Recently, there was an allegation made to the Crow Wing County attorney concerning possible abuse of voting privileges with mentally handicapped individuals. The county attorney stated in a recent newspaper article that an investigation had been conducted and no evidence of wrongdoing was found. However, this got me to thinking about the relative ease with which such possible abuse could take place if someone had a mind to do so.
A search of the Minnesota Constitution finds that under Article 7, "persons under guardianship or not mentally competent are not entitled to vote." However, subsequent Minnesota statutes have attempted to clarify this article and to further expand the rights of mentally handicapped individuals. For instance, Statute 524.5-313(c)(8) states that unless otherwise ordered by the court, the ward under guardianship retains the right to vote. Minnesota legislators, in their attempts at further expanding the rights of this population to vote, unfortunately have now placed vulnerable adults in a position to be potentially exploited rather easily. Currently, there are no restrictions on whether a person can vote based on their competency to comprehend the voting material. Likewise, if they cannot read the ballot material, this is not a hindrance to the voting process. The current Minnesota law allows a developmentally disabled person to have another individual, of their choice, be present with them in the voting booth to read the ballot and fill in the ballot for them, if desired. Even if the individual has been legally determined to need a guardian, they may still participate in the voting process and have the above-mentioned assistant with them in the voting booth. The very nature of the voting booth, which is to be private and not subject to scrutiny by others, creates a perfect setting for abuse to take place, as no one would ever be able to see what took place if, for instance, the assistant to the mentally disabled individual elected to fill in the ballot for this person by voting the way the assistant intended. The Minnesota law initially was written with the understanding that this assistance by others would take place on Election Day and would be under the scrutiny, and even the possible assistance, of election judges of multiple political parties. This was written into the law to prevent just such aforementioned possible abuses and fraud. However, further liberalizing of voting requirements now allow for an extended period of absentee voting, with the availability of this early voting at the county courthouse for up to 45 days prior to election day, and with no election judges present, only county employees. This would seem to afford a much greater opportunity for a vulnerable adult to be used and abused by the very voting system that was, by some legislator's intent, aimed at giving maximum freedom for everyone to vote.
As a psychiatrist, I have worked with mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals for almost 40 years. I remember well the discrimination that used to happen to them and the steps the state of Minnesota has taken to change that. However, in the state's rush to correct these problems, it appears to me that the pendulum has now swung the other way; that the lack of attention to competency has again placed these individuals at serious risk of abuse. This must be corrected, or we will surely see abuse of these vulnerable people, who do not have the wherewithall to stand against manipulation, as well as abuse of our voting system, by unscrupulous individuals who do not have the dignity and rights of mentally handicapped individuals as their primary concern.
THOMAS WITTKOPP, M.D., is a psychiatrist in private practice in Brainerd and Staples.
Comments (68)
Add commentFinal thoughts
Anniejo, thanks for the kind words. I agree that the facts point to vote fraud being trivial and functionally irrelevant. As an aside, while Guy may be a known quantity/extemist, I still would prefer to keep things about the debate.
Chris, when I said "your" report, I meant the one you pointed to, rather than that you authored it. That said, yes, exactly, vote fraud occurs, but mostly it's inadvertent. The solution isn't to toss the baby out with the bathwater, but rather to ensure we educate felons about what they've lost due to their convictions. The ultimate point is the one you made, there are much more important things to address.
Sleepr2 - If you can point out where I defended vote fraud, then I'll be happy to accept your accolade, but failing that, you seem to have made a totally baseless accusation. I guess that's just the way you (t)roll.
Gramps.. seriously, that's the best reply you've got? We (DG, Chris, and I) gave you some valid, objective study material and the reply is just more baseless and useless attack? Ok - but here's the thing, as Chris said, we have far more important matters than worrying about 8 incorrect/fraudulent votes. We have unemployment, massive deficits, needless wars, off-shoring, deflation in wages, foreclosures, homelessness, just to name a few. Anyone wanting to seek public office should be focused on what's important. Anyone able to be deflected off into puffery/sophistry so easily by baseless comments, it seems to me needs to reconsider whether they're ready to hold such an office. One key quality of an effective leader is an ability to keep your eye on the ball, but that means as well you know which ball to keep your eye on.
what is important out of all of this
When I watched Monty Jensen's video on youtube, I was offended at his insulting description, over and over and over, of these disabled voters. The twenty to twenty five disabled people (it was more like 8, btw) that he described as if they were drooling barely ambulatory vegetables are competent, highly functioning people who have feelings. They know what he said about them, they understand it, they are offended by it - and angry that people would believe it without question.
