Will Voter Fraud Win Election for Obama? 723,620 invalid voter registrations in CA; 30,000 dead on NC rolls; 182,000 who may not be eligible in FL

Many voters I have spoken to recently have expressed concerns regarding the upcoming election.  Although I have met quite a few people who voted for Obama in 2008 and are either supporting Romney or will not vote this year, many still fear the outcome in November.  Not because of those legally voting, but because of voter fraud, absentee balloting, provisional balloting, and the voting zombies who desert the cemeteries each year to cast their ballots.

A good example is the Democratic National Convention…..if you watched the video you know they did not receive the necessary 2/3 votes required to pass the resolution.  I don’t think they even received half of the required votes!  If you missed it you can watch it here.

Although some states have successfully passed voter ID laws, others are being sued by our friends at the Justice Department who claim the move is ‘racist’.  Funny how these same ‘victims’ can come up with a photo ID to get into the DNC!  I think every eligible citizen should have a voter ID card, not just a photo ID.  Virginia has a ‘Motor Voter’ law which allows you to register to vote when you apply for a driver’s license.  Just because you have a driver’s license doesn’t mean you are eligible to vote!  One of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had a Virginia driver’s license!  Felons are able to obtain driver’s licenses, as are illegal immigrants.  As important as elections are, we need to preserve the legitimacy of our voting process and rights.

As seen below, there are too many instances of voter fraud to ignore the problem!  If Barack Obama wins in November, it will most certainly be due to voter fraud.

While Attorney General Eric Holder and NAACP President Benjamin Jealous lash out at new state laws requiring photo ID for voting, an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced for carrying out a massive voter fraud scheme. In April 2011, a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts.  Sowers was found guilty of voting in the names of Carrie Collins, Walter Howard, Sheena Shelton, Alberta Pickett, Draper Cotton and Eddie Davis. She was also convicted of voting in the names of four dead persons: James L. Young, Dora Price, Dorothy Harris, and David Ross. In the trial, a forensic scientist testified that Sowers’s DNA was found on the inner seals of five envelopes containing absentee ballots.

A local Florida station found an innovative way to check for voter fraud: jury excusal forms. NBC2 compiled a list of jury excusals based on not being a citizen of the United States and compared it to a list of registered voters in two counties. They discovered almost 100 illegally registered voters, many of whom had voted multiple times. “I vote every year,” one woman told NBC2, despite the fact that she is not a US citizen. The woman had told the court that she couldn’t serve on a jury because she wasn’t a US citizen, but she doesn’t seem to have a problem voting like one. Based on the NBC2 investigation, local election offices say they’ll now request a copy of every jury excusal form where residents say they can’t serve because they’re not a citizen.  This should be mandatory in every state!

Before Its News reports:

California’s database shows 723,620 voter registrations, which are invalid due to missing birth date. CA elections code 2150, 2152 stipulate that an affidavit from an elector has to contain a valid birth date, valid country of origin, a Social Security number, drivers license or a number assigned to the voter if there is no Social Security number or Drivers License number. Aside from some 700,000 registrations without a birth date, there were over half a million registrations without a country of origin. Additionally, employees of offices of several registrars admitted that in some cases, where the databases did not contain a birth date, they simply created one, assigned a birth date such as 01.01.1850 or 01.01.1900. Consequently, thousands more potentially invalid registrations are contained in the databases, where data shows individuals, who are 150 years old and 200 years old still voting.

North Carolina News Network provided the following information:

Some county election boards across North Carolina are not doing a very good job of removing dead voters from their rolls, according to a group that keeps track of the statistics.  …..they found the names of 30,000 dead North Carolina voters who are still on voter rolls across the state.

From Letting Freedom Ring:

Federal authorities are demanding that Florida halt its push to remove ineligible voters from the voter rolls. In a move that comes just months before the state could play a pivotal role  in the 2012 presidential election, the U.S. Department of Justice contends that the state is violating federal law in its effort to identify and remove  ineligible voters. Florida, at the urging of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, began looking for non-U.S. citizens on its voter rolls last year. An initial search turned up as  many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens.

