July 13-16, 2010
Jul 13 02:02 Did Felon Voting Decide Franken-Coleman Election? Jul 13 06:15 The Democrats' 50 Percent Problem Jul 13 07:00 Gee, Ya Think? Jul 13 08:24 Geraghty Strikes Again Jul 13 21:24 Severson to Ritchie: Where Were You? Jul 15 06:21 Ritchie Dropped the Ball Jul 16 00:28 Angle's Fundraising Spikes Jul 16 05:41 How is Dayton Paying For His Spending? Jul 16 10:34 Who's Being Irresponsible?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Did Felon Voting Decide Franken-Coleman Election?
There have been many questions that haven't been adequately answered about the 2008 election that produced Sen. Al Franken. One of those questions might have been answered thanks to an investigation conducted by the DFL watchdogs in the Minnesota legislature.
For those of you laughing hysterically at that last statement, that was my intent. Minnesotans know that this DFL-dominated Minnesota legislature certainly wasn't interested in investigating anything involving other Democrats, especially if it had to do with corruption. (See also the DFL stonewalling of investigations into Lori Swanson's union-busting activities.)
According to this article , the investigators that discovered the potentially illegal voting were employed by Minnesota Majority. Minnesota Majority's report is today's must reading. Here's what caught my attention from the report:
In the course of researching irregularities in Minnesota's 2008 General Election, Minnesota Majority obtained records from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension listing all persons under the supervision of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. From these records, we extracted a list of individuals charged with felony crimes at the time of the 2008 election. We then compared this list of felons to voter history records from the Secretary of State's statewide voter registration system (SVRS).If this information is accurate, it's certainly possible that these felons cast illegal votes. It's equally possible that they cast votes that gave Al Franken the victory.
From this comparison, we compiled a list of 2,803 felons who potentially voted in the 2008 General Election. The highest concentration of the suspected fraudulent votes was found in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, so additional research was focused in these areas. We verified sample matches with court documents. We also examined polling place roster signatures and voter registration cards. After completing these verifications, we had a high degree of confidence that we had detected hundreds of
fraudulent votes cast by ineligible felons in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.
Based on Minnesota Majority's investigation, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and Ramsey County Attorney, and former DFL gubernatorial candidate, Susan Gaertner haven't put a high priority on prosecuting these convicted criminals:
On October 14th of 2009, Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner announced that 23 individual felons had been charged with election crimes in connection with the 2008 election, characterizing the number as "a handful." Most were only charged with registering illegally, not actually voting. This left the public with the impression that voter fraud issues from the 2008 election were settled and insignificant. News stories about these prosecutions were very different from the information Minnesota Majority had been compiling on felon voters.Notice that Minnesota Majority's investigation didn't say that these felons had registered illegally, though that's certainly true, too. They specifically called these felons voters. They didn't make that accusation lightly.
On October 16th of 2009, Minnesota Majority's submitted affidavits attesting to our findings on felon voters to Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner. In all, 1,359 names of suspected ineligible felon voters were forwarded to these county attorneys for investigation, with supporting evidence. Eight months after Minnesota Majority provided evidence of felon voters to the county attorneys, Hennepin County has charged 3 individuals with fraudulent voting by felons and Ramsey County has quietly charged an additional 6 persons.
That was their conclusion after checking the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's list of convicted felons and crossreferencing that with "polling place roster signatures and voter registration cards." That's how they arrived at 1,359 after starting with 2,803 potential felon voters.
Anyone who reads this blog knows that I'm not big into conspiracy theories. This isn't a conspiracy theory, though, is it? It's possibly a conspiracy but it's well beyond a theory. It stopped being a theory when Minnesota Majority found 1,359 names on the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's list of felons that also turned up on "polling place roster signatures and voter registration cards."
If Mark Ritchie argues that there isn't voter fraud happening in Minnesota, then it's our responsibility to point out that (a) it's illegal for convicted felons to vote and (b) lots of felons voted in the 2008 election.
That's before we start talking about the 40,000 ballot discrepancy between the numbers of ballots handed out and the number of people listed on polling place login sheets. It's impossible to argue that there wasn't either corruption or incompetence involved if 40,000 people got who didn't sign the voters' sign in sheets at their precinct got ballots.
This information doesn't cast Mr. Ritchie in a positive light:
But the report got a far different review in Ramsey County, which contains St. Paul. Phil Carruthers of the Ramsey County attorney's office said his agency had taken the charges "very seriously" and found that the Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review."Why didn't Ritchie's office scrub the felons from the SVRS? Is it because he's focused too much on increasing voter turnout without putting a priority on preserving election integrity? That certainly appears to be the pattern with Democrats these days. It certainly appears to be the practice in Eric Holder's Justice Department.
The report says that in Ramsey, 460 names on voting records were matched with felon lists, and a further review found 52 were conclusive matches.
Carruthers attributed differences in the numbers to Minnesota Majority's lack of access to nonpublic information, such as exact birth dates and other court records. For example, he said, "public records might show a felon was given 10 years probation, but internal records the county attorney has might show that the probation period was cut to five and the felon was eligible to vote."
Carruthers said Ramsey County is still investigating all the names and has asked that 15 investigators be hired to complete the process. "So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed their numbers."
Minnesota's newspapers have largely ignored this scandal. Now it's attracting national headlines. It'll be interesting to see if the Strib and Pi-Press and other Twin Cities media outlets will continue ignoring this scandal.
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by david marden at 14-Mar-12 05:49 PM
why do you hate democracy so much?
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 15-Mar-12 09:27 AM
Gary can answer for himself, but he doesn't hate democracy. He does hate cheating.
Why don't you?
The Democrats' 50 Percent Problem
Scott Rasmussen's polling on the economy asked about President Obama's performance on economic issues but I'd bet that it's a millstone around the Democrats' necks this November.
Obama administration officials continue to insist that the economy is showing signs of improvement, but most voters aren't buying it. The Discover (R) Consumer Spending Monitor shows that just 28% of Americans think the economy is getting better, while 48% say it's getting worse.That the American people aren't buying into the Obama administration's spin that the economy is regaining its footing should be giving Democratic strategists unprecedented levels of heartburn. This November, the American people will reject President Obama's policies by taking it out on congressional Democrats.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters now view President Obama's handling of the economy as poor. This is the president's highest negative rating in this area since he took office in January 2009.
Democrats spent the last 2 years attaching themselves to President Obama's star. When he talked about a stimulus plan, they took his bait. They refused to use common sense. When he proposed health care reform that the people hated, they refused to use common sense. The forged ahead.
Now they're inextricably linked to the same failed policies. The wheels have been set in motion. The wave is building. The results will be clear this November.
Because congressional Democrats didn't say no to President Obama's agenda, they'll be treated like they've treated the American people the past 18 months. It's about to get ugly.
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:20 AM
No comments.
Gee, Ya Think?
I've seen alot of misleading headlines in my time but this one takes the cake:
SurveyUSA Poll: Bachmann Narrowly Atop Challenger ClarkWhen was a 9-point margin with only 5 percent of the voters undecided a slim margin? The important information is found in this paragraph:
Clark has been running TV ads attacking Bachmann's comments about the BP oil spill, which might be keeping Clark within single digits.In other words, Tarryl's dishonest ads, which she's been running forever, have kept her close. That isn't a shocker. You'd expect that. At least any pundit worth it expects it.
Let's also remember that Michele has only run one ad, the one about Tarryl casting the 67th and tie-breaking vote in the Minnesota Senate to raise taxes, mostly on small businesses and family farms. That means that she's just keeping her powder dry until normal people start tuning into the election. by that time, Michele will have tons of CoH, enough to bury Tarryl with advertising that will highlight Tarryl's propensity for raising taxes on small businesses, for spending recklessly and advertising talking about Michele's steadfastness in being fiscally responsible and in caring about our constitutional protections.
There's no question but that there will be a ton of money spent on this race. Tarryl can't win because she's going so negative so frequently. When the TV station says that the only thing keeping Tarryl within single digits is her running a spate of negative ads, that's got to give Tarryl's campaign manager heartburn.
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:00 AM
No comments.
Geraghty Strikes Again
Leave it to Jim Geraghty to deliver election news that puts a smile on your face:
Indiana's Senate Race Remains Close, At Least By Blowout Standards
In Indiana's Senate race, Republican Dan Coats clings to 21 point lead over Democrat Brad Ellsworth, 51 percent to 30 percent.
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:24 AM
No comments.
Severson to Ritchie: Where Were You?