If you actually speak to the care givers in your community who assist these disabled people - as I did btw - you will hear stories about some very sad treatment. Descriptions of taking them to get hair cuts, and having to wait until everyone else is taken care of first, even people without appointments who came in after they were there. You will hear some very heartbreaking experiences of these people being treated badly, as second class citizens, without regard for their feelings or their worth as human beings.
Having taken one of my relatives who at the time was afflicted with Alzheimer's out places, like restaurants, I can appreciate what that is like. A few people are very sympathetic, even kind. Many others are not, seeing only the differences as a barrier, not the fundamental humanity of the disabled.
Monty Jensen's LIE was a disgrace to your county. But he is not the first person to regard the disabled inaccurately or unkindly. If I had my Christmas wish, it would be two things - one, that Jensen be held accountable for his lie (footing the bill for the investigation of a false accusation would about do it); and two, that your community would use the outcome of the investigation to embrace these people, and to come to understand the hurtfulness, the harm in what Monty Jensen DID by that whopper of a lie.
Be curious, and be compassionate. Get to know these people yourselves; don't treat them as pariahs. Speak to them, engage them; don't marginalize them. Understand the difficulties, the obstacles against which these handicapped people struggle every day, and be nice to them, be supportive of them for what they CAN do.
Don't support people like Jensen who inaccurately insult, degrade and humiliate them. Show you are better people than Monty Jensen and those who condone the lie he told.
It's Christmas. If not now - when better?
RECENT CONVERSATION BETWEEN PENIGMA AND DOG GONE…
Hey Penny I’ve got an idea.
Do share Doggie.
Well Penny I was thinking. You know how this Jensen person reported a crime of voter fraud and how he had the courage to report the crime to the CWC Attorney because he felt so strongly against voter fraud?
Yes Doggie, go on.
Penny I’ve been reading the Brainerd Dispatch on-line and I read where this Dr. Wittkopp has a Guest Column talking about how the laws in Minnesota are of such, that they make the mentally challenged vulnerable to unscrupulous people by allowing their assistants the ability to vote in a way that is fraudulant.
Well Doggie, you know the type of fraud Jensen reported does happen here in CWC and how we know people that own some of these group homes where this type of voter fraud happens.
I know Penny, but I think we could do something about it in a way that might prevent people with the courage to speak out against it from ever speaking out against it in the future.
I must say Doggie, you’ve now intrigued me…please continue.
Well Penny it’s like this, you see if you and I, and maybe even a few others get together, we can post on the local newspaper’s website, the Brainerd Dispatch website to be precise and we could smear Jensen and call him a liar!
I’m all ears Doggie…go on.
So you see Penny, you could post information or provide links that address voter fraud and how seldom it occurs in Minnesota…that would give the readers of our posted comments pause as to Jensen’s credibility and hopefully it would make them suspect Jensen just might be lying.
I like it Doggie and I’m most definitely picking up what you’re putting down…please go on.
Well you know Penny; we’re going to get the naysayers coming after us because they’ll believe Jensen. As you understand, nobody in their right mind would ever report a crime falsely due to the consequences they could suffer.
Correct Doggie…we could talk over and over of how Jensen lied and how he should be charged for the cost of the investigation. This will also distract the readers from when I comment of anonymous people on my blog and how wrong it is for others to remain anonymous…while all the while you and I will never reveal our true identity.
I’m having fun now Penny but let’s not forget this either…we can also talk of how Jensen humiliated the mentally challenged people he witnessed that day and bring him down even more in the public’s eyes.
I like it Doggie and I’ve got a few more tricks we can use…let’s call a few others we know to get them on board with our idea.
Good job Penny…I believe by the time we finish, we’ll have every voter in the county shivering in their shoes willing to ignore every instance of voter fraud considering what they might do when they witness what Jensen did when they go vote again.
One more thing Doggie, when we post our comments, let’s try to take the high ground and wish every one a Merry Christmas and thank all our supporters.
Yeah Penny! We’ll also talk of how credible we are and how we’re adored by so many that read our blogs.
Luv you Hun.
Me too.
Jeff Czeczok
Enough is Enough
I remind Dog and Penny that the first requisite in running for public office is putting your name, reputation and money on the line. Readers should never forget that these anonymous bloggers refuse to do that. They offer as an excuse that they are afraid of mean old conservatives who threaten their well being. Does ANYONE believe that these people are in any danger? Does ANYONE believe that? And, what, pray tell, are they anonymously doing to Mr. Jensen's well being? But, what else would you expect from people who turn the victim game into an art form? They even accuse Mr. Jensen of seeking to hurt those he was trying to protect from exploitation. How low can you go? It is hard to believe some people can't see through these despicable tactics. Even harder to believe some of those gullible people are in high positions in "journalism."
The relentless anonymous slander of Mr. Jensen is appalling. "Dog Gone," "Penigma," and their various leftist buddies, some of whom won't even cop to a gender, much less a name, have shown zero courage, zero validity, and absolute commitment to a political agenda. That is the true reason for their anonymity.
Dr. Wittkopp signed his column. Monty Jensen went totally public and has suffered for doing so. He suffers still at the hands of the Dispatch. The Dispatch, and its anonymous hordes, have risked nothing, and stood for nothing other than their self interest. The Dispatch, apparently, has zero problem with people anonymously accusing others of felonies in these pages. Certainly not with certain folks doing so. The editorial staff has a funny way of fact-checking and enforcing policy. That is disgusting and cowardly. The Dispatch's only purpose in supplying this forum is to generate traffic for their website. Period. Why else would they tolerate this hooliganism? To further that process, they are selective in enforcing their own guidelines, and all-to-happy to stand back and watch as faceless, nameless, gutless ideologues utilize the paper's monopoly on the news, and status as the city's "official news source," to play nasty political games, and worse. "If it bleeds it leads" is given a whole new meaning. This format is Jerry Springer without the pictures. That is what the Dispatch will tolerate in the name of revenue.
Enough is enough.
With the former VP of Advertising now moving into the Dispatch publisher's chair, and the same old ideologues at the editorial helm, I am afraid things will only sink deeper into the muck. I will no longer help the Brainerd Dispatch engage in this game by participating in this format. I wash my hands of the entire operation and encourage others to do the same. Brainerd needs a new news source. I'll be putting my efforts into seeing how that can come about. Keep the faith.
Guy Green
"I will no longer help the
"I will no longer help the Brainerd Dispatch engage in this game by participating in this format."
Adios, Tex. Opting out for the promise of 72 virgins or just weary of having your, as Herc would say, "six", handed to you? I hope you will reconsider. Though I rarely find anything in your words that reeks of harmonic resonance, I truly enjoy your phraseology and obvious acumen. As the wise man once said, "not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservative". Your departure would entrust too many of the latter with the Herculean task of validating the former. Peace.
Didn't Gramps run away from
Didn't Gramps run away from home once before?
I don't think he lasted very long.
reality check
Apparently those of you defending the false claims of Monty Jensen, the claims of voter fraud, aren't familiar with the information from Minnesota County attorneys, that confirm what your own County Attorney found in the Jensen accusations after an investigation - that they are wrong. There isn't real voter fraud; that is ONLY in your dark and narrow little minds. It's pretty simple, really, for those who read, or think, or fact check.
You silly people, grumpy guy and vincent, and your sycophants, want to simply ignore facts in favor of fiction. Which is fine, except that ignoring those facts, and continuing to make these false accusations costs money, tax payer money.
May I direct you to the statement of executive director John Kingrey, of the Minnesota County Attorney's Association that "“County attorneys take voter fraud very seriously; there is no discretion for county attorneys” to investigate and prosecute voting fraud accusations, like those made by Jensen.
Someone who ran for office like grumpy ol' Guy should recognize that these false accusations cost money, and that consistently, no matter how much people want to find evidence of it happening - it doesn't. But don't take my word for it - take Kingrey's, when he said about these kinds of accusations, in this case specifically the group which supported Jensen's claims
“This matter has taken up considerable prosecutor and law enforcement involvement and resources at a time of dwindling budgets. It also impacts the strapped budgets of our public defenders and the courts as well.”
Jensen cost your county money; I'm still waiting for an estimate of how much. If Jensen had made an honest statement, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But he didn't do that. He claimed 25 people were voting at 4:30 in the afternoon, after they had left an hour before. Jensen claimed they were incompetent and shouldn't be voting, but in fact, Jensen can't know that from casual observation, especially casual observation an hour after they aren't there. Jensen claimed he just happened to see these people while he was voting when in fact he was part of a group of people who had been hanging around all week hoping to find voter fraud, part of a group that wanted it so bad they were encouraged by a bunch of fools who offered a bounty for it they wanted to find it so badly.
In fact 8 disabled people voted at 3:00 in the afternoon, people who WERE in fact qualified to vote, had been determined to be qualified to vote, and who insist they were properly assisted to vote - in some cases, having voted Republican. Those are the facts, not the Jensen fiction.
These voter fraud fanatics are wrong; in Jensen's case he flat out lied in the details in his video. Their obsession has not turned up any instances of voter fraud, but it has cost you and your community money that could be better spent. So the question at hand is not why I use a blogging nom de plume - I use it because I like it - but rather why do some of you continue to believe in a fantasy that costs your county money it shouldn't be spending on your fantasies?
As to fearing conservatives, Guy? It is appropriate to put your name on the line when you run for office; you are applying for a job, a job you get - or in your case, don't get - by public vote. I put my legal name on the line when I agreed, as did Pen, to write for a syndicate - in this case a very prominent syndicate, Newstex. I'm not working for you Guy, and not working for the Dispatch either, so I don't need to give you anything other than my nom de plume if I don't feel like it. And believe me Guy - you can't pay me enough to work for you, because you are fact-averse. Whereas people who like facts, who are reality based, don't necessarily need to pay me at all to do what I do - they can read it for free on Penigma.blogspot.com. Based on our statcounter service, quite a few people do that, from all over the world, not just Minnesota. So your approval Guy, or disapproval -- pfffffffffft! who cares?
While I was an admin and writer for Politicus we were the victims of an extended DDOS attack by a few criminal conservatives - DDOS attacks are a crime. Do you need me to explain what a DDOS attack is, Guy? A number of our authors had their sites subsequently attacked by DDOS assaults made by conservative cowards, although for shorter periods of time. That was another case of conservatives trying to stifle freedom - first amendment, not voting in that case - and costing taxpayers money to investigate - local, state, and federal. What is it with you conservatives, and your bad use of tax payer's money having to go to investigations, when it comes to freedom?
I find the notion that using a nom de plume bothers you kind of fun, it adds a certain amusement to the serious aspects of this discussion.
Voter fraud has been a big
Voter fraud has been a big issue over the past few elections, with accusations toward groups like ACORN and elections being decided in courtrooms like in Florida and more recently in Minnesota.
I understand the reasons on both sides of allowing mentally handicapped and/or disabled people to vote... but why does it have to be one or the other?!? Why not simply make sure that anyone that needs assistance in voting, vote on election day when election judges are available to oversee? This ensures that people maintain their right to vote at the same time as it prevents abuse!
I'm tired of people on both sides of the aisle claiming to be fixing a problem while at the same time writing laws and fighting in court for a 'fix' that is preferential to their own side. And at the same time it amazes me that the electorate tollerates it! We out number them... they are only able to do what they do because we allow them to!
We don't have a problem
"Why not simply make sure that anyone that needs assistance in voting, vote on election day when election judges are available to oversee? This ensures that people maintain their right to vote at the same time as it prevents abuse! "
First of all, despite the claims by the right, we DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A PROBLEM with voter fraud. Second, if you disallow disabled voters from using the voting rights of absentee voting you discriminate against them by denying them the same rights as other voters. Third, it is often those very voters - the disabled, and the elderly who most benefit from this option. What you propose doesn't prevent any abuse. The disabled voters voted in plain public view with an election judge present - the auditor and staff of the auditor's office. A very thorough investigation determined that no abuse occurred.
So..........why would anyone think it is a good idea to change the election laws?
Show me some proof, not wild, usually stupid accusations of voter fraud, but real voter fraud is occurring.
Then lets talk about how to fix that fraud - if you can find it. BIG IF. IT isn't happening. And if it isn't happening, there is no need for a change to fix it. That was the determination of the Coleman / Franken court fights. That was the determination of the Dayton / Emmer recount and those court challenges.
Despite the claims by the right!?!
Correction: Your comments should have said "Despite the claims from both the right and left"... Every election the left goes on and on about disenfranchised voters, not to mention people still claiming that voter fraud is why Bush even became president in the first place. I guess you would be right if we all only had short term memories?
Personally I believe that people should all vote on the same day anyways, early voting hasn't increased turnout.
And finally, I say it is better that it was investigated.
Proof? Here is a short list of the articles about the number of votes cast sompared to the number of people who signed in to cast votes...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/98472564.html
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/study-franken-stole-the...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/7/20/Al-Franken-May-...
do your homework, aleigh
aleigh writes "Correction: Your comments should have said "Despite the claims from both the right and left"... Every election the left goes on and on about disenfranchised voters, not to mention people still claiming that voter fraud is why Bush even became president in the first place. I guess you would be right if we all only had short term memories?"
Not 'claims' aleigh. Established, proven fact in the claims by the left. Accusations which have stood up to investigation, and even won in court cases (including in front of the SCOTUS).
That is the difference, proof. The claims of disenfranchisement are proven, established, and laid squarely on the doorstep of the right and the GOP.
The claims of voter fraud by the left fail to withstand close examination pretty much every time, just like the Jensen claims failed to be established as legitimate wrong doing, by the disabled voter investigation.
When Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and a cross section of Fox News hailed the 7 studies they claimed proved felons voted for democrats, including supposedly tipping the vote for Franken in 2008, clearly NONE of them had read even one of the studies.
In contrast, I read them all. And then I and Penigma wrote about them -- because what those studies ALL proved was that legal former felons rarely voted, but when they did vote legally AFTER satisfying the terms of their convictions and regaining their voting privileges, they tended to vote for democratic candidates. Every one of those studies said the same thing, that the right attempted to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in each state, hundreds of thousands of voters as a national voter effect.
The highly regarded Brennan Center law study - highly regarded by election law experts - found the same thing, including citing numerous court cases where it was established that there was GOP disenfranchisement of legal voters.
I would refer you to "Ballot Security and Voter Suppression"
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/ballot_security_and_voter_... and "Policy Brief on the Truth about Voter Fraud", http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_...
or, any of the 7 voter fraud studies that Pawlenty, Bachmann and Fake Nuisance inaccurately (again) claimed showed voter fraud could be taking place in MN. I would also refer you to that County Attorney study in MN that showed we don't have a problem - but we do have a problem with attempts to disenfrachise legal voters by the GOP.
There is good reason for that - NOT the claimed voter fraud, but rather that consistently a larger voter turn out usually (but not always - Reagan was an example) favors democratic candidates.
The Ballot Security study, if you bother to read it, takes allegations broken down by state, demonstrating how the alleged voter fraud investigations of claims that voter rolls didn't match were found NOT to demonstrate voter fraud - it provides the explanations that resulted from each investigation.
I also challenge the claim that abolishing absentee voting, or barring early voting, would NOT diminsh voter turn out. I suggest you look at the numbers, state by state, that use absentee voting. An example is my colleague Pen, who spends a significant part of his time on business travel, especially in DC. Or people with jobs like rail workers, over-the-road truckers, long distance bus drivers, most of the military; anyone who is elderly or ill, etc.
Or people who's explanation for voting early I may have missed, like Monty Jensen. Why was it that HE didn't vote on November 2nd? Why did he spend so very many hours hanging around the auditor's area of the court house in the week he lied about the disabled voters?
Did you want to make it impossible for him to vote absentee too?
Barnet 69 - you embarrass yourself; your ignorance is showing a blushing bright red.
for those of you too lazy or lacking the concentration...
to wade through all those studies, through the links I provided, I summarized the contents here, last July:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/07/felony-indictment.html
It is only MORE true, with the addition of the statewide MN County Attorney study on voter fraud which found it didn't exist.
Or......check out the claims of the MN Supreme Court, and even ol' Norm Coleman and his attorneys when the agreed there was no voter fraud in that election:
"Joe Friedberg, attorney for Norm Coleman, said before MN Supreme Court, 6/1/09 “There was no election fraud. There was no voter fraud.” and
"In fact, the only allegation of felonious voting in the election was raised by Franken's legal team, which cited the case of a man with a felony conviction who voted for Coleman."
courtesy Scripps News, http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/minn-governor-joins-debate-over-alleg...
and while you are informing yourselves (we can only hope you do)
you might want to check out this, on TBI, traumatic brain injury to our military personnel, people who would be disenfranchised -- if Monty Jensen and his friends gettheir way, disallowing disabled veterans to vote.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/12/another-2010-penny-award.html
Per the Rand Corporation, that is 320,000 TBI service men and women who could lose their right to vote (nationwide).
There could be more, because as excellent in some regards as the military cutting edge medicine IS, there are some significant lapses in correctly diagnosing TBIs....
....as long as some of you are remediating your evident ignorance....
WOW
If only some of this time and energy could be used for something relevant or productive. Maybe one of you would like to write tommorows cover story about an old lady that lost her dog and then got a new one....its a real page turner, hope the dispatch can keep it on the shelves.
Wow, rejou203, this is more your speed...
