Judge alleges election fraud in Richardson

by Nathan Morgan of Richardson City News

Today's article in the Dallas Morning News reports Richardson has gained another distinction among area communities, that of questionable election law compliance. In spite of clear notice on all registration forms, voters have obtained certification and cast ballots under fraudulent circumstances. Under penalty of law, at least 15 instances of unlawful registration and ballots being cast were uncovered from records of early voting during the November 4, 2008 Presidential election in the only Richardson Precinct audited. Penalties for this third degree felony includes loss of voting privileges, fines and incarceration...and, in this case, public humiliation.

Recently the Dallas County GOP hosted a discussion on observations of the election. One precinct chair stood up and reported that Dallas County Elections Department records show several precincts had voted more than 100% of voters registered in the precinct. Some, not by a little. Those reported were:

Granted, some of these have a small number of registered voters. But, the problem, and its consequences are undeniable.

During the last Governor's election, under the watchful supervision of the GOP, Election Department administrators were compelled to distribute voter registration roll logs to each Precinct Judge and Alternate Judges for auditing. Numerous instances of irregularities were reported by those Judges who fulfilled their duty. Most Judges did not. Since that time, the duty to verify the voter registration database was transferred from individual Counties to the Secretary of State's office. A concerted effort was launched to verify the authenticity of records and the eligibility of voters.

Still, gaping holes remain in the Texas voter registration process, chief of which is what qualifies as "identification". Currently, an individual may complete a voter registration form, using any name, completely fraudulent, providing no backup identification, such as driver license number or SSN. If the registration arrives without identification, the registration is flagged in the database as requiring "ID". When a person who registered under these conditions appears at the polls, the record that poll workers use to "qualify" the person shows they are required to present identification. Ah-Ha, you say.

Well, not so fast. The Texas Election Code says the minimum from of identification required is a "copy of a utility bill" showing the voter's name and address. Anybody who operates a computer in this technologically-savvy society knows that a "copy" of a utility bill is significantly easier to counterfeit than currency. Although copies of utility bills are not the usual ID presented, there are countless instances of anything resembling an official document being accepted. And, yes, as the Elections Administrator stated, we rely on the honesty of the voter. That would include illegal immigrants who use fake identification to get work, or any group wishing to throw an election.

There is an argument that only those able to pass a test in civics should be qualified to vote; Voters should have a basic command of the English language, consistent with that required (that's a joke, son) for citizenship; And, that some form of verifiable identification should be required in the polling process. The contrary position is that even the voice of the ignorant and uneducated deserve representation and their vote should be counted; having the ability to communicate in English is not necessary to be a U.S. citizen; and, some don't know how to spell their name, write their address, know their date of birth, or are mentally competent enough to remember where they keep important documents, like an identification card.

In a rare instance of challenging the mental capacity of an individual arriving at the polls to cast a ballot, a severely mentally challenged person, under the care of their father presented identification. The father indicated the offspring would require help. The offspring nodded in acknowledgment and indicated the father was the chosen assistant. Recognizing the fragile mental state of the challenged offspring, the father was permitted to demonstrate the process by allowing the offspring to observe the process as he cast his ballot. Then, when it was time to assist the offspring in casting their ballot, he was obligated to read the ballot and vote the selection based on the offspring's choice...without any sign or gesture to influence the decision. The father's vote went well. When the offspring faced the booth and was challenged to make a decision based on the reading of the ballot, all hell broke loose. The offspring had an emotional breakdown indicative of the mental capacity of the average two year old. Clearly unable to understand the concept of voting, much less the issues on the ballot, the father was encouraged to withdraw the offspring and cancel the ballot. And did.

It is sad and difficult to imaging that this level of intellect determines who gets elected to serve in public office, but true.