Investigation Indicates Thousands Voted Illegally, ‘up to 7 percent of Maryland’s registered voters could be non-citizens’

November 3, 2014

Continuing on the recent topic of voter fraud, more news about how illegal voters may actually be changing outcomes and helping Democrats win elections:

PJ Media reports,

An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes.

(Hyperlinks in original.  Read the whole thing here.)

Fox News adds,

In Maryland, a voter integrity group obtained a list of residents who were removed from jury duty because they were non-citizens. Among them, 509 were also registered to vote. The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, claims up to 7 percent of Maryland’s registered voters could be non-citizens.

(Emphasis added.)

The Franklin Center’s Watchdog.org has further coverage.

When even the liberal Washington Post is talking about illegal voting by non-citizens (“Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform”!), allegations that illegal voters are actually swinging elections start to sound very credible, and extremely interesting.

See also further discussion from the Voter Integrity Project.

Hat tip to Mark Levin, who says, Do states get any bluer than Maryland?  If even in Maryland they feel the need to resort to fraud to win elections…

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Investigation Indicates Thousands Voted Illegally, ‘up to 7 percent of Maryland’s registered voters could be non-citizens’”

  1. Tevyeh Says:

    Give it a rest. Everybody knows that voter fraud is a myth, and that ostensible concerns about it are just thinly-veiled efforts to disenfranchise minorities. Mother Jones said so. Move along, nothing to see here…

    • Snoodickle Says:

      From Gregg Easterbrook:

      “In the run-up to today’s midterm, many Democrats and their media supporters have decried what they claim is Republican suppression of minority voters, while many Republicans and their media supporters have decried what they claim is Democratic vote fraud. Neither claim withstands scrutiny.

      Voter fraud is the Loch Ness Monster of politics — lots of people say it exists yet no one can produce any evidence. A five-year Justice Department study conducted by the George W. Bush administration failed to uncover anything more than trivial instances of voter fraud. Justin Levitt of Loyola University Law School has found that since 2000, 31 instances out of about 1 billion ballots can be verified as voter impersonation. Levitt notes that laboriously impersonating someone else in order to cast a ballot is “a slow, clunky way to steal an election” bearing just shy of zero chance of impacting elections in which tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots are cast. Corrupt electioneering officials can indeed steal elections. But Republican anti-fraud initiatives don’t concern election officials — since there are plenty of Republican election officials — rather, concern the ability of individuals to cast ballots.

      SportsNation
      Americans hate politicians, yet re-elect most incumbents. This is because:

      Americans want dramatic government spending cuts plus higher benefits
      Huh? There’s an election? I was texting
      Casting a write-in for Bozo the Clown takes too long
      Submit
      Is it reasonable to require a photo ID to vote? This election cycle, NPR has run several pieces quoting people suggesting that photo ID rules are a repressive concept. Last month your columnist spoke at an event at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C. I had to show a photo ID to get in.

      On the flip side of the coin, if evil Republican rules are suppressing minority voters, wouldn’t minority turnout be declining? But African-American turnout among registered voters has risen for four consecutive presidential election cycles — black turnout rose under George W. Bush — while Hispanic registered voter turnout was about the same in 2012 as it was when Bill Clinton ran for the White House. In 2012, African-American turnout reached 66 percent, compared to 55 percent in 1996. Minority-voter turnout could be better, but white-voter turnout could use some improvement, too. Young-voter turnout has dipped, and no one thinks young voters — the most tech-savvy segment of society — are being suppressed. It remains unsettled whether photo ID requirements are constitutional. This recent Government Accountability Office study found that voter ID laws slightly reduce turnout and also that voter fraud slightly skews results – in other words, both parties’ accusations are a wash.

      This is a symbol of our polarized politics. The parties don’t merely disagree, but insist on demonizing each other as cheaters. That fires up the base but is corrosive to civic democracy. Then when they fare poorly at the polls, both parties want to blame a conspiracy — rather than face the fact that voters think they are doing a poor job.”


      • Well, he’s half right: The first claim doesn’t “withstand scrutiny”, the second one does. “no one can produce any evidence” of voter fraud—I guess he hasn’t heard from the liberal Washington Post about the peer-reviewed study whose authors’ “best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008”, enough that it may have changed the course of American history:

        “Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

        I agree with him that people should stop demonizing each other, and that that is corrosive to our society. If he has to pretend that both sides are doing it equally in order to condemn it, then I suppose we’ll take what we can get.

      • Tevyeh Says:

        “On the flip side of the coin, if evil Republican rules are suppressing minority voters, wouldn’t minority turnout be declining?”

        Easterbrook here commits a fallacy that I never get tired of puncturing. To answer his question, yes, a ramped-up campaign of minority voter suppression could be expected to result in a decline in minority turnout, all else equal. That’s last part is the catch, ain’t it?

        I don’t set much store by anybody who confidently applies bivariate analysis to a complex multivariate phenomenon.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        (1) Is it actually clear that non-citizen voters are overwhelmingly favoring Democratic candidates? (I haven’t seen the evidence of this)

        (2) It’s entirely speculative to say that non citizens have ever swung an election (there is no proof of this)

        (3) I don’t think non citizens voting is the kind of voting offense that he is referring to. He is referring to fraud in the actual sense, where multiple ballots are cast by a single person.


      • (1) From the article I just linked to:

        “Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.”

        (2) It depends on what you mean by “entirely speculative”. The implication of the part I quoted in the previous comment is that it is likely. If
        “6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008” (nationwide)
        and it would only take 0.65% turnout (no typo—that’s less than 1%) among the non-citizens of Minnesota to swing that 2008 Senate election for Franken, then non-citizens don’t have to have turned out in even proportions across the country; they just have to have turned out at all in Minnesota.

        Sure, it’s still “speculative” in some sense. But it strikes me that fraud is only possible because it’s not caught the first time around, when it’s actually being perpetrated, which means that it will by definition be difficult to detect or measure. Yet liberals demand higher and higher standards of proof before they’ll even think of voter fraud as a possibility that we should be concerned about.

        (3) Again, I can’t force you to care about fraud. But since you ask, yes, there have certainly been more than “31 instances out of about 1 billion ballots” of “multiple ballots . . . cast by a single person”. Even though it’s by definition difficult to catch, we’ve caught several: A single person in Cincinnati represents 8 instances:
        http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/melowese-richardson-former-poll-worker-to-be-sentenced-on-four-counts-of-voter-fraud
        A single person in Wisconsin represents another 13:
        http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shorewood-man-charged-with-13-counts-of-voter-fraud-b99297733z1-264322221.html
        Liberals in Colorado were surprisingly open about encouraging voting multiple times, which may mean it’s common practice from their point of view:
        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390893/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund


Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: