There is no evidence of voter fraud because no one asks

Casino workers vote at an early voting polling station in October 2016. (AP photo)

Casino workers vote at an early voting polling station in October 2016. (AP photo)

After President Trump proclaimed to the world that the only reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million was that 3 million or more ballots were cast fraudulently — by noncitizen, the dead or by Box 13 in Alice, Texas, perhaps — the media dutifully reported, even Fox News, that there is no evidence, no proof, no foundation for such a claim. It is utterly unsubstantiated.

Today the morning newspaper dutifully reports that Nevada’s Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske says her office is unaware of any “evidence” to support claims of voter fraud.

“There is no evidence of voters illegally casting ballots at the most recent election in Nevada,” Cegavske said in a statement. “The secretary of state’s office is aware of attempted fraud related to voter registration in Nevada; however, with the help of local election officials, we were able to investigate and make one arrest.”

She did encourage anyone with evidence of voter fraud to file a complaint with her office.

There is no evidence because voters are not required to prove they are citizens or to show valid ID to prove they are who they say they are. And how many people after the fact are going to come forward and volunteer that they voted fraudulently?
Vin Suprynowicz pointed this out in a blog posting Wednesday and cited a 2012 column by Las Vegas newspaper columnist Glen Cook to show there is “evidence” if you really look for it and actually, you know, ask questions.
Cook spoke shortly before the election that year with two immigrant noncitizens who had been registered to vote by a representative of their union, Culinary Local 226. They spoke English but didn’t read it very well. They told Cook the Culinary official who registered them to vote didn’t tell them what they were signing and didn’t ask whether they were citizens. Later Culinary canvassers started seeking them out and ordering them to go vote.

Cook verified their identities, their lack of citizenship and their status as active registered voters in Clark County.

The two told Cook that they did not have to show a photo ID to register and merely showed a Culinary health insurance card and a power bill.

“One would establish identity and one would establish residence,” then-Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax told the columnist. “Just like every other voter in Nevada, they will not be asked to prove citizenship.”

Cook also got the Culinary political director to deny the union canvassers do such a thing.

Shortly before the election this year The AP reported that the Culinary union in Las Vegas had registered  34,000 of its members to vote and had reassigned 150 of its members to full-time political work, intending to knock on 200,000 doors and confront  their co-workers in casino cafeterias and by phone. The union also chartered buses to shuttle casino workers to an early voting site during their paid lunch break, and handed each a boxed lunch.

According to a New York Times account shortly before the election, the Las Vegas Culinary union had 57,000 members and 56 percent of them were Latino. No indication how many were citizens.

According to Pew Research Center, in 2014 Nevada had the highest ratio of illegal alien workers in the nation at 10.4 percent.

Cook concluded his column by arguing:

We should ask every voter, upon registration, to prove citizenship, but we don’t. Instead, we have an honor system that’s exceedingly easy to cheat and gives political parties and politically active groups a powerful incentive to break the law without much risk of being caught.

There is no risk of being caught if no one asks.

Cook spoke to just two people who should not have been registered to vote and should not have been pressured to vote and pressured to vote for the union ticket. How many more there might be is unknown, because no one is asking.

Advertisements

57 comments on “There is no evidence of voter fraud because no one asks

  1. I spoke with an elections worker after the last election, he told me that SEIU bused in voters who had the booklets in hand. When he asked for their name, many had to look at the back of the booklet to give him a correct registered name. Cegavske is ignoring complaints made in the past and the elections office refuses to open the voter rolls for investigation without having to take them to court. Free and fair elections do not exist in Nevada. If I were Trump, I would start in Clark County Nevada. We know there is fraud, having the money to prove it is another thing, hence we need the Feds to step in and clean it up. SEIU also maintains and sets up the voting machines. The whole think stinks to high heaven. Please President Trump start in Clark County.

  2. Steve says:

    Jared Kushner, Stephen K. Bannon, Tiffany Trump and Steven Mnuchin are all registered voters in more than one state.
    Also, there are probably numerous military who are registered to vote in more than one state.

    So THIS is how he knows it’s true, personal experience!

  3. Bruce Kester says:

    So Steve, your acidic reply was intended to laser in on another Trumpmockery, but in fact gave rise to yet another element of fraud. Yes, let’s find out not who is REGISTERED in multiple locations, but who VOTED multiple times (I can all-caps too).

