On Tuesday, when James O'Keefe took on the local volunteers who run our elections, one of two things happened:
- The thugs impersonated other people who were on the checklists in order to get ballots; or
- The thugs just asked whether a particular person was on the checklist.
If the first thing happened, the gang committed voter fraud, whether they took ballots or not:
RSA 659:34, I(c):
659:34 Wrongful Voting; Penalties for Voter Fraud. -
I. A person is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 if such person:
...(c) Applies for a ballot in a name other than his or her own;
The fact that they were caught - not by accident, but by the deliberate process of staffing local precincts with neighbors - demonstrates that our current checks and balances can work. (Showing that they DO work requires throwing the book at these scum.)
If the second thing happened - they just innocently asked if a name was on the checklist - then they still showed that the checks and balances work. State law (properly) makes checklists a matter of public record: you are entitled to know who is registered to vote. Their defense lawyers may claim that is all they were doing - it would be up to the judge and/or jury to decide whether standing in a voting line, rather than going to City Hall, to pose the question suggests something more sinister.
As part of the handing out ballots process, the poll worker must read the putative voter's name and address out loudly, so that other people nearby (maybe including campaign volunteers) can hear it. (That doesn't happen if the person in line asks, "When do polls close?" or "I'm not Fred, but is he registered?") That's where another four or five people provide an additional check: "He's not Fred Johnson - Fred is my uncle!" If the thugs aborted their impersonation before that step, they didn't demonstrate anything at all. If they go to that step, that's stronger evidence of fraud. |
