Select Committee Report - Massive Voter Fraud in Atlantic County, NJ

This Committee finds that Atlantic County has a persistent and recurring problem with Election Fraud involving the misuse of absentee/messenger ballots. The Committee further concludes that the government entities responsible for conducting elections and enforcing election laws have not taken adequate steps to prevent or curb the abuse of absentee/messenger ballots. At the conclusion of our report, this Committee sets forth several recommendations of proactive steps we believe should be undertaken immediately to prevent the possibility of recurrence of voter fraud in Atlantic County.

This Committee was originally formed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:41A-38(h) with the mission of determining the status of our voting machines, reviewing voting procedures in our County, and formulating recommendations to improve the current system.

During July of 2002 the role of the Committee was expanded due to a public outcry to investigate voting irregularities which were primarily occurring in Atlantic City and more recently in Pleasantville.

The Committee held five formal hearings that were conducted by swearing in witnesses and taking testimony. A transcript of each hearing was made. Additionally, numerous documents were reviewed including agency reports, court records, election results, newspaper accounts, correspondence and affidavits. There were also numerous interviews conducted by the Chairman with individual residents who did not wish to reveal their identities. Further, many areas were explored which resulted in more phone calls and questions. The Committee had subpoena powers pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:20-83, however they never were required to invoke them. The following remarks in this report concerning government entities are related to the Committee’s area of interest and are not meant to spell out the only responsibilities of these entities.

During the period examined by the Committee (the past 5 election cycles including school elections, non partisan city council elections, primary elections and general elections) evidence has been presented of several types of recurring voter fraud, these include:

Registration of non-existent persons; Falsified absentee ballot requests submitted by mail or hand carried by “messengers”; Actual registered voters tricked or intimidated into signing absentee ballot requests and authorizing “messengers” who have completed the ballot in place of the voter.

By use of these methods, singularly or in combination, a small group of operatives have the ability to deliver hundreds of illegal votes to the Board of Elections.

N.J.S.A. 19:1 et. seq. controls the election process in New Jersey. Polls are open on election day from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Atlantic County voters cast their votes on Shouptronic voting machines. Complete machine results are usually available within a few hours after the polls close, usually much sooner absent a malfunction or human error.

Absentee ballots, of course, are paper ballots applied for and counted in accordance with “The Absentee Voting Law” N.J.S.A. 19:57-1 et. seq.

Up to seven days before an election a voter may apply to the County Clerk for a civilian absentee ballot. The signed, written application must be mailed to the Clerk’s Office and must contain a street address where the ballot will be received. From the 7th day before the election until 3 p.m. on the day before the election, a voter may apply in person at the Office of the County Clerk for an absentee ballot.

The type of ballot with the greatest potential for abuse and the principal source of trouble in Atlantic County is the “messenger ballot.”

In the event of sickness or confinement, the qualified voter may apply in writing for and obtain an absentee ballot by authorized messenger, who shall be so designated over the signature of the voter and whose printed name and address shall appear on the application in the space provided. The authorized messenger shall be a family member or a registered voter of the county in which the application is made and shall place his signature on the application in the space so provided in the presence of the county clerk or his designee. The county clerk or his designee shall authenticate the signature of the authorized messenger, in the event such a messenger is other than a family member, by comparing it with the signature of the said person appearing on a State of New Jersey driver’s license, or other identification issued or recognized as official by the Federal Government, the State, or any of its political subdivisions, which identification carries the full address and signature of said person. After the signature on the application and, when appropriate, authentication, the county clerk or his designee is authorized to deliver to the authorized messenger a ballot to be delivered to the qualified voter.

Obviously, this type of ballot is intended as an emergency ballot for the limited circumstances in which a voter has become ill or home-bound less than seven days before the election. In other words, this specialized ballot is for people who were not aware until a few days before the election that they would be unable to vote in person. If the voter knew of their problem in advance, of course, their application would have to be sent to the County Clerk by U.S. Mail and the Clerk in turn would send the ballot to the voter’s address by return mail (never to a P.O. Box). (Garvin Testimony p. 37:10-11) (19:57-11). While exchange of the application and ballot by mail is not foolproof, it affords a greater measure of confidence than the “messenger ballot.”

