And in the process, he’s throwing the rest of the Republican Party under the bus.[read_more]
News has been percolating over the last couple of days about a scheme Speaker Howell hatched to get the State Board of Elections to change their rules for requirements to get an absentee ballot. According to sources in state government who were close to the matter, Howell lobbied the Democrat-controlled SBE to do something Democrats would love to have done on their own, but would never have gotten passed in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.
On May 13, the State Board met and granted Howell’s wish: to allow people applying for an absentee ballot to do so electronically—with an electronic signature.
Now, that may not sound like much. But consider this. The absentee voting period started in April, so this change in the rules of the game came smack in the middle of the absentee voting period, when all the other campaigns around the state are invested in turning out absentee voters the old fashioned way: getting people to print and sign hard copy applications, and then either scanning and emailing them in, or mailing or hand delivering them.
Still, you say, isn’t making it easier to vote absentee a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. It could also conceivably lead to more voter fraud, but that’s really beside the point of this particular flex of political muscle and corrupt influence in Richmond. Why? Because the State Board made their decision effective immediately and didn’t bother to tell any candidate–other than Bill Howell–about their decision. It’s not on their website, it wasn’t sent to candidates via email, and no announcement or other public bulletin was made. This was effectively secret law written at the behest of the state’s most powerful politician to give him an advantage over his primary opponent.
Once he got the decision he wanted, Howell immediately launched a well-engineered web portal to allow people to just visit his site, provide some information, and PRESTO! The campaign takes care of the rest, skipping one of the most arduous steps in the absentee process (getting individual voters to fill out and sign a physical copy of the application).
How many ways was this hidden rulemaking improper?
- The State Board changed rules on the mechanics of electioneering in the middle of an election. If they even had the authority to make this change (which they likely didn’t), it should have been made effective for the next election, not the current one!
- Not only that, they didn’t tell anyone about it…except the state’s most powerful politician.
- What the State Board did probably exceeds their authority. They claimed that they were acting pursuant to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, but members of the General Assembly are livid. They believe UETA does not apply, and that only the General Assembly can change participation requirements when it comes to any facet of elections in Virginia. However, with the Speaker of the House aligned with the Attorney General, they have very little to worry about politically.
- Further, Republican leaders to whom The Bull Elephant has spoken, including members of both houses of the General Assembly, are furious at this move as not only does it encroach on their authority, it also gives Democrats a huge additional advantage based on their lead in voter data and online engagement. Not only is every Senator and Delegate candidate running in a contested seat now probably in a tougher race, but our GOP presidential nominee next year will likely face the same added difficulties.
- The only way to fix this is by lawsuit, as there is no way Republicans could override a veto from Terry McAuliffe to restore the statutory rules. RPV needs to get on this right away to protect the integrity of a Republican nomination process, and to protect the integrity of the electoral process in general.
Bill Howell is running for reelection by telling people all about his “proven conservative leadership.” Someone who pulls this kind of stunt doesn’t even know what the word conservative means. Howell should be ashamed of himself. He’s damaged the whole rest of his party with a corrupt exercise of power, all to save his own skin.
This is how you cheat in an election without having to go to jail. Step 1: be the Speaker of the House. Step 2: secretly get the election rules changed in the middle of an election (bypassing the legislature) and don’t tell anyone. Step 3: exert your power and influence to intimidate into silence anyone who might challenge you on it. (This will be where the WaPo comes in with a great cover story for Bill)
It’s not going to work this time. The fact that Bill Howell apparently thinks he needs to cheat to win confirms that he’s vulnerable, and that despite hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of slick mailers, conservatives in his district are rejecting his lies. They’re turning to Susan Stimpson instead.
All this just proves what many of us have known for a long time. Bill Howell is in this for his own power, and will stop at nothing to keep it.
99 comments
Bill Howell looked into it. Smart thing to do. If his opponent is too stupid to do her homework, how is this Bill Howell’s problem?
[…] As previously reported, Speaker Bill Howell last month secured a rules change from the State Board of Elections that allowed him to pour significant resources into 100% electronic absentee ballot applications. Howell’s opponent, Susan Stimpson, filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the rule, both for this election and permanently, alleging impropriety in the way the change was handled in the middle of voting and that SBE exceeded its authority in making the change at all. […]
[…] The Bull Elephant‘s Jamie Radtke reported Thursday, the Virginia State Board of Elections on May 13 made the decision to allow absentee ballot […]
the heading on this post would lead one to believe that Speaker Howell must cheat to win. I don’t think that is the case
Then why did he do it?
