Iowa Voters

A columnist for the Mason City newspaper has defended Cerro Gordo’s top election official from a “cheap shot” taken by our Secretary of State Matt Schultz.

Schultz apparently went out of his way to pick a fight (deja vu) with County Auditor Ken Kline over requiring voter ID cards.

He [Kline] was asked by a constituent at a Board of Supervisors meeting what he thought of the proposed law.

“Am I opposed to it? No. But what problem are we solving?” asked Kline.

He said to his knowledge, Iowa never had a problem of someone voting in someone else’s place.

In his response to Kline, Schultz, in a letter to the editor to the Globe Gazette, said people have to show photo IDs to get on an airplane or to get a checking account, so why not when they vote?

. . .
The really unfair comment from Schultz was when he wrote, in reference to Kline, “We must elect men and women who will stand up for fair and honest elections.”

Who knows what he meant by that?

The newspaper went on to cite Kline’s outstanding record, concluding that “he’s a stand-up guy who deserves better than to take a cheap shot from a state official for simply answering a question from a constituent.”

Schultz offered this cheap shot because he has no legitimate answer to Kline’s question: What problem will we solve with Schultz’s pet idea? There is no problem. The Schultz “solution” will cost Iowa lots of money and will inconvenience voters. Kline is right to question it. The Globe-Gazette is right to defend him.

When Iowans elected a new Secretary of State in November, county election officials (Auditors) adapted quickly. Secretary-elect Schultz had already riled the auditors during the campaign. He had insinuated that voting rolls were improperly managed, and he had called for new laws to block imaginary illegal voters.

The auditors initiated a study of photo ID requirements for voters when Schultz told them he would press for such a law in Iowa. A handful of other states have a similar requirement. Seven auditors traveled to two of those states, Indiana and Florida. Their 14-page report is now available on the front page of their website.

Reading between the lines of the report one can see the ID laws don’t prevent this imaginary fraud so much as move it to a new place in the voting system. Voters can escape the photo requirement by voting absentee in Indiana, for example. One Indiana official said he encourages voters to use absentee ballots if the ID rule is a stumbling block for them. However, the Iowa report notes

Since mailed absentee ballots are already the area of the election process that is most prone to voter fraud, this “go-around” actually opens the election process to greater potential for voter fraud.

Indeed Indiana and Florida each cite their own history of absentee ballot fraud yet both still permit absentee voters.

It is not clear if either state relies on the photo rule anyway. Indiana absentees avoid the photo law. At the polls it is common to rely more on signature similarity than to study the photo ID, according to one Indiana official. Furthermore, Indiana allows names that don’t exactly match each other, citing ten variations of the name J. Crew, for example, that would all be allowed to vote with the same ID card.

Florida voters can avoid presenting a photo if they have two forms of ID or if their signature on voting day matches a prior signature in the state’s database.

Look-alike brothers Bill Jones and Bob Jones could probably vote for each other in Indiana as easily as in Iowa. People with paperwork skills can probably navigate the system with little hassle. I don’t think the voter ID demand is even intending to stop them, both because it is so rare that one voter impersonates another, and because that is no way to steal an election.

This campaign may be driven by a widely held notion among Republican activists that “DemocRATS” don’t win elections unless they cheat. Rather than rely on evidence for this view, they hold it as a matter of faith. They proceed to claim it’s just a sensible requirement, thus avoiding the need think clearly about the notion.

The auditor’s report does not advocate or condemn voter ID laws. Auditors knew they had to avoid that policy debate. Instead it explains the stories of the other two states and recommends some minimum standards for Iowa in case the legislature agrees to erect this new blockade. They include “a significant financial investment” in voter education for the indefinite future, money for free ID cards, money to defend the law against a likely court challenge, and money for improving the technology that links databases of registered voters and licensed drivers. That’s four new lines of expenditure, estimated to exceed two million dollars a year in the report.

But since the report was written, Secretary Schultz has reduced funding for Iowa’s innovative poll worker technology tool known as Precinct Atlas. Counties who use the optional device must divide up the $30,000 cost formerly paid by the state.