If Mark Ritchie wasn't feeling the heat about the election mess before this week, he's likely feeling the heat now, thanks to Dan Severson's statement questioning Mark Ritchie's noncompliance with HAVA's anti-fraud provisions . Here's Rep. Severson's statement:
"Where was Secretary of State Mark Ritchie?" asked Severson. "Before and after the election, Mark Ritchie claimed there was no voter fraud. He claimed we had a clean election system. He claimed there were checks in the system to prevent felons from voting. But now it is obvious: Mark Ritchie lied."Mark Ritchie has had a history of refusing to look for voter fraud. I wrote here about Mark Alvarez's investigation into the irregularities involved in the absentee ballot processing. When Alvarez questioned Ritchie about why some absentee ballots that weren't signed were rejected and others that weren't signed were accepted, Ritchie responded by saying "You would have had to tell me to bring my glassed if you wanted to spring something like that on me."
"Worse yet, Mark Ritchie sat idly by and allowed felons to steal legitimate Minnesotans' votes," said Severson.
"What is remarkable about this story is that a private organization, Minnesota Majority, had to do all the legwork, at its own expense, and yet the organization persevered to discover the dirty truth, while the Secretary of State stonewalled and cast aspersions on these concerned citizens," said Severson.
"By contrast, Ramsey County officials should be commended for stepping in where the Secretary of State failed and for following up to confirm that significant voting by felons took place, and for finding even more than Minnesota Majority was able to find," said Severson.
"The answer to this problem is to institute photo ID for accessing a ballot; technology exists that interfaces with a state-issued photo ID and detects ineligible miscreants seeking to steal legitimate citizens' votes," said Severson.
"In poll after poll, the overwhelming majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans support instituting a photo ID requirement to access a ballot. This is something that the people want, but something that, so far, our elected officials have failed to give us," said Severson. "The current Secretary of State has failed us. It's time to get serious about our most sacred secular work. When I am Secretary of State, this will be priority number one," said Severson.
"In the modern world, ballot access should have at least the same degree of integrity as renting a movie, boarding a commercial airplane, cashing a check, or disposing of leaves at the county compost site," said Severson.
Since when is showing the secretary of state an absentee ballot that doesn't haven't a signature on it springing something on him? I've worn glasses almost all my life and I wouldn't need glasses to tell if an envelope had a signature on it. Telling whether the signature was a forgery might be another matter but seeing whether there's a signature in ink isn't difficult work.
I wrote here about the things that were required for absentee ballots to be accepted. Failing to meet any of these requirements should result in a rejection:
The election judges shall mark the return envelope "Accepted" and initial or sign the return envelope below the word "Accepted" if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that:The rules are extremely straightforward. Ballots that don't have any signatures should be rejected because you can't verify if the person who filled it out is the person who requested it and because the ballot wasn't filled out in the presence of a legally registered voter eligible to vote in that specific precinct. If you can't verify that basic information is accurate, then the ballot should be rejected.
(1) the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application;
(2) the voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot, except that if a person other than the voter applied for the absentee ballot under applicable Minnesota Rules, the signature is not required to match;
(3) the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope; and
(4) the voter has not already voted at that election, either in person or by absentee ballot.
There is no other reason for rejecting an absentee ballot. In particular, failure to place the envelope within the security envelope before placing it in the outer white envelope is not a reason to reject an absentee ballot.
It's painfully obvious that Mark Ritchie won't do the voter registration maintenance required by HAVA. It's painfully obvious because his priorities aren't towards election integrity. They're skewed towards an anything goes system.
It's time Minnesotans rejected Mark Ritchie's corruption.
UPDATE: Leo has more on Ritchie's bad behavior .
Originally posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010, revised 14-Jul 3:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Jul-10 05:27 AM
Gary:
Lets remember one of the reasons why the left hated Katherine Harris was that she went and made an effort to clean up Florida's voters list to remove felons. One of the reasons why the Democrats started to care about the Secretary of State's they can controlled.
I guess Mark must think that they're eighteen and somebody can vouch for them so they must have a right to vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Ritchie Dropped the Ball
The St. Cloud Times' Mark Sommerhauser posted that Mark Ritchie is upset that Gov. Pawlenty called him out on letting felons vote. That's Ritchie's problem. He shouldn't have let them vote.
I wrote here that Ritchie didn't rid the SVRS of felons ineligible to vote. Ritchie's response was feeble, saying that Gov. Pawlenty should've made his job easier by signing a law in 2009.
