no picture) probably would not be sent to me if I was not legit. All I know is I did not prove anything to get it... but the other issue is....
How many "ILLEGALS" do you REALLY think TRY to vote? I think the number is so insignificant, that this is clearly NOT the motive behind such push for ID requirements.
http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/13/union-disenfranchises-workers-in-contract-vote/#more-390260