I don’t know, why is his campaign knocking on so many doors? It’s a mystery historians one day hope to solve.
he sought a clarification. Good for Mrs. Stimpson that she had such a clear understanding of the law which is being disputed by lawyers & former SBE members over several blogs.
Just because Jamie Radtke says so doesn’t make it true. I have been on the receiving end of some of her tall tales that I proved to be a lie.
You proved nothing. In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE was proved, which is why all your inappropriate behavior was repeatedly rejected and overturned by State Central Committee.
Jamie you have lied so much I think you must believe your BS. You never proved any of the lies you told about me. You couldn’t they were lies but I did prove they were lies and that you were a big liar along with Shak Hill. I know you want to help your friend Susan Stimpson and from the looks of her campaign she needs it but this story if that’s what you want to call it makes you look desperate. As far as State Central Committee goes they seem well on their way to self destruction. Having lost EVERY Statewide Election since 2009.
Whether you believe Bill Howell lobbied for this position or not, I would hope that everyone would agree that this is a bad ruling that makes absentee ballot fraud much easier to commit. This new ruling allows a campaign to electronically request hundreds of absentee ballots, sending them to alternate addresses on behalf of voters that normally do not vote, simply by setting up a simple program and feeding it a list of names from a voter database. The ballots are then collected, filled out, and fraudulently submitted, and nobody knows the difference.
A campaign could do this already, without electric signatures.
Except voters are required to include a valid reason for needing an absentee ballot…
Without arguing the legality of the decision, it would appear to me that people like my wife Heather, former and current committee chairmen or treasurers, that have or have had access to the state, county and locality voter registration and participation in recent elections will become valuable assets to the candidate looking to “stuff” a ballot box. Can you envision near 100% voter turnout pin areas? I can as it has been witnessed on the federal level with Mr. Obama in 7 localities in 2012.
Every candidate has access to that information, which they can purchase from the Virginia Department of Elections. The database includes voters in the candidate’s district and their voting history.
For all the frustration Howell, how does RPV escape a mention here? SBE is clear that RPV was notified. This was no ‘secret’ rule change that was done without telling anyone, as Jamie claims. RPV knew, and didn’t pass it along to candidates, as has been the norm in the past. I realize that doesn’t align with the spin on the story for Susan’s benefit (who’s already linked to this post), and negates a pretty large part of it, but not mentioning it is a pretty big faux pas.
i guess i don’t understand why his opposition didn’t think of this first, if this is indeed such a blow to their campaign
If Howell had a website up and ready to go the moment he got the answer he was looking for, then one could infer that he lobbied for it.
When I appeared before the Board of Elections in 2013 to argue they were using an incorrect definition of “express advocacy” I was specifically told by Chairman Judd that they don’t change any rules during the middle of an election cycle. http://patch.com/virginia/herndon/virginia-board-of-elections-new-rule-would-result-in-anonymous-tv-political-ads
Whether Mr. Howell merely sought a clarification, or anything else, the Board should not have granted this relief.
This makes sense unless this was clearly established procedure.
Speaking of former SBE Chairman Judd he posted a statement today. “This was addressed by the previous SBE, and we determined that allowing electronic signatures was “not ready for prime time”…due to, in my opinion, creating a possibility for fraud. The electronic sig, as it was explained to me, is a computer-generated signature – not in the hand of the voter. That means that all the sigs on AB apps turned in to the GR would look like the exact same handwriting…raising suspicion on validity. If I were a General Registrar, and a campaign delivered a ‘stack’ of AB apps…with the signatures a;ll in the same handwriting, I would have questions about how those voters were solicited, and why the voter did not simply “sign” the form themselves.
Chairman Judd has added “I believe it is not appropriate to change policies during the middle of an election cycle.”
Jamie, where is any proof that Howell “lobbied” for anything? It’s being reported that Howell’s campaign sought clarification from the SBE, and they responded to his request.
That’s just a campaign doing its due diligence.
RIght, because this wasn’t a change of regulation, electronic signatures were already legally valid in this instance under Virginia’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.
It’s basically the same as asking a police officer if you can drive with one of your headlights out. The answer doesn’t create, change, or negate applicable laws, they already existed. The only difference asking the question makes is that now you know the answer.
