1 Gundersen

Voter Fraud and Unfair Elections: An American Past-time

By Connor Gundersen

9.22.14

Math 89S: Game Theory and Democracy

2 Gundersen

History of Fraud

Despite revolutionary changes in technology, voter fraud has remained a facet of Ameri-

can democracy for centuries. In Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Po-

litical Tradition—1742-2004, author Tracey Campbell demonstrates that “election chicanery” is

“deeply embedded” in America’s political foundation as it has been treated "as part of the game

that one has to practice in order to counteract one's equally corrupt competitors,” (Shafer). Back

when only property-owning white men were allowed to vote in the colonial era, landless men

would be given the title to land by a campaign temporarily, vote, then return it. On the flip side,

campaigns also paid eligible men to not vote (Shafer). In addition, less elaborate schemes in-

volved the sheriff manipulating voting times, voting locations, and votes themselves (Shafer).

Even George Washington himself bought his neighbors alcoholic drinks to win his seat in the

Virginia House of Burgesses in 1758 (Shafer). Fraud even reached presidential heights, as the

1844 and 1876 general elections were most likely won by fraud as well (Shafer).

While those examples hold some levity, decades-long voter suppression and injustice en-

sured after blacks were awarded suffrage (Shafer). Even after intimidation and brutality ended,

the more subtle poll taxes and literacy tests took their place (Shafer). Jews were another minority

group targeted by foul-play; voter registration was scheduled on Yom Kippur and the Sabbath in

New York City in 1908 (Shafer). By the end of the 20th century, vote buying and vote tempering

along with voter registration manipulation were still transpiring in Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois,

Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida (Shafer).

Even a US president as recent as Lyndon B. Johnston has evident fraud in his history; he

is said to have reached his first senate seat by beating Coke Stevenson in the 1948 Democratic

runoff primary through fraud (Tolchin). In his multi-volume study “Means of Ascent,” Robert A.

3 Gundersen

Caro alleges that, even though voter fraud was already high in 1940’s Texas, Johnson’s campaign

“raised it to a new level,” (Tolchin). While rumors had persisted for years that Johnson won by

fraud, the statement was confirmed by Jim Wells County judge Luis Salas in an interview with

Caro (Tolchin). The story starts with Stevenson opening up a 20,000-vote lead. Votes had not yet

been counted from San Antonio, where Stevenson won 2-1 in the first primary (Tolchin). When

the results finally came in, they somehow revealed a 10,000-vote victory for Johnson, then later

that night some rural percents went on to shrink Stevenson’s lead to 854 votes (Tolchin). The

next day, county officials “discovered” that one county’s returns had not been counted, and these

votes went largely to Johnson (Tolchin). After this, more good results continued to trickle in for

Johnson until Tuesday, when the State Election Board announced Stevenson was winning by 349

votes with only 40 votes left uncounted (Tolchin).

But this declaration did not end the fishy business, for on Friday, there were “corrections”

out of the Rio Grande Valley; Stevenson’s lead was now at 157 votes (Tolchin). Finally, Jim

Wells County “amended” its returns, and Johnson had now pulled ahead and won by 87 votes

(Tolchin). Caro verifies Stevenson’s supporters complaints at the time that counters had blatantly

changed the tallys, as “For example, [Salas] said, Jim Wells County provided an extra 200 votes

for Johnson merely by changing the 7 in ‘765’ to a 9,” (Tolchin). Salas says it was South Texas

political magnate George Parr who “manufactured” thousands of votes for Johnson and thus al-

lowed him make the mind-boggling comeback from a 20,000-vote deficit to an 87 vote-victory

(Tolchin). The rest is history of course, as Johnson went on to be the country’s 36th president.

This example is important because it shows that blatant fraud was able to work inconspicuously

a mere 60 years ago for a major political figure of the time.

Recent History

4 Gundersen

The electoral process has certainly not been as prone to such obscene cheating in the past

decade, but murmurs do persist. Butterfly ballots, hanging chads, absentee ballots, and invali-

dated votes have all been suggested as possible ways in which the 2000 presidential election was

tarnished (Shafer). George W.Bush only won over Al Gore by 537 points, and, according to the

Brennen Center for Justice, officials incorrectly identified 12,000 eligible Florida voters as con-

victed felons and removed them from the voting rolls (Drum). While these votes could seem-

ingly have gone either way, 41 percent of those purged from the list were African-American

(Drum). African Americans, who accounted for just 11 percent of the state’s total electorate, fa-

vored Gore over Bush by an astounding 86 points (Drum). Still, there is no consensus on what

happened, besides that the election was a “national embarrassment” that, as Tracey Cambpell

writes, is epitomized by Boss Tweeds’ statement that, “the ballots didn’t decide it, the counters

did,” (Shafer).