Some other examples include:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – A Democratic state legislator from east Arkansas, his father and two campaign workers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit election fraud after federal prosecutors said the lawmaker’s campaign bribed absentee voters and destroyed ballots in a special election last year. Read more here.

Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot.  Read more here.

November 1, 2011 – 8 were arrested for absentee voter fraud in Madison County, Florida. The case began when the Florida’s Division of Elections notified FDLE and FBI that “an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of absentee votes,” had been cast in the District 1 school board race. The eight suspects were arrested on November 1, 2011.  Read more here.

7 Democrats Arrested in New York for actual Voter Fraud via Absentee Ballots – 4 Plead Guilty while the other 3 opt for a trial. The group forged signatures on applications for absentee ballots and on the ballots themselves in a 2009 primary of the Working Families Party, which was affiliated with now-defunct community group ACORN. Voters whose signatures were forged expressed outrage to Fox. “I feel extremely violated,” said Brian Suozzo. In November 2009, Democratic operative Anthony DeFiglio told New York State police investigators that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election. Read more here.

12 Democrats have been Charged in Georgia for Absentee Ballot Voter Fraud – Case in point: November 23, 2011 – 12 people have been charged in Georgia for voter fraud as they used absentee ballots to skew an in election in Georgia. The 12 people charged are ALL with the Democrat Party. The defendants include some workers in the voter registrar’s office and some school board members.  Read more here.

FOUR Wake County, North Carolina, Democrats have admitted to voter fraud charges, according to local news reports. Kierra Fontae Leache, Shelia Romona Hodges and Brandon Earl Mclean each admitted to casting two ballots in recent elections. Local reports indicate all three voted for President Barack Obama twice in 2008.   Read more here.

These are not the only instances and we need to be alert, informed and proactive. We must all do we can to stop and/or report abuses of voter fraud.  If you know of other cases, please feel free to share them.

Related articles

Holder Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, Steps Up Voter Fraud Efforts

By  via Western Journalism  March 16, 2012

On Monday, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice barred the proposed Texas voter ID law from taking effect. Writing for the DOJ, Assistant Attorney General Robert Perez claimed that the law requiring all Texas voters to present a state issued photo ID at the polls would “adversely affect Hispanic voters” because they are “more than twice as likely not to have valid photo identification than non-Hispanic registered voters.”

It is hardly surprising that Democrats hold nationwide antipathy for voter ID laws. After all, as it is the left which benefits from criminal misadventure at the polls, anything which tends to interfere with turning the votes of the dead, the illegal, and the non-existent into a Democrat victory must be fought with every resource of the Obama Administration.

The proposed Texas law and a similar South Carolina statute rejected by the DOJ last year were both victims of Eric Holder’s deliberately disingenuous use of the 1973 Voting Rights Act, which requires states or areas with “a history of voting discrimination” to have proposed changes to their voting laws “pre-approved” by the federal government.

The fact is, the Obama Regime used Section 5 of the VRA to mask its real goal of enabling voter fraud by claiming the proposed legislation of both states to be in violation of the Act’s aim of ensuring fair and honest voting standards.

And just as it had in the case of South Carolina, the DOJ barred the revision to the Texas law by completely ignoring a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the newly enacted State of Indiana statute requiring all who come to the polls to present a state issued, picture ID as legal and constitutional.

Described as one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, the Indiana statute had been opposed by a typical assortment of left-wing agencies which claimed its enactment would unfairly burden the usual victim classes of the poor, minorities, the aged and infirm.

Yet in the Court’s 6-3 ruling on the case Crawford v Marion County Election Board, even far left Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that the requirement that voters obtain picture ID did not represent an unfair or undue burden.

Writing a concurring opinion on the Court’s judgment, Antonin Scalia said “the Fourteenth Amendment does not regard neutral laws as invidious, even when their burdens purportedly fall disproportionately on a protected class.”  That is, as the law applies uniformly to all citizens, the fact that it might burden some more than others is not a basis for discarding it.

The Supreme Court clearly ruled that “…without proof of discriminatory intent, a generally applicable law with disparate impact is not unconstitutional.”