Secretary Schultz says his new ID plan will make elections “secure.” County auditors who used the Precinct Atlas made the same claim for it. Security is in the eye of the beholder.

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland.

The Iowa Secretary of State is fixing to scare off a group of criminals who must be insanely smart. These folks commit their crimes in front of numerous witnesses. They always offer a handwriting sample first. They never get caught. They are so sly, people never even know the crime occurred.

They are Iowa’s fraudulent voters.

Deputy of Elections Mary Mosiman was on the radio Monday warning about this crime. She was pinch-hitting for Secretary Schultz, who yanked himself at the very last moment. Was Schultz too embarrassed to finger these elusive voters with Mosiman’s evidence? Listen to her case:

“If they did want to commit fraud, they could go in as somebody else, they could vote. They would be long gone before anybody knew about it, assuming that person that was really the voter did not come in. We still wouldn’t know because when that actual person came in, the person who committed the fraud so to speak would be gone.”

Yes, unlike dumb criminals, these people leave the scene after they commit their crimes. When asked for actual instances of this crime Mosiman repeated herself:

“Personally, I can say, that if it did occur, we would never know because the person who committed that crime is long gone. Have there been any instances that have been caught and prosecuted? None that I am aware of.”

In other words, “It never happens.” If it had, the Deputy of Elections would be able to cite places and dates rather than baseless fears.

Just consider the risks these criminals take:

*They cannot impersonate a deceased voter because those names are regularly removed from the rolls.

*They cannot impersonate an inactive voter, because inactive voters already must show an ID.

*They cannot impersonate someone who has already voted, because that is a dead giveaway!

*They cannot impersonate someone who shows up later because their signature forgery would be strong evidence against them. (Plus the number of times it has happened would become known by the number of alleged forgeries. So far that number is at zero, even according to Mosiman.)

They must impersonate an active voter who does not actually show up later to vote. It must be one who would not be recognized by any poll worker or poll watcher. See how smart these criminals are! How do they do it?

Never mind that question. Secretary Schultz wants an ID law!

The Iowa county auditors saw this coming in November when Schultz rode the wave into office. They formed a study group and prepared to write a report. They even visited other states to hear in person from other election officials who also contend with these smart criminal voters.

Never mind that report. House Republicans wrote a voter ID bill and passed it without waiting for the auditors to report. Damn the facts, full speed ahead.

The bill was so bad the auditors voted to oppose it.

On the radio Mosiman admitted that she had once advised Schultz the ID cards were not needed. Now she covers for him, saying she is “hearing” new talk without saying if was factual, fanciful, or irrational talk.

Even if those these criminals are so smart that they always escape—so smart that we aren’t even sure they exist—in another way they are insane. Consider this:

. . .why would any sane person risk going to prison to influence an election by one vote? It is all the more implausible to imagine an army of impersonators coordinating their efforts on a scale that could affect an election, let alone doing so without being detected. That is why the election fraud that’s actually been tried involves ballot-box stuffing or bulk submitting of absentee ballots—schemes that allow a few people to roll up a lot of fraudulent votes. A photo-ID requirement does nothing to prevent those real shenanigans

So what is really going on here? Do Schultz and his Republican allies really fear these imaginary criminals? Or do they see a way to shrink the electorate? Could they maybe shrink it enough someday to get back to just letting white property owners vote? Maybe so.

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland.

The new Republican Secretary of State in Indiana has been indicted for voter fraud. His fraudulent voting behavior was not prevented by the state’s photo ID law. By the way, here’s his photo ID now:

Actually I don’t know if he showed his ID card when he voted, but it is required by Indiana law.

Secretary White simply did not live where his vote was cast. But he needed to appear to live there because he was getting paid to represent his old neighborhood on the city council!

Now that this fraud has apparently been perpetrated on the Republican Party of Indiana (it happened in the primary election), what does the man’s attorney have to say about it?

“I’m confident that this doesn’t rise to the level of a criminal offense. … He had kind of a chaotic personal living situation at the time.”

Money may be the mother’s milk of politics, but double standards are the sine qua non. . . . . .also posted at BleedingHeartland.