Some even think fraud occurred for President Barack Obama, as Publicly Policy Polling

found that 49% and 52% of GOP voters think that ACORN, a left-leaning group of community-

based organizations that was repeatedly embroiled in democratic voting controversies, stole the

2008 and 2012 elections for Obama respectively (Friedersdorf). While they are most likely

wrong (ACORN was only found guilty of vast mismanagement, not fraud), the point remains

that the idea, if not the practice, of voter fraud is still present in today’s society despite monu-

mental advances in technology and transparency (Friedersdorf).

Throughout the modern era, Democrats have been accused of voter fraud more often than

Republicans because, as Larry Sabato and Glenn R. Simpson write in Dirty Little Secrets: The

Persistence of Corruption in American Politics, they have more opportunities (Shafer). This is

because Democrats are typically trying to register more people and increase turnout, specifically

5 Gundersen

for minorities. The more voters they try to register, “the more likely that ‘quality control’ will suf-

fer and fraud will result; every relaxation of voter-registration rules increases the likelihood of

‘mischief,’” (Shafer). On the other hand, Republicans have generally strived to decrease Demo-

cratic registration and turnout by setting up barriers to voting (Shafer). Thus, there is a constant

struggle between parties for the balance between “inclusion and integrity” that is (Shafer). This

historic dynamic makes voter fraud an extremely loaded, high-stakes issue today.

Voter Fraud Today

In the past several years, chatter over voter fraud has reached a fever pitch. According to

New York University Law School’s Brennen Center for Justice, eleven states have recently

passed legislation requiring votes to show photo identification at the polls, while 16 others have

laws pending (Liebelson). Three states now require demonstration of U.S. citizenship, and six

states are taking other actions to cut down on fraud (Liebelson). Former member of the Federal

Election Commission and current legal fellow at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foun-

dation Hans von Spakovsky told journalist Dana Liebelson that these steps are a reaction to “a

long history of voter fraud in this country that has been documented and could make the differ-

ence in a close election. Voting is a very precious right, and we should make sure we protect that

right,” (Liebelson). Pennsylvania state rep. Daryl Metcalfe echoed this logic, saying “The driving

factor is common sense. It only makes sense that when you show up to vote, to exercise that very

important right and responsibility, that you prove you are who you claim."

(Bingham). With the historical evidence presented earlier, both men have ostensibly strong

points.

The Brennen Center’s studies have also shown that about 11 percent of Americans do not

possess government-issued photo ID (Lithwick). In addition, no matter their efficaciousness,

6 Gundersen

these new laws clearly affect a certain demographic: younger, poorer, more mobile, non-white,

and Democratic (Liebelson). Thus, opponents of the laws argue that this demographical targeting

is not incidental and that these laws are “thinly veiled attempts at vote suppression, modern-day

poll taxes” (Lithwick). To further the controversy, the Brennen Center, along with other groups,

insists that “voter fraud is rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the prob-

lems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or elec-

tion administrators,” ("Myth of Voter Fraud.").

Statisitcs support these assertions, for, according to ABC News, “Out of the 197 million

votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter

fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing.

Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or

guilty pleas,” (Bingham). But, as rep. Metcalfe reasoned, these statistics may not be accurate be-

cause there is currently no apparatus in place to detect and persecute fraud (Bingham).

Another sensible reason for this legislation, put forth by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as

it upheld new legislation there, is that it increases voters’ confidence in their democracy (Levitt).

This logic is theoretically sound, as many non-voters abstain because of disillusionment with so

many aspects of the electoral process. But Justin Levitt, professor at the Loyola University Law

School and expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy, rebuts that “this effect is hard

to spot,” as research shows people in states with more restrictive ID laws do not feel much better

about the process than people in states without the legislation (Levitt). There are generally two

groups that stick to their guns: those who think elections are fair and those who do not (Levitt).