In the course of researching irregularities in Minnesota's 2008 General Election, Minnesota Majority obtained records from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension listing all persons under the supervision of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. From these records, we extracted a list of individuals charged with felony crimes at the time of the 2008 election. We then compared this list of felons to voter history records from the Secretary of State's statewide voter registration system (SVRS).Ritchie's response was feeble, in my opinion, because, whether Gov. Pawlenty signed the bill or not, it was Ritchie's responsibility to remove felons from the SVRS list. Complying with HAVA's voter fraud laws shouldn't be optional.
From this comparison, we compiled a list of 2,803 felons who potentially voted in the 2008 General Election. The highest concentration of the suspected fraudulent votes was found in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, so additional research was focused in these areas. We verified sample matches with court documents. We also examined polling place roster signatures and voter registration cards. After completing these verifications, we had a high degree of confidence that we had detected hundreds of
fraudulent votes cast by ineligible felons in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.
That's like picking which parts of the Constitution you'll uphold or whether the federal government should prosecute the those who violate the Voting Rights Act.
The law is the law and it should be enforced, especially on things as important voting.
I wrote in this post what the FBI told Minnesota Majority:
Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis' complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority's findings. At that time, he said, "based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint." He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up.Why didn't Ritchie catch this before? I've got a hunch. More on that in a later post, though.
Posted Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:21 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Jul-10 10:27 AM
This post seems to be jumping the gun. The jury is still out.
You believe there's no error in what was produced and handed to Ritchie.
I see no cause to prejudge a thing.
I have seen no reliable assessment of the "evidence" yet.
And, were these people now being challenged on the roles prior to Ritchie taking over that office?
Has that been determined?
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Jul-10 10:32 AM
The GOP is flogging this horse as if it is the equivalent of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 where presidential election integrity was compromised. Maybe Karl Rove's fingerprints are on this thing too.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-10 12:59 PM
Eric, perhaps you hadn't heard that a number of people have already been convicted in this case. The last I'd heard, there had been 9 convictions. but that number could've risen since then. I'd say there's more than ample basis for my opinions.
Angle's Fundraising Spikes
Anyone thinking that Harry Reid will just bury Sharron Angle in advertising best think again thanks to Angle's great fundraising report :
Angle's campaign said she raised $2.3 million between May 20 and June 30.And that's before seeing Sharron Angle's devastating new ad:
Reid raised $2.4 million toward his re-election between April and June.
Angle's campaign has seen a surge in financial support since emerging nearly broke from the June primary.
Records released Thursday show Reid is spending nearly $1 million a month; that's more than he's taking in. But he has a balance of about $9 million in the bank. Angle has about $1.8 million on hand.
Thanks to her improved fundraising, everyone in Nevada will be reminded day after day after day what little Harry's meant to the state and how replaceable he is.
Harry Reid's less than stellar career is finally drawing to a close. He can't buy this election because Nevadans are finally seeing his worth to the state and it's limited at best.
Good riddance.
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 12:31 AM
No comments.
How is Dayton Paying For His Spending?
In Mark Dayton's latest ad, titled forged, the DFL candidate promises to increase education funding each year, saying that he will increase education spending with "no excuses, no exceptions." Here's the ad:
That's interesting since we know that Minnesota's budget deficit is projected to be at least $5,800,000,000 this upcoming biennium. The first question I have for him is how he'll pay for those increases while balancing the budget and creating jobs without chasing businesses to North and South Dakota or other neighboring states.
Dayton's run on the issue of raising taxes on small businesses under the guise of having the rich pay "their fair share." With Minnesota's regulatory burden being so stifling and with Minnesota's taxes being high already, why isn't Dayton talking about improving conditions in Minnesota so that Minnesota's job creators can return to creating jobs?
But I digress.
Based on the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Dayton's proposed tax increases would raise between "$3.4 and $3.6 billion" in revenue. If that's true, then that leaves Minnesota with a deficit of over $2,000,000,000 after Dayton's tax increases.
Which returns us to the opening question: How will Dayton pay for increasing education spending while balancing Minnesota's budget? Will he make Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments permanent (doubtful) or will he raise taxes further into Minnesota's struggling middle class? Or will he break his promise to increase education funding?
If Dayton raises taxes on the rich, there's likely to be a push towards creating green energy jobs. With that push will come greater environmental regulations, which will chase businesses from the state.
According to Tom Hauser's June 30 Truth Test , Dayton's claim that Gov. Pawlenty cut education funding during his time in office is not true. According to the Minnesota Department of Education, per-pupil spending has increased from $4,601 in the 2004 budget to $5,124 in this budget.