Free voter ID’s made available by the state to any American citizen who wishes one does not constitute a basis for a claim of disenfranchisement of Hispanics. But Barack Obama’s Department of Justice did not look to the Court for guidance as it is the “disenfranchisement” of illegals and others who should not be voting that actually BOTHERS Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice in the first place!

From Obamacare to immigration law and voter ID laws, the Obama Regime is interested only in the exercise of power and control over the American public. By enabling millions of illegals to vote for Democrats, the left hopes to secure the legislative and executive authority it needs to turn a Constitutional republic into a Marxist dictatorship. Should Obama and his handlers succeed, voter ID laws would become moot as elections themselves will be a distant memory.

Read more here


Holder plays race card to block Texas voter ID law

Texas Voter Identification Law Blocked by Justice Department as Biased

By Seth Stern via Bloomberg

The Obama administration blocked Texas (BEESTX)’s new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls, escalating a partisan dispute over voting restrictions.

The U.S. Justice Department used its power under the Voting Rights Act to halt the Texas law, saying in a letter to the state today that the measure may disproportionately harm Hispanics. The department in December blocked a similar law in South Carolina (NFSESC).

Democrats have objected to the voter ID laws as impediments to minority voting while Republicans have said they protect the integrity of elections. Republican officials in Texas, one of eight states that passed voter identification laws last year, said the administration has no valid reason to challenge the measure.

“Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach,”Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a statement.

The Justice Department’s decision isn’t final. Texas and South Carolina have filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking permission to enforce their photo ID requirements.

Before blocking South Carolina’s law, the last time the Justice Department challenged a state voter identification measure under the Voting Rights Act was in 1994.

History Binds States

Texas and South Carolina are among 16 states or portions of states that must obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before redrawing their district lines or changing election procedures because of a history of voting rights violations.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 47 percent to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in its letter. Texas has 12.9 million registered voters of whom 2.81 million are Hispanic.

“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card,” Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in the letter to Keith Ingram, the director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State.

The Voting Rights Act puts the burden on Texas to prove its law wouldn’t interfere with minorities’ ability to vote.

‘Federal Overreach’

Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the Justice Department’s action is an example of the administration’s “abuse of executive authority.”

The American Civil Liberties Union supports the administration’s efforts to block the laws.

“It’s a good sign that the Department of Justice is stepping into the jurisdictions where it can to stop these laws in their tracks,” said Nancy Abudu, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project in Atlanta,

Under the Texas law signed last year by Perry, voters who arrive at the polls without one of seven acceptable forms of photo IDs issued by the state or federal government, including concealed carry handgun permits, would be given a provisional ballot, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

Those ballots would count only if voters bring an approved ID to the registrar’s office within six days of the election.

‘Minor Inconveniences’

The law exempts mail-in ballots and voters with significant disabilities or religious objections to being photographed.

The law’s requirements “entail minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in his court filing on Jan. 24.

The photo ID law would disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, who are least likely to have any of the required forms of identification or the documentation needed to obtain one, said Luis Figueroa, a San Antonio, Texas-based legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also would hurt students because college or university IDs would not be accepted, Figueroa said.

The photo ID requirement could suppress minority turnout by three percent to five percent in Harris County, where Houston is located, and give Republicans an edge in local elections, said Carroll Robinson, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston and a former city council member.

Election Integrity

“We’re going to disenfranchise significant numbers of minority voters as they become more and more the majority in Texas,” Robinson said.

Patricia Harless, a Republican state representative, said concerns among constituents about “the integrity of elections”rather than possible partisan advantage explains why she sponsored the voter ID measure last year. The law reduces the possibility of fraud, she said.

Lawmakers excluded student IDs because “we wanted a form of identification that was easily recognized by the poll workers at the election site,” Harless said.

Voters 65 and older automatically qualify to cast ballots by mail, which requires no ID, and the state will provide free voter identification cards.

“We worked really hard to make sure we met the constitutional requirements,” Harless said.

Lacking State ID

The Obama administration blocked South Carolina’s law in December after concluding minorities in the state are almost 20 percent more likely to lack state-issued identification than white registered voters.

