Why there is no vote fraud in NC. . .
(Raleigh, NC)—AUG 18, 2013—After finally discovering the identities of the five persons who voted twice in the November 2012 election, the Voter Integrity Project of NC is ready to announce more stunning news: We can now reveal why there is no vote fraud in North Carolina.
But first, I need to refresh the public memory on this story. . . .
In February, 2013, we completed our research as best we could (at the time) to conclude that up to 33 people who maintained dual residences in both Florida and North Carolina had voted in both states during the November 2012 election. We then forwarded the information to election officials in both states and asked them to investigate.
Don Wright, Chief Counsel to the State Board of Elections, inspired our news announcement on March 20, 2013 when he confirmed that five of our alleged double voters “[were] continuing to be criminally investigated with preparations to refer them to the appropriate District Attorney.” The story garnered coverage from John Fund at the highly regarded National Review Online and on Fox News; but perhaps because this upsetting story happened in the middle of the Legislature’s debate over voter ID, local media ignored the story.
The one exception to this news black-out was a minor amount of interest shown by WNCT-9 news producer, Jenny Moore. She asked us for the names of our “Fab Five,” but Counselor Wright denied our query in a stern reply, “As with all criminal investigations, generally the identification of persons under criminal investigation in all cases is confidential until the suspect is arrested or indicted. The present cases are referrals of criminal cases and it will be up to the District Attorneys involved to release such information they set fit.” [sic]
Sadly, our four-term Attorney General, Roy Cooper, has shown little interest in [investigating or making referrals for] prosecuting SBoE cases of election fraud, even though the BoE has offered up hundreds of cases. So we decided to dig deeper while we hoped Cooper would do his job . . . and we struck gold!
We finally discovered that five people we submitted had names and dates of birth that were perfect matches between the Florida and NC voter histories! Without revealing any names, some details about their cases—and the NC counties from which they voted—merit elaboration.
The Wayne County Perp is the toughest case of all because of his age. He is a 91-year-old man, living in both Port Richey, Florida and Goldsboro, NC. Maybe we’re mistaken, but it appears that a man with the same name and date of birth has a stunning history of double voting in both states. His civic practice in Florida shows participation in every November election since 2002; but this registered Unaffiliated voter apparently decided to steal extra votes in NC during the 2008, 2010 and 2012 general elections. Whether a man this old should go to jail is up to the Wayne County DA, but we would at least ask that somebody make him stop stealing votes!
Our Wake County Perp votes from [Holly Springs and from] Jacksonville, and has cast Florida ballots since 2004. In 2008, he voted absentee in NC; but did not vote that time in Florida. Perhaps the temptation was too much for this registered Democrat, so in 2012, he voted in both states.
Blust says voting changes are meant to strike a 'proper balance'
Doug Clark | Posted: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:23 am
The state legislature is "striking the proper balance between ease of voting and the integrity of the voting," Republican state Rep. John Blust said in an email exchange with me yesterday.
It began when Blust sent Allen Johnson and me a series of articles by conservative analysts claiming that, with these changes, North Carolina's voting laws will fall into line with those in many other states.
I sent this response to Blust:
"Is this really your best reason for supporting rollbacks in voting opportunities – because we still won’t be as bad as some other states? And now we’re seeing the next step – attacks on college students voting by local election boards.
"The intellectual dishonesty behind this movement is staggering. So far you’ve fooled the people who can’t recognize the pattern and don’t understand the cumulative impact of all these individual changes. But please don’t insult me by suggesting I should believe these actions are meant to improve our election system and 'restore confidence' in government. I’m ashamed of it and embarrassed for otherwise good people who have climbed on board because the conductors whistled."
The following is his reply. Notable is his assurance that not one single person will be prevented from voting by the new requirements and restrictions -- and also that he actually doesn't agree with all the provisions or like that they were presented on the last night of the legislative session. Nevertheless, he voted for the entire package. It is also significant that, in portraying the moves as attempts to strike a new balance between "ease of voting and the integrity of the voting," he tacitly acknowledges that the intended effect is to constrain "ease of voting."
"You call me intellectually dishonest and then fail to even understand the point of the articles I sent you. I think the dishonesty of the news coverage of this and several other issues is staggering! I am not arguing that we are not “as bad as other states.” My argument is that we are striking the proper balance between ease of voting and the integrity of the voting. (EDITOR NOTE: The legislation is actually very weak in protecting voter fraud).
We are bringing our election laws in line with other states who have struck the same balance without the Washington Post, the New York Times , and the News & Record opining about a “neo Jim Crow.” You have made it clear that attempts to strike such a balance will only be interpreted through your template – those who want to strike the proper balance must be bad people. To disagree with you is to be immediately labeled as a bad person with evil motives. The only way to be a good person is to keep on making elections chaotic and simply trust that nothing untoward will occur.
"The college early voting sites is a whole separate issue from the bill which passed the legislature. I have nothing to do with local “attacks on college students voting” as you erroneously put it. I was always able to vote quite easily while I was in college. But I can tell you I have for years heard complaints that college students ought to vote in their home towns. Are those who think college students are smart enough to vote in a precinct are bad people who do not want the students to vote at all? No it does not.
"If you want to feel insulted that I believe the changes will improve the elections then you are free to feel insulted. That is what I truly believe. People are so used to being required to show a photo ID for everything imaginable that they do not think it is a big impediment to voting – which it is not. The disgusting talk of “voter suppression” has been proven objectively in other states with the photo requirement not to be true. Plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against photo ID (I think it was in Georgia) could not produce a single person who could say they had been prevented from voting by the ID requirement when required to do so during discovery. NOT ONE PERSON. I am sure that fact will be kept out of the News & Record – it doesn’t fit your template.