The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat (Relevance to Rossi/Gregoire Race)

In 1995, Republican Congressman Bob Dornan, who had represented two different Southern California districts, starting in 1976, decided to run for president. He had great fun for about a year, but spent most of his campaign funds and neglected his district. This gave an opening to a Democratic financial analyst named Loretta Sanchez-Brixey, who had run for several minor offices without success. She dropped the Brixey (though not her husband) so as to appear more Hispanic and ran a clever campaign against Dornan, defeating him by the narrow margin of 984 votes. A visit by Bill Clinton and help from the state and national Democratic parties may have made the difference. (Clinton and the Democrats had good reason to dislike Dornan, who had criticized Clinton as a draft dodger and a "multiple womanizer".)

So far, this would seem to be a routine story, just another example of a politician who didn't pay enough attention to the folks back home, or how his district was changing. But there is more to the story. Dornan charged that Sanchez's margin came from non-citizens, and an investigation by th House of Representatives found that 547 non-citizens had voted in the election. Some believe that far more non-citizens voted, who were not detected. John Fund, in Stealing Elections, says that:

An INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District revealed that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24)

Unfortunately, Fund does not provide an end note for that quotation, though he does for most others in the book. The 4,023 is a larger number than I have seen in other accounts, though I have seen claims that more than 2,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in the district. The authoritative Almanac of American Politics (1998 edition) says only that "it is possible that Dornan has a case", which is as far as I would go, too.

But the Almanac has more to say about how many of those non-citizens got on the rolls, and that part of the story is also instructive.

Dornan brought his case to the House Contested Elections Task Force, which in February 1997 issued many subpoenas and promised a hearing in Orange County. Dornan argued that there were 1,789 illegal voters, and by Spring 1997 came up with proof that 547 non-citizens voted in Orange County and that 303 ineligibles had been registered to vote in the 46th District by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana; this fell short of proving the result was wrong, but raised questions about the netherworld of voter registration in Orange County. California's registration laws make it easy to get anyone on the voter rolls (the accused assassin of Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was a registered Democrat in San Pedro), and the Clinton Administration INS made great efforts to process new citizens and dispensed with the usual check for criminal records if the FBI did not respond within sixty days.

Hermandad Nacional Mexicana was running an interesting operation in Orange County.

Moreover, Dornan's attorney, Michael Schroeder, claims the taxpayer-funded English and citizenship classes were being illegally used for political purposes. In addition to being taught verb conjugations and the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution, students in Hermandad's classes were receiving political indoctrination and being registered to vote even if they didn't meet the legal requirements.

And it was not just Dornan who found an irregularity or two in the group's registrations. So did the Los Angeles Times and an independent organization, the Fair Elections Group. Taxpayers will be pleased to learn that Hermandad Nacional Mexicana was not only a non-profit organization, in spite of its activities, but was subsidized by grants from a variety of governments. And those who have read this site for some time will not be surprised that nearly all of those registered by the organization requested absentee ballots. As we have learned again and again, absentee ballots are the choice of most who commit vote fraud.

Let's summarize to this point: There were a large number of fraudulent votes cast in the Dornan-Sanchez race, perhaps enough to tip the election to Sanchez. So, what happened after this vote fraud was revealed? Almost nothing. Dornan, who is not the most sympathetic character, became a object of scorn, even though he was the victim of vote fraud. (For an example of the scorn, see this Robert Scheer column.) In a 1998 rematch, Sanchez beat Dornan easily. As far as I know, California made no effort to strengthen its election laws or to remove non-citizens from the rolls. The director of Hermandad Nacional Mexicana at the time, Nativo Lopez, is still director, and the organization is still receiving government grants.

Given how abrasive Dornan had been through his career, it may be too much to expect Democratic politicians to criticize the vote fraud that may have cost him his seat. But it is not too much to expect those in the "mainstream" media to criticize that vote fraud, and to call for reforms. If any "mainstream" journalists did so, I missed it.

And that, I think, is the sour lesson that we in Washington state should take from Dornan's defeat. If you have read my earlier posts, you will know that I think that a fair count of legal ballots in the governor's race would almost certainly give the win to Dino Rossi. But you should not conclude that I would favor a court challenge. Though Rossi is not despised by journalists (at least most of them) in the same way as Dornan was (and is), Rossi is a Republican. Even if Republicans dig up proof that 130 votes were illegitimate, we should not expect journalists in this area to join us in a call to have Christine Gregoire thrown out of office, or even for a new election to be held. Most journalists, echoing Democratic party hacks, say "count every vote". Robert Dornan can tell you just what they mean by that phrase.