Which all goes to my original point: Any campaign could (and should) have done this already.
Patrick, a “clarification” would be to seek interpretation of existing election law. UETA has never been applied to these transactions, and applying it now (in the middle of an election no less) creates a new rule. All PUBLISHED policies and regulations of the SBE currently require physical signatures. Further, there’s a real argument that application here is in direct conflict with the statute. More on that later.
This is not accurate. The online voter registration system does not require a physical signature.
The statute nothing in 24.2-701 dealing with a mailed in absentee ballot requires a physical signature. Every reference is to “signature.” Don’t confuse the requirement for a signature made in the presence of the EB or registrar (or the designee) for absentee in-person voting with the requirements of requesting an application via the mail.
Unless I am mistaken, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act applies only to contracts. § 59.1-483 (b) “This chapter applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means.” Therefore, it is not applicable to § 24.2-701. The SBE’s decision was therefore not mandated by the UETA.
I think the definition of “transaction” is broad enough under § 59.1-480 to include this situation. It includes “governmental affairs.”
Clearly this code section has nothing to do with absentee ballot applications. It governs commercial transactions, including commercial transactions with the government. § 59.1-483(c) states that “A party that agrees to conduct a transaction by electronic means may refuse to conduct other transactions by electronic means.” The processing of an absentee ballot application doesn’t fit this language.
It governs transactions, including governmental ones, and the definition of transaction is broad enough that it could arguably include the transaction between a voter and a local electoral board in the requesting and furnishing of an absentee ballot.
Regardless, there are plenty of situations in the Code that presume that electronic signatures are valid. In the absence of some specific, clear language that requires a physical signature, I think SBE had discretion to allow for the acceptance of electronic signatures. At best, the Code is ambiguous.
Resolving that ambiguity in favor of greater liberty for voters is something we should want government to do.
Dave Webster wrote, “Clearly this code section has nothing to do with absentee ballot applications. It governs commercial transactions, including commercial transactions with the government. § 59.1-483(c) states that “A party that agrees to conduct a transaction by electronic means may refuse to conduct other transactions by electronic means.” The processing of an absentee ballot application doesn’t fit this language.”
B.W.S. wrote, “It governs transactions, including governmental ones, and the definition of transaction is broad enough that it could arguably include the transaction between a voter and a local electoral board in the requesting and furnishing of an absentee ballot.”
Again, I really hate to support B.W.S. on this, but he is still right.
§ 59.1-480. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
[1-15 deleted from this post for brevity, see Virginia Code if you’re curious]
(16) “Transaction” means an action or set of actions occurring between two
or more persons relating to the conduct of business, commercial, or
governmental affairs.
Again, it’s very clear.
It’s not very clear. The entire tenor of the UETA is one of a voluntary agreement between two or more parties. It simply does not fit the mode of an absentee ballot application. “(b) This chapter applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct. Except for a separate and optional agreement the primary purpose of which is to authorize a transaction to be conducted by electronic means, an agreement to conduct a transaction electronically may not be contained in a standard form contract unless that term is conspicuously displayed and separately consented to. An agreement to conduct a transaction electronically may not be inferred solely from the fact that a party has used electronic means to pay an account or register a purchase warranty. This subsection may not be varied by agreement. “
This is still a voluntary agreement between two parties – the SBE is voluntarily allowing the electronic signature, and the voter is choosing to use one rather than a physical one. No one is precluding them from using a physical signature, but they’re given the option.
Dave Webster wrote, ” The entire tenor of the UETA is one of a voluntary agreement between two or more parties.”
But the government IS a “party”, it is one of the two parties in the transaction.
§ 59.1-501.2. Definitions.
(a) As used in this chapter:
[1-48 deleted from this post for brevity, see Virginia Code if you’re curious]
(50) “Party” means a person that engages in a transaction or makes an
agreement under this chapter.
(51) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate,
trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture,
governmental subdivision, instrumentality, or agency, public corporation, or
any other legal or commercial entity.
Still seems very clear.
“Greater liberty for voters”. That sort of says it all. Who wouldn’t want greater liberty. Especially liberty for folks who are otherwise ineligible to vote. Once all those folks are voting, how much liberty will ordinary citizens have?
Roughly 4% less (if you’re talking about illegal immigrants and felons).
