Hot News!
• Bearman Cartoon: Freestore Foodbank Blogger Challenge
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Lobbyists Hack Your Elections: The OEJC Calls for Voting Systems Recall, Return, and Refund, Part I (2007)•Trickle Down Justice (2007)
•Coming this week: Buy Nothing Day! (and Boycott MTV) (2007)
•Updates on the BOE “Situation” (2007)
•UC Student Groups March to President Nancy Zimpher (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
A Felony of the Fifth Degree: Election Falsification in Hamilton County?
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
The other day, for no reason in particular, I remembered all those allegations of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary to stack the deck, so to speak, for John McCain. I also remembered those stories about how people wanted Rush Limbaugh to face charges for encouraging people to vote in the opposite party’s primary. And while it turns out that Limbaugh’s ”Operation Chaos” did not land him in court, what about those Republicans who maliciously changed party? Did anyone in Hamilton County write something like “For one day only” on their statement of party affiliation? It turns out those forms are a matter of public record.
I cannot guarantee that I have a comprehensive collection from Hamilton County’s party affiliation forms. There are thousands of these things downtown at the Board of Elections. But I did get my hand on a few that raise questions about individuals’ motives.
For example, someone named Tonietta Smith, from Oakley, added some things to her form that raise questions. At the top of the form, she wrote “Democrat Primaries ONLY.” And she apparently crossed out some words on the statement, making the form read as follows: “...that I desire to be affiliated with and that I support the principles of the ____ Party...” In the blank, she wrote the word “Democrat,” and right under the space she wrote ”TODAY ONLY.”
Donna Plummer filled out her form, stating that she supported the principles of the “Independent Party.” An asterisk next to the line refers to another line where the Precinct Officials either accept or reject the vote. The form indicates the vote was “accepted,” and the note indicates that Plummer “Voted Democrat Ballot.”
Carol Hesser made her own notes on her form. She started to write the “D” for “Democrat,” then stopped and wrote “Independent.” This was marked with an asterisk, which referred to the following note, also apparently written by Hesser: “Voting today on the Democratic Ballot. I hereby request a change to the Independent Party. CSH 3/4/08”
Christopher Bartlett’s form has two kinds of handwriting on it. Apparently, he left the date blank, as well as the line where he was to indicate party affiliation. Under that line, an arrow points to the following statement: “I am voting for whom I wish regardless of party affiliation.” The same hand which wrote the word “accept” at the bottom of the form apparently also filled in the date, and the word “Democratic” on the blank line.
Patricia Hinkley tried to have it both ways, stating that she was a member of the “Independent/Democratic” party. The line on the bottom indicating whether her vote got accepted or rejected is blank.
Don Hinkey apparently did not understand that primary elections are for the respective parties. He left the line of party affiliation blank, and wrote the following: “Since when did someone else decide how an American citizen can vote?” At the bottom, lone Precinct Official Kitt Lowe signed off that his vote was accepted.
So what does this mean? Are these some examples of voters implementing something akin to Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”?
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
14 May 2008 at 08:05 am | #
At our precinct, I was not given any form to fill out. I am a registered independent. I voted in the Republican primary. The gentleman in front of me was also an independent and he voted in the democratic primary. Again, no form. They simply asked which ballot we would like. FYI: Precinct 26N.
I sent you some info regarding possible vote fraud in Hamilton County regarding a completely separate issue. Did you get a chance to investigate it?
14 May 2008 at 09:07 am | #
I don’t have a problem with people switching parties for the primaries (even if it is with malicious intent). Quite frankly, it’s disturbing that the parties are in control of the nomination process like they are and that you have to announce party affiliation.
Now that you need valid photo ID to vote, the next issue is going to be proof of citizenship. (because those people that aren’t citizens are likely to go to a polling place and draw attention to themselves)
It’s too bad that we’re allowing these sorts of practices to continue.
14 May 2008 at 12:25 pm | #
The Supreme Court ruled that Indiana has the right to refuse the votes of anyone who doesn’t have an official state ID to ward off voter-induced frauds that they could not document a single case of in recent history.
But, a conspiracy to commit fraud- advertised relentlessly by Cunningham and Rush, et al, in clear violation of the law goes without investigation. Even though the Operation Chaos had no impact - the intent to threaten our democratic principles, and law, should be zealously prosecuted.
As for the voter ID law: how many people living in nursing homes or who can’t afford to get the state ID are going to be turned away?
Did the attorneys who brought the case fail to raise the issue of the costs of the ID being a “tax” that denies those without transportation, money to acquire the documents necessary to get the state ID, and cost of the ID as an obstacle to deny their votes?
