Posted on 11/02/2014 10:34:22 AM PST by therightliveswithus
An impostor illegally used a New Mexico's man vote three days before the actual person came in to vote. The incident occurred in Rio Arriba County. When the real person came to cast his ballot, he was at first turned away, being told that he had already voted.
Only when the real person contested, saying he had not in fact voted, did election officials review their files and compare the signatures they had on record with the one signed by whoever voted three days earlier.
The signatures did not match. Why the officials did not check this in the first place has not been stated, and required voter ID laws were not in place.
Bobbi Shearer, who works for New Mexico's Secretary of State, stated, "Under current law there are no means available to poll workers to help them determine if a voter is actually the person he says he is."
The actual voter was then able to cast a provisional ballot, but election officials have not decided whether it can be counted.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepunditpress.com ...
What is “Checking signatures hinders fraud, Alex?”
Gee, I wonder what party the fraud voted for.
“The actual voter was then able to cast a provisional ballot, but election officials have not decided whether it can be counted.”
?????
Bump
Happened to me in Minnesota in 2010.
Excuse me?!? By that reasoning, the fraudulent vote stands, huh? Just like all those 100% votes for hussein are still standing. Total and complete government corruption.
"As a practical matter we have to let the fraudulent vote stand, but we're unsure of whether a real vote should be allowed."
Duh.
We have early voting in West Virginia ... Mrs. Mountain and I went to vote yesterday morning. As we reach for our wallets to get out ID, the officials tell us ‘no need for that ... we can’t check IDs’.
So I (loudly) ask one of them “Does that mean I could claim to be anybody and vote under that name?”
Answer: “well ... you’d have to lie to me”
So I sez: “You hear about people doing that ... and nobody seems to care.”
Doubt it did any good ... but maybe they’re a little embarrassed by the complete insecurity of the vote. The machines seemed to record the votes I intended to cast .... unlike what we hear about from MD and IL.
As a practical matter, how would you go about rescinding the fraudulently cast ballot?
the only “fair” thing to do is to let the injured party vote twice - once to register his vote and once to cancel out the democrat vote.
In this day and age every person who signs to vote should be video taped in the act. They could go back and find out who voted in the real persons place, or at the very least prove that the first instance was fraud.
I also don’t see the big deal in being able to view how a person voted. Are we to ashamed for who we voted for to let others know. Then we don’t deserve to vote in the first place.
This illegal vote could be canceled if the ballot could be traced to the person who voted.
Well the illegal vote can’t be tracked. Only the provisional ballot by the legal voter can be tracked now. They can tell exactly how the legal person voted.
That's not the point.
The point is that the "reasoning" arrives at a conclusion which does not follow from the premise. A fraudulent vote was cast by an imposter; that "vote" has to reamin in the ballot box, because there is -- as a practical matter -- no way to remove it. However, that "vote" does not "belong" to this voter. His vote has never been cast. He is still entitled to a vote. The election board will be compounding the original crime by discounting his vote [if they make that decision.] He will have been defrauded not once, but twice if they do so.
It was improper for the judge of elections to force him to file a provisional ballot; the voter should immediately have asked the lawyer representing his party to intervene [there is always one available, at no charge, believe me.] The precedent in almost every state is clear: a fraudulent vote is a crime against the whole electorate, and does not invalidate the rights of defrauded voters to cast their votes. The case law should have been read out to the judge or clerk requiring the provisional ballot, and the voter should have been allowed to file an ordinary ballot and place it in with the non-provisional votes.
Now, why involve a lawyer you ask?
Because, I can tell you, as a many time clerk and/or judge of elections in my precinct, if the provisional ballot is simply discarded, this voter will have NO WAY of ever knowing that that happened. Furthermore, in a pecinct where the signature comparison is so "sloppy" that this could happen, it's very likely that the clerk knew all along that the original voter was not qualified, and they are planning to throw this man's vote away as soon as they possibly can.
And that is exactly why the voter should have refused to accept a provisional ballot, asked his Republican committee people who their legal rep was, and had the lawyer read the riot act to the judge of elections. See my previous post.
This is difficult to believe because, in 2012, a self-admitted “lefty” assured many opponents that voter fraud was “so not an issue.”
Maybe for lefties it’s not an issue, given their success with it.
Ironically, if the midterms tilt as far to the right as we’ve been told to believe, massive charges of voter fraud will emanate from the left.
Good catch; tx.
Remember - turnabout is fair play.
Vote fraud will not be fixed until the GOP is seen to be benefiting from it.
Find a ‘Rat neighbor and vote in his place.
Then find another and do it again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.