The Justice Department asked for similar statistics from Texas, which said it doesn’t collect the kind of racial data needed to accurately determine how many of the state’s registered voters don’t have a driver’s license or state ID card are black or Hispanic. Texas provided data based on Hispanic surnames and no data on the impact on black voters, according to the Justice Department.

Jasmine Price, a sophomore at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college 30 miles from Houston, said the law would make it harder for her to vote in person in Texas, as she’d prefer, rather than by absentee ballot in her home state, Arkansas.

Price, 19, said if the law takes effect, she’ll try to find the time in between a full course load and three shifts a week as a manager at a Houston sporting goods store to drive seven miles from campus to the nearest state Department of Public Safety office that issues IDs.

Literacy Tests

“My forefathers had it even harder to vote — they had to pass literacy tests — but they made sure they did what they had to do so that their vote could count,” said Price, who is black. “So if they say I have to go to the DPS office, as much as an inconvenience as it is to go there, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Alabama, where the voter ID law is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014, and Mississippi, where lawmakers haven’t adopted legislation to implement a citizen initiative approving a similar requirement, would also have to obtain Justice Department or federal court approval.

In Wisconsin, which doesn’t need to obtain the same kind of advance approval under federal law as Texas does, two state judges have temporarily blocked a voter ID requirement.

The latest ruling today in a challenge by the League of Women Voters came six days after a second judge ruled in a separate suit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against Governor Scott Walker.

To contact the reporter on this story: Seth Stern in Washington at sstern14@bloomberg.net

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law

From the Associated Press via MSNBC (4/28/08)

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

The Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

‘Extremely disappointed’ More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Monday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn’t reviewed the decision, but he was “extremely disappointed” by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person’s right to vote “is the most important right.” The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

Burden ’eminently reasonable’ “We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” Stevens said.

Stevens’ opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana’s voter ID law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, “The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'”

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.

Kasey’s Note:  If the Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws in 2008, I am  amazed that the Justice Department would try to block South Carolina’s Voter ID law.  Shouldn’t they be going after the REAL issues – like Fast and Furious, Black Panther Intimidation, Medicare Fraud, Illegal Immigration, Obama’s eligibility, etc.?!?  I also wonder why more states aren’t requiring voter IDs……maybe to help Obama win?

US Attorney General Says Black People Less Capable to Get Photo ID


Monday for Martin Luther King Jr Day, US Attorney General Eric Holder spoke  with NAACP leaders on the steps of the statehouse in South Carolina.   Holder took the opportunity to tell the audience that he intends to fight  against any and all attempts by states to pass laws requiring some form of photo  ID.

South Carolina is one of those states in the voter ID fray and Holder told  residents,

“After a thorough and fair review, we concluded that the state had failed to  meet its burden of proving that the voting change would not have a racially  discriminatory affect.”

How is this a racial issue?  Is the Attorney General of the United  States saying that blacks, Hispanics or American Indians are less capable of  obtaining a photo ID than are whites?

In earlier reports, Holder seemed to indicate that the voter ID laws  discriminate against poor people.  If that is so are there no poor whites  in South Carolina or any other state?

The statement Holder used is the type of racial rhetoric that helps to fuel  the racial issues still raging through American society.

What would have happened if a white official made the same type of  statement?  In all likelihood, that white official would be publically  chastised for making such a racist comment.  If a white official said the  same thing, I would not be surprised to see Holder and his Department of Justice  going after them for racial profiling.

Take the case of what Holder is doing to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe  Arpaio.  The DOJ has filed racial profiling charges against Arpaio for his  efforts to fight illegal immigration and drug trafficking in his Arizona  county.  The vast majority of illegals and drug runners are Hispanic, so  yes, he and his department have to focus their attention more on that ethnic  group than any other.  What’s the difference between racial profiling and  efficient police work?

But Holder turns around and using the same racial profiling tactic as Arpaio  uses for his law enforcement activities, trys to justify his personal fight to  block voter ID laws.  The hypocrisy of the actions screams injustice in  both instances.