Iowa’s county election officials (the county auditors) oppose a bill that has already passed the Iowa House. The bill would require voters to show a photo ID before voting. Absentee voters would have to photocopy their ID and mail it in with the ballot (Think for a moment how that would help the auditor know if the person in the photo matches the person who mailed the ballot).

Republicans dominate both the House and the auditors group. The sixty House Republicans voted unanimously for the bill three weeks ago. According to the Register, not a single auditor endorses it. Meeting last week, the Iowa auditors decided to register their group in opposition to the bill.

Secretary Schultz said the bill, HF 95, should be passed to prevent people from impersonating someone else at the poll. Auditors said they had never heard of such a thing happening.

This is the second time the group has rebuked the new Secretary of State. Last summer a large faction of the auditors endorsed Schultz’s opponent, an unusual step for these generally tight-lipped officials. Even Schultz’s home county auditor, Republican Marilyn Jo Drake, endorsed the incumbent Mike Mauro.

Other groups that have registered against the bill include the ACLU, AARP, the Governor’s Developmental Disabilities Council, the Methodist Church, and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. Backing the bill are the Farm Bureau, the Iowa Minutemen, and the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.

also posted at Bleeding Heartland.

One state representative wants you to worry about $3 gifts being given to him. While you are following that distraction, his majority leader can collect $1000 or more from utility companies, corn growers and car dealers. Those “campaign contributions” came in after the election.

Which will matter more? The $3 trinkets Koester points to, or the big bucks he ignores? And to think he says, “There is a climate where public trust of elected officials is on a decline . . .”

Is he curing the decline or causing it?

Governor Branstad took his first step to shrink the size of the electorate Friday. He revoked Tom Vilsack’s magnanimous order of July 4, 2005, which allowed sinners to vote after the completion of their sentences. Branstad says sentences, schmentences, pay court costs, too!

This news appears in the press but is absent from the Governor’s website. Nothing to be proud of, I guess.

Incoming SoS Shultz said today that some votes are sacred but others are subject to compromise:

“Provisions are set forth in our laws for any convicted offender to obtain their right to vote. I strongly believe that these provisions need to be adhered to now and in the future. This will send a message to Iowa’s voters that their voting privilege is sacred and will not be compromised in any way.

Shultz can’t ban felons from voting but he can hope Terry Branstad restores the red tape barriers that once plagued thousands of people. In this case Republicans favor more government regulations. Imagine that.

He hints here that his vote is “compromised” if a felon votes too easily. It will soon be said that it is also compromised if you vote without your identification card in hand, or if you register to vote on election day, or on caucus night. To Republicans this is all known as voter fraud. They intend to stop it in the name of “We, the People.”

Candidate Terry Branstad promised to make it harder for some people to vote. He wants to turn back the clock, reversing a national trend of thirteen years.

In the early days of the USA only property owners could vote. A hundred years later all barriers to voting were gone except the one that kept women away from the polls. Then new barriers were built against Blacks and felons, notably poll taxes and other tests that were unfairly applied.

“By the way, what’s the big word?”

Branstad thinks it terrible that everyone might be able to vote: “All of the sudden you’re just going to make 50,000 people eligible to vote,” he fretted. Imagine that!

Branstad wants to get their money first: “We helped the clerk of courts offices collect a lot of money” by wringing court costs out of them.

We already are famous for putting blacks in prison in Iowa at thirteen times the rate of whites. We are the second worst in the nation by some charts.

Stopping felons from voting is the new way to keep blacks out of power, says Michelle Alexander:

Jarvious Cotton’s great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Klu Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation; his father was barred by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.
—FROM THE NEW JIM CROW

With all the talk of “We the People” ringing in our ears, let’s be sure we count every opinion and every vote. Don’t go back to building barriers, Mr. Branstad.

Michael Mauro was a good Secretary of State. He was always interested in our elections. He failed to win his own re-election.

Before Mauro our Secretary was Chet Culver. Culver used his time to become well-known around the state, saying “get out and vote” at every opportunity. The publicity this created was for him as much as for the elections he advertised. Who could be against voting? He used his name recognition to run for Governor.

But Culver left a mess in the elections department. He failed to stop dozens of counties from adopting paperless touchscreen voting machines, ignoring experts who warned against them. Some counties had two entirely different systems in each polling place–a touchscreen plus a paper system as well.

Having been a county auditor himself in Iowa’s largest county, Mauro came to the state job with experience and credibility. He dumped the touchscreens soon after his 2006 election. He later created a system for sending ballots overseas that was named best in the USA. He was so respected by Iowa’s county auditors that many of them took the unusual step of endorsing his re-election.

Four years in a low profile job is not enough to gain name recognition. Yesterday Iowa’s conservative voters kept all the incumbents they recognized except one (Governor Culver). They also passed over the guy they didn’t recognize (Mike Mauro). I’m sure they meant no ill will. Thank you, Michael Mauro.
cross posted at BleedingHeartland.

Last week a story surfaced that seven Iowa counties supposedly had more registered voters than adult citizens. The story was advanced by a devious blogger and became state-wide news. Let’s take a look at his devious ways.

1. He pretended to be more than one person, calling himself a “law center” when in fact he is a lawyer-blogger whose blog is called ElectionLawCenter.com. This deviation from the facts managed to fool Iowa Secretary of State candidate Matt Schultz who yesterday told a radio audience the blogger was a non-partisan watchdog group.

2. His letter to Iowa’s Secretary of State Michael Mauro would find its way onto the website of Mauro’s opponent Schultz, but he never called the Secretary to investigate before he threatened to sue, according to Mauro’s election director Sarah Reisetter.

3. He used the Republican Noise Machine to push the story. It was picked up by the Washington Times, Michelle Malkin, TheIowaRepublican.com and and he put it on his other blog at pajamas media. Eventually Iowa media took the bait. Bingo!

4. His accusatory letter had no numbers included so the public could not evaluate his threat. This allowed Matt Schultz to pimp the story while carefully noting that he could not know if it was actually worrisome or even true.

5. When confronted with real numbers by this post, he alleged that some of the adults should not count because they may be non-citizens. He avoided admitting that the rural county in question is only .2% foreign born. That’s two people for every thousand. And no doubt some (all?) of them eventually became citizens.

6. Finally he admitted he has no ability to sue since he doesn’t live in any of the states he threatened. Someone else will have to use his non-numbers to buttress their own court case. Fat chance in Iowa.

The blogger (J. Christian Adams) never discussed the real reasons that there might be more voters on the list than there are on the census website. Let us count the reasons:

A: The voter rolls are names of certain people. The census figures are estimates of county totals. The census bureau can detect a falling population, but it cannot know which people have left town. The county cannot remove names until it knows which names to drop.

B: My college son lives in Ames, according to the census. He votes here, according to the voter rolls. Same for some soldiers on a military base. This confuses Schultz and Adams. Pretty ironic given that Schultz’s brother is in college in another state. Will he vote for Matt? If so, he will have become part of this phenomenon.

C: When stable rural counties have a high rate of voter registration, there is no wiggle room for declining population. People move away and leave no forwarding address. They don’t register to vote elsewhere until a provocative election comes around again. Their names are still on the voting list, but the census believes that some of them are no longer here.

It is devious and disreputable to compare a list of particular people to an estimate of population. There are laws that protect your voter registration until you change it yourself. Adams and Schultz mock those laws in pursuit of a new law that would stop you from voting if your driver’s license has expired.

Their gambit was successful. They delivered propaganda in the form of news. They will convince many people who barely follow the story. Then they will claim public opinion favors their goals even though no facts support their case.

From Jennifer Jacobs for the Des Moines Register today:

Gov. Chet Culver is backing down on his plan for updating Iowa’s election technology after weeks of disagreement over how to ensure a paper trail for every voting machine.

Culver said Friday he is now willing to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots.

And at long last, Culver criticizes touchscreens:

Touch-screen machines are “not the best options, and I’d like to try to avoid it if we can,” Culver said.

Thank you, Governor Culver. And Secretary Mauro.

Now the ball is in the county courthouses. Will those who fell for touchscreens realize that not every county made that mistake and therefore the counties bear some financial responsibiltiy?

Once those touch$creen toy$ are gone from the polling places, we will face the fact that all this money has been spent for “acce$$ible” voting equipment that sits unused. All to satisfy a federal mandate that was pushed through by voting machine companies who are the principal winners in this story. Beware the lobbyist with something to sell!