    Not one of the smug, sarcastic replies full of elitist confidence seems to address the obvious: If they don’t have to prove CITI(OK, I’ll quit…) citizenship when registering, or getting photo ID, that nasty qualifying element has been eliminated. If they don’t prove citizenship, are not citizens, register and vote, is that not fraud?

    Trump-Deranged-Syndromers scream, “there’s no proof.” Until Trump, no Democrat would dare poke the bear to find the proof.

  4. Steve says:

    I love pissing off both sides….proves I’m doing it right!

  5. Steve says:

    Now think Bruce, since it very easy to accidentally be registered in more than one state, doesn’t it follow that all votes cast by someone registered in multiple states, who actually votes in multiple states, would be invisible due to a total lack of checking?
    And doesn’t this very issue, coupled with his own family members as evidence, validate Trump’s investigation?

    Lets see if we can raise the ire of the left this time.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Please identify by name, or Amendment, the right guaranteed in the Constitution, which requires photo ID, prior to claiming.

    I’ll wait.

  7. Steve says:

    HA!

    Gott’m both now!

  8. The Constitution clearly states that only “citizens of the United States” are eligible to vote. At the present time from the examples by Mr. Cook above…not only is that NOT being verified, but the election officials are being told they can’t even ask the question – Are you a citizen of the United States? The Real ID program was the result of the Carter/Baker Election Commission of 2004, an independent and bi-partisan group that concluded that a valid Picture ID is the best way to accomplish this (Section Two). I might add…Mr. or Ms. Anonymous – Early voting appears nowhere in the Constitution, yet it is a common practice in many states.

  9. Steve says:

    And early voting actually makes it possible for people registered in multiple states to vote in multiple places!

    Ralston is right, early voting should be outlawed.

  10. The Reid machine may finally get the scrutiny that no one in the state thus far has been brave enough to investigate…and the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” lackluster Sandoval administration of whom Ms. Cegavske is a pawn, may finally be forced to take a real look after all.

  11. deleted says:

    Not since former republican press secretary Ari Fleisher told the press to watch what they say after 911, has there been such an explicit threat to the press.

    I fear for our republic.

    ““The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview on Wednesday.

    “I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

  12. Steve says:

    Every administration tries to silence and control the media.

    Some people take themselves far to seriously.

  13. Steve says:

    The republic survived Obama and his attempts to control the press.

    https://www.wired.com/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/

    How soon the liberal mind forgets.

  14. Rincon says:

    Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Since voters aren’t required to show an ID (as if fake ID’s were hard to come by), then it’s wrong for media to point out that no one has proven substantial fraud (as if there is no other way possible to show fraud). So a lack of evidence doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t believe Trump’s claim, which, of course, has no evidence to support it. At least you’re consistent, for you are convinced that the recent planetary warming is natural, despite a complete lack of evidence to support that as well.

    This is a little like Trump’s “alternative facts”. I think we should call it, alternative logic, defined as believing things which have no evidence.

  15. Steve says:

    It’s not Trump who coined that term, it was Kelly-Anne Conway.

    Trump would insist everything he tells is absolute fact, even in the face of absolute proof he’s lying.
    It’s called gaslighting.

  16. Barbara says:

    Instead of protecting the integrity of our elections through requiring proof of citizenship and photo identification, we have as usual allowed the courts and the media to frame this as a racist issue. This has to stop. The Republicans have control of the Congress and the Presidency as well as more State legislatures than ever before. It is time to pass judicial reform laws clarifying Congress’ authority to control the manner of elections.

    Off topic – watching Mark Steyn’s interview of Dr. James Mitchell on CRTV. Dr. Mitchell’s book, Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America, is a must read on a very timely topic. What a great interview of a true patriot.

  17. Athos says:

    The more people squawk about the need for a picture ID to vote, the more I think something is rotten in Denmark.

    And I still remember the busses taking Casino Maids to early voting at lunch time in 2010. No English required! Greid gets reelected! Surprise, surprise, surprise Sgt. Carter!

  18. deleted says:

    Of course she’s incompetent; she did vote for Don….twice.

    Welcomes to Trumps Amerikkka.

    “A woman who was arrested after voting twice for Donald Trump — and in the process became a flash point in the voter fraud debate — is incompetent to stand trial, her attorney said in a motion filed in Iowa court.