What affects voter confidence more than the current laws in places are the results of the election,

displaying a shortsightedness not uncommon to the American electorate (Levitt). Thus, with the

7 Gundersen

two sides having statistics, reason, and political motivation to fuel their broader argument, it is

imperative to take a closer look at states who have passed or implemented the laws.

State by State Analysis

The state of Georgia has had voter ID law in place since before the general election of

2008. Von Spakovsky uses the state as evidence that the laws do not disenfranchise minorities,

as he states that “the turnout of black and Latino voters went way up” for that election (Liebel-

son). Granted, this was before an election in which Barack Obama was the first African-Ameri-

can presidential candidate from of the two major parties. But in addition to rebutting that these

laws suppress the vote, von Spakovsky states that a “remarkably small” number of Georgia resi-

dents even applied for an ID after the laws were put in place; this contradicts the foundation of

the liberals’ argument, the "unsupported claim of voter ID opponents that there are hundreds of

thousands of voters in every state who do not have a photo ID."  (Liebelson).

But similar to most other examples in this debate, Georgia’s story has another side. Justin

Levitt dissents, reasoning that applications for IDs were low because "Georgia requires a birth

certificate for citizens born in the country to get a photo ID" and "requires a photo ID to get an

official birth certificate," making it "quite hard to get one,” (Liebelson).  He also rebuts the mi-

nority turn out claim, saying that registration skyrocketed because Georgia turned into a battle-

ground state from 2004 to 2008, meaning Obama’s prodigious campaign machine was going to

register voters and cause a minority voter “tidal wave” with or without pesky ID laws

(Liebelson). Again, there are two worthy sides to the debate.

Major legislation has been passed in Wisconsin. In August 2014, the Supreme Court up-

held most of their new voter ID laws (Levitt). In addition to the voter confidence argument men-

8 Gundersen

tioned earlier, the court upheld the laws mainly because they believe they laws can stop voter

fraud (Levitt). The court cited an example of a supporter of Governor Scott Walker supporter

who was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including “'registering to vote in more than

one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing

false information to election officials,’” (Levitt). Levitt claims that Wisconsin ID law, based

mostly on photo ID’s at the poll, would probably not have stopped any of these counts (Levitt).

Thus, although real, voter fraud unfortunately does not always comply with the laws meant to

stop it.

In Florida, voter ID law has become a majorly controversial issue. Republican Governor

Rick Scott has tried to clear the state’s voter rolls of all non-citizens, an initiative mentioned ear-

lier that has been used in other states; letters have been sent to 2,600 registered voters to “confirm

their citizenship” (Liebelson). Like most voter ID initiatives, it appears to be a no-brainer, but

The Miami Herald has reported that that it has actually targeted “hundreds of actual citizens who

are lawful voters,” (Liebelson). Of the list’s 2,600 voters, 87% were minorities, raising questions

of if it was directed towards the typically Democratic black and Latino communities (“Is Voter

Fraud a Real”). As a result, the Department of Justice has stepped in to sue Florida on the

grounds that the new law violates the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act,

a 1993 bill that enhanced voting opportunities for many (Liebelson). Scott has subsequently sued

the US government for the US Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to show voting offi-

cials its immigration database. Evidently, the issue of voter fraud has become intensely political

in Florida, obscuring the reason why the laws were first even put in place (“Is Voter Fraud a

Real”).

9 Gundersen

North Carolina is a salient example as it effectively connects historical and modern voter

fraud. The state has a long history of absentee ballot fraud, as the state’s dominant Democratic

establishments used to “ship thousands of absentee ballots to machine-controlled mountain coun-

ties that would provide as many votes as were needed,” throughout the 20’s and 30’s (Chris-

tensen). More recently, two incidents have invoked absentee fraud. One transpired during the

2010 Yancey County sheriff’s race and was based on allegations that “jail inmates had their time

reduced around the same time they filled out mailed-in absentee ballots witnessed and provided

by sheriff’s deputies,” (Christensen). In 2002, a Dunn city councilwoman pleaded guilty to a mis-

demeanor for receiving absentee ballots and returning them with forged signatures (Christensen).

These cases are trivial and are the extent of recent voter fraud in North Carolina; but the

new legislation does not even attempt to stop absentee-related fraud; the laws merely cut off a

week of early voting and end same-day registration (Christensen). No action had even been taken

towards absentee voting at first, with House Majority leader Edgar Starnes of Hickory even

proposing a lenient measure that would allow third parties to collect absentee ballots (Chris-

tensen). Interestingly enough, Democrat voters tend to use same-day registration and early voting

more heavily than Republicans, while Republicans utilize absentee ballots more heavily than

Democrats. House Republicans responded to criticism by including a provision in the bill to re-

quire absentee ballots to feature a driver’s license number, a social security number, or a non-op-

erating license number, but the fact remains that to commit fraud in North Carolina, absentee

voting is clearly the way to go (Christensen).

The final example is Texas, where 51 people have been convicted of voter fraud over the

past 10 years (Bingham). Out of these cases, four were voter impersonation, the type that Texas

and so many states have passed legislation to stop (Bingham). The law states that registered vot-

10 Gundersen

ers must present “a driver’s license or state ID card, a license to carry a concealed gun, a U.S.

military ID card with a photo, a U.S. citizenship certificate with a photo, a U.S. passport, or a

state election certificate,” and has been through a long court process since it was first passed in

2012 (Lithwick). Signed into law in 2011, blocked in federal court in 2012, but then reinstated

when the Supreme Court struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, it currently stands

trial again in 2014 (Lithwick).

The Department of Justice, the NAACP, and many other groups say it could disenfran-

chise up to 787,000 registered, mostly minority Texas voters who lack suitable ID (Lithwick).

The rest of the case will hinge on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities

again suppression, and whether the Department of Justice can prove that the law directly results

in discrimination, a difficult task (Lithwick). While the case is not supposed to be complete by

the November elections, it will certainly be a long battle that sets that stage for 2016 (Lithwick).

Answers, and Questions that Remain

Thus, having examined many cases of voter fraud, Justin Levitt’s reasoning resonates, as

he claims that voter ID laws as a whole are not equipped to stop many forms of voter fraud, such

as absentee ballots, vote buying, coercion, fake registration forms, voting from the wrong ad-

dress, or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam (Levitt). Most current laws deal with im-

personation at the polls, which, according to Levitt, is a “slow, clunky way to steal an election,”

(Levitt). Many echo his sentiment regarding the lack of symmetry between the laws and the

problem they are meant to address; of in-person fraud, Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor

of public policy at Rutgers University-Camden, said “The point here is that people just don't do

that. It just doesn't make sense,” (Bingham)

11 Gundersen

According to Slate Magazine, “study after study has failed to show anything resembling

rampant vote fraud, and of the little fraud that does happen, most seems to happen by way of ab-

sentee ballots, which ID laws… can’t stop,” (Lithwick). Mother Jones states that “between 2000

and 2010, there were 47,000 UFO sightings, 441 Americans killed by lightning — and only 13

cases of in-person voter impersonation,” (Liebelson). In addition, Professor Justin Levitt has

been tracking any “specific, credible allegation” of impersonation in any general, primary, spe-

cial, or municipal election from 2000 to 2014 (a period in which 1 billion ballots were cast), and

he has found about 31 incidents, many of which would be probably be debunked if more thor-

oughly investigated (Levitt). In addition, more than 3,000 votes have been turned away in the

four states that have had several elections with the most draconian ID laws, and Levitt begs the

question, how many of those were really fraudulent (Levitt)?

To conclude, the voter ID law debate rages on with both sides fervently sticking to their

arguments, numbers, and political leanings. The essential question remains: if voter fraud and

voter turnout are both being decreased by these laws, do the benefits outweigh the costs? While

Michael Gilbert of the University of Virginia Law School has a more radical question of if voter

ID laws actually increase voter fraud (fascinating written theory featured in Appendix A), Amer-

ica will most likely continue to work to answer the prior one. Thus, after looking at voter fraud,

many questions remain that will color our elections for years to come.

12 Gundersen

Appendix A:

Imagine an election between Alice and Bill. Alice gets 13 lawful votes, and Bill gets 10 lawful votes plus a couple of fraudulent ones. Alice wins that election 13 to 12, and although fraud doesn’t determine the outcome, it’s certainly present, which is a worry. This election could use a voter ID law, right? Not necessarily.Consider that same election with a Texas-style voter ID law in place. Now Alice and Bill each get nine lawful votes (less than be-fore because the law has now suppressed some votes), and Bill gets one fraudulent vote (less than before because the law de-terred some fraud).  So now Bill wins 10 to nine—and the election is fraudulent. Get it? In this case, the voter ID law caused the problem it was meant to solve. That example involves vote sup-pression:  Alice lost three lawful votes, a good chunk of her total, and Bill lost one.But imagine a case in which vote suppression is not necessary; a voter ID law can cause fraud even if it doesn’t disenfranchise any-one. Suppose Alice got her 13 lawful votes, Bill got his 10, and they each got four fraudulent votes. Alice wins, as she should, by a vote of 17-14. Alice’s fraudulent votes came from impersonation fraud (voting in person as someone else), which is the kind ID laws target. In this hypo, Bill’s fraudulent votes came from (more common) absentee ballot fraud, which ID laws can’t stop. Now consider that election with a voter ID law in place. Alice would get her 13 lawful votes but no fraudulent ones, and Bill would get his 10 lawful votes and his four fraudulent ones. Now Bill wins 14-13, the election is a sham, and because the ID law deterred Alice’s fraudulent votes and not Bill’s, that sham was caused by the ID law. 

13 Gundersen

Email sent from Michael Gilbert of the University of Virginia Law School to Dahlia Lithwick of Slate Magazine. Formal argument soon to be published in Columbia Law Review.

14 Gundersen

Summary:

Election stealing and voter fraud have existed in America since the country’s birth and provide an interesting lens through which one can view the country. Historical voter fraud displays old-fashioned democracy that falls far short of what we expect from America. But despite this disappoint-ment, voter fraud from centuries ago possesses a charm, as the stakes do not seem nearly as high as they are now. Today, voter fraud reflects the country’s intense political gridlock as it is an issue that pits the two parties together. While technology has advanced so greatly, there are still holes in our system of democracy on which Americans have projected their political sensibilities. In this paper, the history of voter fraud and election stealing is profiled before a deep dive into the issue today. The paper attempts to ex-amine the issue today from an unbiased standpoint while simultaneously clearly acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both sides argu-ments. While many questions remain unanswered by the end, the issue is il-luminated. The Democratic struggle to increase turnout clashes with the his-torically Republican tendency to desire fewer voters. Thus, with both sides having established attitudes towards voting, the conflict is intensely political, and there is great reason to see fault on both sides. Knowing as much as possible is vital, for the issue is not done; it rages on on on the political stage today. Voter fraud and the laws created to stop it will play certainly play a large role in the upcoming of American elections; a grasp on the issue’s past and present is imperative for navigating the future.

15 Gundersen

Works Cited

Bingham, Amy. "Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epi-demic?" ABC News. ABC News Internet Ventures, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376>. Friedersdorf, Conor. "Almost Half of Republicans Indulge the 'Stolen Election' Delu-sion." The Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly Group, 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/ almost-half-of-republicans-indulge-the-stolen-election-delusion/265949/>. Hansen, Tyler. "NRO's 'Latest Evidence Of Voter Fraud' Lacks Any Actual Evidence." Media Matters for America. Media Matters for America, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/10/nros-latest-evidence-of-voter-fraud-lacks-any-a/ 195817>. "Is Voter Fraud a Real Problem?" US News & World Report. US News & World Report LP, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem>. Levitt, Justin. "A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast." Wonkblog. Washington Post, 6 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/ a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-b allots-cast/>. Liebelson, Dana. "The GOP's make-believe voter fraud epidemic." Week 11 July 2012: n. pag. The Week. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://theweek.com/article/index/230345/ the-gops-make-believe-voter-fraud-epidemic>. Lithwick, Dahlia. "Voter ID Laws May Worsen Voter Fraud." Slate. Slate Group, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/09/ voter_id_laws_analysis_shows_they_could_make_fraud_worse_and_disenfran-chise.html>. "Myth of Voter Fraud." Brennen Center for Justice. Ed. Jessie Pascoe. New York Univer-sity School of Law, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud>. Parton, Heather Digby. "Are We About to See Another Stolen Presidential Election?" Mother Jones.

16 Gundersen

Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress, 1 June 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/gop-vote-suppression-election>. Rob, Christensen. "Christensen: GOP goes after the wrong kind of voter fraud." News & Observer [Raleigh] 13 Apr. 2013: n. pag. The News & Observer. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/13/2823044_why-the-gop-is-going-after-the.html?rh=1>. Tolchin, Martin. "How Johnson Won Election He'd Lost." New York Times [New York] 11 Feb. 1990: n. pag. The New York Times. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/ how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html>.