As a preface to this commentary, I should note that one of the major threads of my professional life was dealing with vote fraud – in concept and in court. My clients included Legal Elections in All Precincts (LEAP), the Republican Party and City Club of Chicago – and we worked cooperatively with the League of Women Voters, the Crime Commission and other organizations focusing on vote fraud. That issue was part of every political candidate my firm represented. I testified before city councils and state legislatures on that issue — and served as an advisor to elected public officials.
There is nothing in human society that is free from corruption. If there are opportunities to cheat or steal, there will be those taking advantage. That is especially true in the electoral process. It is particularly vulnerable to cheating because it is virtually impossible to hold cheaters accountable and to correct the improper counts. That is because of the secret ballot.
Those on the left who deny the existence of vote fraud generally look only at convictions – or simply make such preposterous claims for political purposes. In fact, actual prosecution for vote fraud is a very small tip of a much larger iceberg.
If for example, when there is an overcount – prima facie evidence of vote fraud — there is no way to know who dumped in the illegal ballots. Even worse, there is no way to uncount them since there is no way to know specifically which ballots are illegal. And that is only one of scores of ways for cheating without fear of being caught or prosecuted.
Further complicating the situation is the fact that most vote fraud happens in jurisdictions with one-party superiority – and a lack of bipartisan observers. In those situations, partisan prosecutors and judges do not hold those stealing votes accountable.
Because of the importance of election – and the ability to commit vote fraud without accountability — it is especially important that elections be structured and carried out with maximum procedural safeguards.
One inviolable rule of voting is that the longer the time between the casting and the counting of the ballot, the more opportunities for cheating. That is why historically absentee balloting – as limited as it was in the past—had been the single largest source of vote fraud. Such vote fraud was rampant in nursing homes – and still is a problem.
Every new technology for voting presents unique challenges to prevent vote fraud. One of the controversies in recent elections was the issue of voting machines being connected to the Internet – or even the ability to be connected. Precinct voting machines should NEVER be connected to the Internet – nor should they have the ports that would allow Internet connection. They should be free-standing tabulating machines … period.
Results for individual precincts can be transmitted to a central counting location electronically by hardline dedicated phone contact – much like fax machines operated in the past. The precinct would also produce a hard copy of the results to be compared later with the officially tabulated results.
Ballot harvesting was banned in the past in view of its potential for fraud. It was legalized in many states in recent years and has been subject to controversy and specific examples of vote fraud. Along with outlawing ballot harvesting, drop boxes should be illegal. They essentially remove the ballots from the chain of security.
Early voting puts ballots outside the chain of security. There is no way to guarantee that the ballot was cast by the proper voter. It puts the old absentee ballot problem on steroids. Whereas only a small percentage of voters cast absentee ballots in the past, today the majority of voters vote early or by mail. By Election Day, most Americans will have already voted.
Early voting creates another problem in dealing with an informed electorate. Campaigns roll out their information on a strategic basis geared to have a maximum impact just before Election Day. That information – and unexpected events – that can change voter opinion will occur after millions of Americans have already voted.
Early voting places an enormous – and unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Early voting locations tend to be fully staffed with as many as a dozen workers to serve a handful of voters who show up on most days. During many hours, there are no voters.
If we are to have early voting at all, it should be uniformly limited to the four days prior to Election Day. That provides enough time for folks to vote in person. Those unavailable in the time period can still apply for an absentee ballot with proper excuses.
All mail-in ballots should be received in the polling place by the close of polls on Election Day. Those arriving later should not be counted. Requests for absentee or mail-in ballots should be received by a date prior to Election Day – so that they can be returned in time to be counted. That would also apply to overseas diplomats and military ballots.
Some have suggested that ballots be automatically mailed to all registered voters. Since many voters have no intention of voting, there would literally be millions of ballots floating around to be harvested or miscast by corrupt political operatives.
There has always been controversy over challenges to petitions, voter eligibility and the count. It is critical to fair elections that that process be open and overseen by all stakeholders – candidates, party officials and civic-minded volunteers.
One of the best ways to limit vote fraud is to ensure that the voting rolls include only those currently eligible to vote. Challenges are an essential part of that process. There is no legitimate reason to allow ineligible individuals to remain on the official voting rolls – or to oppose or prevent challenges. This tends to be a partisan issue, with Republicans pushing to remove ineligible voters and Democrats opposing.
As much as any area in life, having effective measures to PREVENT vote fraud is critical since prosecuting vote fraud is extremely limited. Making voting easier may sound like a good idea, but can result in making it less secure. We have to strike the right balance between making it convenient to vote and securing the integrity of the vote.
So, there ‘tis.