Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Last night I had a situation that I found to be quite disappointing. Just after seven o’clock in the evening, I thought I would have dinner at a restaurant on the other side of town and drove over there to dine out. Along the way, I needed to merge onto a major interstate freeway in the metro area having four lanes and busy traffic. As I drove along in the outside lane, it was after dark at the time, I saw a man walking along the hard shoulder of the roadway. I worried that a drunk might veer off the travelled portion and hit him so I pulled over to offer him a ride. Thus began a conversation that really shows how we can often allow people to be put at risk because the county does not want to offer them a modicum of accommodation.
After I picked him up, the gentleman walking around the roadway told me that he had just been released from the county jail after serving time for driving while license suspended. He did not have someone to pick him up from jail so he had no other option but to walk back home. He lived twenty five miles from the jail. The only way he could get home, since he had no money with him, was to walk along a busy interstate freeway.
We previously wrote about the virtual debt peonage and endless circle of jail and further increases of fines with suspended drivers in an article HERE.
It would have taken him until after six in the morning to walk that far. So rather than drive him to the next exit to find another ride I just drove him home.
He was 57 years old, unemployed and had no family available to drive him. He had no other choice than to walk. I asked him if the jail offered him a bus ticket or some other accommodation to allow him to return home after release. He said the jail used to give bus tickets to people in his situation but stopped doing that several years ago.
We had a good visit with each other, but the entire time we were together I could not help but wonder why the county has a system as such that a person of little means is forced to walk twenty five miles home because no effort was made to arrange for his journey. The risk this man faced from being hit by a drunk driver, stopped by the state patrol for being a pedestrian on a limited access freeway, or simply collapsing from exhaustion is certainly not something that we should accept nor something a person released from custody should endure.
I recognize that the sheriff’s office is not a taxi service and has no obligation to provide transport for released inmates after their term has expired, but couldn’t the county at least take a few more steps to ensure that someone can either pick up the inmate or try to prevent a situation where a fifty seven year old does not have to walk twenty five miles to get home?
Is this too much to ask?
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
(btw re IRS “scandal” only group denied tax exempt status was a democratic group. “two-thirds of the groups reviewed had no Tea Party ties — and only a Democratic group had its status denied” http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/
V. THE TRU TH ABOU T VOTER FRAUD
There have been a handful of substantiated cases of individual ineligible voters attempting to defraud the
election system. But by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.
In part, this is because fraud by individual voters is a singularly foolish and ineffective way to attempt to
win an election. Each act of voter fraud in connection with a federal election risks five years in prison and
a $10,000 fine, in addition to any state penalties.18 In return, it yields at most one incremental vote. That
single extra vote is simply not worth the price.
Instead, much evidence that purports to reveal voter fraud can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud
by voters. Below, this paper reviews the more common ways in which more benign errors or inconsistencies
may be mistaken for voter fraud.(pg 8 – 11)
VI. Types Of “Voter Fraud”
Allegations of “voter fraud” seem to fall into one of several recurring categories. Some would represent actual
fraud if the allegations proved true, though the allegations are often unsupported. Some would not actually
represent fraud even if they were true. This paper reviews some of the more common assertions of “fraud”
below, to substitute more careful analysis for overeager and salacious headlines.
Allegations of Dead Voters
Allegations of “dead voters” are also popular, not least for the entertaining pop culture references to be found
in the headlines: “Among Voters in New Jersey, G.O.P. Sees Dead People,”82 for example, or “Dead Man Voting.”
83 After further investigation, however, these allegedly dead voters often turn up perfectly healthy.
There are a handful of known cases in which documentation shows that votes have been cast in the names of
voters who have died before the vote was submitted.84
It is far more common, however, to see unfounded allegations of epidemic voting from beyond the grave,
with a chuckle and a reference to Gov. Earl Long’s quip (“When I die — if I die — I want to be buried in
Louisiana, so I can stay active in politics.”) or Rep. Charlie Rangel’s update (same idea, but takes place in
Chicago).85
Here, too, flawed matches of lists from one place (death records) to another (voter rolls) are often responsible
for misinformation
Lots more at click
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
LeeJ, that smack down of the WI Voter ID law by Posner is epic!
Reagan Judge Denounces Myth of Voter Fraud
Voter ID is “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government,” federal appellate Judge Richard Posner wrote in a scorching dissent published October 10. “As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that the Legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one” that could justify voter ID restrictions, Posner asked. “If the Wisconsin Legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?” –
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/10/12628/war-witches-reagan-judge-denounces-myth-voter-fraud#sthash.aSpUTpiV.dpuf
Paul you could have had your license suspended for those parking tickets and then people would jump to the conclusion you were an addict or alcoholic. You are lucky they just let you off without jailing you or taking action thru your license
leejcaroll – actually I not only beat those parking tickets, I proved that parking tickets (as then given) were illegal and unenforceable. However, were they enforceable, I would not have had my driver’s license suspended for them. It was not a moving violation.
Let me say, there have been no eaten comments the past few days. Has Darren tweaked something?
BFM, Historically, voter fraud has been Dems. Remember, it was also Dems who implemented poll taxes in the South. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. I am a fierce independent. I am tough on Republicans for the drug war, obscenity laws, hypocrisy on small business, and many more issues. I thought we were sympatico in wanting reasonable rules requiring an easily and free ID? Did I miss something?
@Nick ” I thought we were sympatico in wanting reasonable rules requiring an easily and free ID? Did I miss something?”
Not at all Nick. I am also independent and want laws that maximize access to the polls for those who are supposed to be there.
I like for essential services to have quality and reliability designed in. And I don’t think we have that now. Nevertheless when it comes to implementing high standards it makes a difference how we get there.
Right now we are faced with a situation where, in my opinion, the risk is minor – no more than a few voter fraud cases in each state in each election. But there are creditable studies that suggest that implementing these laws right away will prevent several percent – 2 to 3% – of eligible voters from casting their ballots. That is a real problem.
It seems to me that if the goal is to assure the most legal votes, there is no question. These new laws do not solve a real problem and they impose a heavy cost likely to distort the outcome of elections.
If there were creditable evidence of wide spread voter fraud then there might be a real debate. There might be an argument to impose a cost of 2-3% on voter turnout. But absent creditable evidence of voter fraud anywhere near that that level, these laws don’t improve the situation. They give us much less accurate elections.
It my opinion we don’t even have to go an argument based on the rights of individual voters. The supposed cure is far, far worse than the disease. Election results will be far more distorted with these laws than without them.
Having said that, over a period time, with care given to the needs of all voters, I would love to move to voter ID along the lines of real ID. The society is wealthy enough that we could implement that with very few valid voters being excluded – but it would cost and take time.
bfm wrote: “It seems to me that if the goal is to assure the most legal votes, there is no question.”
I don’t understand this goal at all. Why does it matter to get the most legal votes? If someone chooses to abstain from voting, are you against that? I don’t care how many votes are cast. If voter turnout is 50% or 99% or 100%, who cares? Why should it be a goal to get 100% voter turnout?
It seems to me that it would be a better goal to prevent voter fraud as much as possible, even at the cost of lower voter turnout. Giving people greater confidence in the fairness and accuracy of a voting process is a much more noble goal than having the goal of assuring the most legal votes possible. If you get more votes but decrease the confidence of a fair, honest and accurate voting process, then that destroys democracy. Elections would be considered fixed and a sham.
Sadaam Hussein claimed 100% voter turnout in 2002. This year, Kim Jong Un was elected with 100% voter turnout. Are these the examples we are suppose to aspire toward? Not me. I would rather have 50% voter turnout and confidence in a fair and accurate voting process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_presidential_referendum,_2002
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/10/nkorea-election/6247491/
@davidm2575 “It seems to me that it would be a better goal to prevent voter fraud as much as possible, even at the cost of lower voter turnout. Giving people greater confidence in the fairness and accuracy of a voting process is a much more noble goal than having the goal of assuring the most legal votes possible”
If antifraud policies result in elimination of more valid votes than fraud votes, then voters have to conclude the fairness and accuracy of the election has been compromised.
That is exactly the situation we are facing. The best evidence is that anti fraud policies will eliminate at most a very few fraudulent votes, and in some areas 2 to 3% of valid votes.
If getting the right answer in terms of the will of the people is your goal then these laws will severely undermine that goal.
In a crude sense, my metric is the difference between valid votes eliminated less fraud votes eliminated – (VVE – FVE). If the policies eliminate more valid votes than fraud votes there is a problem. When valid votes eliminated outnumber fraud votes eliminate by the 10’s and hundreds of thousands then there is a very serious problem.
The best evidence is there are only a few fraud cases in each election in each jurisdiction. When it comes to fair and accurate election outcome, there is no way those few fraud cases can justify preventing 2 to 3% of voters casting their ballots – no way at all, none.
If you want to take the draconian step of preventing 2 tgo 3% of voters from casting their ballot then you need to present creditable evidence that voter fraud is running at greater than 2-3% – at the very least. Nobody had done that – not even close.
Mark Kernes, You aren’t seriously denying unions commit voter fraud in cities run by Dems? It’s not just the Teamsters.
Nick S: “You aren’t seriously denying unions commit voter fraud in cities run by Dems? It’s not just the Teamsters.”
Yes, I’m seriously denying it. Show me one verified study or indictment that indicates otherwise.
BFM, Voter fraud occurs in cities that are controlled by Dem monopolies. When you have a monopoly, that controls EVERY aspect of govt., including the people that are supposed to find fraud, like DA’s, well then it just doesn’t exist.
@Nick
So when it comes to voter fraud it is those Dem’s and their elected officials that are the problem?
Well your story is consistent, anyway.
Nick S: “BFM, Voter fraud occurs in cities that are controlled by Dem monopolies. When you have a monopoly, that controls EVERY aspect of govt., including the people that are supposed to find fraud, like DA’s, well then it just doesn’t exist.”
If you can come up with even one study or indictment that verifies any of this, feel free to link to it here. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
JOE vs. JOSE
You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California ..
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
Ready? Now pay attention….
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has 9,631 ..00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegalstill has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc..
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same elementary school.
Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches, while
Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program.
Joe Legal’s children go home.
Now, when they reach college age,
Joe Legal’s kids may not get into a State School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while
Jose Illegal’s kids “go to the head of the class” because they are a minority.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now?
If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens… You are part of the problem!
We need to keep this going–we need to make changes ASAP!
It’s way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
What are you waiting for? Pass it on.
Why Paul, what a powerful argument to bring these people into the system!
After you legalize their stay in the US do you intend to give them a path to citizen ship or do you intend to keep them in some sort of intermediate status for life?
What about their children. After we make that investment in human capital in seems like the community ought to get some sort of return on our investment. Do you suggest we recognize them as citizens so long as they have spent a minimum number of years in our schools or do you think we should give them some sort of citizenship test at the legal age of adulthood?
Once you put the numbers down in black and white it is so clear we have to do something to give these people some kind of legal status.
bfg – I see it as a powerful argument that they are ripping the rest of us off. Personnally, I am for sending them all back to their country of origin for at least 5 years before returning. That includes their children.
I piled up a lot of parking tickets one time. Just because some of them were older, they did not over look the old ones. The justice system wanted its piece from each ticket. It did not want to give me a break just because some of them were old. It is the same with being in this country illegally.
bfm wrote: “Once you put the numbers down in black and white it is so clear we have to do something to give these people some kind of legal status.”
Totally agree with you on this point.
But with voter fraud, the paucity of documented cases does not mean it is rare, especially when not too many are really looking for it. Can you name any election officials who are actively looking for the kind of voting fraud you talk about?
Which is worse? One fraudulent vote, or one person who found it too difficult or not worth their time to go vote?
BFM,
I agree, electronic voting (at this point) would be the the kiss of death for voting integrity.
Forget the helmet; that would not be far enough.
Budget cuts, that’s what you’re going with? Probably the fault of the GOP too, right? :):):):):)LOLOLOLOL:):):):):)
Olly: “Budget cuts, that’s what you’re going with? Probably the fault of the GOP too, right?”
Right on both counts!
Nick,
And these are the same moral relativists that want to decry the wealthy as being unpatriotic for not being stupid enough to fork over their property to an out of control government; yet they are willing to weaponize the administrative state for their social justice cause.
Scorcese is making I Heard You Paint Houses into a film, w/ the old crew, DeNiro and Pesci. The title is a euphemism for being a contract killer.
Olly, When this criminal administration leaves office the shit is going to hit the fan w/ the IRS. The shame is, that while Republicans ushered Nixon out of the WH for using the IRS, Dems will applaud their guy for doing it and stealing votes by suppressing political speech. Dems are lawless and shameless.
Great accounts of stealing the election for JFK.
But, I see you have some lemmings! LOL
markkernes,
Is it the IRS’s job to also prosecute and sentence ANY organization they “believe” does not qualify for tax-exempt status? Audit anyone? Or, are these organizations supposed to be afforded the right of due process? How many were finally provided the tax-exempt status only after lawsuits were filed? Why would they receive the status at all if they in fact did not qualify?
Anyone defending the IRS at this point has either been in a coma or they are using their ass as a helmet.
Olly: Being tax-exempt is not a right; it comes with many limitations that are spelled out in the IRS regulations, and it is the IRS’s JOB to find out whether these organizations to which they’ve granted this special status are in fact following the rules they agreed to follow when the requested the exemption. Many have not, and thanks to budget cuts, the IRS doesn’t have nearly as many investigators as it once did to follow up on these violators—but doing so it extremely important, considering the current political climate and the large number of tax-exempt organizations violating their agreed-upon rules to support one candidate or another, or one political issue or another.
Say what you will about what you think my political positions, but if there’s anyone who’s had his/her head up his/her ass about the IRS, it’s those who believe there’s much IF ANY fire behind all the smoke people like Darrell Issa have been spreading around.
Mark Kernes, I’m about halfway through a great book about the Hoffa murder and the Teamster’s Union, I Heard You Paint Houses. There is much talk of stealing elections across the country w/ good old union voter fraud. Sell your meme to someone who hasn’t been around the block.
Nick: Are you seriously suggesting that ALL of the groups (and there are many) trying to verify the Republicans’ claim on in-person voter fraud at the polls have somehow missed this astounding revelation? Guess what? I’ll take their word (and they are unanimous) over some unverified Teamster allegations any day.
“: Are you seriously suggesting that ALL of the groups (and there are many) trying to verify the Republicans’ claim on in-person voter fraud at the polls have somehow missed this astounding revelation?”
The last time I got interested in this I found a pretty interesting study at the Brennan Center at NYU.
It has been a while, but my recollection is that they interviewed voter registrars and DA’s for a whole state looking for stories and charges of voter fraud. They didn’t find many – a hand full.
What I found so persuasive was that the state was pretty evenly divided between democrat and republican officials. I might believe that officials from one party might cast a blind eye to irregularities by their own party.
But if the state is pretty evenly divides in a political sense and all those democrats and republican come up with zero, there are only two possibilities; it is just not there or the crooks are so smart we can’t catch them.
If anybody can come up with compelling evidence for so much as .1% in a single county then let me know so i can get frenetic. That would be a huge number. I don’t think anybody has shown evidence for more than onesie-twosies … ever.
What really does scare me is electronic voting devices. If the DOD cannot protect their networks, why would any sane person think counties can protect their computer driven, electronic voting devices?