(MintPress) – Driving down a Minnesota interstate, it isn’t uncommon to see a billboard depicting an anti-voter fraud message in the midst of scenic wilderness. Prime time television breaks are laden with commercials both for and against a proposed amendment that would implement a voter ID law in the state. And polls show those in favor of the move are winning.
The popular opinion of Minnesotans represents the greater sense throughout the nation that fraud in our sacred voting system must be stopped. Yet it seems the debate is being viewed through horse blinders — limiting the scope of voter fraud that Americans consider to be of most importance.
A voter ID law would require Minnesotans to join the 30 states that require voters to show identification before being given the green light to take part in the democratic process. The argument for this provision rests in the accusations that individual voter ID is rampant.
And while that’s an issue worthy of looking into, the attention has been shifted away from other forms of voter fraud, which are arguably more widespread and just as damaging to the integrity of U.S. democracy. The 16 states which use computerized voting machines, for example, still lack laws that mandate paper trails, leaving no back-up in the case of voter fraud hacking allegations.
The question remains: Is voter identification the most effective — or most relevant — method to stop voter fraud, or are there bigger fish to fry?
Would voter ID help in all election fraud cases?
Take the most recent incident in Virginia, for example, where a voter registration supervisor was arrested for throwing away voter registration forms. The 31-year-old Colin Small was employed with Pinpoint, a company hired by the Republican Party of Virginia to enroll voters. His case drew national attention, at least for a while.
On Friday, the state’s Board of Elections proclaimed that it would not investigate the case, leaving the case for local authorities to pursue. Small isn’t necessarily off the hook, as he is still facing 13 felony and misdemeanor charges, yet his case has largely remained outside the radar of those pushing for laws aimed at preventing voter fraud.
Democrats were taking the lead in the push for the investigation — a push that was met with some resistance. Sen. Donald McEachin, a Democrat, called on the attorney general, Republican Kenneth Cuccinelli, to pursue an investigation. However, without the green light from the state’s Board of Elections, an investigation can not move forward.
The Washington Post reported that the board’s Confidential Policy Advisor, Nikki Sheridan, said the case was an isolated incident.
Ironically enough, in the state of Virginia, Democrats were loudest among those fighting for protection of the election process.
The case in Virginia is, in the grand scheme of things, rather smaller. But it still represents a problem that can’t be solved through voter identification laws, no matter how strict. And if election boards don’t — or aren’t urged — to crack down on the issue, no matter how small, what does that say about the integrity of the American democratic process?
Earlier this month, another firm hired by the GOP was caught in the midst of a voter registration scandal in Florida. The Florida Department of State alleged that workers associated with Strategic Allied Consultants submitted fraudulent voter registration forms.
News outlet ABC reported at the beginning of October that Strategic Allied Consultants blamed one individual for the actions — an employee the company fired in September.
That same company was accused in Colorado of only registering Mitt Romney supporters. A video that generated more than 480,000 views on YouTube shows an employee of Strategic Allied Consultants telling a woman at a supermarket she was registering Republicans and that she worked for the county clerk.
“I’m actually trying to register people for a particular party, because we’re out here in support of Romney, actually,” the girl said.
In an interview with NBC news, Sean Spicer, communications director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), said individual state Republican parties in five states had hired Strategic Allied Consultants to register voters. The RNC quickly distanced itself from the firm, citing a “zero tolerance” policy for voter fraud.
May I have a receipt with that?
The issue of electronic voting machines without a paper trail is an aspect of the voter fraud debate that has largely been ignored in the national discussion by the same party that seeks to implement identification laws.
On Nov. 6, citizens in 16 states will cast their ballot for local and presidential elections. According to a report issued by Common Cause, Rutgers School of Law and Verified Voting Foundation, these states lack the safeguards needed to protect the election system not only from fraud, but also from technological malfunctions.
“Recent election history reminds us that equipment does fail and votes will be lost without key protections,” Verified Voting President Pamela Smith said in a press release. “We’re dependent on complex electronic voting systems that must be surrounded by robust procedures to safeguard votes and verify results if we are to avoid known and unknown risks of election failure.”
That same report indicated that voting machine mishaps weren’t uncommon, with at least 1,800 failures in the last presidential election. The report specifically cites a March case in a Florida county, where a post election audit revealed the software gave the votes to the wrong candidate in the wrong contest. That could be troubling for American voters, as the same report indicated that less than half of the states carry out similar audit systems.
That wasn’t an isolated incident. A similar case was caught in 2009 in South Dakota, where thousands of phantom votes were cast. With technology increasingly becoming a part of American life, the authors of the study don’t indicate it should be done away with, but do recommend that safeguards be put in place to protect the election system.
“Fair elections are the heart of our democracy, yet many states are not yet prepared to survive voting system failures that could change results,” Smith said.
The argument historically has been that the use of voting machines that include paper trails would cost local government, as most with technology now that do not include paper ballot backups would have to purchase the equipment to do so. Thirty-four states, including Washington D.C., currently have some paper trail that’s left behind after the votes are cast.
So with as many as 16 states without the proper safeguards to recognize or at least provide the assurance that it could be proved that election malfunctions of fraudulent activity took place, why is the attention not on this large issue that, arguably, serves more of a risk to the election system than individual voter fraud?