The “messenger ballot” is a loophole in the absentee ballot law which has been exploited by unscrupulous individuals in Atlantic County. By use of this loophole, individual “messengers” have carried hundreds of ballot requests into the Clerk’s office just days before elections.

Under N.J.S.A. 19:57-4 and 19:57-10, the Clerk is supposed to examine each absentee ballot request, authenticate signatures, check the identity and signature of the messenger before marking the application “approved” or “disapproved.” The Clerk is specifically empowered to “authenticate” messenger ballot requests when appropriate (N.J.S.A. 19:57-4). Additionally, the Clerk is empowered to call upon the Superintendent of Elections for assistance in the review of absentee ballot requests and the Superintendent has the power to investigate BEFORE the ballot is issued (N.J.S.A. 19:57-10). Over the years, the Clerk’s office has weeded out several illicit requests and has disapproved numerous absentee ballot requests in every election. (See attached summary, Exhibit A).

Unfortunately, as interpreted by the County Clerk, the messenger ballot law allows one individual to present the Clerk with dozens if not hundreds of ballot requests up to 3 p.m. the day before the election. As a practical matter, the Clerk’s Office has been unable, and has failed in some cases, to ascertain the identity of the messenger, to verify the voter’s signature on the absentee ballot requests or to call upon the Superintendent for an investigation before requests have been approved. As a result, individuals working alone or in groups have been able to walk out of the Clerk’s Office with hundreds of ballots the day before the election, supposedly destined for distribution to the voters in whose names they were requested, but unfortunately ripe for the misuse that has occurred in numerous instances.

The completed ballots have then been hand delivered, often hundreds at one time to the Board of Elections usually just before the close of balloting (8 p.m.) on election night.

The Board of Elections is then left with the job of examining and counting all of those last minute absentee ballots, some perhaps legitimate but many probably not. N.J.S.A. 19:57-26, 19:57-31.

There is evidence before the Committee indicating that nearly every election held in Atlantic City during the past five years (and at least one election in the City of Pleasantville) has been tainted to some degree by misused messenger ballots. In many elections, messenger ballots have changed the outcome of the election and reversed the will of the voters who personally voted in the polls. For the past five years this abuse of the system has been the subject of numerous articles and editorials in the largest daily newspaper in the region (Exhibit B, Exhibit C). It has been the subject of several civil lawsuits and criminal indictments. It is well recognized as a source of fraud by the Board of Elections, the County Clerk, the Superintendent of Elections, the County Prosecutor, most elected officials, and many members of the public. It has been reported in detail to the office of the New Jersey Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney. In December, 2003 it was the subject of a protest in Trenton by Atlantic City residents demanding that their election process be protected from the persistent fraud.

Unfortunately, this Committee finds that the entities entrusted with safeguarding the election process in our county have failed to take effective steps to halt or curb the fraudulent use of messenger ballots, to provide remedies for stolen elections, or to apprehend and punish individuals responsible for abusing the process in multiple elections.

On April 22, 1999 the Press of Atlantic City (The Press) carried the story “Absentee Ballots Decide Board Race” (C-1). In that election, a candidate who prevailed on the voting machines by a margin of 1233 - 1143 turned out to be the loser when the absentee ballots were counted 172 - 43 in favor of the opponent. The result did not seem especially remarkable at the time because absentee ballots had often been known to change the outcome of close elections. What was noteworthy, however, in this instance was the large disparity in the number of absentee votes received by each candidate and the dramatic difference between that percentage and the percentage received on the voting machines. However the numbers were small and the outcome appeared to be an isolated incident. The matter was not pursued.

In the school election the following year, the absentee ballots again changed the outcome recorded in the voting booths. On that occasion, a candidate prevailed on the machines by a tally of 1026 – 962 but the absentee ballots came in 138 – 42 in favor of the opponent. (The Press, April 26, 2000, C-1) This time, supporters of the defeated candidate complained to the authorities of improprieties with the absentee ballots (The Press, April 26, 2000, C-6), but the outcome of the election was allowed to stand.