Fact Checking Fun Sports Trivia; or "And Now for Something Completely Different"
"The first testicular guard, the "Cup," was used in Hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974. That means it only took 100 years for men to realize that their brain is also important."
The above quote is from an amusing 'adult truths' email that was sent to me by one of the Affinity Scam investors (male), in a flurry of exchanging end of the year emails. It intrigued me sufficiently to fact check it; and I had so much fun fact checking it that it seemed to merit a post of its own. (This is for you JH, something different as requested - we aim to please).
As always, the devil is in the details. The most significant devils in this round of fact checking surprised me. It relates to the reason for wearing a helmet, and the reasons for wearing a cup (no, it is less obvious than you might suppose) and it took me on a virtual cyber tour of the history of hockey equipment, and the history of the game of hockey. Here is just one of the sources I came across while researching the topic of cups and hockey helmets; you should scroll down to the comments exchange for some of the more pertinent details:
"The dates are very believable especially when you research “first helmet in Hockey”…”first game in hockey” and so on…. and these dates fall close to the first OFFICIALLY RECORDED dates. For example. Hockey is known to have begun in the year 1800 with the first officially organized indoor game played March 3, 1875 at the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal. Prior to playing hockey indoors, it was played outdoors first. Hence the date difference (before it was officially recorded which happened after it was played indoors) Due to flying pucks, and sticks that did not have a length mandate, men were very much aware of what a puck in the genitals or a stick between the legs could do to a player, creating an advantage for the opposing team. They were more in tune with gaining an advantage then safety. Another vulnerable spot was the back of the heal of the foot, which was later solved by requiring a hardened protective/metal piece placed in the skate boot and now is apart of the boot itself. A helmet did not become a serious consideration until after Jan 15 1968 when the NHL had its first fatality due to a head injury. In 1970 it was still voted down to have a mandatory helmet rule even after the fatality. In 1975 there was an average of only 5 players who wore them in the NHL,. And finally, John Zeigler, President of the hockey league, I believe it was, mandated in August 1979, that anyone signing a contract after a particular date, it would be mandatory that all players in the NHL wear helmets on their heads. Prior to that date few protected their heads…it was not considered to be manly and was blamed for vision impairment.These dates do not mean #1, no games were played before 1875 nor does it mean that it wasn’t until 1979 that players did not try the helmet out (especially leather or early plastic ones that basically protected an existing injury ,but did not necessarily prevent any.) Anyone in Hockey can attest to seeing what ancient protective gear looked like for the genitals and that there were not protective helmets for the head before a particular point in time. One did come before the other. when you consider when the recorded history occurred..... It is, in fact, a “glimpse” of real history. And I repeat a “glimpse”. I did share it with the public because it had some merit, and I found it somewhat humorous when you consider which one became standard equipment before the other."
I hope I have not offended the delicate sensibilities of our Penigma readers (regular or occasional), and I hope that this provides a little levity to the discussion of politics. Lastly, I hope this adds a certain humor to my usual fact checking obsession. Enjoy! and in the words of the fictional Canadian character Red Green, "keep your stick on the ice". Or, if you prefer, the words of my mom "don't lose your mittens, it's cold out there!".
Yawn...
Yawn...
Once again,
the tough issues put wolf to sleep.
Dispatch today
Heard County Attorney Don Ryan’s report on the alleged voter fraud, which he released to the public earlier this month. Ryan reiterated to the board his earlier report that he found no evidence of voter fraud in investigating the Oct. 29 charge of inappropriate voter assistance. Ryan said he stands on his record for ethics and professionalism and directed his comments on those in the community that questioned his office’s ethics.
Commissioner Paul Thiede said he appreciated Ryan bringing the information to the board. Board Chairman Phil Trusty said he thinks the board has confidence in the professionalism of Ryan and his staff. Commissioner Rachel Reabe Nystrom said the disabled individuals who received assistance from a group home staff members had the right to vote and it was unfortunate all of the allegations swirled around a tight election for auditor.
Voter Fraud
Apparently, we've hit the ''hot-button'' for a lot of people. Whatever the facts may be in this particular case, voter fraud is so common--look at the last two national elections for examples, we really want to think it does not happen. Especially in our town. Get a grip folks. We all know people who cheat at solitaire. Monkeying with individual votes or whole ballot boxes is not that much of a reach.
airhobbies 2 wrote, "
airhobbies 2 wrote, " Whatever the facts may be in this particular case, voter fraud is so common--look at the last two national elections for examples, we really want to think it does not happen."
Sorry airhobbies, but the last two national elections do not provide examples of what you claim. The investigations of those claims failed to prove anything other than negligble voter problems. Other than GOP's mostly failed attempts at voter disenfranchisement. What it does show is that the system works, in spite of unsupported claims like yours. The minimal instances where there are voter irregularities is not exclusive to either the democrats or republicans.
Because voting is a matter of public record - including those who assist (as witness) in absentee voting - this is not like cheating at solitaire. There is no substantive reward to people to do so. Cheating yourself at cards doesn't carry a risk of felony prosecution. No one checks you, unlike voting.
I would suggest you better familiarize yourself with the way the Sec. State and the responsible equivalents at the county level operate to keep things on the up and up.
Wanting it to be the case that there is voter fraud doesn't make it true. It makes it true that a few people want to believe a lie.
Voter Fraud
No, Dog, you misunderstand. I would rather be able to believe that there were no fraud.
what you believe
is up to you airhobbies2. But if you decide to base your belief on facts, every investigation done in Minnesota (and pretty much elsewhere as well) has turned up similar findings. The factual evidence is there is no sign of voter fraud. So if you believe otherwise, if you insist on believing there is fraud in spite of the factual outcome of honest investigations, you have chosen to do so in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary.
It is not only in Minnesota, or in the U.S., but in other western, developed countries that this does not seem to be a problem. The reasons are logical; it has small reward for someone relative to the risk of detection, it has a serious penalty for being caught. Voter rolls go through regular checks; absentee votes that are not conducted at the court house require signatures - an additional different person who can be questoned. The notion that there is widespread ORGANIZED voter fraud - as claimed incorrectly by the right - would require larger numbers of people. People don't keep secrets well; they have fallings out, and for that and a variety of other reasons - they talk. As my colleague is fond of saying, history has demonstrated that no more than three people can keep a secret - and then only if two of them are dead. If large numbers of people were ORGANIZING to commit fraud, someone would have discovered it in all of the many investigations. (Which argues against the right wing premise that unions are behind voter fraud; a regular target to villify by the right. )
The Monty Jensen lie is a microcosm of the larger false claims. The claim that there were '4 other groups in today' that staff are pretty adamant they never said, for example. There appars to have been exactly one group in that day, at a different time, less than a third the size Jensen claimed. The assumption that union staff would have a motive (the Clark Lake group home staff are not members of a union).
The Clark Lake group home has some 40 people in their care who are eligible, legally to vote. If they were grabbing people to swing elections, they would have done so with more than the same few individuals who vote every election (by choice, and some of them, for Republicans). Those individuals have legally been evaluated as having the right to vote - many in the course of being assigned a guardian. The remaining people could vote, but don't want to do so - and no one pressed them to do so (for any candidate). The opposite of what Jensen claimed - just as they were not mentally incapacitated, as Jensen claimed. Or present in the court house, when Jensen claimed - hell, when Jensen LIED.
The very fact that Jensen's videos hit all of the same tired and disproven retread lies argues that he made a calculated and dishonest statement rather than reporting an actual event.
But believe what you like; it doesn't make it so. FACTS make something true or false airhobbies. FACTS are not on your side of this; they ARE on mine.
Voter Fraud
Golly, Sure a lot of excitement and upset over a non-event, that never, never, at anytime, anywhere happened. Personally,
''Been there, Bought the Tee-shirt.''
Happy happy joy joy
Not Just MY Opinion
here is an example of facts - not fake claims. This represents the findings of authoritative academic studies (peer reviewed) and the outcome of court cases and investigation after official investigation. It was no surprise in view of the facts from state after state after state, that the Jensen claims investigation turned out to be a false accusation.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_war_on_voting
"Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person, according to data compiled by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. As Lorraine Minnite, a Columbia University professor, observed in the Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud, "The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud." In October 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft launched an intensive "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative" that required all U.S. attorney offices to coordinate with local officials in combating voter fraud. Yet even after the Justice Department declared the war against voter fraud a "high priority," only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter. (The Justice Department declined to answer questions about more recent fraud prosecutions.) And despite the anti-immigrant frenzy fueling photo-ID laws, only 14 noncitizens were convicted of illegally voting in federal elections from 2002 through 2005 -- mostly because of their ignorance of election law.
Unfortunately, the public hasn't heard just how nonexistent the voter fraud epidemic actually is. "
It is not surprising that conservatives fall for these lies and false accusations. You can't help yourselves.
http://www.humanistnewswire.com/2010/12/study-conservatives-have-larger-...