So what should Republicans do? We should keep digging up irregularities and publicizing them as best we can. We should consider backing an "honest elections" initiative in 2006, which would bring back minimal requirements for registration, such as citizenship, and for voting, such as a photo id. If, in the next few weeks, we can find enough evidence for a case that will get through the "mainstream" media filter to the public, then Rossi should consider going to court. Otherwise, I think it will be a losing move. I don't like that conclusion, but there are times, in politics as in war, where you have to retreat in order to advance later.

The Dornan-Sanchez election is the best example of distributed vote fraud that I have found. It is fair to wonder just how much we can generalize from it. One could argue that a Southern California district would have many more immigrants, legal and illegal, than most, a point I would grant. But it is also true that our immigrant population has increased greatly since 1996, and that there is no reason to believe that all the non-citizen voters in the race were detected by Dornan's investigation. And this year saw a surge in efforts by groups allied to the Democratic party to register people, whether they were citizens or not.

If there is a silver lining to this probably Democratic theft in Washington, perhaps its that Rossi will be available to run against Cantwell in 2 years.

Anyone think he would have a chance?

I do NOT want Rossi as our Senator....he needs to be our GOVERNOR.....we need to CLEAN this STATE out....once he's Governor, then we can move on to cleaning out at the Federal Level.

"...decided to run for president. He had great fun for about a year, but spent most of his campaign funds and neglected his district."

put a lot of emphasis on "neglected".

sanchez, whether you like her or not, went door-to-door, while b-1 bob was out making normal people hate him across the country.

bob undid himself. if he really wanted to continue that seat, he would have stayed home and worked for it.

a lot of california republicans did NOT like b-1 bob.

p.s. sanchez is nominally hispanic. she's married to an anglo.

I feel for you. I'm sure Rossi would be a much better governor than the Democrat.

But its most likely over as far as the governorship is concerned. The Dems kept going back to King county finding votes until they found enough, and though I hope I'm wrong, they have probably succeeded in stealing the election.

If Washington state's loss is the nation's gain, then at least some good could come of it.

But, could he beat Cantwell?

So, what happened after this vote fraud was revealed? Almost nothing. Dornan, who is not the most sympathetic character, became a object of scorn, even though he was the victim of vote fraud.

Not true-- a lot happened, specifically, a debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, wherein the Republicans ' attempt to outline the facts of the infringement on every Americans' right to a fair election was portrayed by a solid phalanx of House Democrats as an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters . "Racism" was the way the MSM played it the next day. It happened around the same time as Ed Rollins' comments about "walking around" money in a N.J. election, which also pitted individual , constitutionally guaranteed rights against the bloc- voter "rights" championed by the Democrats and MSM. Since that time, any honest discussion of these issues has been political Kryptonite, so that Republicans cannot question even blatant situations like 100%+ turnout in heavily Democratic wards.

having lived in orange and los angeles counties, and having listened to b-1 bob for years, and having been at times embarassed by his public rhetoric, ...

i find it difficult to think of bob as a victim.

The Fallacy is the ignored fact that Dornan was NOT the victim of the vote fraud... the victims were all those voters whose legitimate vote was invalidated by the theft of the election and the denial of representation by the person of their choice.

Bob Dornan has been on the radio for a number of years now, and many of us have had the opportunity to become well acquainted with his thinking. Never have I heard a better informed or more honest talk show host. He gives the public detailed information that is rare in the media today. As for his outspoken approach, he does seem determined to tell the truth at all costs. I appreciate that, having had my fill of equivocating and devious politicians with hidden agendas.

that may be the reformed b-1 bob.

we all make changes in our lives, sometimes doing the opposite of what we were once doing. i'm glad to hear that bob is improved.

i'm speaking to the issue of bob's behavior in the u.s. congress while he was a representative to the u.s. congress. quite frankly, sometimes he was an embarassment to california republicans. he was not well liked by many who even voted for him. in fact, bob made many enemies within his own party by his abusive language. the democrats and illegals did not put words into bob's mouth.

that's what i was talking about.

therefore, i do not see him as a victim.

if he wanted to keep that congressional seat, he could have done what his opponent did -- work for it.

but he chose to whine about it, and to blame the democrats and illegals. even if there were illegals voting, a stay-at-home-bob, walking door-to-door as his opponent did, would have probably won anyway. afterall, he was then the sitting office holder and the advantage goes to the incumbent.

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.