For the next Atlantic City School Board election in 2001, absentee ballot “harvesting” went into full swing. The County Clerk testified that he received 1039 applications for absentee ballots for the 2001 School Board Elections compared to only 60 in 1997. (See Clerk’s Summary, Exhibit A)

The Press made note of the phenomenal growth in absentee ballot requests in its coverage of the 2001 Atlantic City School Board election. (The Press, April 17, 2001, C-1) The Press also noted that while absentee ballots constituted 1.6% of all votes cast in the 1997 school board election, such ballots accounted for over 26% of votes cast in the 2001 election.

A total of 473 absentee ballots were cast in 2001. The top three finishers (running as a slate) received the following vote totals:

What would have been a 17 vote margin of victory for the third place finisher was changed to a landslide over the fourth place candidate by the one-sided absentee ballots.

Absentee ballots were again decisive in the 2002 School Board Election. Following the now familiar pattern, the sitting Board President won on the machines (811 – 637) but was ousted from office due to an overwhelming margin of defeat in the absentee ballots (276 – 37) (The Press, April 17, 2002, C-1).

In the 2003 school election, the Board of Elections was inundated with so many absentee ballots on election night that it was unable to declare a winner (The Press, April 16, 2003, C-1). It was widely expected on election night that two of the apparent winners in the voting booths would be displaced when the absentee ballots were counted (The Press, April 16, 2003, C-1). In fact, that is exactly what occurred:

Candidate A:602 machine votesCandidate C:634 machine votes 535 absentee votes540 absentee votes

Candidate B:755 machine votesCandidate D:679 machine votes 138 absentee votes122 absentee votes

In all, 748 absentee ballots were cast in the 2003 Atlantic City School Election out of 1019 cast in the entire county.

This Committee concludes that there is substantial evidence that each of the past five school board elections in Atlantic City since 1999 have been tainted by misuse of absentee/messenger ballots.

The pattern revealed by these election results is inescapable. Following every school election, complaints and allegations of fraud have been made. The Press ran a front page story outlining evidence of fraud and absentee ballot misuse on June 2, 2001 (Exhibit B). At least four individuals have been indicted and convicted for election law violations (See attached stories, Exhibit D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4). However, not one of these tainted school elections has been overturned. Although the will of the voters has been thwarted in each of these examples, no remedy has been made available.

In May 2000, Atlantic City held its last nonpartisan City Council race. One seat had to be decided in a run-off. In the run-off voting on June 13, 2000, the incumbent out-polled the challenger in the voting booths by a margin of 496 to 452. However, according to published reports, at 7 p.m. on election night an individual delivered 115 “messenger ballots” to the Board of Elections. These ballots were marked 111 – 4 in favor of the challenger, which propelled him to a win of 122 – 19 on the absentee ballots. (The Press, June 14, 2000 Page A-1; June 20, 2000; C-1, Exhibit E-1) With all ballots counted, the challenger was declared the winner by a margin of 574 – 515. The defeated incumbent filed suit but the case was dropped following a ruling in July 2000 setting forth the standard of proof required by the judge. (The Press, July 12, 2000, C-1, Exhibit E-2)

In the June 26, 2001 Democratic primary for three at-large council seats in Atlantic City the machine vote totals were as follows:

However, when the absentee votes (mostly messenger ballots) were added to the count, the results were as follows:

As shown, the number two vote-getter on the machines did not finish in the top three. Once again, the absentee ballots were wildly out of the proportion to the votes cast in the voting booths.