If that poor black or Hispanic person needed to buy any over the counter  allergy medication that contains pseudoephedrine, they would have to show a  driver’s license or some form of ID in order to purchase it.  If they have  a car, they have to have a state driver’s license AND proof of insurance.   If they are that poor and need to receive state or government aid, they have to  have some form of ID in order to request and receive that aid.  Some form  of ID, often a photo ID is required for anyone to fly on a commercial airline,  to open a bank account, buy a house, cash a check and the list goes on and on  and on.

If Mr. Holder does not believe that any of these other ID requirements are  racially discriminatory, then on what grounds does he believe requiring a photo  ID to vote is a form of racial discrimination?

My question to Eric Holder would be, ‘what makes a poor black or Hispanic  person less capable of obtaining a photo ID than a poor white person or a poor  Asian person?

Clearly this cannot be the real reason that Holder and the DOJ are fighting  against voter ID laws.  In light of the revelation of what happened with dead  people voting in the New Hampshire primary, the only possible explanation  for Holder’s opposition to voter ID has to involve the possibility of widespread  voter fraud in the November election.  If the Democrats can’t win back the  House and keep the Senate and presidency through legal voting methods, that only  leaves them desperate measures which could very well include voter fraud.

Could there be any other reason for his Hypocritic actions?

Asking For I.D. Before Voting Is ‘Racist’, But You Need A Govt. I.D. To Buy Drain Cleaner?

By Mike Opelka via The Blaze

Got a clogged drain? Before you can buy that liquid drain cleaner, I need to see some ID.

Does that sound like a joke?

It’s not a joke. It‘s the reality in President Obama’s home state.

Illinois has a new law that took effect on January 1 requiring all people who purchase drain cleaners or any caustic substances to provide a government issued photo ID. And retailers now must ask for identification from those buying drain cleaners and maintain extensive records of which caustic products have been purchased, in what amounts, and by whom.

The law came about after two Illinois women were burned by acid attacks back in 2008. One of the women later admitted to burning herself with acid, but the law was still pushed through the system.

And so, because of one random crime where acid was used to burn a victim, thousands of people will be forced to show identification when they purchase drain cleaners, and countless hours of business time will be spent filling out, maintaining and monitoring the government mandated forms associated with each purchase. Additionally, any person carrying caustic chemicals can be charged with a Class 4 felony in Illinois. (Class 4 felonies can carry fines up to $25,000 and 1-3 years in jail.)

The Illinois drain cleaner law is just one of the 40,000 new laws that took effect in the new year. For the record, the 40,000 new laws are a 29% increase over the previous year.

Among the mass of new laws are a few that are intended to strengthen election security and protect the integrity of each vote in the upcoming elections by demanding that all voters show a photo ID before entering the voting booth. The Wall Street Journal covered this story as 2011 came to a close…

Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require voters to prove their identities at the ballot box, bringing the total number of states that require some form of voter identification to 30…

MSNBC has covered the topic of the new laws and specifically the voter ID laws, starting in July of 2011.


The voter suppression issue was also part of MSNBC’s review of the 40,000 new laws of 2012.


If it is considered “racist” or “discrimination” to ask a voter for a photo ID before they are allowed to cast a ballot, why is it not racist to ask for a government issued ID card when you want to buy drain cleaner or pay for your gasoline with cash?

Feel free to take our poll on this subject and submit your own question on the topic.

If a Fraudulent Vote Falls in the Woods . . .

By Christian Schneider

I admit, I squirmed a lot when I watched Bob Costa debate vote fraud on MSNBC last Friday. And it wasn’t because I was worried he was in danger of being lacerated by the jagged edges of one of Al Sharpton’s broken sentences.

It was uncomfortable watching the other lefty panelists try to out-smarm each other by beating Costa over the head with a new Brennan Center for Justice report that purportedly shows vote fraud to be nonexistent. The report points out that a minuscule 0.0002 percent of votes cast in Wisconsin in 2004 were “fraudulent,” each one resulting from an ineligible felon having voted.

The Brennan Center report has quickly gained traction among opponents of new state laws that require voters to show photo identification to vote. Stephen Colbert has routinely ridiculed those that believe vote fraud exists, warning that “our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere.” Liberals have used to the report to mock RNC chair Reince Priebus’ contention that Wisconsin is “riddled” with vote fraud, as he told MSNBC’s Martin Bashir.