If someone is ineligible to vote, why do you believe that allowing an electronic signature brings them closer to being able to cast a fraudulent ballot than allowing a physical signature?
That’s like saying I won’t be pulled over for speeding if I renew my registration in person rather than online.
Brian, the code specifically authorized application of UETA to online registration applications. It does not authorize it for absentee ballot applications. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-416.7
It doesn’t have to. I think SBE was within their statutory interpretative authority here.
Stephen, we’ve heard from two different people inside the Department of Elections that the Speaker lobbied for this rule change.
Steve, all due respect to your sources, the Washington Post is reporting otherwise:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/challenger-to-va-house-speaker-accuses-him-of-cheating-in-ballot-rules/2015/05/21/a5d64d3a-ffcf-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html
“In response to a request for guidance from Howell’s campaign, the board of elections last week said voters may sign absentee ballot request forms electronically instead of printing out the forms, signing them with an ink pen and e-mailing back a scan or mailing the forms through the post office.”
And in a contest between the Washington Post and The Bull Elephant on which source I trust the most, I’ll take the one that isn’t actively spinning a story for a preferred candidate.
Seriously? The Washington Post doesn’t have a preferred candidate? Of course they do and it’s NEVER the conservative. Do the math.
First, Bill Howell is one of two conservatives in this race.
Second, of course they don’t, nor are they spinning for anyone as Jamie is. Your m.o. of making things up that you can’t prove doesn’t help anything or anyone. To be honest, I’d prefer if Steve (or Jamie, the OP) responded so we don’t get side-tracked here.
SBE’s Secretary says it was a “request for guidance.” Others on this inside say it was more. I don’t think these are mutually exclusive of a conclusion that it was done at the Speaker’s request.
Ultimately, you are asking your readers to choose who they believe: the SBE Secretary, or anonymous sources being relayed by ardent supporters of one of the candidates in the race.
Take it as you will. But one of our sources indicated this fact is reflected in materials that we have requested pursuant to Virginia’s FOIA. We’ll post this stuff when we receive it. In the meantime, like I said, there is no dispute this was done at the Speaker’s request.
I haven’t read the Washington Post for years, so maybe it is now a fount of pure truth. But I quit reading that newspaper because it seemed to me that it printed mostly lies.
I don’t think this is anything new guys. We’ve used this on previous campaigns and I think it’s been around since at least 2013 . . .
http://www.vagopabsentee.com/
That’s incorrect. As your link makes clear, a physical signature is required. Here, nothing ever has to be on paper.
But is (or was) a physical signature actually required? I spent a couple hours last night reading state laws and prior SBE regulations (so I could retract my previous comments if I proved myself wrong) and couldn’t find any such requirement.
Yes. The statute and SBE rules (not including this latest unpublished rule) require a physical signature. I’ll detail it in a post this afternoon, hopefully.
Ah. My mistake, thanks for pointing that out Steve.
Given that strongly democrat precincts generally find a way to vote everyone in the precinct including the recently deceased, this makes anyone with a good data base far more powerful. The state records indicate who voted in each election. You do a sort on everyone who generally stays at home and doesn’t vote, then submit an electronic vote in their name. Who is to know? Cover your tracks well with a temporary ISP address and you are home free. Typically 40 to 50 percent of the people don’t vote in important elections. In minor elections (off year) the non-voting can reach 70%. Imagine if suddenly most of those miraculously voted electronically. Why Computer Programmers would rule the world!
Any would be politician who is willing to exempt Computer Programmers from taxes, fines and other oppressive laws, please contact me…
Except we’re talking about submitting a request for an absentee ballot online, rather than voting online. Since absentee ballots are automatically sent to the registered voter’s address on file, after breaking state law by falsely submitting applications you’d have to break federal law by illegally intercepting the absentee ballot once it’s in the mail.
So it’s definitely a viable plot for world domination, go for it.
Laws are not a problem to lawbreakers, just as safes are not a problem to safe crackers. I am sure that those who want to break the law can find ways around it. I would start with a few PO Box addresses, but that is not to say that a postal worker couldn’t collect hundreds of them. You just have to be creative to win. Your own world bubble doesn’t allow creative thinking, or methods available in the ghettos. There is also the friendly home visit from your local activist to help you fill out the government form or just collect it with the promise to fill it out for you. This is common in old folks homes and other places… And yes it is illegal, but still it happens and works well. Our group of “activists” handed out information to such homes reminding them that it was illegal, but it still happened.
