The Integrity of Our Elections

As each election approaches, there are heated charges that the Democrats—or groups supporting the Democrats—are guilty of voter fraud.   At the same time, there are equally heated charges that the Republicans—or groups supporting the Republicans—are guilty of voter suppression and intimidation.   These charges make me wonder whether the United States of America is any better than a third world country.    How can we have faith in our government and in our elected officials if we do not have confidence in the integrity of our elections?   

What happened to honesty and integrity?    What happened to honor and ethics?    We live in a culture where cheating has become commonplace and almost expected.  Studies have shown widespread cheating by students in the nation’s best schools.  Many people cheat on their tax returns or lie on their resumes when they are applying for a job.   Employees steal from their employers.   Shoplifting is a major problem for most retailers.  Corporations “cook the books” and thereby misrepresent their financial condition to investors.   Individuals misrepresent their financial condition in order to get a mortgage or a loan from a bank.    The list could go on and on. 

Although voter fraud has always been a problem, it is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that it is getting worse and that our country has been and continues to be in a state of moral decline.   It seems that parents, schools, and religious institutions are no longer teaching basic values such as honesty, integrity, morality, and ethics.    Perhaps these values are no longer politically correct in an “anything goes” culture. 

With the overall decline in morality, it is not surprising that politicians or their supporters would be willing to cheat in order to gain political power.   With all the charges floating around, I don’t know who to believe or who to blame for the apparent corruption in the electoral process.   I suspect that both sides are guilty of at least some of the charges being leveled against them.      

The charges of fraud in the Presidential election began during the Democratic primaries.  After the Iowa primaries, supporters of Hilary Clinton accused Barak Obama’s campaign of breaking the rules by busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in Iowa.  Obama’s strong win in Iowa made him a major contender for the Democratic nomination for President.   Was his initial Iowa victory, which propelled him to the Democratic nomination, based on fraud?    I don’t know.  I only know what supporters of Hilary Clinton have claimed.   

Within recent months, there have been repeated charges that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“Acorn”), a liberal organizing group in minority and low-income communities, has been flooding the voting rolls with ineligible or fictitious voters.   Acorn is being investigated in several states.  Acorn responds to these charges by claiming the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote and keep eligible voters from the polls.  When proof is provided that Acorn has in fact registered ineligible voters, Acorn blames its lower level employees, several of whom have faced criminal charges, while at the same time continuing its voter registration efforts. 

Acorn recently admitted that 30% of the new voter registrations that it had collected were faulty.   But Acorn claims that these irregularities do not translate to fraud at the polls.  At a minimum, it is fairly obvious that Acorn does not have adequate internal controls, but the people who are running the organization don’t seem to care.    The Obama campaign has sought to distance itself from Acorn, but Obama himself has a close historical relationship with Acorn.  Among other things, he has been an attorney and trainer for Acorn, and he was a member of the Board of Directors of Chicago’s Wood Fund when it gave more than $200,000 to Acorn.   In addition, the Obama campaign reportedly has paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate.   A former employee of Acorn testified this week in a Pennsylvania court that Acorn had contact with the Obama campaign and had even obtained the Obama campaign’s donor list so that Acorn could solicit donations from those who had already given the maximum amount allowed to Obama. 

John McCain recently charged that Acorn is “now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”   Democrats say McCain and the Republicans are trying to create confusion among voters, to intimidate minority voters so they will not vote, and to set the stage to challenge an Obama victory.    In a recent editorial, The New York Times excused Acorn by arguing “there is virtually no evidence—anywhere in the country, going back many elections—of people showing up at the polls and voting when they are not entitled to.”    According to The New York Times, the “real threats to the fabric of democracy are the unreasonable barriers that stand in the way of eligible voters casting ballots.”    In an article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor at New York University, wrote, “the very party that is demonizing Acorn has now disenfranchised countless voters nationwide, through a dizzying range of tactics.”     According to Professor Miller, efforts to remove ineligible voters from the voting rolls often result in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. 

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that 34 major lawsuits are already pending involving the Presidential election.   It is inevitable that more lawsuits will be filed before and after the election.   If the election is close, we could be in for a real nightmare—one that would make the debacle in Florida in 2000 look like a walk in the park.    

In a civilized and democratic country, you would think we would all share an interest in ensuring that everyone who registers to vote is eligible to do so and that everyone who shows up at the polls is an eligible registered voter.   You would also think everyone would want all eligible voters to vote and would be opposed to any actions that would remove eligible voters from the voting rolls or otherwise keep them away from the polls.    But there are cries of discrimination when an election official asks someone to verify his or her citizenship.    Likewise, requirements in some states that voters prove their identity by showing photo identification are challenged as being intimidating and discriminatory against those who are elderly and those who are members of a minority group.   Personally, I do not understand the challenges to these common sense requirements unless those who are opposed to them actually want non-qualified or ineligible voters to vote.   I do recognize, however, that mistakes will be made when elections officials seek to remove ineligible voters from the voting rolls and that the mistakes could be intentional if the elections officials are dishonest.   It seems to me that common sense procedures could be implemented to guard against mistakes and to allow those whose names may have been wrongly removed to cast a provisional ballot.  

If Democrats and Republicans are unable to agree on procedures to ensure that only those who are eligible are allowed to vote and that those who show up at the polls are who they claim to be, then how can we expect them to agree on anything?   How can we respect a government that seems to be incapable of holding a fair election and accurately counting the votes?   How can we respect our elected officials when they may have achieved their positions through fraud?    Are we any better than a third world country?    

Everyone remembers what happened in Florida in 2000.    The vote was extremely close, and some of the ballots were defective.    Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, wanted to recount the votes only in those counties where he thought he had an advantage.   George Bush, the Republican candidate, felt that any recount should include the entire state.   The issue was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that a partial recount would violate equal rights.    Because there was not enough time for a full recount, Gore conceded and Bush became the President of the United States.   For the last eight years, Democrats have charged that Bush stole the election and have sought to undermine and discredit him in every way.   They have tried to ignore the fact that every subsequent recount of the Florida votes, even those conducted by liberal-leaning newspapers, showed that Bush won the state.  Despite the recounts, they claim that thousands of people were illegally purged from the voter rolls before the election and that those who were purged would have voted for Gore if allowed to do so.   Are we in for a repeat of 2000 this year?    Will half of the country think the next President of the United States stole this election and therefore is illegitimate?