What all these numbers add up to is a big question for Mark Dayton: Is he knowingly making promises he can't keep or is he not telling us that he's planning on raising taxes on more than "the rich"?
Whatever the answer, Minnesotans aren't likely to like the answers, which is why businesses are likely to leave Minnesota.
Is that the type of Minnesota you want to live in?
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 5:41 AM
No comments.
Who's Being Irresponsible?
Mark Dayton has jumped into the emerging Franken-Ritchie voter fraud story , saying that Gov. Pawlenty is being irresponsible:
DFL gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton Thursday took Gov. Tim Pawlenty to task for saying that felons' illegal voting "may have flipped the election" between U.S. Sen. Al Franken and Norm Coleman, decided by 312 votes in 2008.Not surprisingly, Mr. Dayton's thoughts are twisted. For months, Mark Ritchie told us that there was no voter fraud in Minnesota. I've said from the outset that there were some irregularities that couldn't be explained away.
"Before people, including Gov. Pawlenty, make wild specious claims...they really ought to have the facts," Dayton said. "This is about the integrity a Minnesota election and I would say that integrity ought to be upheld whether the DFL candidate get the most votes or the Republican candidate or the Independence Party."
Minnesota Majority has now found proof of felons voting even though the Ramsey and Hennepin county attorneys don't want to accept that information:
Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath was interviewed on July 15, 2010 by Jeff Passolt of Fox 9 News. Passolt challenged Minnesota Majority's report about felons voting in the 2008 election, echoing some of the criticisms being voiced by county prosecutors. Prosecutors claim that the felon problem is limited to just a handful of cases and that most cases only involve felons registering to vote, not actually voting. McGrath responded by presenting an Election Day Sign-in Roster with the signature of a felon that Ramsey County prosecutors claim only registered to vote but clearly actually voted.Mr. Dayton is saying that Gov. Pawlenty is being irresponsible in speculating about information that the public is already making decisions on. I don't agree that it's being irresponsible as long as Gov. Pawlenty is being irresponsible because he's saying upfront that he's speculating.
Minnesota Majority has offered to meet with both Ramsey and Hennepin county prosecutors on numerous occasions to share our evidence, but our offers have been rebuffed each time. We stand by our claim that hundreds of felons both REGISTERED and VOTED in the 2008 election.
I'd further argue that it's Mr. Ritchie who's been irresponsible. Minnesota Majority wouldn't have anything to investigate if Mr. Ritchie had complied with HAVA's anti-fraud provisions, which Ritchie didn't :
Minnesota Majority has experienced the DOJ's refusal to investigate these kind of cases first-hand. On November 17th of 2008 (immediately following the 2008 General Election and while the Coleman-Franken recount battle was getting underway), Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis sent a certified letter to then Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, requesting an investigation into apparent failures to comply with HAVA by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. No response was forthcoming.Let me repeat: this wouldn't be an issue if Mr. Ritchie had complied with all of HAVA's provisions, not just the ones he agreed with. Let's hope that Mr. Dayton would agree that the FBI is a serious law enforcement agency. Their agent, Special Agent Brian Kinney, told Minnesota Majority that "there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint" based on what the evidence he'd seen.
Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis' complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority's findings. At that time, he said, "based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint." He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up.
Let's also highlight the suspicious goings on in the Ramsey County attorneys office. Why was a felon charged with illegally registering to vote when the sign-in sheets indicate the felon voted?
Shouldn't we ask whether Mr. Dayton is being irresponsible by defending Mr. Ritchie's inaction and inattentiveness? Is Mr. Dayton defending Mr. Ritchie simply because he's from the DFL? Would he defend a Republican if, say, Dan Severson, was Minnesota's SecState? I wouldn't bet on it.
Simply put, Mark Dayton's whining wouldn't have happened if Mark Ritchie had done his responsibilities outlined in HAVA.
I'd take it a step farther and say that not protecting election integrity shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is our God-given right as citizens of this great nation. Mr. Ritchie was the product of the SOSP, which was being funded by the same people who helped fund ACORN.
For not protecting Minnesota's election integrity, Mark Ritchie deserves an F. Mark Dayton deserves a D- for defending this political hack. Election integrity shouldn't be a partisan issue. Thanks to Mssrs. Dayton and Ritchie, it now is.
Posted Friday, July 16, 2010 10:34 AM
No comments.