So, your plan would be to change the address on thousands of voter registrations (somehow) in a small geographic area to PO Boxes you had leased and would physically visit.. without anyone managing to notice.
Cool idea, good luck.
As Machiavelli stated, the end justifies the means. At least 25% of the population believes in this, so no, it doesn’t matter if anyone notices. If you follow voter fraud, you will see a great indifference to any such lawbreaking. The actual prosecutions are rare events, and those that the press publish are even rarer. If you can get away with it because the “end” is what those in power want, go for it. Worse case is you serve a little time and come out rich. You think a postal worker in a ghetto is going to run to the Republicans and tell them that a post office box in his work place is receiving thousands of mail in voter forms? He would lose his job. You think the registrar’s office would notice? Probably, but the workers would just smile and ignore it. Their jobs too depend on the party maintaining power. You are really naive.
I’ve been getting conservatives elected coast to coast for a decade, including plenty of states with much looser election laws. Trust me, if widespread voter fraud were easy to accomplish there are times I’d have come damned close.
Never have because it’s not a viable path to victory. For the same time and effort to successfully cast a couple hundred votes fraudulently you can earn a couple thousand by raising tons of cash, pounding doors, and flooding the airwaves. I promise, it’s a whole lot easier to win an election without cheating.
The notion we keep losing elections because of widespread voter fraud is pure victimhood for people who lose elections. It avoids the nastiness of self-doubt by blaming others instead of asking if you did everything you could. I don’t have time for that. I learn from my mistakes, get back on the horse, and win the next one.
And you work for free so you can freely admit your mistakes. Or you work for money and can win every time if they hire you. I love your rosy outlook on life. Go get Col. West’s stolen seat back, stolen though voter fraud. “Don’t worry, be happy and pay me” doesn’t really hold water in the trenches. Wisconsin is only turning Republican because a massive Tea Party effort to “true the vote” with poll watchers in every democrat precinct. That is what it takes to combat the previous tactics. No idea what they will come up with next but we need to be ready. Just about everyone agrees that Kennedy won his election because Mayor Daley “delivered” the Chicago vote. Kept the polls open until he had enough fraudulent votes to carry the state. Pretending that fraud doesn’t swing some key elections is again naive. Besides a good campaign, and grass roots support, and some (not a lot) money, forcing a fair election and preventing cheating must be part of the plan. Criminals will always have more money than the honest because crime pays quite well.
In 2012, Allen West lost by more than 2,000 votes in a marginally Republican (+3) district he hadn’t represented before (redistricted) where Romney won by 4%. Let me break it down another way: Over 14,000 voters in Florida’s 18th voted for both Mitt Romney and Patrick Murphy (same name, but not me).
That’s not voter fraud, it’s a ton of crossover voters. I’d love for West to still be in Congress, but he needed a more conservative district to send him there.
If you believe the only reason Wisconsin has a Republican governor is because of poll watchers, and nothing to do with Scott Walker being a great campaigner with more than $150 Million backing him over three elections, I’m speechless.
It’s been five and a half decades since Kennedy’s election. We’ve done a lot to prevent election fraud since then, which is exactly why it’s a lot harder and not a viable path to victory nowadays.
You are great at spin. West was marginally ahead before the usual democrat trick of keeping polling stations open deep into the night. Recounts were sluffed off, and True the Vote is still going through the data after a protracted lawsuit to get the information in the voter books on who voted. You can tell voter fraud just by the way Democrats behave.
You also twisted what I said about Wisconsin. But I recall the recall election of the Conservative Judge up there. Again late night polls until the Democrats had enough votes to unseat him based on the vote reports. The judge retained his seat the next morning when it was learned that a significantly republican area had not been reported the previous night. Had it been reported, then the Democrats would have just held the poll booths open longer until they had enough votes to win. My town contributed a lawyer to help supervise the poll watching then, and he reports that monkey business was going on. A poll watcher was sent to the back where he couldn’t see, and miraculously the precinct voted 25% of it’s voters by 10 AM. That is called voting the non-voting list.
You are part of the problem – ignoring the fraud and pretending that it doesn’t exist. You have to train poll watchers to the tricks, and then get them into the polling stations – especially those stations that are totally democratic controlled.