The Brennan Center for Justice, of course, is funded by liberal billionaire George Soros. (As a bonus, the center boasts Words with Friends enthusiast Alec Baldwin as an advisory-board member.) And its report doesn’t withstand even the most cursory scrutiny.

I used to have a debate with one of my colleagues about which states were the most corrupt. He would show me a list of all the states with the most public corruption convictions and declare those states to be the worst in terms of ethics. I answered that he shouldn’t rely solely on arrest and conviction statistics. After all, wouldn’t it be a sign of corruption if all these ethical breaches were occurring and a state decided to look away and not arrest anyone? If that were the case, the most corrupt states would be the ones that didn’t enforce their corruption laws, where nobody was arrested. (As I recall, this particular argument ended with me dodging an airborne egg-salad sandwich.)

Similarly, mere statistics are a terrible way to determine whether vote fraud is occurring. Since the Brennan Center report deals with Wisconsin specifically, I’ll explain why in excruciating detail.

For one, under the previous Wisconsin law — which didn’t require voters to demonstrate who they were — vote fraud was virtually impossible to prove. If someone wanted to vote more than once, all they needed to do was know a name on the voter list, then use that name. That name could belong to a legitimate voter who didn’t show up to vote, or to a voter who doesn’t actually exist. Laws relaxing voter-registration requirements may have allowed groups like ACORN to stuff the rolls with names of fictitious people, which could then have been used to cast votes without any identification. Once that vote is cast, it is impossible to track down who came in and voted using that name.

In 2008, the Milwaukee Police Department issued a report detailing vote fraud that occurred during the 2004 presidential election. The police task force that issued the study said they believed 16 workers from the John Kerry campaign and third-party groups “committed felony crimes” that went unprosecuted.

The MPD found one property where 128 individuals were registered to vote — all of whom signed up for the 2004 election. Twenty-nine voters were registered at a county office building that featured no residential living. The MPD report found instances of double-voting, unopened absentee ballots appearing after the election, and deceased people voting. None of these are counted in the Brennan Center report, which has an extremely narrow definition of “fraud” — people voting who know they are ineligible to vote (felons, for instance).

The MPD task force also questioned the validity of several homeless shelters — one featured 162 registered voters, another boasted 136. As pointed out by the report, many of these homeless individuals were registered at multiple locations — and since identification wasn’t necessary to vote, anyone could have used these people’s names to vote. According to the police report, “this vote portability and the abject poverty that defines homelessness, make these unfortunate individuals vulnerable to become the tools of voter fraud by those who would exploit the homeless.”

Furthermore, the areas where vote fraud is most likely to occur are also those where it is least likely to end in prosecution. Vote fraud is most prevalent in big cities with large populations — which are almost uniformly represented by Democratic district attorneys. There likely aren’t a lot of Democratic DA’s who wake up every morning and say, “Gee, I wonder if I can demonstrate to the public that my party is engaging in vote fraud, and in the process, cost myself votes.”

In fairness, it wouldn’t occur to me to risk imprisonment to cast a few extra votes. (Then again, it wouldn’t occur to me to pepper-spray entire groups of shoppers on Black Friday in order to be the first to purchase discount electronics, but apparently people do it.) However, if I knew that the laws on the books made it impossible for me to be caught – and that even if I were caught I wouldn’t be prosecuted — it would ease my conscience a great deal. In this sense, it can be argued that more vote fraud takes place because so few people are ever arrested and convicted.

Think about all the times you’ve been told that sexual assault occurs more than we think, as victims are hesitant to come forward and press charges. (A claim I believe, incidentally.) What if we just used arrest and conviction statistics to determine how often women are assaulted? Should we assume nobody in Major League Baseball used steroids in the late 1990s because no players were suspended?

The public gets this — polls routinely show widespread support for a photo-ID requirement to vote, which would at least end the practice of name-poaching. There may be very little vote fraud; there may be a great deal. In the absence of a photo-ID requirement, we just didn’t know. We do, however, know that the bogus Brennan Center report is hardly dispositive.

— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.