In the General Election held November 6, 2001, the incumbent Mayor received 4,202 votes compared to 4,145 for the challenger. However, the messenger ballots were again decisive as the challenger received a total of 1,241 absentee ballots to 288 for the incumbent. (Official results – Atlantic County) Once again, the candidate beaten by the messenger ballots alleged fraud and called for an investigation, but no official action was taken by any agency of government and the outcome was allowed to stand. (The Press, November 14, 2001, C-1, Exhibit E-3)

In the race for the unexpired 3rd Ward Atlantic City Council seat, the appointed incumbent won in the voting booths by 224 votes. (The Press, June 7, 2002 C-1) However, hundreds of messenger ballots enabled the challenger to prevail by a large margin in the absentee ballots and propelled the challenger to a two (2) vote victory in the final tally: 482 – 480. (The Press, June 11, 2002 C-1)

The defeated incumbent challenged the election results in court, but was unable to satisfy the standard of proof to establish fraud.

The process was repeated in the 2002 general election in which the candidate who had prevailed by messenger ballots in the Democratic primary was challenged by an Independent candidate. The Independent won on the machines 528 – 447, but was defeated by virtue of messenger ballots. (Official results, Atlantic County November 5, 2002, The Press, November 6, 2002 C-1) This defeated Independent also alleged fraud, providing affidavits and other evidence, but the Superintendent of Election’s Office later concluded that the evidence was “insufficient to prove fraud.”

In the Democratic primary election of 2003, messenger ballots were heavily utilized in a City of Pleasantville Council race as well as the Atlantic City Council races.

In Pleasantville, an incumbent City Councilman won in the voting booths by a substantial margin 311-134, but he was defeated on messenger ballots 243 – 24. (The Press, June 4, 2003 C-1) In October 2003, following a trial, Judge Max Baker threw out 48 messenger ballots which he found had been tampered with. This decision restored the incumbent City Councilman as the Democratic nominee. (The Press, October 8, 2003 C-1)

In Atlantic City, the 2003 Democratic Primary for the 3rd Ward was a rematch between the 2002 Primary contestants. The result was a repeat of the prior year. As before, the same candidate prevailed on the machines, this time by 123 votes, (The Press, June 4, 2003 C-1), but she was overwhelming defeated by messenger ballots and lost the election. On this occasion, her legal challenge featured evidence of a different nature which led to a judicial nullification of the election. (Judge Baker’s Decision, Exhibit F)

The 2003 Pleasantville and Atlantic City legal challenges had an element that was not present in the earlier elections outlined above. A substantial number of the messenger ballots carried a “write-in” vote for a Democratic State Senate Candidate. Handwriting experts compared the ballots (Exhibit G) and testified that many had been written by the same individual or a small group of individuals. The Court found the expert testimony credible and stated:

As a result of this analysis, the Court finds that 202 absentee ballots have been tampered with by someone other than the appropriate voter (Baker opinion p. 29:22-24).

These facts raise significant questions about the fundamental integrity of the electoral process in the Third Ward of Atlantic City. All of these facts point to an attempt to interfere with a free and fair election and taint the integrity of the electoral process. P. 32:14-18.

Messenger voting continued unabated in the 2003 General Election. Although absentee ballots did not reverse the outcome of any races, peculiar vote counts remain the norm. (Official Results, Atlantic County November 4, 2003) Candidates defeated by large margins on the voting machines continue to prevail by large margins in the absentee/messenger ballots. In the Ward City Council races the vote totals for successful candidates were as follows:

Machine votesAbsentee votes Ward 1481197 Ward 246312 Ward 3414294 Ward 456526 Ward 5464154 Ward 681436

The trend continues in Atlantic City elections – School, Primary and General, a small number of individuals are turning in hundreds of messenger ballots. These absentee/messenger ballots bear no logical relationship to the voting that took place in the voting booths.

Although one city council election in Pleasantville was overturned and one city council election in Atlantic City was voided by the Court, at least ten elections have been seriously affected by large numbers of messenger/absentee ballots.

This Committee is convinced that the problems with vote fraud and questionable outcomes will continue unless stricter controls are implemented immediately. The public can have little confidence in the outcome of elections unless the current system is modified.

The Committee interviewed the entire Board of Elections. (BOE) Membership on the BOE is a part-time position. As pointed out in the 2003 OGI Report (Exhibit H) the office needs full-time supervision. The election statutes separate duties between the Superintendent and the BOE. The BOE passes on the acceptance or rejection of absentee/messenger ballots.

Messenger ballots are only to be used by the voter when the voter did not know prior to 7 days before an election that they would be sick or confined on election day.

The BOE has had to deal with large numbers of last minute ballots walking through the door at 7 to 8 p.m. election night. Garbage bags full of messenger ballots are brought in just before 8 p.m. election night. This is an incredible task for four members of the BOE to review these ballots.

This office has the responsibility of receiving all requests for absentee and messenger ballots. The only way a person can request an absentee or messenger ballot is through the County Clerk’s Office pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:57-6. Mr. Garvin, the County Clerk, sees his role as ministerial. (Garvin testimony p. 15:12 to 16:11) He states that his office is there to make sure than everybody who wants to vote has the right to vote. He does not maintain lists of voters and does not investigate. His office rejects hundreds of requests (applications) for absentee and messenger ballots (see attached summary report), but there is no forwarding of this list for investigation of the rejected applications. He states that it is not his responsibility to do any investigations or question the legitimacy of applications.

In April of 2003, a person came into the County Clerk’s Office dressed in a burqa to conceal his/her identity and committed fraud by posing as someone else. (The Press, April 17, 2003, C-1) The Clerk’s Office is supposed to ask for identification in such a case. However, in this instance it did not. Someone walked off with 37 messenger ballots. To this day no one has been charged or prosecuted.

Their investigation included a review of missing absentee ballots for the November 2001 General Election and the June 2002 Primary Election. The date of their report is February 27, 2003 and a copy of their 6-page report is attached. (Exhibit H)

Mrs. Armbruster, the Superintendent of Elections, testified that she turned over numerous documents to the County Prosecutor for his review and investigation, some going back to 1999 and 2000. Mrs. Armbruster was asked what information was turned over to the Prosecutor. She would not disclose this and directed the Chairman to ask the County Prosecutor.

During the month of April 2003 a letter was mailed to Mr. Jeffrey Blitz, County Prosecutor. The Committee requested all information that was forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office. The intent of the Committee’s letter was twofold. One, to determine from a budgetary standpoint what was needed in regard to investigative personnel in the Superintendent of Elections office and two, to determine if there were any ongoing investigations.

The Committee did not request specifics and it was not the Committee’s desire to interfere with the operation of the Prosecutor’s Office. However, it is extremely important for this duly appointed Committee to know in a general way what is going on. The Committee did not receive a reply to the letter.

The Chairman, Mr. Risley, personally met with Mr. Blitz. The Prosecutor’s reply was that what comes into his office stays in his office. Further, the Chairman formed the impression that there was not an ongoing investigation being conducted concerning information submitted by Mrs. Armbruster’s office or on the burqa incident (identity theft) that occurred in the County Clerk’s Office.

There have been a few individuals over the last few years that have been prosecuted for vote fraud. However, the problem of vote fraud continues with no end in sight. In October of 2003 Superior Court Judge Baker stated that during the June Democratic Third Ward Primary 202 ballots had been tampered with and he ruled that election to be voided. Prior to this ruling, the same Judge overturned the Pleasantville, Democratic Primary Election when 48 ballots were questioned and proven fraudulent. The County Prosecutor, Mr. Blitz, stated that he has investigated, indicted, and convicted defendants in ballot fraud cases in the past. He has further publicly stated that he will look at Judge Baker’s ruling and the evidence presented in that case, and will decide if the Prosecutor’s Office “should divert resources” into investigating the primary elections. (The Press, _____, 2003, c-1).

The Superintendent of Elections, Mrs. Armbruster, takes her direction from and relies on legal opinions from the State Attorney Generals Office (AG). Donna Kelly, a deputy in that office, has been directing and advising Mrs. Armbruster. The Superintendent’s reliance on the DAG is no doubt proper, however the Committee, County Freeholder Board and the County Executive have vehemently disagreed with the DAG’s rulings, and more importantly, with the inaction and deaf ear approach that the AG has given our County.