1) Thanks for the compliment.
2) None of that explains why someone, or group, would help elect a Democrat to Congress by fraudulently casting ballots for the Republican presidential candidate. It doesn’t make logical sense. If you committed voter fraud, would you have cast a single vote for Obama? I highly doubt it, not in a competitive state.
3) Wasn’t trying to twist anything, that’s just the way it read.
As for election day volunteers, I dedicate every single warm body available to me to getting every single voter we’ve identified to the polls — so a relentless barrage of phone call reminders and giving them rides if they need one. It’s just basic math, I’d rather have a volunteer generating 20-30 votes per hour on the phones than have the same volunteer prevent a couple of illegal votes the entire day.
Of course, that strategy only works if the campaign identified enough (or reasonably close to enough) supporters to win — meaning volunteers made hundreds of thousands of calls and knocks in the preceding months.
It’s not complicated, just requires a ton of work most people don’t do.
I managed the GoTV phones for two counties when Romney lost. I know the routine. You still don’t realize we are not talking a few fraudulent votes. We found that there are some people who will phone, and some people who will not. We get the second group to be poll watchers. An operation in a large city can turn out tens of thousands of fraudulent votes that you will never catch. In Chicago it may approach 100,000. We joke about the dead voting, but the same technique is used to vote the living. You don’t have to show up at the polls in a strong democratic district. The political machine will vote for you. And for the few people in such districts that want to vote against the political machine, you will find the occasional story that someone found out that he had already voted. You worry about turning out the vote when you are being had by another district that is doing GoTV with just the poll workers. casting votes for the people who are on the rolls that don’t normally show up at the polls. And that is only one way they cheat.
I love a positive attitude. What about the precincts in Philadelphia where 110 % of the registered voters voted for Obama?
Obama won Pennsylvania by nearly 300,000 votes in 2012. I’m not familiar with the size of those precincts, but unless the voting-age population numbered into the millions, an extra 10 to 20% of the vote wasn’t the deciding factor.
Also, Obama still would have won the electoral college if Romney won PA.
Patrick Murphy, you give up easy, and you forgot the precincts in Ohio. What about all the precincts that didn’t go over 100% but still cheated??? Since the technique is appearing in many states, it seems obvious that there in a known method that is being replicated where ever possible. Do you not know the iceberg principle? If you can see a pattern, the real problem is much bigger that what you see.
That’s the basis of every conspiracy theory ever concocted.
Stephen, and the opposite is the way ostriches hid from attackers – with their head in the sand. I love the story of Tammany Hall’s bearded men. These men grew full beards before an election, then went in to vote. Then they saw a barber that Tammany had set up, had some of the beard shaved off, and voted again. This method was repeated for about 5 votes per beard until the man was clean shaven. It earned him some money and insured Tammany Hall of another thousand votes in their district. There is a lovely introduction to old time politics in a little book called “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall – a series of very plain talks on very practical politics.” Yes it is about 100 years old, but the ideas of how well politics pays is made clear as well as the attitude of winning at any cost.
Since you don’t know the way the other side thinks, and what their value system is, you cannot predict what they will do (know thine enemy). The son of last year’s DNC chair was caught telling people how to go through trash to get utility bills for identification papers to allow them to vote. Do you honestly think that it ends there? That it was an isolated incident? Do you know how much of the stimulus package went to democrat supporters who then made “donations” back to the party? Read “Freakonomics” on how the system of drug pushers works, and convert that over into how ACORN and its successors work. Two years ago, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave 10 million to an ACORN successor to help the poor people learn how to vote. Then just before the election, the Department came up with an extra 100 million. Do you really think it was an unbiased push for voter registration or was it just walking around money to GoTV for democrats?
In spite of the fact that America is strongly conservative, there are real reasons why it is an uphill battle to win elections. Corruption not only funds democrats, but also the republicans in name only group. We are doing our part here in Virginia by learning what the opposition is up to and countering it where we can. But there are still too many ostriches enabling the democrats and rinos to get away with it. As far as conspiracy theories, did you know that a burglar commits about 17 thief’s for every one he is caught at? Why wouldn’t that be true for other criminal acts? That what you can see would only be the tip of the iceberg?
Because only seeing the tip of the iceberg, or what you believe to be a tip, allows you to quite literally invent any truth you want to imagine is being hidden.
In the cases you’ve presented, you don’t even have a tip of a iceberg. You have either an irrelevant case study from decades or centuries ago (Tammany Hall) , or an unverifiable anecdote based on rumor and sour grapes (e.g., Allen West’s race).
The lack of credibility, combined with the ludicrous size of the conspiracy you’ve concocted, make your statements come across as highly delusional.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge criminal behavior is the delusion here. If my motivation is teach people what to look for to prevent fraudulent voting, what is your motivation? As to size, you are believing the PC crowd: move on, nothing to see here. I am an engineer and trained in statistics. When poor democratic districts that are unwatched by opposition poll workers consistently vote significantly higher than normal percentages, a non-delusional person would be suspicious. You pretend that there is nothing suspicious. Falling back on logic, that suggests that you either have skin in the game or are mentally deficient. Since I doubt the latter, I would have to believe you somehow benefit by ignoring voter fraud.
Voter fraud is not new, it just finds new ways to be implemented. Hence the current resistance to any serious form of voter id. The next wave will be non-citizens voting. The democrats are not stupid, just immoral.
Again, you are just saying things; even a link or shred of evidence would go a long way to help your rantings. And we’re talking about electronic signatures on AB ballots, not voter ID laws here.
My motivation is because when people think we lose elections because of “election stealing”, rather than bad candidates, bad campaigns, or bad ideas, it doesn’t help us improve as a party. In fact, it encourages people to double-down on the same failed tactics.
I find silver lining when stupid Republicans lose elections, because it gives me hope we will move away from stupidity moving forward. Baseless conspiracy theories like yours interfere with that type of improvement and maturity that is vital to this party’s success.
Not even talking about electronic signatures on AB ballots, we’re only talking about electronic signatures on the application requesting an AB ballot.
Your statement “a shred of evidence” indicates that you really haven’t been following the thread or the news. Time after time I have offered real world evidence of what is happening behind the scenes and you brush it off.
We did start off with Absentee ballots but it progressed from there. I just mentioned that this will open another door to fraud and explained how it would be done. Voter ID helps suppress fraud, but doesn’t prevent it in unwatched precincts.
So your explanation on your motivation says that if we have good candidates, good campaigns and good ideas, we will win. And you brush off all losses as bad candidates, bad campaigns and bad ideas. That in logic is called a self fulfilling prophecy. If we win, we won because we had it right, if we lose, we lost because we had it wrong. There is no such thing as “enemy action”.
My point is that knowing how fraud happens will give you an advantage. We are blessed in Virginia to have a brilliant man in Reagan George who represents “True the Vote” and educates the conservatives on voter law and voter fraud. We are having problems manning all the leftest polling in N.E. Virginia, but we are making progress.
Susan Stimpson is challenging the subject of this article. Susan has an impressive record as a chairman of her Board of Supervisors, and our House leader really needs to be retired. I think it would be a good trade. A “good” campaign here in Virginia involves local and not so local Tea Parties getting out the vote, financial support from the “Middle Resolution” (small business), and a good candidate: all that you have mentioned. We just have to worry about the “dirty tricks” agenda which is what the article was about. If Susan can win the primary, she will win the general election: the area is strongly republican and even democrats like Susan’s style of fighting corruption and keeping down government costs. I am not totally ignorant of what is going on and how to win campaigns.
Yep when they lose you can say: “should have hired me”. Tooting your own horn is your game.
Your disingenuous statement “not a shred of evidence” only means that either you didn’t catch the many references I gave to previous political news stories on voter fraud, or you are the preferable head in the sand Ostrich.
Actually, on the VA absentee ballot application form you can request that the ballot be sent to an alternate address, and not your home address. There is no requirement that this alternate address even be within the state of Virginia. So there is no need to change their address.
Also, according to the SBE website, other than Military or overseas voters, the only acceptable method of requesting an absentee ballot is to use the State’s Form which requires an ink signature. http://elections.virginia.gov/index.php/casting-a-ballot/absentee-voting/#First
There’s no specification a signature must be “physical,” “ink,” or “hand-written” in nature, thus there’s no reason an electronic signature couldn’t be valid.
So I suppose everyone who has no problem with this are also the same people who think requiring photo ID at polls is ridiculous.
I have no problem with this and I strongly support requiring photo ID at the polls.
DESPERATE! Stimpson grasping at straws, move along here folks! NOTHING TO SEE EXCEPT A DISASTER OF A CAMPAIGN
well since you typed it in ALL CAPS IT MUST BE TRUE!
Mrs. Radtke is also correct that a change in SBE rules halfway through an election should affect the next election, not the current one. That should be its own story. But if Howell was the only candidate made aware, we are venturing into blatantly corrupt territory. These are serious allegations and if they are correct then Mr. Howell should be made to answer for them.
Matt Hall is so desperate to get a real job in politics (or at anything other than trolling blogs) he’ll defend anything Bill Howell does. Lose the bow tie and maybe you’ll be taken seriously.
Seriously, Jamie?
Hate to point this out, but SBE didn’t need to change any rules to allow this, even if they did. Since you can already request an absentee ballot via email, it’d be stupid easy to build a web application that would do exactly what Howell’s does and stay within the letter of SBE’s previous rules.
Honestly, we’re talking about a day’s work if you know what you’re doing. Campaigns could (and should) have been doing this since SBE began allowing requests via email. If campaigns invested like they should on digital, instead of relying on amateurs, they’d already be doing this.
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, just a guy who’s spent a decade winning elections and programming.)
It’s not about requesting via email, it’s about skipping the paper step and signing electronically. Current (I guess now former) rules require “signed and scanned” applications in order to be accepted. Under the new rule, you can apparently just fill out a Gravity forms template on someone’s WordPress site and email the output of that to the registrar, without a physical signature.
I wasn’t even thinking about using something as basic as WordPress and a Gravity form (because that’s just dumb), but upon inspection of Howell’s code that’s exactly what they’re doing. You’re right though, since that’s what they’re doing, they would’ve needed SBE to sign off on skipping the requirement to request using the standard form.
Still, it doesn’t negate my point about being able to do this prior to any SBE change. You would have had to build a web application which could write data to a PDF template of the standard SBE-701 application, then send the completed and electronically signed PDF to the correct registrar, but that’s the only difference. The “print, sign, and scan” process isn’t necessitated by law or regulation, just one’s inability to do otherwise.
If a campaign really wanted to, they could have easily done this even under the previous rules. The fact they failed to do it doesn’t mean someone else is cheating.
Not sure about that. See 24.2-701(B)(2): “The application shall be on a form furnished by the registrar”. I don’t think this contemplates or accommodates the apparent new way.
It’s certainly questionable whether SBE had authority to change that requirement of state law, and it seems that’s what they did, but it’s a question for lawyers.
From a technical sense though, as long as you had a program writing data to a PDF template of the registrar’s standard application (which is what I previously described), you’d be fine under state laws and previous SBE regulations. It’d be no different than completing the printed form using a typewriter.
I don’t think so. I think there are other provisions of Title 24.2 that conflict with this. But it’s late…I’ll expand tomorrow if I have time.
I see now what you’re saying, Patrick. I don’t think there’s a problem with electronically filling out the registrar-provided form. It’s the signature requirement that is different, and something that shouldn’t have happened.
The statute also states “The State Board shall implement a system that enables eligible persons to request and receive an absentee ballot application electronically through the Internet. Electronic absentee ballot applications shall be in a form approved by the State Board.”
If SBE approves the form, it’s fine.
The form distributed electronically is NOT the signature submitted “electronically” as a validated completed absentee ballot, two separate issues, I would expect two distinct approval requirements as well unless the initial electronic ballot distribution language incorporated approval of electronic signatures which I don’t believe is the case. Regardless allowing this mid primary is not only irregular but ethically questionable.
My comment was directed at Steve’s issue with the form, not with the signature.
Other areas of the Virginia Code provide that electronic signatures are valid in the Commonwealth for all legal purposes.
I assume then I misunderstood and you did not intend to imply that the language in 24.2-701 might be extrapolated to assume some type of approval of electronic signatures on actual absentee ballots.
My point was that the form shouldn’t be an issue.
An electronic signature on an actual absentee ballot is acceptable under Virginia law – we allow it for overseas military – but it’s impractical for most ABs that don’t come from overseas.
You mentioned that the SBE is primarily controlled by Democrats. It seems like regardless of the Speaker’s consent they would be able to pass the rule change. How exactly is the Speaker to blame for this rule change that the SBE could make with or without his blessing? They don’t march to his drum.
Ever heard of political cover?
Entrenched warfare