What a sad state of finger-pointing we have come to regarding Iowa’s tarnished election administration. In the Sunday Des Moines Register Governor Culver blames counties for the paperless voting machines he let them buy when he was Secretary of State. Story county auditor Mosiman defends her purchase, saying she acted on information available at the time.

They both need better alibis than that.

There was plenty of information available at the time (here, too, and here). If auditors and then Secretary Culver had paid more attention to computer experts like our own Doug Jones in Iowa City, we could have avoided this mess. Instead Mosiman went to Des Moines to testify against a paper trail bill. Auditors listened to savvy salesmen who managed to make those paperless touchscreens work long enough to close the deal. And besides, it was only tax money, much of it coming from the feds.

Culver’s correct that counties made the actual purchase decisions. He’s right that he (belatedly) urged them to have some sort of paper trail. But he was timid as a pussycat, never speaking against touchscreens. Worse than that, he even asked Professor Jones to resign from the Board of Examiners of Voting Machines during the crucial decision making period. Jones had single-handedly protected Iowa from Diebold during the many years he was on the board.

Culver should not prevent the legislature from mopping up. He should tell our Congressional delegation to back the Holt bill that would bail us out of our troubles (with yet more federal money).

Mosiman and the other county auditors who fell for touchscreens should admit that they were not paying adequate attention to the critics who sought to warn them before they spent the money HAVA provided.

Kiss and make up, you two. The legislature is trying to help.

Update: Loebsack is a co-sponsor of Holt’s bill.

A new federal bill could resolve the tension between two of Iowa’s top Democrats–the Governor and the Secretary of State. Today’s Register reports that Mauro wants to get all our votes on paper ballots, but Culver is content to buy “paper trails” for the tempermental touchscreens that now infect the state’s polling places.

It’s a question of money (big surprise!). The good stuff that Mauro wants costs $10 million. Culver is content to waste $2 million on the widely cussed paper trail printers.

They should put their egos aside for a minute and agree on one thing: to call on our state’s Congressmen to support the brand new HR 5036. That new bill by New Jersey’s Rush Holt pays for replacement equipment when states wise up and dump their DRE touchscreens. It is not a mandatory bill, so there is only one point of contention: Do we have the money in the federal budget to mop up the mess HAVA made of voting machines all over the nation. States that are loving their mess don’t have to do a thing. States that are ready to wash up can have the soap paid for by the Congress that caused this problem in the first place.

None of Iowa’s Congressmen have signed on to this bill yet. I called Latham’s office in Fort Dodge this morning. Can you do your part?

Boswell in Des Moines (toll free) (888) 432-1984
Braley in Davenport: (563) 323-5988 or more choices
Latham in Ames: 515-232-2885 or tom.latham@mail.house.gov
Loebsack: email or in Cedar Rapids 319-363-2288
King on the web or in Sioux City call 712.224.4692

As New Jersey enacted an exemplary election audit law and New Hampshire waded into another recount, Computerworld reporter Todd Weiss called Iowa to ask, Can audits restore confidence in elections? His inquiry is “Today’s Top Story” at the Computerworld website.

Weiss already knew that real paper ballots had saved Pottawattamie County in the 2006 primary when Auditor Drake turned off her errant scanner machines and counted ballots by hand.

Our Secretary of State Mike Mauro told Weiss

“I think there’s a place for post-election audits, where they are randomly selected, and of a certain percentage of the vote, to look for anomalies,” Mauro said. “It will [be] up for discussion this year. We will be discussing it this session.”

“First, we’re trying to get everybody across the state on the same machines first,” he said. Some Iowa counties are using optical-scan machines while others use DRE machines or a mix of the two. The goal is to move toward 100% use of optical scan machines, in part because such machines provide a verifiable paper trail.

“Random audits, of a certain percentage, I’m not opposed to any of that” to ensure accurate and fair elections, he said.

Parts of New Jersey’s law are being crafted into an Iowa bill. Next time Computerworld calls Iowa, here’s hoping it’s because we are more like NJ than like NH.