    Terri Lynn Rote, 56, was accused in late October of casting two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records. Rote, a registered Republican, remains charged with first-degree election misconduct, and her felony case has been winding through Iowa courts.

    But her court-appointed attorney, Jane White, filed a motion last week saying Rote has “cognitive limitations” and can’t stay focused for long periods — things that mean she wouldn’t be able to help prepare her defense, according to the Des Moines Register.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/27/a-trump-supporter-was-charged-with-voting-twice-her-lawyer-says-she-shouldnt-stand-trial-2/?utm_term=.9905b4e031f0

  19. Steve says:

    So, Patrick proves voter fraud does exist. Investigate!

  20. Rincon says:

    I see nothing wrong with requiring a valid ID to vote, but how can anyone trust the words of a man who claims voter fraud, but can produce no evidence? Typical Trump drivel.

  21. Steve says:

    You really should read this one from beginning to end, Rincon.

    http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=4562

  22. Rincon says:

    I have to agree that AP went too far in claiming that his statement is a falsehood, since it cannot be proven that he’s completely wrong, but it dismays me that you all seem to feel that Trump’s characterization of his faint hope as an established fact, is kosher, especially with his record of 560 lies in 28 days. No, Trump’s on your team now, so he can do no wrong.

  23. Athos says:

    “560 lies in 28 days. ”

    Kind of reminds you of the last guy, doesn’t it Rinny?

  24. […] There is no evidence of voter fraud because no one asks After President Trump proclaimed to the world that the only reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million was that 3 million or more ballots were cast fraudulently – by noncitizen, the dead or by Box 13 in Alice, Texas, perhaps – the media dutifully reported, even Fox News, that there is no evidence, no proof, no foundation for such a claim. It is utterly unsubstantiated. […]

  25. Steve says:

    ….”but it dismays me that you all seem to feel that Trump’s characterization of his faint hope as an established fact”….
    First you out and out error on the facts, then (once shown the error you made) you mischaracterize our words and make up false conclusions based your mischaracterization.

    The very header of this page spells out what “we” think.

    Investigate!

  26. deleted says:

    Apparently Don is doubling down on his refusal to acknowledge Jews were victims of the Holocast.

    Remember when some on the right (falsely) castigated President Obama because of their allegation that he was denying radical Muslms as the cause of terrorism?

    Maybe Don has his own ideas about what caused the Holocast?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/facing-criticism-trump-administration-has-no-regrets-about-leaving-out-jews-in-holocaust-statement/2017/01/29/64852c70-e641-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.1a1a7e027506

  27. deleted says:

    I wait with bated breath the column chastising this administration attacking the Freedom of the Press. I hope I see one here.

    ““Not one network person has been let go. Not one silly political analyst and pundit who talked smack all day long about Donald Trump has been let go,” Conway said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I’m too polite to mention their names, but they know who they are, and they are all wondering who will be the first to go. The election was three months ago. None of them have been let go.”

    She added that the networks should be “cleaning house,” firing “these people who said things that just weren’t true.”

    I fear for our republic.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-media_us_588e3df1e4b0b065cbbcaf48

  28. If all the lying politicians and their minions were ousted, there would be none left … which would be a good start.

    Both ends of the political spectrum.

  29. deleted says:

    Well, this attack, from the administration, is on the press. And not only isn’t it the first, it goes to an attack on the First Amendment protections I thought would be at least worthy of some condemnation here.

  30. deleted says:

    Well you have to admit Thomas the links above are not relevant since he wasn’t president then. So, whatever he said wasn’t any violation of the Constitution.

    And you can’t really mean the second part can you? I mean, there sure ain’t any Constitutional language that I’m aware of that says as much. Where’s the outrage? Shoot I remember Harry saying he hoped the Raj went under and we were “treated” with some firestorm about Harry violating all sorts of laws and such….for days on end.

    Now the president has already had reporters arrested for covering protests, told the press to shut and listen to him, and now effectively inferring with a private, constitutionally protected business, and this is the response?

    This don’t seem hollow to me, more like “first they came for the gypsies”…(cause apparently they didn’t come for the Jews)

  31. deleted says:

    Now what to do? Support their president, or demonstrate their loyalty to their monied interest?