During the summer of 2003, new Federal Legislation was signed into law that includes more safeguards in the present voting system such as the requirement that newly registered voters show identification when voting for the first time. (See The “Help America Vote Act” 42 U.S.C. 15301) One of the new items sets forth specific language concerning investigation of voters. Prior to this Federal legislation, the DAG ruled that our investigators could not ask for any type of identification including ancillary evidence such as a utility bill etc. Our investigator’s hands were tied and the DAG’s ruling made a mockery of our investigation. Our County Executive and Freeholders wrote letters to the DAG questioning why our investigators could not ask for identification. The DAG’s ruling stated that we could not ask for identification because the Statute did not provide for it. We could only ask for identification for an “articulated reason” and apparently our investigations did not meet the DAG’s concept of this requirement.

It is inconceivable to us, [particularly in light of September 11, 2001] that we can not safeguard and protect the integrity of elections in our County. Even though there is no law that can be found that prevents our investigators from asking for identification, the DAG’s prohibition was based solely upon the AG Office’s inability to find any law that permits it. There is no rule of legislative construction that states that the absence of an affirmative mandate to perform an activity must be interpreted as a prohibition against that activity. Our Courts have ruled that statutory interpretation which leads to absurd or unreasonable results are to be avoided. Why would the DAG’s Office think that it was the intent of the legislature to tie the hands of investigators?

The DAG’s ruling exacerbated the vote fraud problem. The DAG’s ruling created the perfect atmosphere for increased problems relating to voter fraud. Atlantic County’s voting problems have been well documented over numerous elections. The Press of Atlantic City identified the problem of voter fraud in 2001. A Superior Court Judge found pervasive fraud in the primary elections of 2003. Where is the AG’s office and why haven’t they heard the pleas of voters of different parties? In other counties the DAG has fashioned a remedy for potential voting abuses, why not Atlantic County, which now has a lengthy and well-documented history of voting problems. The DAG should acknowledge that there is a genuine problem with voting irregularities in Atlantic City and Pleasantville. The AG Office’s failure to act is inconceivable and inexcusable.

Mr. Ridgeway was hired as an investigator for the Superintendent of Elections office in September of 2001. His job was to verify names and addresses that were questionable as well as duplicate ballot requests, etc. He testified that he was not allowed to ask residents for any type of identification, not even a piece of mail, utility bill or even a voter’s card. This was the order of the Superintendent of Elections office. He did not know whether he was looking for a person that was 18 or 80.

The directive to investigate in this ill-conceived manner was handed down from Donna Kelly of the DAG’s Office. Mr. Ridgeway testified that rest homes were major targets of fraud. He interviewed elderly voters in rest homes and many told him that they never saw a ballot and never voted for anyone. They were only told “sign here and we’ll take care of the rest for you, it’s a convenient way of voting.” (Ridgeway testimony)

He further stated that only 25% of the individuals he was sent to investigate could be identified as legal voters and legally needing an absentee ballot. He spent a huge amount of time looking for addresses that didn’t exist. Voters told him that they were receiving assistance with absentee ballots that they did not request and did not want. (Ridgeway testimony)

Mr. Ridgeway also felt physically threatened at times. During one investigation at an apartment complex he was asked to leave, which he did. He further testified that three men in a van chased him out of a neighborhood to the point where he had to run through stop signs and red lights. He did not report the incident to the police for fear of his own safety and kept this information to himself until the time of his testimony to this committee on February 19, 2003. During his service to the County, it was Mr. Ridgeway’s conclusion that fraud was taking place and some of his notes from his investigation were tape recorded at the Superintendent of Elections office.

We interviewed Mrs. Joanne Armbruster. She stated that absentee/messenger ballots are not an issue for her office. Her office does not play a role in these ballots unless a question is brought to her attention. Mrs. Armbruster testified that she would send out investigators if requested. She further stated that there needs to be more interaction with the Board of Elections office and that office needs more help. The Superintendent of Elections office currently has two (2) full time investigators and it is her recommendation that six (6) full time persons would be optimal. She further recommended that there should be a certification program for persons working in the election process.