14 May 2008 at 03:31 pm | #
Scott,
When you’re registered as an independent you’re allowed to take either a partisan ballot or an issues-only ballot. You’re now a “registered Republican,” which means nothing more than you took a Republican ballot. Voter rolls will list you as a Republican until 2010, at which point if you take an issues-only ballot, you’ll be identified as such, again.
Now, if your neighbor had taken a Republican ballot in 2006 (or in the last primary in which he voted) and then asked for a Democratic ballot in 2008, he’d have been asked to sign a form.
14 May 2008 at 03:41 pm | #
From Anon....12:25 pm
The Supreme Court ruled that Indiana has the right to refuse the votes of anyone who doesn’t have an official state ID to ward off voter-induced frauds that they could not document a single case of in recent history
The best thing about that descision is that Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority in the 6-3 ruling. Did he wake up that morning and realize that he is a Republican and should have been voting along those lines for the past 30 or so years?
14 May 2008 at 05:55 pm | #
Dean:
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think anybody was asked to sign anything in my precinct. Do you have proof otherwise?
14 May 2008 at 06:03 pm | #
I have no idea. I was not studying precinct numbers. I was looking for extra comments and such.
14 May 2008 at 06:04 pm | #
Here’s the next question ...
How many of you heard long-time Republicans BRAGGING about going to the primary and perjuring themselves in order to vote for Hillary?
This election is turning out to be the biggest mess since ...
Well ...
The last two ...
14 May 2008 at 06:06 pm | #
Thanks Dean.
Explaination:
What if I had no idea how this worked, and decided to vote in the Democratic primary the next time around, are you saying that I would have to fill out a pledge form?
I may do this just to see if it occurs.
14 May 2008 at 09:44 pm | #
White Male: The best thing about that descision is that Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority in the 6-3 ruling. Did he wake up that morning and realize that he is a Republican and should have been voting along those lines for the past 30 or so years?
Silly me. Until now, I assumed the Supremes were intended to be above party politics. White Male, thanks for clearing that up and for allowing us the opportunity to observe your thought processes. Be sure to share more of your insights after you get home from the bund meeting tonight. And remember - vote Zirkle!
15 May 2008 at 09:25 am | #
I don’t think anyone should be required to state party preference at the ballot box. I don’t think anyone should be registered as one party or the other. We have the right to change our mind and vote however we like. And since it should be impossible to determine how someone voted from election to election, we shouldn’t be able to prove if anyone “perjured” themselves.
In addition, When a person is elevated to the ranks of the Supreme Court they are much less likely to pay attention to “party lines.” They are in a seat from which they cannot be removed easily. They have no one to answer to. This is why these justices are vetted like crazy by both parties to try and determine how they are likely to vote. They don’t get it right, in some instances.
15 May 2008 at 09:37 am | #
Scott,
Yes, if you pick up a Democratic ballot in the next partisan primary you’ll be required to sign a form. If in 2010 you take an issues ballot and take a Democratic ballot in 2012, you won’t be asked to sign anything.
People probably were being asked to sign forms at your precinct. You probably just weren’t around when anybody was hopping parties.
15 May 2008 at 11:04 am | #
From Tony Zirkle..
Silly me. Until now, I assumed the Supremes were intended to be above party politics
Tony - not necessarily party politics -
You see, Tony, the Republicans appoint Supreme Court Justices who tend to have a more conservative or normal approach to the interpertation of the constitution.
The Democrats tend to appoint those who do not understand the constitution.
MAJOR DOUBLE STANDARD HERE:
Preesident Clinton appointed two liberal justices while in office. Both were confirmed by something like 93 to 3. I think his second nominee was when the Republicans had control of the Senate.
But, when President Bush appointed his two conservtives - he was met with resistance by the Democratic controlled Senate - and their confirmation was somehing like 54 to 46.
Then Daddy Bush appoints Clarence Thomas and the Democrats came out of the woodwork to try and destroy Justice Thomas.
The appointment of John Paul Stevens by President Ford may have been some sort of comprimise with the senate, I just don’t recall.
Now do you understand?
15 May 2008 at 12:06 pm | #
Whatever happend to the obviously trivial concept of a secret ballot?
15 May 2008 at 04:23 pm | #
Thanks explaination.
I might still do it to see what happens.
22 May 2008 at 10:45 am | #
Yes, i crossed over and voted for Hillary, i wanted my vote to count for something, and yes i was part of Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, so what, i have no intention of voting for any democrats beside Dusty, I will be switch back.
And the funny part is Obama called on Republicians to do this also, and even had flyers explain how to change to vote.