“This is nuts,” began a Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal headline on a story about proposed election law changes in Mississippi.
Well, you’ve got to be a little nutty to even read election laws, much less understand them. That’s why my friend Pete Perry gets paid to analyze and testify in court on state and local election procedures.
The Journal article described a proposal by Republican Sen. Jeff Tate of Meridian to give Republican Secretary of State Michael Watson powers to audit state and local election procedures. Democratic Sen. David Blount of Jackson questioned aspects of the bill saying, “this is nuts.”
After he and other Democratic senators raised objections to his bill, Tate, chairman of the Senate Elections Committee, let the bill die.
But, of course, the issue didn’t die. A similar bill in the House introduced by Republican Rep. Brent Powell of Brandon passed out of the House Apportionment and Elections Committee keeps the issue alive.
The gist of the Journal article conveyed Democrats’ view that this proposal, like many across the country, is overkill for mostly non-existent election fraud issues. “We’ve had an organized attempt to undermine the election system in this country,” said Democratic Sen. Hob Bryan of Amory. “And part of that are the whackos and the nutcases in Arizona that came in with these so-called audits. And that’s what this (bill) looks like to me.”
Democrats key concerns seem to be a new process called “risk limiting audits,” giving audit powers to the Secretary of State, allowing a non-government third party to conduct the audits, identifying non-citizens, and lack of transparency in the third-party audit process.
I read details in Powell’s bill until my eyes began to glaze over. So I asked my friend Pete his thoughts. He gave me enough details to restart the glazing. But here is the gist of what he said.
Generally, he sees nothing “egregious” in the bill, saying it seeks to identify and fix mistakes that often occur in election procedures. Noting he has “conducted more than four dozen ballot box inspections in more than a dozen different counties in the state,” he said there are “very few counties where the elections are well run and in accord with required procedures.” He added that reporting results to the Secretary of State and “risk limiting audits” once every four years might cause local officials to do better. He was okay with the Secretary of State intervening when audits discover problems saying, “someone needs to intervene.”
He did say that selection of a third party firm to do a post-election audit should be based on a “standard of qualifications” (not in the bill) and he did express concerns about election commissions having final say on citizenship determinations.
Hmmm.
Would be nice to end up with a not-nutty bill that strengthens compliance with election procedures and does not invite partisan squabbles. Of course, the true nature of these proposals cannot be known until the Secretary of State promulgates final rules and regulations.
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression” – Isaiah 1:17.
Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Jackson.
18 comments:
Laws like these will come back to bite republicans grandkids in the butt. A political majority only last a little longer night club theme.
I'm a Republican and all I've ever wanted from the electoral process was one legal (confirmed by their ID) citizen = one vote that they cast themselves. Isn't that what we all want ?
Once again Crawford writes to an already pre-determined conclusion. This is the article to which Crawford refers but chose not to provide a link. Left unsaid is rabid Donkeycrat Sam R. Hall leads the liberal Daily Journal. "[M]ostly non-existent election fraud issues" is more of the Donkeycrat shorthand encouraging everyone to look the other way.
Just show me the fraud and I’ll listen. Heck I heard that windmills in the Gulf of Mexico were freezing causing power outages too, so I guess widespread fraud could have happen too. No one can show me the evidence however.
@12:49, there is evidence of fraud. And there is evidence of errors and mistakes, not fraud - but still failure to follow the laws that provide for election accuracy. Plenty of cases here in Mississippi and in other states as well, but the evidence is all contained in election contest court cases. Clearly you have never bothered to read or keep up with any of them since you say that you would listen.
You want examples - I can point you to plenty of cases over the past five to ten years. And what is lost in those that make your argument is that these only are 'found' when there is a close election with a candidate that is willing to spend the substantial money to do the investigation and fight the case through the judicial system. There is no existing process whereby there is a random check (audit) following an election to see if the public officials in charge of conducting these elections are properly doing their job
And again - it doesn't take fraud to be a problem. And if you assume that no public official ever makes a mistake that could impact the proper performance of their job, you obviously don't care about the integrity of our elections, or anything else done by the government for that matter.
There is zero evidence of result-changing fraud in any modern day election., whether state or federal. There always will be some cheaters, because human beings are involved. Get over it.
Canton , Hattiesburg, Ike Brown ....
1:37 - clearly you have paid no attention to the world around you.
At least three good examples in MS in 2019, the best being Kemper County, August 2019 runoff Democratic Primary.
If you can't see fraud there, then clearly you don't understand the meaning of the term.
In those cases Kingfish those involved were caught and convicted, show me more on a scale that a federal or statewide election was affected in any state . The cases you cited are like stuffing the ballot box at the Homeowners Association elections.
Copy
Paste
King
Ole Ike just did what he learned from his foes.
The author of this article as well as Hob Bryant and the (ex Clarion) current Headmaster of the Tupelo Journal mentioned in the article are, of course, all steadfast indentured Democrats who would die on the sword of maintaining election fraud.
But, there IS no election fraud, right? And crime in Jackson is just like crime everywhere else. And there is no move afoot to put CRT in our schools. We Republicans are just a bunch of crazy damned lunatics with bizarre imaginations, seeing booger-bears behind every tree. Right?
And Ike Collins, who went to jail for it, only did what he learned from the white man. Right? And that bunch convicted in Canton only did what they learned from Ike.
12:49 - Instead of showing you the fraud, I would encourage you to have a friend show you how to use Google. Then you can 'google' "I Collins Mississippi election fraud" and "Election fraud in Canton, Mississippi" and "Mississippi Secretary of State election fraud in Mississippi".
And, yes, you're a fool to suggest all of this fraud is meaningless since you hypothesize that it's not committed on an imaginary large scale nationwide. You're obviously unaware that 25 votes or ten votes or even three can change a local, county or district election result. You're the same guy who, in high school, promised "It's not really sex if I don't put it in all the way."
231, nobody was caught and convicted in the cases KF listed, except for two on misdemeanor (grand jury would not indict on felony charges the DA attempted) in H'burg.
Nobody was convicted in Kemper, although the Judge said from the bench that 'some people should, but it wasn't his job to do it".
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/04/23/fifteen-election-results-that-were-thrown-out-because-of-fraudulent-mail-in-ballots/
The problem with the COVID-related voting procedure changes were that they were clearly illegal. Whether the changes allowed for enough fraud to actually change the presidential election is not known, no matter which media sources you choose to believe; but in two of the states the results were close enough that it might have actually been possible. But either way, the change in procedures without legislative involvement was clearly illegal, and there have been two rulings within just the last week calling them so. I do find it somewhat amusing that questioning election results has less to do with liberal/conservative political leanings and more to do with who lost the elections...Democrats have certainly done their share of alleging improprieties in the past.
Proving election fraud is like proving the fat lady next door eats a dozen Twinkies every day. You have never seen her doing it, but common sense tells you she does because you can see the results.
Most of the comments here have followed the lead of Hob/David/Democrats - bought into the word "fraud" and continued from there.
Of course Hob et.al. say that there is no fraud, never has been, doesn't exist. Just look at the record.
Truth is that there is fraud, but that the only time it is exposed is when a losing candidate ponies up a bunch of money to examine the materials and go to court to try to prove it. And if they succeed, the only evidence of 'fraud' that the Dems declare doesn't exist is in that single instance that may end at a county court and not recorded.
But the real issue with this bill, and most attempts to ensure the security and accuracy of our elections is not based in fraud. It is in mistakes. Errors. Inaccuracies. Some intentional, some not intentional but just due to carelessness, inattention, or just not giving a damn when it comes to worrying about attending to the details that are 'required' to be followed in the conduct of the election.
This proposed legislation, despite Hob and David's outcry to the contrary, is to determine if the counties are conducting their elections according to the laws, and if they are not to institute corrective actions to bring their conduct into compliance. Some counties will welcome this assistance; others, who don't give a damn - the "we don't need no stinking badges" clerks/commissioners - won't change unless teeth is put into the intervention.
But, many Democrats decry any attempt to ensure that elections are conducted properly, that the final count is accurate and represent the true will of the voters. Their immediate response is that there is no fraud and that we don't need this kind of supervision; this kind of oversight. According to them that since "there is no fraud" we don't need whatever it is that is being proposed.
Do we have fraud in Mississippi elections? Yes. Is it rampant? Depends on the county/city. Do we have poorly run elections in Mississippi? Yes. Is it rampant? Yes.
We should all want properly run elections - and when done, let the chips fall where the may.
Turning Mississippi Blue is the end game. The coast is big enough now to act as a very large city . And that is what it takes to go blue. Idiot city folk.
Post a Comment