Fraud or Faux Fraud?

Recently there were articles in both the New York Times and the Wisconsin State Journal that addressed the issue of voter fraud. At least that's what they said they were doing. The gist of both articles was that when they finally looked at the number and nature or the total prosecutions for voter fraud, they were forced to conclude that it was a non-issue. There were heavy handed suggestions that Republicans had only pursued this issue because it afforded them the opportunity to suppress minority voting. And in that regard they linked it to a study that showed when picture ID's were required, voting by both blacks and hispanics dropped significantly, and by more than whites.

The main reason for their conclusion was the fact that there were only about 120 cases where charges were filed, and only 86 convictions. They didn't give a detailed breakdown, but it seemed from my reading that the largest group of offenders were convicted felons. And if you didn't get the point before, they helpfully described the 14 cases in Milwaukee as " most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters." Often, they simply hadn't understood the terms of their parole. So, the point was, if there aren't many convictions, then it really can't be a problem.

To me, that's like saying since there are very few arrests and convictions of people for spray painting graffiti, then we really must not have a graffiti problem. One person responded to that analogy by saying that we can see the graffiti. We know there's a problem there. I thanked him for making my point. There is no visible effect from voter fraud. Unlike other crimes that actually supply the impetus to launch an investigation, nobody even knows a crime has occurred in voter fraud. Which brings me back to the preponderence of felons voting in the cases they did pursue. Well that makes perfect sense to me. It's the one type of voter fraud where you have something to work with, namely the cross referencing of voter rolls with the list of convicted felons. Seems easy enough to me. And since they found so few, I'd even acquiesce that felons are not a significant problem.

But the one they really don't want to talk about is non-citizens. I had an exchange of emails with a columnist who was trumpeting the NYT's conclusion. We went back and forth about five times. In my very first note I mentioned that the type of fraud that held the most potential was from non-citizens. I pointed out that we have something like 41,000 illegal aliens in Wisconsin and who knows how many legal alien residents, none of whom are eligible to vote. Couple that with a complete lack of safeguards at Wisconsin polls (No ID needed, just bring in your utility bill!) and you've got a very reckless situation. I mean these people DO have a dog in this fight and, I would think, be motivated to effect the political process. Then think about the fact that the Wisconsin Presidential election in 2000 was decided by some 6,000 votes, and some 10,000 in 2004.

But no matter that I kept asking about that type of fraud, he simply wouldn't address it. He wouldn't respond on that point, but continued to hammer away with his arguments on any other point I had made. We don't have a master list of non-citizens to cross reference. Virtually the only way you'd catch one voting is if somebody else turned them in or directed suspicion their way. Of course the columnist is a liberal, so it was hard to tell if he was just stubbornly refusing to concede a point or if he was too worried about being politically incorrect by casting aspersions on hispanics.

The flaw with the study showing that voting among minorities dropped with the introduction of a photo ID requirement is that it did not address why they chose not to vote. Furthermore, they were never qualified as to their legal status either. I mean, I know this is an off-the-wall notion, but is it possible that this percentage of people who decided not to vote, did so because they were, in fact, non-eligible voters who decided, now, they might get busted? So perhaps that study was actually proving the point that we DO have a problem. I think one group dropped by ten percent and the other by six. Either way that's a significant number. But the libs assume it's just poor ignorant legal voters who were "intimidated" to the point that they were disenfranchised, while perhaps they were just intimidated into not voting illegally.