The New York Times has adopted wholesale the Democratic Party’s line on voter fraud and election laws and isn’t trying to hide it. David Leonhardt, in his April 7 newsletter, flatly misled his readers, favoring narrative over facts.
Leonhardt wrote, as if undisputed fact, the following false assertion: “Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. There is no reason to believe it has determined the outcome of a single U.S. election in decades.”
No reason? None?
Just two years ago, North Carolina had to re-do its 9th District congressional election because of (Republican) voter fraud. Last month, a judge ordered a new election in a Mississippi alderman race because of voter fraud. In 2013 in Alabama, four campaign workers were convicted of vote fraud in an election their city commission candidate “won” by just 14 votes. In 2005, an Alabama judge overturned a small-town mayoral election because of vote fraud. In California in 2012, an election was overturned due to vote fraud in the town of Vernon. Ditto for city elections in Compton, California in 2001, in a Louisiana town in 2014, a New Jersey town in 2015, and in two North Carolina towns in 2016 (one of which had another election thrown out just three years earlier).
That’s just a sampling of cases where the elections were so close as to have demonstrable fraud unambiguously affect the result. The list of vote fraud convictions is much longer, and it pales in comparison with the actual occurrence of fraud, which is notoriously difficult to catch and sometimes not thought worthy of full prosecution even when discovered.
And those (except the congressional race) were small ball. Some rather important elections were badly marred, and the victor probably wrongly declared despite massive anomalies. Leonhardt said there is no reason to believe results were altered, but, in fact, it is almost certain that Al Franken was awarded his Senate seat from Minnesota in 2008 due to fraud, and quite likely that fraud gave Christine Gregoire the governorship of Washington in 2004.
Among the many, many anomalies and hijinks in that Minnesota race in which Franken, a Democrat, “found” enough votes to turn a 725-vote loss into a 312-vote “win,” there were 1,099 felons who voted despite clearly being ineligible. In Washington, Republican Dino Rossi’s apparent victory by some 3,000 votes was turned into a 129-vote “win” for Gregoire, a Democrat. As described by conservative columnist John Fund (whose facts in this summary are not in dispute), “officials in King County, which includes Seattle, discovered 573 ‘erroneously rejected’ absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that showed up in a South Seattle warehouse. There were reports that hundreds of voters were registered in storage rental facilities and private mailboxes, that felons had voted, and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted.”
Worse: “Then we learned that several hundred provisional ballots had simply been fed into voting machines, making it impossible to authenticate their legality. Now it turns out the number of votes cast in King County exceeds the total number of voters by about 1,800.”
Some of those are examples in which fraud, human error, and logistical problems overlapped. The latter two problems alone, though, occur so often that what Leonhardt dismisses as absurd concerns about voter integrity are, in truth, everything but absurd.
It took months for a judge to determine the winner of the 2020 congressional race in the 22nd Congressional District of New York because of a veritable Keystone Kops routine of screw-ups related to mail-in voting. Those massive mistakes were presaged by the state’s inability to count in a timely fashion, or with any reassurance of accuracy, the mail-in votes in “numerous” primary elections, including two close congressional Democratic races, last summer. (Does Leonhardt read his own paper? Those reports were easy to find there.)
The concern for “election integrity,” at which Leonhardt sneers, involves far more than identifiable fraud. Many, probably most, of the recent Republican efforts to ensure election integrity have nothing to do with former President Donald Trump’s lies that the presidential election was stolen from him but instead stem from legitimate concerns about widespread anomalies that plagued elections in recent decades, including last year, in ways that sow public doubt about the outcome.
And, sometimes, actually change the outcome, as we have seen. The establishment media narrative to the contrary is a flat-out lie.
- ^ Leonhardt wrote, (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ re-do (www.rollcall.com)
- ^ ordered a new election (www.wcbi.com)
- ^ convicted (dothaneagle.com)
- ^ overturned (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
- ^ Compton, California (www.latimes.com)
- ^ in 2014 (caselaw.findlaw.com)
- ^ New Jersey town (www.nj.com)
- ^ North Carolina (www.robesonian.com)
- ^ 2016 (www.robesonian.com)
- ^ another election (www.wral.com)
- ^ the third election (www.nationalreview.com)
- ^ fraud (www.heritage.org)
- ^ vote fraud convictions (www.heritage.org)
- ^ felons who voted (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
- ^ conservative columnist John Fund (www.amazon.com)
- ^ screw-ups (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
- ^ “numerous” primary elections (www.nytimes.com)