The Chairman has received information from individuals who wanted to protect their identity. It is as follows:

Voters were being asked to sign three requests for messenger ballots. (A messenger ballot can only be requested for the sick or confined.) They were told that this was a convenient way of voting. The voters were told that by signing these three forms a messenger would personally bring the ballot to their home for the School Board Election, Primary and General Elections. Many voters were intimidated into signing forms they did not wish to sign and were not allowed to vote their own ballot. Many absentee ballots have been cast from addresses that do not exist and by persons who do not reside at the address they provided.

The current machines in use today were purchased nearly two decades ago. During the General Election of 2002, the main result reader broke down, forcing officials to count votes with adding machines. Previous to this, remote modems broke down which forced election workers to drive voting machine cartridges to Atlantic City.

There is a constant need for repairs to these machines and parts for these machines are costly and hard to obtain. Electronic boards and other parts have been exchanged from machine to machine and large expenditures have occurred to keep the present machines functional. When the machines were originally purchased 19 years ago they were initially stored in a non-climate-controlled building. This may have caused the advanced deterioration of the sensitive metallic switches in the boards. However, even with normal use of at least three elections per year plus other uses by other organizations, they are simply worn out. The number of backup machines the County has is dangerously low.

Technology has moved on and the new machines are far more advanced with numerous new features and safeguards. Machine and system concerns detract from other important functions of the Superintendent of Elections office. Page 5 of the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) Preliminary State Plan has clearly identified that this is an appropriate time to replace our County’s voting machines. Many municipalities have passed resolutions requesting the County buy new voting machines.

The Press of Atlantic City identified the problem of vote fraud in Atlantic City in 2001. The Press identified forgery and applications submitted from addresses that did not exist. (Exhibit B) There have been allegations of fraud in every election since that time. Further, the dramatic increase in the use of absentee and messenger ballots has not sufficiently alarmed the entities that should be protecting the integrity of elections. On May 28, 2003, over 600 persons stated that they would be sick on June 3, 2003 and one person as messenger carried all of the ballots that were requested.

During the 2003 Atlantic City Board of Education election there were 748 absentee/messenger ballots cast compared to 271 for the rest of the County. It is clear that there is a pattern of abuse. There have been numerous requests by members of the public, County Elected Officials and most recently by the Atlantic County Board of Elections for an investigation. These requests for an investigation have been forwarded to the County Prosecutor, the State Attorney General’s Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. To date law enforcement is mostly absent.

Since 1999 numerous elections have been decided by people who didn’t physically go to the polls. The problem just continues with no end in sight. The results of a Primary Election in the City of Pleasantville were overturned by the Court because of fraud. The most recent Atlantic City Third Ward Primary Election result was thrown out and voided because the Court ruled that voter fraud was so pervasive. Judge Max Baker stated “This election was so contaminated by fraud and misconduct that the mathematical result must be rendered in doubt.” (Baker opinion p. 36:12-14) These orders by the Court are unprecedented in our County. There is no longer room for doubt that fraud is being committed.

Our election system only works well when everyone is abiding by all of the rules in Title 19. However, there are those who will look for ways to manipulate the intent of election laws to the point of outright fraud. Our current system is not dealing with the problems created by fraud. Our present voting procedure is a fragmented system particularly when it comes to responsibility for follow up and enforcement of voting laws. The Board of Elections, Superintendent of Elections, County Clerk and County Prosecutor must work together to enforce current election laws and look for and anticipate ways that individuals can commit fraud. Our system can only work well when all of the entities are fully involved and committed to improving it.

The Committee has taken its time to form this report. Many items and topics have been explored. At the end of the report there are both short and long term recommendations. The list is not all inclusive. The entities involved should be proactive and come forward with remedies of their own to add to this list.

