Why Is DoJ Ignoring Election Fraud?

Heritage Foundation ^ | 10/21/08 | Conn Carroll

[paltz]

This past Friday the Supreme Court issued an order setting aside a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals order forcing Ohio’s secretary of state Jennifer Brunner to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration. The Ohio Republican Party had sued to force Brunner to comply with the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) after widespread reports of voter registration fraud. The Court expressed no opinion on whether Brunner was following HAVA — it threw the case out on the grounds that the Republican party didn’t have the right to sue to force compliance.

As Heritage fellow Hans von Spakovsky notes, he made the exact same argument the Court just made when he worked for the Department of Justice in 2004. Except then it was Democrats asserting that HAVA included a private right of action and Democrats later attacked him for that very position when he was appointed to the Federal Election Commission. Leaving the left’s blatant hypocrisy aside, who can enforce state compliance with HAVA to prevent election fraud? Only the Department of Justice.

We have no idea why DoJ has declined to investigate ACORN’s blatant election fraud in Ohio (and across the country), but this report from The Examiner’s Quin Hillyer might just be relevant: “In all, DOJ lawyers and staff in the metro area have donated at least $150,000 to Obama. No wonder they seem more interested in prosecuting those who warn against vote fraud than enforcing vote-fraud laws.”

[DBrow]

I agree.

That’s why, in Heller, they chose plaintiffs very carefully, so that it was plain who the aggrieved party seeking redress was.

If the GOP had formed a coalition of say 20 registered in-state voters and had them make the filing, the case probably would have been heard.

[SunkenCiv]

Obama knows his way around a ballot (Obama Challenged Ballots in Chicago)
Chicago Tribune | April 3, 2007 | David Jackson and Ray Long
Posted on 10/21/2008 4:59:47 PM PDT by ethical
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111660/posts

[Rebelbase]

“Why Is DoJ Ignoring Election Fraud?”

No mandate from El Presidente.

[yldstrk]

worms............

each attorney should exercise his/her own independent professional judgment

when you “work” for government and think you are beholden to the idiots who might get elected and are too big of a chicken little to go out on your own, you will keep your trap shut

[Treefiddy]

From what we know so far about ACORN and the Vote from Home organization, you are right, R.I.C.O. does not apply.

18 U.S.C. § 1961 covers everything from murder to bootlegged music. It's been used to prosecute the Gambino Crime Family and National Organization for Women used it unsuccessfully in a class-action lawsuit to attempt to shut down the pro-life protesters. But somehow, someway, it does not apply to fraudulent acts involving federal voting and voter registration. I guess that's not as important as someone illegally copying a Michael Moore movie. Go figure.

[K-oneTexas]

My thoughts exactly. Someone is not thinking, plain stupid or ... oh, I’d hate to think is was a plan.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>They set it aside not because of the issue (voter fraud) but rather saying that the GOP is not a party who is harmed. Individual voters are harmed, the GOP isn’t a registered voter.<<

That does not explain why the USDOJ does not file against Brunner. I wrote them an email complaining about this. Don’t expect them to do their job, but thought I would try.

[IndianPrincessOK]

The DOJ/Fitzgerald team are investigating voter fraud in all the battleground states. Hillary filed during the primary too. I am sure it will take a long time before indictments and answers. If you google RICO, ACORN there are 14,000 articles written about this and press releases in regard to this.

[K-oneTexas]

Maybe the USSC decision says it's still a issue that belongs in the State's. Let me restate the case ... "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." (Bush vs Gore, IIB). At what point is that, I haven't a clue. Possibly the election isn't an election till the votes are cast and the individual electors (Electoral College) actually meet.

Perhaps since the State of Ohio hasn't acted it is not within the federal purview yet. Or maybe voter fraud means you must actually have to have voted fraudulently or illegally. Not just sign a false form or affidavit to register to vote, which possibly is a misdemeanor and doesn't met the statutory definition of fraud.

Then again maybe individual US District Attorneys may not want the cases and the Attorney general doesn't believe he wants his agency involved.

We could go on guessing for ever. Possibly an Freeper who is an attorney needs to weigh in after reviewing the (convoluted) federal criminal statutes or other statutes.

[mkjessup]

This is the sort of thing that worries me when I contemplate that saying that America won't end up with the President it needs, but it will end up with the President it deserves.

Not to worry folks, the Department of Justice will be MUCH more aggressive in an 0bama Administration.

Much, MUCH more.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Maybe the USSC decision says it's still a issue that belongs in the State's. Let me restate the case ... "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." (Bush vs Gore, IIB).

Irrelevant. By federal law Brunner must provide the voter mismatch data to election boards. However, it's obvious to me that the USDOJ is going to let her get away with violating federal law and thus abetting voter registration fraud, which will almost exclusively help her Dem buddies.

Then again maybe individual US District Attorneys may not want the cases and the Attorney general doesn't believe he wants his agency involved.

It's either that or laziness on their part.

[Netizen]

Eventually the voting public will lose faith in the system.

I've already lost faith in the system.

[K-oneTexas]

A 2002 federal law, the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, requires states to check voter registration applications against government databases like those for driver’s license records. Names that do not match are flagged. Ohio Republicans sought to require Ms. Brunner to provide information about mismatches to local officials.

