Those who question the necessity of voter ID laws should consider the developing case of a Florida woman dubbed a “ballot broker” by The Miami Herald.
She's Hialeah resident Daisy Cabrera, and she's being investigated by Miami-Dade detectives and state prosecutors after she was found in possession of at least a dozen absentee ballots belonging to other voters.
Authorities say she collected other voters' ballots in at least one other instance and elections officials have set aside 31 such ballots linked to her as part of the probe.
The newspaper's Spanish-language edition has been told by two voters, one elderly, that Ms. Cabrera filled out ballots for them; one also says she offered help in moving up a public-housing waiting list.
She's not commenting.
But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez — a Republican seeking re-election in a nonpartisan Aug. 14 primary — is. After Cabrera was seen visiting one of his campaign offices, he denied she works for his campaign. But she's been photographed with him at recent campaign events and has worked for two state senators.
Cabrera could face municipal misdemeanor charges of possessing more than two other voters' ballots. But if she misled other voters or altered their ballots, she could be charged with felony vote fraud.
Whether it's large-scale, ACORN-style, or small-scale, Cabrera-style, vote fraud is real — a real threat to the voting rights of all. And voter ID laws are necessary to counter that threat.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.