Our elections are overwhelmed with voter fraud, or so say Steve Pappas and Nancy Crawford-Hall, the publisher of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal. In her columns over recent months, Crawford-Hall has laid out what she claims is the evidence of this massive fraud.
Does voter fraud threaten our system of democracy? Should we be worried? No.
Pappas and Crawford-Hall have confused registration fraud, which is a petty crime that threatens nothing of much importance, with voting fraud, which actually is a serious crime. Out of this confusion, they have spun a fantastic story about democracy under attack. It isn’t true. The only threat to democracy came from Steve Pappas, who sought to strip 18,000 American citizens of their voting rights, a threat which the courts dismissed for a complete lack of evidence. Let me explain.
Voting fraud is casting ballots illegally. Registering under a thousand different names and voting on behalf of these thousand fictitious people in an attempt to change the outcome of an election is an attempt to subvert democracy. Even a single case of casting a fraudulent vote is a serious crime.
In contrast, registration fraud is typically petty theft. Many campaigns pay people to register voters for their side. If a dishonest deputy registrar fills out a few fake registration forms and registers his dog Fido, he gets paid for it. He is stealing from the campaign. But if it is theft, it ends there. A few family pets may end up on the voter rolls, but if they don’t vote, democracy suffers no harm.
How do we know that there was no voting fraud in the 2008 election when Steve Pappas lost to Doreen Farr? It goes back to an old standard of both journalism and law. As Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee said to Woodward and Bernstein when they were chasing down Watergate conspirators, “Names, fellas, we want names.”
Names are precisely what Crawford-Hall and Pappas do not have. Yet if there had been voting fraud, names of illegal voters would be so easy to find. The names and signatures of registered voters and those who voted are both on file. When Pappas sued to overturn Doreen Farr’s victory, his lawyers got those lists and carefully examined them. They failed to find the name of a single person who voted illegally.
There is also the matter of precincts in Isla Vista in which voter turnout was over 100%. Was that evidence of fraud? No.
State law says that you can cast your ballot at any precinct. If it isn’t your precinct, you can cast a provisional ballot. That means that you can vote, but the Office of the Registrar will check your voter registration to make sure that you were actually registered in another precinct, that you only voted once, and that your signature matches the signature of the officially registered voter. Pappas’s lawyers also checked those records. No names. No fraud.
Nancy Crawford-Hall and Steve Pappas have been recklessly accusing innocent people of serious crimes. That raises questions about Pappas’s candidacy for supervisor. He lost his lawsuit against Doreen Farr and the judge ordered him to pay her legal fees because he did not have a shred of evidence to back up his claims of voter fraud. He is making those claims again in this campaign. One has to ask whether he is seriously confused about the law or so lacking in integrity that he would accuse innocent people of crimes. Either way, one has to wonder whether it is safe to put him in public office.
Eric Smith is a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and vice-chair of the department. He is also faculty advisor to the UCSB Campus Democrats.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
It's Crawford-Hall.
MysteryZ (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fixed that typo, thanks MysteryZ.
webadmin (webadmin)
May 23, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve Pappas = loser
RobertRich (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2012 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does Pappas have to give up for all that money? Besides integrity, that is.
Bet ol' Nan has a bunch of stables to muck out.
Walter (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2012 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pappas is a do nothing , done nothing , know nothing , court clogging , money owing parasite not worthy of a single vote. Those who disagree with my assessment please feel free to enlighten us as to what Pappas has done in the past 8 years to involve himself in county government function.
Just see his numerous non-responses in recent public Q & A's to see validation of my points.
geeber (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2012 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I largely agree with Eric Smith, except for one thing... the point was that paid registerers would substitute their own handwriting when they filed the cards, and then submitted votes that were ultimately recorded because the paid registerers' handwriting matched; if the real voter voted their vote would be thrown out because the handwriting didn't match.
Granted, Pappas never proved with names that idea. But it could be hard to prove.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2012 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If not impossible to pull off given the numbers.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've never heard of the scenario you describe, "pardallchewinggumspot." I don't believe it would be hard to prove, mainly because it would be impossible to pull off.
It is not surprising that Pappas Crawford-Hall found no evidence, because as you present it, the scam has no chance:
Step 1: Evil bought-off registration person substitutes their own handwriting for a qualified voter (whether turning in cards, or forms, I suppose).
Step 2. They keep track of those voter names and that voter's precinct, and remember how they forged the signature.
Step 3: Voting day;
-- (Small Band of Brigands theory)
They show up at various precincts, multiple times, signing for, and voting as someone else. They might even wear disguises as to not be recognized the fourth or fifth time.