Those officials could use information to require voters to cast provisional ballots rather than regular ones. They could also allow partisan poll workers to challenge people on the lists. Given the success by Democrats in registering new voters this year, those actions would probably affect that party’s supporters disproportionately.

The court said it expressed “no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented.” [from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/washington/18scotus.html?ref=us]

The federal law requires the States to do something. I could find nothing that the federal law requires the federal government to do anything. If they are violating federal law nothing is said that it is voter fraud. Nor did I find the the "Help America Vote Act of 2002," (HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002) i[http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/hava.php] HAVA authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the uniform and non-discriminatory election technology and administration requirements to which the states are subject.

Nowhere did I find anything reflecting the DOJ litigation was for forcing State Sec. of State to provides data, other than to the federal government.

USSC are not irrelevant as you state as you so freely state. That is your opinion.. That is because many will use various decisions to influence their actions. Until the USSC says it doesn't apply here the weight it is given is up to the individual.

I suggest you write a letter to the Attorney General and ask why he and his department aren't doing what you believe the laws says he has to do.?

[OPS4]

IMPEACHMENT FOR CRIMINAL ACTS! INTERNATIONAL LAWS BROKEN IN KENYA! VOTER FRAUD IN USA! REZKO!

Let me say, if Obama were to win, Freerepublic and all of its allies will have to a duty, to pound The Courts, Media, World Courts, and all embassy’s Worldwide, friends and foes alike, For immediate Impeachment, and Criminal hearings.

This must include Media Cover ups on a stolen election and fraud in Polling results.

We will be working with Various legal groups to bring in representation, and will begin educating those who wish to make a change from all races,creeds, Worldwide.

The obvious course is up to us, The Citizens to bring back a rule of LAW! I will be setting up an alternative Shadow
Gov. Blog, and I am sure Rush and others will follow the campaign.

McCain/Palin 2008

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>The federal law requires the States to do something.<<

If Ohio did something about it, there would not be a problem, but the state officials are rogues.

>>I could find nothing that the federal law requires the federal government to do anything.<<

I assume you mean that the law in question does not explicitly require the federal government to do anything. That's a lame excuse. Does every law explicitly state what the USDOJ's resposibilities are? The USAG's job is to enforce the law. Of course, the DOJ has to prioritize things, and voter fraud seems to be a very low priority.

>>Nowhere did I find anything reflecting the DOJ litigation was for forcing State Sec. of State to provides data, other than to the federal government.<<

What is this "DOJ litigation?" The DOJ has not filed anything, that's the problem.

If you are trying to say that the Help America Act does not require the state chief election official to provide the data to local election boards:

(i) The computerized list shall serve as the single system for storing and managing the official list of registered voters throughout the State.

(ii) The computerized list contains the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State.

(iii) Under the computerized list, a unique identifier is assigned to each legally registered voter in the State.

(iv) The computerized list shall be coordinated with other agency databases within the State.

(v) Any election official in the State, including any local election official, may obtain immediate electronic access to the information contained in the computerized list.

(vi) All voter registration information obtained by any local election official in the State shall be electronically entered into the computerized list on an expedited basis at the time the information is provided to the local official.

(vii) The chief State election official shall provide such support as may be required so that local election [[Page 116 STAT. 1709]] officials are able to enter information as described in clause (vi).

(viii) The computerized list shall serve as the official voter registration list for the conduct of all elections for Federal office in the State.

>>USSC are not irrelevant as you state as you so freely state.<<

I don't see how it is relevant to the question of whether the USDOJ should do something.

>>I suggest you write a letter to the Attorney General and ask why he and his department aren't doing what you believe the laws says he has to do.?<<

Already done. No response. However, in general what "the law says he has to do" is enforce the law. Unfortunately, like the Bush (Clinton, Bush senior, etc.) administration's failure to enforce immigration laws, it is difficult to force them to do their duty.

[K-oneTexas]

"If you are trying to say that the Help America Act does not require the state chief election official to provide the data to local election boards:..." That is exactly what I was saying the says should be done.

Please ... never ever ever ASSUME what I am trying to say. You say what you want to say if I question it I put my facts down and ask YOU a specific question. YOU should treat other accordingly. Don't ASSUME ... ASK!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Please ... never ever ever ASSUME what I am trying to say. You say what you want to say if I question it I put my facts down and ask YOU a specific question. YOU should treat other accordingly. Don’t ASSUME ... ASK!<<

Well, I did ask a question about that: What is this “DOJ litigation” you referred to? Your comment about “DOJ litigation” didn’t make sense to me because the DOJ has not done anything.

I’m not a lawyer, but many laws are dependent on others. I don’t expect every law to state exactly what the DOJ is supposed to do, but I think sometimes it should be clear what its duty is even if the law does not specify the DOJ’s exact duties.

[K-oneTexas]

The Federal Code is just like the Tax Code. Long and incongruous and convoluted and boring ... creating the need for experts to tell everyone what it really means, which is not what the written word says. Always and in and always an out for the enforcer.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>The Federal Code is just like the Tax Code. Long and incongruous and convoluted and boring ... creating the need for experts to tell everyone what it really means, which is not what the written word says. Always and in and always an out for the enforcer.<<

You got that right. And for that reason I was disappointed that the SCOTUS ruled that the Ohio GOP did not have standing (which is probably correct) but did not say who does have standing.