ShareThis Page

Let's make voting fraud harder

| Monday, Sept. 4, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

The Trump administration wants to check up on voter fraud possibilities in the United States, and the states have talked about invasions of privacy (which is nonsense), have insisted there is no fraud (which is nonsense), and Democrats have snarled about suppressing votes (which is nonsense).

Voter fraud, of course, is usually to the Democrats' advantage, and they just might be more concerned about making it hard to cheat than making it hard to vote.

Yes, President Donald Trump has made outlandish claims about the 2016 election. He said he would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voting, and that's hooey.

But in forming a bipartisan commission through executive order, he dropped that prattle and focused on the dangers intimated, for instance, by all the registered voters who happen to be dead (1.8 million) or those registered in more than one state (2.8 million). In his usual verbally confused way, Trump said that dead voters were voting. What he obviously meant was that perfectly alive people could use names of the deceased to uphold the machine-politics principle of one grave, one vote.

States say they are up-and-at-'em on maintaining accurate registration rolls and keeping ineligibles away from the ballot box. But let somebody get out there and check around, such as the Pew Research Center, and you find out differently, as in its providing the numbers above. Despite obligations to make states do better on some scores, the Obama administration opted for nap time — and don't fall for the line that there's no mass manipulation and hence no worry.

First off, there is definitely the possibility of widespread fraud and then there is an actuality: It does not take a lot of fraudulent votes to change close election outcomes. It verifiably happens. That's one reason at least some states have developed tougher standards, such as voter IDs that are no big deal to get despite contrary claims that democracy is thus impeded. The argument is overridden by the simple truth that most states implementing new ID laws see more voting.

So far in this relatively short century, it might be added, there have been at least 1,071 voting fraud cases in 47 states, according to The Heritage Foundation, which added that resulting criminal convictions were 938.

As a matter of privacy, many said, they would not turn over such requests as voters' party affiliations, addresses, names and birth dates. But get this: The letter sent to them clearly asked that they provide the information only if it “is publicly available under the laws of your state,” which it mostly is.

I join fellow columnist Deroy Murdock in wondering why Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia vetoed a bill calling for an investigation of more registered than eligible voters in voting districts. His explanation of how hard and unfair that might be did not cause me to say, “Oh, now I get it.”

In our current system, just maybe there has been a lot more fraud than some states have figured out or want to figure out. And it is known that when it comes to illegal immigrants, for instance, they like voting Democrat, although fraud can go either way. There are three highly reputable Democrats on the Trump commission and they certainly won't be out to make an anti-Democrat point. They will likely want to find out how we can make our system more secure from forces here and abroad.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.