    I fear for our republic.

    http://cumberlink.com/business/kochs-condemn-trump-immigration-crackdown/article_540487b0-03fd-5f8a-9f47-7644bdb4bc13.html

  32. Steve says:

    So, if the evil Koch bros don’t like “The Donald” does that make them “Good Guys” now?

    (Enemy of my enemy and all that, eh?)

  33. Rincon says:

    No, it makes Donald less of a bad guy.

  34. Steve says:

    Rincon, it should be obvious, “The Donald” is New York Republican…hence a national liberal.

    The only thing holding him back is his party affiliation, every one of his actions would be perfectly fine if he was a Democrat.

    Sarcasm, is alive and well.

  35. Athos says:

    The Liberal MSM have made their intentions known for over a year (the Donald is NOT our guy).
    Once he was elected (and they are left with their jaws on the floor and their pants pulled down) they could have gone back to legit news reporting. But as we all can see, they chose to double down and go on a no holds barred, fight to death with the Donald.

    What these leftist fools can’t comprehend is that in a fight to the death, one side dies and it could very well be THEIR SIDE!

    The billion $ news business (my prediction) will go under as people (who actually pay) reject their narrative, and turn to other sources.

    Soros can’t fund them all!

  36. Rincon says:

    So you think the media has been engaged in a massive conspiracy for the past several decades? I suppose it’s possible, but I haven’t seen it documented. The right wing conspiracy however, is well documented. Read Dark Money, but you won’t.

    Funny, I don’t remember hearing about fake news stories in the 20th century, when the media’s so called conspiracy was in its heyday. Seems to be the wave of the future online.

  37. Steve says:

    It’s well known all the major media outlets lean left.

  38. Rincon says:

    Do you think it’s a massive conspiracy? What other explanation could there be?

  39. Steve says:

    Nope, just an acceptance of reporters editorializing the stories they are supposed to report.

    Media used to keep that separate. Walter Cronkite was a liberal but you would never know it from watching him report the news.
    Today, every anchor has to make facial expressions based on their feelings about the story they are reporting at the time. This leads to such things as crocodile tears and one second later laughing at the cute human interest piece.

    It’s hard to watch TV news anymore.

    Written stories aren’t much better, they often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor their preferred cause.

    No organized efforts, just a factual leftist media.

    Take look for yourself. Far and away, most of the major US outlets are left of center.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

  40. Steve says:

    Here’s a good (timely) example of the left leaning hype.

    CBS sez
    “Trump administration relaxes U.S. sanctions on Russia imposed under Obama”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-relaxes-u-s-sanctions-on-russia-imposed-under-obama/

    Lawyers say
    “Calm Down, Trump Did Not Just Relax Russia Sanctions”
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/calm-down-trump-did-not-just-relax-russia-sanctions

  41. Rincon says:

    I find the the explanation by the Lawfare Blog to be wanting. Also interesting that Trump took care of this little detail so quickly and that Obama didn’t seem to see a need for it. On what basis do you decide that the Lawfare Blog is neutral and CBS liberal? Could it not be that CBS is neutral and the Lawfare Blog is conservative? It could be argued that since Mediabias ranks the publications and has a similar number in each column, then the middle is obvious by definition. Problem is that each publication carries equal weight in the rankings so that a set of small, extreme publications can easily shift the so called center. I also wonder why they didn’t include the Economist. They missed a giant publication, but have included a bunch of relative fleas.

    Dark Money explains how the billionaires have succeeded in changing our perceptions of left and right. Much of what Reagan did and stood for are now considered neutral or even left of center. Think of immigration policy in particular. Many of the publications that are considered right wing are financed by moneyed interests. The Heritage Foundation and Heartland Institute for example, are listed as right wing. According to Dark Money, these are financed primarily by foundations created by extremely rich individuals. Rupert Murdoch, of course also created Fox News, but he actually found a bona fide underserved market at the time.

    The bottom line is that no one can be sure of the truth anymore. Most of us are happy to overlook the sins of those playing on our team, but quickly cry foul at the slightest hint of a transgression by members of the opposing team. Billionaires spend massive sums on propaganda. It literally is true that telling the same lie often enough makes it sound like the truth.

  42. Steve says:

    Funny you couldn’t describe the source for your feelings about the lawyers explanations. Probably doesn’t fit with your own preconceived notions of how things should be.
    Lawfare is lawyers. Not shammy lawyers, real ones.