If we are to fix voting problems and strengthen our current system, all of the recommendations should be immediately adopted and implemented. The Committee’s work is a totally appropriate government function under our County Charter, and we are responding to the public outcry that is evidenced by numerous press articles dealing with the issue. The integrity of the election system must be protected. The voter is losing faith in the process in our County. Further, no candidate should be forced to go to Court at their own expense to prove they were the winner of an election. The messenger ballot has the greatest potential for abuse and this issue should receive the spotlight.

It is important to point out that this Committee has no power to force the adoption of its recommendations.

That the Prosecutors Office immediately launch a full-scale investigation and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those found violating election laws. If funding is a problem to accomplish a full-scale investigation, then the necessary amount should be appropriated in the County budget. Voters and candidates should not have to wonder about the integrity of elections and candidates should not have to expend their own funds to prove that they won an election.

The County Clerk must take proactive steps to improve security measures for the approval of messenger ballot requests:

The Clerk MUST authenticate signatures on every absentee ballot request; The Clerk MUST confirm the identity of messengers before issuing absentee ballots; The Clerk SHOULD limit to four (4) the number of absentee ballots that can be issued to any one messenger; The Clerk SHOULD call upon the Superintendent of Elections to investigate absentee ballot requests by messengers requesting more than one ballot, before such requests are approved.

Every rejection letter for an absentee/messenger ballot should be investigated. The Superintendent’s Office should do this type of investigation. In most cases an innocent mistake by the voter would probably be the reason. However, if there is suspicion of fraud found, that should be turned over to the County Prosecutor for further investigation and prosecution. A rejection letter should have a stern warning stating the penalties for violation of election laws.

The Board of Elections should hire temporary personnel to investigate the validity of messenger ballots. The County Prosecutor shares this view, as well. The investigation should include all messenger ballots submitted before the election and the investigation should continue on these same messenger ballots through to the certification of the election.

The Board of Elections should hold monthly meetings to include the Superintendent of Elections and the County Clerk to foster more coordination between offices and to develop policies to proactively prevent voter fraud.

The Board of Elections needs daily supervision and a larger area to work. The Superintendent of Election should be the person to oversee the operations of the office on a daily basis. Election statutes assign separate duties to the Superintendent of Elections office and to the Board of Elections office. We need to go back to the previous system of having the Superintendent of Elections oversee and manage the office on a daily basis. This can be accomplished and still maintain the autonomy of each office.

New voting machines should be purchased and be fully operational for the 2004 General Election. Voters are entitled to have confidence that every vote is counted, vote counts are correct and results are reported immediately. The 2003 County Budget has an appropriation for a down payment in the Capital portion of the Budget.

Verifying identity of new voters at the time of registration and at the time of voting. Conducting full and thorough investigations of any questionable absentee ballot requests brought to the Superintendent’s attention by the County Clerk.

That a Certification program be instituted for election staff. This is currently being developed by the Senior Deputy Attorney, Rutgers Center for Government Services and the Superintendent of Election’s Office. The development of the Certification program must include fraud and election abuse training.

How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

1. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).

2. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).

3. Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)

4. Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00).

5. Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00)

6. Illegal aliens. These voters have long been a core liberal constituency, especially in California. In Orange County in 1996, Rep. Bob Dornan had his congressional seat stolen from him when thousands of illegal aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez (Christian Science Monitor, 9/2/97).

7. Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a "smokes-for-votes" campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/14/00).

8. Phantom Voters. These voters don't really exist, but their ballots do. In the 1996 Lousiana Senate race, GOP candidate Woody Jenkins had the election stolen from him when he discovered that 7,454 actual votes were cast but had no paper trail to authenticate them (Behind the Headlines, F.R. Duplantier, 4/27/97).

9. Dimpled chads. Those infamous punch-cards were a ballot bonanza for Al Gore. Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00).

10. Absentee ballots. Normally it's assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami's 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court (FL Dept. of Law Enforcement Report, 1/5/98)."

SOURCE: http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?nameid=votefraud

Links on freerepublic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=electionfraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=votefraud

WE MUST FIGHT VOTE FRAUD!

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.