Or ...
-- (Vast Network of Scofflaws gambit)
A huge group -- it would take well over a 1000 to fit with the Pappas Crawford-Hall fantasy -- of fakers show up to take away one vote for one person. So powerful is the voodoo Doreen Farr can do, do, that NONE of these cheaters have second thoughts, and to this day have not come forward to repent.
So we are left with a wide-spread subterfuge that somehow goes off without a hitch (or a snitch), and no precinct worker anywhere observes or reports this band of counterfeiters and their hinky ways.
Also, no actual voters within the district show up -- attempt to vote -- only to have their vote cast out for non-matching signatures.
And of course, these actual, valid voters accept this disenfranchisement without a whimper because in general students are both meekly cooperative and easy to lead in any direction.
QED.
binky (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2012 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Farr's 3rd district encompasses most of S.B. County's most valuable , vulnerable unspoiled coastline. To those who wish to see our coastline respected and preserved , beware of Pappas . He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Again , the challenge to Pappas supporters - please cite his involvement or credentials in regard to S.B.County civics .
geeber (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2012 at 2:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think you exaggerate a little, binky. The 1992 3rd District election was decided by a handful of votes. I never subscribed to the Pappas-Crawford-Hall concept of 1000 votes faked by 1000 individuals. Nevertheless, the idea that registerers recopy registration cards and re-sign, which I think might well have happened, is troubling.
However, the statistic, which I've never seen, is how many double votes occurred... that is, how frequently did someone seem to vote at a precinct, and then also have an absentee ballot submitted. If you know that number, I'd sure like to see it.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2012 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"threat to democracy"??? How is challenging a suspicious-looking election a "threat to democracy". "Support of democracy" is more like it. What if Putin's election were challenged? Would that be a "threat to democracy"?
Do you really think that leftwing students, mostly with as-yet unformed brains (not till age 25), led by leftwing professors, would hesitate to, ah, vote creatively? I don't. People who self-proclaim the moral high ground and knowledge of what is best for us all can justify practically anything. Especially with an as-yet not fully formed brain, easily malleable.....
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In California double votes are discounted (and investigated.) UCSB does not run the polling place, hence there is no opportunity for creativity. Pollworkers are hired by the county and assigned polling stations, often out of their districts.
I think Pardall and the second JohnLocke have us confused with Florida.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think UCSB should greatly increase its enrollment to ensure that the voting ranks are filled with anti-development voters. Adding about 10,000 people to UCSB's ranks will ensure the Santa Barbara area maintains the small-town feel.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be a bonanza for landlords
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, pollworkers can prevent fraud. In what universe?
BTW, UCSB is not in Santa Barbara.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 31, 2012 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People like John Locke find it much easier to believe that there is a giant conspiracy of epic proportions evolving hundreds of perfectly coordinated efforts by hundreds of people instead of the the obvious reality that most people just dont like and or agree them...
Occams razor is once again spot on...
iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
June 1, 2012 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To be fair to all commentators, there are two "John Lockes"; the one posting here and another much saner rational version (John_Locke) who isn't under public duress to resign from their elected position due to repeated DUIs.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 1, 2012 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@iamsomeguyinsb: But isn't that exactly what the left thinks about the right?. And whether "most people" agree with me is yet to be seen - remember, we are living in one of the leftmost communities in one of the leftmost states in the country, so don't confuse the local with the national.
@Ken_Volok: interesting post. I'm wondering which public post I hold (hint - whatever you choose is wrong).
But back to the original - how can UCSB show a 101% voter participation? Before you answer, remember that the county wide participation rate was well below 100%.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Study voting procedures then you will understand how a precinct can have 101% turnout without fraud being a factor. Seriously "JohnLocke" #2,, didn't you ever take a Civics class?
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For those who skipped Civics here's a recap:
Votes cast doesn't mean votes certified. More people than registered in a precinct may show up to vote. Pollworkers are legally obligated to allow everyone to cast a vote. HOWEVER there is a safeguard. Voters not in the official verification roster are given a specially colored ballot which is given verification after all the other verified ballots are counted. Those special ballots aren't often included, if ever at all until days sometimes weeks after the official tally of verified ballots.
Therefore, a precinct may have 130% turnout, but that doesn't mean even 100% are included in the final official tally.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2012 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First the birthers now we have the voter frauders.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2012 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But yet the only area showing such results was Isla Vista....
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You mean there are other neighborhoods in SB with a huge concentration of disorganized often disinterested and completely distracted students who don't know if their car tags are still valid much less if their voter reg is current?
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)