    Your conclusions, again, are based on a lack of facts. The Economist is as center as they get.
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

    Lawfare is too small and specialized to have attracted attention. Kinda like The Nevada Independent (for now)

    Funnier still, you would call ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, The New York Times and a bunch of other large main stream media outlets “fleas” in comparison to The Economist……or whatever else you are trying to use (since you didn’t list any examples) to denigrate Media Bias Fact Check.

    Again, your preconceived notions are shining bright.

    Large mainstream media is largely leftist and they know it.

  43. Steve says:

    Lawfare Blog publishes in cooperation with Brookings, Rincon.

    There goes another of your preconceived notions.

  44. Rincon says:

    I said, and I quote, “They missed a giant publication, but have included a bunch of relative fleas”. Somehow, you concluded that I meant either ALL of the publications or the small bunch you listed. Again, they have good classes at your community college teaching English as a second language.

    You also complain that I selected no examples. There are several hundred publications listed. Are you telling me you question that many of these are far smaller than the Economist? I don’t like playing games, Steve. Get real.

    “Again, your preconceived notions are shining bright. Large mainstream media is largely leftist and they know it. Back atcha, Steve. Your words are indicative of a preconceived notion of your own.

  45. Rincon says:

    BTW, I missed their listing of the Economist because it was alphabetized under the word, “the”. Maybe I was taught incorrectly, but so far as I know, articles such as “the” are generally skipped when an alphabetical listing is produced. I’m not complaining. You correctly pointed out that they are indeed listed. I’m just defending myself against your presumption that I didn’t bother to check. I’m sure that you will still consider that negligent. I’ll go to confession this week to absolve myself.

  46. Steve says:

    Again, you missed it, you claimed they didn’t include “The Economist” I provided A LINK!
    woo, you you ignore it and carry on your merry way.

    “The Economist” is the name of the publication!

    Your second post negates your first.

    Perhaps you should take a few moments to reflect.

    For people just like you, they have direct links to each bias. Try those for clarity.
    You will find the large mainstream outlets all tend left. It’s as clear as it gets, spelled out in ascii just for those people who refuse to see.

  47. Steve says:

    Turns out, Salon (Via the AP) agrees with the lawyers you so disparage, Rincon.

    NANCY PELOSI, a California Democrat and House minority leader, on Thursday: “Less than two weeks after walking into the White House, President Trump lifts sanctions on the Russian Security Service. Vladimir Putin’s thugs meddle with an American election, and President Trump gives them a thank you present. ”

    THE FACTS: Pelosi’s complaint about Trump’s revision of sanctions on the Russian intelligence service FSB doesn’t hold water. If the revision is a gift to anyone, it’s to U.S. sellers of consumer electronics.

    The Dec. 29 sanctions imposed by the Obama administration were not intended to ban the U.S. sale of cellphones, tablets and other consumer electronics to Russia. But they had that effect, by barring U.S. firms from getting the permits needed from the FSB to sell in Russia. The FSB has regulatory as well as intelligence responsibilities.

    Trump’s change does not materially benefit the FSB, except in a minuscule way. It allows U.S. firms to pay the FSB a required fee of up to $5,000 per year to export encryption-capable consumer electronics to that country. It’s of more benefit to the U.S. sellers and Russian buyers of those devices. It’s not unusual to fine-tune sanctions to permit certain transactions.

    Democrats incensed at alleged Russian hacking of their party’s campaign communications have been watching for a sign that Trump would ease Obama’s Russian sanctions in a consequential way. But this wasn’t it.

    http://www.salon.com/2017/02/04/ap-fact-check-a-weeks-supply-of-baloney/

  48. Rincon says:

    Who claims it was not in the original intent? Why did Obama leave it for Trump to do? He had 21 days to “correct” it. It’s possible that this is all true, but the problem, as I see it, is that you used it as an example of media bias, but failed to show evidence that bias existed. You only showed a publication with a different version, aversion which claimed to know the “intent” of the law. One would think that this version might have included evidence of this intent. None was provided. Seems to be the opinion of the writer. Different does not equal neutral nor accurate.

  49. Steve says:

    Man, you simply cannot let go of your preconceptions.

    You peeps need to stop being so prejudiced.

    The story is clear and even Salon cannot let go of the “Trump angle”

  50. Rincon says:

    Clever reply, Steve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s