Press "Enter" to skip to content

Ballot casting crackdowns

New election-related issues have emerged in Michigan and Ohio, placing national attention on election security as the country nears November.

Michigan

 On Friday, Oct. 4, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced the state had issued felony charges for four people who had intentionally voted twice in Michigan’s primary election, which took place this past summer.

Nessel also claimed charges had been issued against three poll workers who had allowed the double ballot cast to take place, citing that voters must be able to have faith in the election system before November, according to the Associated Press.

“‘It’s shocking and simply unheard of,’ Attorney General Dana Nessel said.

“The charges in St. Clair Shores come a month before the general election in a high-stakes state coveted by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and where voter turnout is expected to be high.

“‘What occurred here cannot be allowed to be repeated in November,’ Nessel said. ‘As to election workers, it is imperative that all election staff, volunteers and assistant clerks abide by the laws of this state.’”

The voting violation took place in the city of St. Clair Shores, a suburb of the Democratic Party stronghold that is Detroit. Pete Lucido, a Republican prosecutor in Macomb County, where St. Clair Shores is located, chose not to file charges, which is why the state entered the scene.

Nessel blamed Lucido’s lack of action on his experience as a prosecutor since the legal network around elections can be vast, per the Associated Press.

“‘There are so many different procedures that are involved here,’ [Nessel] said. ‘I think if you’re not highly familiar with this, the way that our staff has become, it’s easy to make mistakes.’”

However, one would think the amount of procedures should either be lessened or audited to prevent double votes from happening in the first place. In the name of intellectual honesty, should Nessel not focus on improving the election process’ room for error in Michigan? If a prosecutor, Democrat or Republican, is dragging their feet, investigate. Simple as that.

Gloating to the media about felony charges of four people only highlights the insecurity of the election process, especially when the culprits are caught from a summer election in October. 

Ohio

Ohio chapters of “voter advocacy” groups, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, have informed the Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose of voters who are being removed from rolls in multiple counties, per the Associated Press.

“The voter advocates cite public records, including minutes of county election board meetings, voter challenge materials and other communications, showing mass removals in Delaware, Muskingum, probably Logan and possibly Cuyahoga counties.”

The removed voters were suspected to have moved out of state, and third-party groups challenged counties to remove the out-of-state names from their rolls, which advocacy groups have claimed violates federal law; the National Voter Registration Act prohibits voter removal from rolls 90 days before election day.

However, the systematic removal stirred up the concept of federalism once again, as Secretary LaRose stated he used an Ohio law to approve the systematic removals, which allows voters to be removed if they violate ballot conditions up to 30 days before election day.

“Dan Lusheck, a spokesperson for LaRose’s office, said an Ohio law in place for nearly 20 years expressly permits voter challenges to be made until 30 days before an election. However, that law applies only to challenges involving individual voters, not systematic removals.

“LaRose’s office said the secretary cast a tie vote Wednesday against sustaining most of the Delaware County registration challenges.”

While advocacy groups claim to be protecting the voting process, Secretary LaRue stated he threw out any third-party claims to Ohio’s voter rolls that did not have proper evidence.

“In the letter announcing his tie-breaking Delaware County vote, LaRose said a total of about 300 registrations were challenged because voters had moved out of state. He noted that those shown to have registered or voted in North Carolina — 60 or so people — were removed in a bipartisan vote.

“But LaRose said he ‘unfortunately’ had to oppose sustaining challenges to the remaining 240 due to a lack of ‘clear and convincing’ proof that they had subsequently registered and/or voted in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee or Texas.”

If Secretary LaRose threw out the overly ambitious challenges that lacked evidence, why are the advocacy groups so vehement about reinstating all the false votes in the involved counties? Does the aforementioned situation in Michigan not highlight that the system can be abused? Plus, those are the only people who were caught by the authorities.

While states and groups across the country bring challenges to outdated or inaccurate elements present in our voting processes, maybe the crackdown from voter advocacy groups does the opposite of their intention.

The focus on stamping out any passion for questioning voting authenticity, or the refusal to address accuracy, might inflame the matter.

Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *