How much fraud in voting is okay???
DMN front page story today:
Side note: Didn't know former OSU baseball great Jimmy Barragan was a news writer for the DMN these days!
Dems still struggling for effective counterargument to GOP claims
By JAMES BARRAGÁN Austin Bureau jbarragan@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN — Democratic state Sen. Royce West of Dallas was making a point.
The number of prosecutions for voter fraud cases in the state of Texas is low. In its 15 years, the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit has prosecuted a few dozen cases in which offenders received jail time, none of them involving widespread fraud.
And though his colleague, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, was talking about another voter fraud indictment in his home county of Gregg, that was one case in one county in a state of 254 counties and 30 million people.
But Hughes had a ready retort: “How much fraud is OK?” “How much fraud is OK?” he repeated. “I want to know.” Game, set and match.
Hughes pushed forward with his bill, an omnibus piece of legislation he says will reduce voter fraud and opponents say will suppress the votes of marginalized communities. The argument is a familiar one to followers of voting legislation over the last two decades, as Republicans in statehouses across the country have moved to stiffen voting regulations, arguing that such changes are necessary to combat voter fraud.
And it’s an effective point.
It puts the proposal’s opponents in the unenviable position of having to defend the low level of fraud cases that happen as a normal part of any large election system. Who wants to be pro-fraud? “The difficulty for Democrats is that it’s kind of hard to sell the argument that you won’t eliminate 100% of fraud but that even a small number of cases isn’t a big deal,” said Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas who researched arguments over voter fraud bills.
“For the public, even one case can legitimize the view that fraud is rampant and impacts the outcome.” “In their over 20 years of this being an issue. … Democrats have never come up with an effective counterargument,” Miller said. That’s because Americans by and large do not trust the government’s handling of elections and perceive that there’s more voter fraud than actually exists, he said.
Historically, voter fraud was a problem both parties took part in. In the 19th century, Boss Tweed ran the Democratic political machine in New York, and no conversation about voter fraud in Texas is complete without discussion of Lyndon B. Johnson’s primary race for the Senate in 1948, which he appeared to have lost until 202 additional ballots were found in a precinct that gave him the victory.
But over the 20th century, Miller said, American elections changed drastically to protect against voter fraud. “The average American does not realize how well regulated our elections are in terms of the incredible amount of transparency that we have,” he said. “There are a lot of checks on it. Checks on voters, checks on election officials, [and] audits.”
Lack of knowledge That lack of knowledge leaves an opening for those who want to cast doubt on the integrity of elections. During a news conference this week, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the state needed “as close to zero tolerance” for voter fraud as it could get. “The other night during the debate, one of the Democratic senators said, ‘Sen. Hughes, why do we need this bill? We have less ballot fraud than we used to have,’” he said. “Really?
So how much did we used to have? ... How much do we have now?” The problem, Miller said, is criminals will always find a way around the rules, and while they will get close, no election system will ever be 100% foolproof. “If you have one case of voter fraud out of a million votes cast, on one hand, that’s not very many,” Miller said. “On the other hand, that’s more than zero.”
Patrick, a Republican who has advocated for voter fraud bills for years, compared election security to a bank account. “Don’t you want your bank to be secure?” he asked. “Is it okay for someone to hack in and steal 10% of what you have, or 5%? Or do you want all 100% of your money to be protected in your bank.”
But Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, said the idea should be flipped on its head. “Just because occasionally there’s a bank error doesn’t mean we should shut down ATMs. We have to make it better,” Rottinghaus said. To do that, lawmakers would dedicate more resources and people to elections, like some of the state’s major counties have done. Instead those counties, Harris in particular, are being attacked for the new voting options they offered.
DMN front page story today:
Side note: Didn't know former OSU baseball great Jimmy Barragan was a news writer for the DMN these days!
Dems still struggling for effective counterargument to GOP claims
By JAMES BARRAGÁN Austin Bureau jbarragan@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN — Democratic state Sen. Royce West of Dallas was making a point.
The number of prosecutions for voter fraud cases in the state of Texas is low. In its 15 years, the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit has prosecuted a few dozen cases in which offenders received jail time, none of them involving widespread fraud.
And though his colleague, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, was talking about another voter fraud indictment in his home county of Gregg, that was one case in one county in a state of 254 counties and 30 million people.
But Hughes had a ready retort: “How much fraud is OK?” “How much fraud is OK?” he repeated. “I want to know.” Game, set and match.
Hughes pushed forward with his bill, an omnibus piece of legislation he says will reduce voter fraud and opponents say will suppress the votes of marginalized communities. The argument is a familiar one to followers of voting legislation over the last two decades, as Republicans in statehouses across the country have moved to stiffen voting regulations, arguing that such changes are necessary to combat voter fraud.
And it’s an effective point.
It puts the proposal’s opponents in the unenviable position of having to defend the low level of fraud cases that happen as a normal part of any large election system. Who wants to be pro-fraud? “The difficulty for Democrats is that it’s kind of hard to sell the argument that you won’t eliminate 100% of fraud but that even a small number of cases isn’t a big deal,” said Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas who researched arguments over voter fraud bills.
“For the public, even one case can legitimize the view that fraud is rampant and impacts the outcome.” “In their over 20 years of this being an issue. … Democrats have never come up with an effective counterargument,” Miller said. That’s because Americans by and large do not trust the government’s handling of elections and perceive that there’s more voter fraud than actually exists, he said.
Historically, voter fraud was a problem both parties took part in. In the 19th century, Boss Tweed ran the Democratic political machine in New York, and no conversation about voter fraud in Texas is complete without discussion of Lyndon B. Johnson’s primary race for the Senate in 1948, which he appeared to have lost until 202 additional ballots were found in a precinct that gave him the victory.
But over the 20th century, Miller said, American elections changed drastically to protect against voter fraud. “The average American does not realize how well regulated our elections are in terms of the incredible amount of transparency that we have,” he said. “There are a lot of checks on it. Checks on voters, checks on election officials, [and] audits.”
Lack of knowledge That lack of knowledge leaves an opening for those who want to cast doubt on the integrity of elections. During a news conference this week, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the state needed “as close to zero tolerance” for voter fraud as it could get. “The other night during the debate, one of the Democratic senators said, ‘Sen. Hughes, why do we need this bill? We have less ballot fraud than we used to have,’” he said. “Really?
So how much did we used to have? ... How much do we have now?” The problem, Miller said, is criminals will always find a way around the rules, and while they will get close, no election system will ever be 100% foolproof. “If you have one case of voter fraud out of a million votes cast, on one hand, that’s not very many,” Miller said. “On the other hand, that’s more than zero.”
Patrick, a Republican who has advocated for voter fraud bills for years, compared election security to a bank account. “Don’t you want your bank to be secure?” he asked. “Is it okay for someone to hack in and steal 10% of what you have, or 5%? Or do you want all 100% of your money to be protected in your bank.”
But Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, said the idea should be flipped on its head. “Just because occasionally there’s a bank error doesn’t mean we should shut down ATMs. We have to make it better,” Rottinghaus said. To do that, lawmakers would dedicate more resources and people to elections, like some of the state’s major counties have done. Instead those counties, Harris in particular, are being attacked for the new voting options they offered.