"UK Study: Conservatives have larger ‘fear center’ in brain Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct. But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.
A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism."
While this study was small and needs to be confirmed by other studies reproducing the results, it IS consistent with the analysis of John Dean in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience".
Voter Fraud
Golly--still upset? Ok. No where at anytime in any jurisdiction has anyone ever tampered with a ballot box, ever.
Feel better now DG?? Joy Joy
yup
By airhobbies2 | 01/04/11 - 08:02 pm
Golly--still upset? Ok. No where at anytime in any jurisdiction has anyone ever tampered with a ballot box, ever.
Feel better now DG?? Joy Joy
You should be upset too, airhobbies. Ballot box tampering is rarer than being hit by lightning twice.
In your county, a false claim cost a LOT of tax payer's money that could have been better spent. Presumably some of that money was yours. Across the state of Minnesota, the similarly false claims of Minnesota Majority cost all 87 counties money that could have been better spent, now more than ever.
In your own community, a local business was impugned, and could face losses in their business due to their reputation being damaged, and loss of trust by potential clients. That should offend anyone who claims to be pro-business, especially local small business that benefits your community with taxes and commerce.
I have heard, both while volunteering for campaigns in 2010, and during the governor race recount as a volunteer, statements made by people employed by the state GOP about changing our election laws to make it more difficult for people to vote. Voter ID - which is unnecessary, and which the auditor supervising our recount described as likely to be more expensive, and ineffective, and likely to make voting at polls take longer, causing waits of potentially hours for people standing in line. People like Jensen and the not-so-good doctor who guest columned here want to deprive legal voters of the right to vote. Voter fraud studies have, over and over, found that Republicans seek to deprive tens of thousands of legal voters from voting, because higher voter turnouts from certain demographics show people supporting Democratic candidates. They want to take away people's freedom to vote. And that hurts our country, it is antithetical to our form of government. It is the opposite of 'we the people'.
So yes, I'm still upset. And you should be too, that this lie is believed by too many people who don't fact check.
For anyone who gets too hung up on number disparities, I would refer you to the findings of the MN Supreme Court which found the explanations for reconcilliation disproved voter fraud:
"Our review of the purpose of the statutes, relevant prior legislation, and the longstanding administrative interpretation establishes that the Legislature intends the processes prescribed by Minn. Stat. § 204C.20, subd. 1, and Minn. Stat. § 206.86, subd. 1, to be based on either the number of signatures on polling place rosters, or on the number of voter's receipts. Because we conclude that the practice petitioner claims is in error, that is, determining the number of ballots to be counted on election night by counting the number of voter's receipts, is permissible under both Minn. Stat. § 204C.20 and Minn. Stat. § 206.86, we hold that petitioner has not demonstrated any "wrongful act, omission, or error" that provides a basis for relief under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44. The petition must therefore be denied."
My hope in commnting here, or blogging on Penigma.blogspot.com on this subject, is to push back against those who would deprive voters - like brain-injured vets - of their right to vote. I do that by educating people on just how well voter fraud has been researched and investigated, and found not to exist except rarely. Therefore changes to voter laws are wrong, harmful, expensive, and unlikely to survive legal challenges - so why do it? Obviously we shouldn't. But expect to see Republicans try to do it now that they hold the state senat and the state house.
the other reason
is that this could represent some really dirty politics being played in your own county to mess with your county auditor's elections.
Voter Fraud/election tampering
We seem to be missing the point here.
The election process like Ceasar's wife, should be beyond
reproach.
How much beyond depends on who is winning and who is whining.
Happy New Year JOY JOY
right....
By airhobbies2 | 01/05/11 - 08:48 pm
"We seem to be missing the point here.
The election process like Ceasar's wife, should be beyond
reproach.
How much beyond depends on who is winning and who is whining."
We don't seem to be missing anything. The election process has been proven to be 'beyond reproach', as far beyond as it is reasonable to make it, given the rareness of voter fraud.
"How much beyond" should depend on precisely one thing: PROOF, not whining. Not ever should it rely on empty unsubstantiated false accusations. When you can produce some proof, when any of the many investigations at the local / county, state, and federal levels ever produce proof, then and only then, is it reasonable to change a system that works.
So far, in Minnesota, and elsewhere, the studies and the investigations show the same thing; Ceasar's wife/ elections are honest. And people who claim otherwise don't turn out to be substantiated in investigations; not even in Republican investigations, like Ashcroft's and others.
Voter Fraud/election tampering
Dog are you gone yet??