He said no laws were broken during the investigation and that his team members never claimed to be the dead people whose ballots they were trying to obtain. Instead, they carefully worded the way they asked for ballots, phrasing it like: “Do you have Earnest Chavanelle?” and “Do you have Paul Soucy?”posted by BobbyVan at 10:49 AM on January 12
“We decided to go in there without using any false pretenses,” he said. “There’s no misrepresentation in these videos if you watch them — we didn’t lie about who we were.”
The investigators never actually voted when they were given ballots. Sting artists who received ballots would leave the voting precincts after saying they left their identification in the car.
A grieving New Hampshire widow said she was stunned to learn her beloved husband’s identity was used for a political gotcha — just 10 days after his death.posted by ericb at 11:42 AM on January 12 [14 favorites]
“That’s awful,” Rachel Groux said. “Why should they use his name? They shouldn’t use anybody’s name — alive or deceased.”
Activist filmmaker James O’Keefe secretly recorded video showing his operative using Roger Groux’s name and address to obtain a Republican ballot at Manchester polls Tuesday. The U.S. Navy veteran died Dec. 31 at an assisted living home. His family held funeral services Monday, his widow said. “Oh my God, I know what he would say, ‘Call the cops, call the police,’ ” Rachel Groux said.
City officials may have not received notification in time to remove Groux from voter lists, said Manchester City Clerk Matthew Normand.
“Obviously it’s disturbing that anyone would be going out to any polling place anywhere using a dead person’s name,” said Normand, who became aware of O’Keefe’s voter-fraud expose after he received calls Tuesday about a Herald online report detailing one of O’Keefe’s thwarted attempts in Manchester. Dailycaller.com later posted a report and a video by O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. The AG’s office confirmed it is investigating the incidents.
possibly because New Hampshire is full of honest New Hampshirites and not snivelling young ne'er-do-wells from the fucking south? I wouldn't know; I'm not a political scientist.What? It has to do with people in the south wanting to make it harder for people to vote, but throwing up extra barriers. Poor people don't always do a great job of keeping IDs current, and you have to pay for them. So if someone's ID is out of date, maybe they don't drive anymore, maybe they're disabled -- maybe they have a million other things to worry about and just don't get to renewing their license, then they *can't vote*.
"Election law experts say James O’Keefe’s affiliates who got the ballots under false names could face criminal charges, as federal law bans not only the casting of such ballots, but their procurement as well, according to TPM.posted by ericb at 12:21 PM on January 12 [13 favorites]
Title 42 states that criminal penalties will apply to any person who procures, casts or tabulates ballots 'that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.'
... Election law expert Rick Hasen, of the Election Law Blog, said in an e-mail to TPM that O’Keefe’s group should 'next show how easy it is to rob a bank with a plastic gun.'"*
An “extremely generous donor” gave $50,000 to James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas to fund their voter fraud stunt in New Hampshire on Tuesday, the conservative activist said in a email to supporters.posted by ericb at 12:26 PM on January 12
“Our Voter Fraud investigation is being funded with a gift of $50,000 from an extremely generous donor — but that covers the cost of just ONE national project,” O’Keefe wrote in a fundraising email.
Project Veritas received non-profit status from the IRS and said in an application that it wanted to raise $1.65 million over a three year period. A $50,000 donation will likely show up on the organization’s yearly 990 forms, but that information wouldn’t be available until this spring or the spring of 2013, depending upon if the donation was made in 2011 or 2012.
Politico: O'Keefe "Derailed By Infighting, Lack Of Funding".posted by ericb at 12:37 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
Allies Accuse James O'Keefe of 'Hit Job' in Undercover NPR Sting.
It's entirely possible that he or she could be charged as a conspirator.Heh, that would be pretty awesome.
I understand people think nothing will happen to O'Keefe based on past experience.The more I think about it, the more I think you're probably right. The law doesn't even say you have to cast the balot, just take posession of it. So that aspect seems pretty open and shut.
But then I remember how seriously the folks in New Hampshire take their primary and am pretty sure that even most Republicans' Granite State loyalty would win out over any supposed ideological 'loyalty.'
Exhibit A: Republican Mayor Wants James O'Keefe Allies Arrested
looks to me like he made his point .... ID should be required!But, not if he's prosecuted. Which, as I said, is the only way that NH can prove the security and seriousness of their primary.
Okay, I hate O'Keefe as much as anybody, but how exactly does the Republican primary count as an official federal election? This seems silly to me, but I guess the two parties are so entrenched now that they're basically assumed to be a part of government automatically even before they've been elected.posted by delmoi at 4:08 PM on January 12
Primaries are run by the states, legally they are like any other type of election. The states tally the votes, and tell the parties who's won.
In fact, when both parties have candidates, the states will print two balots, one for each. So the dem, republican, and any other party candidates are all actually chosen by the same 'primary election'. It's also possible that it may differ in other states.
This is different from a Caucus, which is definitely controlled by the parties, and much less formal. The other thing about a caucus: you have to actually show up, and they're all held at the same time, so it's impossible to vote more then once. The only fraud possible is if people come in from out of state, or aren't eligable to vote.Who's to say that protestors wouldn't constantly accidentally lose or destroy their IDs?Well, first of all it's probably not that much of a hassle for them to just print up another voter ID. They snap a picture, print out the card. You'd need huge numbers of people, and without critical mass the people you'd be hurting most are people who actually need to go to the DMV, and may be taking off work to do so.
Well, they sure as hell shouldn't. In an era when the Tea Party is trying to defund any and all government functions, it's silly that we're still footing the bill for Democrats and Republicans to hold their obnoxious little popularity contests.Because it would be better if they just got together in a back room and let the party bosses decide amongst themselves? That's what used to happen, before primary campaigns became common. The whole point of a primary election is to make the process more democratic, because if you can vote in a primary, you have a lot more choice then if all you get to do is pick between two candidates on election day. Because of the primary system, people got to choose Obama instead of Hillary, for example.
Caucuses are just an abomination and should not be allowed given the dominance of the two parties.They're a lot of fun, though.
South Carolina tired to charge the parties for the primary, and since the republicans couldn't payAm I reading this correctly? The Republican Party was incapable of paying for their primary in South Carolina?
« Older The Battle Of Maldon is an Old English poem (here ... | "Half a century after Lit... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nushustu at 10:43 AM on January 12 [43 favorites]