2012 - From Massachusetts to Ohio and Beyond Voters Rolls continue to Include Deceased and Non-Eligible Voters

In October, 2009, a year prior to the 2010 elections, a non-partisan data research company, Aristotle International Inc, had found upward to 15 Million voters, that were either deceased or ineligible on voters roles nationally. (CNS News). Massachusetts was the most egregious, with over 600,000 deceased or ineligible voters on its rolls just prior to the special election in January of 2010. Although one has to understand that human error can occur, especially considering that voter rolls are maintained by the individual States and Commonwealths, figures reaching those proportions give pause.

Now, Ohio’s Secretary of State, did a little “digging” on his own and found 18,460 deceased Ohioans ready to vote. He found the discrepancies by cross checking the voter rolls with a list deceased kept by the Ohio Department of Health. (Fox Toledo). That said, how many more Ohio voters are ineligible due to the fact that they no longer live in the area where they continue to stay on voter rolls.

These types of reports, regardless of which credible source one finds, leaves the reader questioning the process and the results of elections, specifically those that took place in 2010, especially in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Granted, those reports were released prior the special election to fill the Senate Seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, with the result that Republican Scott Brown trump State’s Attorney General Martha Coakley, proving perhaps that those deceased and ineligible did not cast any or as many votes that January. However, with all eyes, literally on Massachusetts for that special election, one would think the election was kept above board so to speak. However, when pressed, Massachusetts Secretary of State, Democrat William Galvin ridiculed the reports as “conservative” (never mind that the origination of the reports came from a firm that works for both political parties), and noted that those concerned would have to take his “word for it”.

This might explain the results in the “bluest states” 2010 Congressional contests, where several hotly contested races, including three that were rather high profile, despite alleged internal polls that said otherwise, managed, in less than 13 hours, to pull exactly the number of votes out of the proverbial hat in order to push three of the ten Incumbent Massachusetts Democrats over the top. Oddly enough, pulling voters out of nowhere is fairly simple when one employs poll watchers, and in Massachusetts the Democrats do just that – the system: Stationed behind each poll worker is a Democrat operative checking the voter rolls, should someone not appear, they basically get them to the polls. One understands this is a common practice by both parties in most states (however in Massachusetts, there remains a fairly entrenched Democrat presence), and does not constitute fraud.

What might be considered fraud is when names of those on the rolls are deceased and or out of state, and any one with knowledge of a name and address can walk into a polling station and vote in that person’s name without the need to show identification, in Massachusetts, one would be able to cheat all day long with zero repercussions. One must wonder if the same aforementioned theory might as well pertain to other states where anomalies in results are, well, ignored or downplayed by the politically motivated individual in charge of overseeing voter rolls.
Although one might find it easy to obtain a less than legal form of identification, in order to vote as John Smith, Deceased or move to Toronto, it is less likely to occur if one has to show at the least a drivers license, state identification card, student id card, passport, or a picture ID pass from one of the many regional theme parks each time one votes.

The premise in Massachusetts is that one need only show identification when voting in a Federal election for the first time but not to worry if one should not have that indentification, the ballot will be cast as provisional and the State will determine if it is valid (source Massachusetts Secretary of State). When at the polls in Massachusetts one is basically asked for street, name and number, and then handed a ballot. Seriously.

In searching Google for references to the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts actually looking into cleaning up the voter’s rolls from 2009 forward, there was no reference to be found. This blog may have missed something, somewhere, so should anyone reading find this not to be the case, please post a link in the comments section.

With the 2012 elections rounding the corner, and the local 2011 elections at hand in many states for local and state offices, it would be ideal if those in the position of power and authority would use the same to clean up voters rolls, so that “errors” might not occur, and 30,000 votes appear, as if by magic in a 13 hour period! (Of course, community organizers walking the streets of major cities, and “getting out the vote would dispel any questions of fraud resulting in a huge increase in such a short period of time.

In any event, suffice it to say, that the integrity of the system is called into question when elected officials, regardless of the state, who are charged with protecting the voter rolls, which means your vote and my vote, refuse to remove the “deadwood” and open the door to Pandora’s Box, either to real fraud and or plain speculation as to fraud. To the Secretary of State in Ohio – kudos’s, to Massachusetts’, perhaps one should take the time out of one’s busy schedule, and actually look at the deadwood and remove it. The worse thing that could happen if one cleaned up the rolls in Massachusetts is the appearance of a fair election, and removing any unwarranted criticism that might come ones way.