I like your distinction between voter fraud and election fraud. We vote by mail in Washington too. In light of this story, I would like to have some way of knowing this isn't happening here. I think we run clean elections but how would we know.

In light of this story, I would like to have some way of knowing [election fraud] isn't happening here.

Verifiability and secret voting are very hard to combine. Since vote-by-mail already isn't secret so real verification is theoretically possible. However, most people pretend that vote-by-mail is secret, so actually tabulating voter-vote information makes them uncomfortable.

If the voter an votes on all ballots are indeed tabulated and published then it's pretty easy to come up with practical protocols for verifying the results.

Teresa #1 writes:

I like your distinction between voter fraud and election fraud. We vote by mail in Washington too. In light of this story, I would like to have some way of knowing this isn't happening here.

The answer, Teresa, is known as Democracy's Gold Standard.

Despite what private vendors of expensive e-voting would have us believe, election integrity is not rocket science.

Brad Friedman, in his recently published If You're Not Concerned About Election Integrity in 2012, It's Because You're Not Paying Attention, set forth a succinct description of how we can insure transparency in our elections.

Many NH towns prohibit concealed vote counting by computers or any other method, and they often complete the task more swiftly and efficiently than their machine-counting counterparts.

Oh, and there is an additional benefit for applying Democracy's Gold Standard. The money squandered on expensive and opaque e-voting systems (be they 100% unverifiable DREs (usually touchscreens) or optical scan system whose accuracy can only be verified by a hand count) often flows to corporations located in other states or other countries. The relatively smaller amount of money spent on retaining local, temporary poll workers to help with the hand count is recirculated into the local economy.

I vote absentee. However, I do not send the ballot back via the mail, but bring it to my local polling place and put it into the box on voting day. I'm wondering if the election fraud in this particular case would have been prevented if everyone who voted absentee in this county had done the same. In other words, was the fraud easier in this case because the ballots were being intercepted from the mail before it reached its intended recipient? And, are absentee ballots put in the box at the polling place on voting day similarly at risk of interception before reaching their intended target?

Katie, I guess one would have to know whether the Cudahy officials were intercepting the ballots the moment they arrived by mail. If so, then your in-person filing might have evaded this particular trap, but would still be open to a miscount if an optical scanner is used for absentee ballots in your precinct.

OT --- at least regarding absentee voting in CA, but very relevant to election integrity. Wisconsin Blog Democurgmudgeon:

You might remember the group Wisconsin Wave, who wants to compare ballot counts with machine provided data. Well, there's been another count to consider.

This comment appeared in the Janesville GazetteXtra:

Special thanks to our ROCK CO. CLERK LORI STOTTLER … It is very significant that Stottler was forthcoming in responding to the request of the Wisconsin Citizens for Election Protection to verify the Recall Election votes by examining the paper ballots to compare with the machine vote counts. This resulted in our Rock County being the first of WI’s 72 counties to be audited by WCEP not officially involved with the RECALL ELECTION of June 5, 2012.

Bottom-line: No problems found with ballot counting machines! Only errors identified were human errors and then only one anomaly: “Two ballots marked for use in one Janesville ward were given to voters from another ward at the same precinct.”

I've never heard of WCEP before this story, so check out their site at the above link. According to the GAB's opinion of the group:

If the request to view or photograph individual ballots will disrupt the canvassing process, distract inspectors from their duties, or delay completion of the process, we would discourage inspectors from granting the request of WCEP to inspect individual ballots on Election Night.

In addition, if a public records request is made to inspect ballots, such requests should be directed to the clerk as custodian of those records, not to election inspectors. Also, clerks should keep in mind that ballots must be secured until the time allowed for filing a recount petition, or appealing a recount, has expired, pursuant to §7.23(2), Wis. Stats. Absent a recount request or a pending public records request, ballots involving a federal office may be destroyed after 22 months, and ballots without a federal office may be destroyed 30 days after other elections. §7.23, Wis. Stats.

We suggest that you consult with your municipal attorney to use the balancing test for any public records request. However, because the election process is not completed until all recount deadlines have expired, it is the Board’s opinion that public access to ballots should be denied prior to the expiration of any applicable recount deadline in order to preserve the integrity of the election.

I believe Brad had a guest on Malloy show that talked about Wisconsin Wave recount --- evidently this is ANOTHER group?

FWIW: Janesville Gazzette is a pro-walker, pro-paul ryan propaganda rag. I would not trust them to be a source of legit news. Does anyone know more about this story and whether Wisconsin Wave is in any way associated with these group and, if not, whether they are also proclaiming "nothing to see here".

Teresa @ 1 asked:

We vote by mail in Washington too. In light of this story, I would like to have some way of knowing this isn't happening here. I think we run clean elections but how would we know.

Unfortunately, with Vote By Mail, you likely won't.

This also sounds like a case of tampering with the mail. If the ballots were intercepted, then that is also a federal offense. It is possible to commit two crimes at once: robbing a bank then shooting at the police. You can bet both charges would be leveled. Same should apply here.

Katie B @ 4 asked:

was the fraud easier in this case because the ballots were being intercepted from the mail before it reached its intended recipient?

Yes.

And, are absentee ballots put in the box at the polling place on voting day similarly at risk of interception before reaching their intended target?

The procedure you described above is different in every jurisdiction and state, so, since I'm not sure where you are, I'm not sure what the procedure actually is. YOu may wish to call your local county or municipal clerk to find out.

I can certainly say that delivering your absentee ballot to the precinct is MUCH better than mailing it in, if you must vote absentee for some reason.

Some jurisdictions tally the absentee ballots right then and there (on the same computers that tally regular ballots) when you bring them to the polls, others send them to a central location to be tallied, almost always by computer, later.

Due to the usually-unverified computer systems we use almost everywhere, the trick at this point is optimizing the chances of your ballot be counted and counted accurately.

That, sadly, is what we're left wish, shy of the "Democracy's Gold Standard" (hand-marked paper ballots, publicly hand-counted at the precinct with results posted before ballots are moved anywhere), being applied as, Ernie noted above, and frankly, it now should.

Madison VOICES @ 6 asked:

I believe Brad had a guest on Malloy show that talked about Wisconsin Wave recount --- evidently this is ANOTHER group?

I believe that is the same group. Apparently the paper had their name wrong initially. But, either way, WisconsinWave.org/HandCount is now working with the group of citizens that had already filed public records requests in all 72 WI counties on their own behalf. Wisconsin Wave has now agreed to help them to raise funding and volunteers for the effort.

So we're talking about the same group. That group did, in fact, hand-tally paper ballots in Rock County last week, and that is who I was speaking to (Margy Lambert) and about on last Friday night's Malloy Show. You can listen to the interview and discussion with Margy and John Washburn at the top of HOUR 2 right here.

Funny how the style of reporting can change so drastically. Typically the headline would scream: "GOP this that and the other thing yadayada CROOKS!!". Since we don't see that, and since you make nary a mention of party affiliation in the story, I guess that makes them of the progressive persuasion huh.... Butbutbutbut its not about right vs. left lol!

Come on WingnutSteve. Since you've previously advised us that you live in California, you know damn well that, per the Golden State's constitution, city counsel and mayor are non-partisan offices.

This, of course, explains why neither The BRAD BLOG nor, for that matter, L.A. Times mentioned party affiliation in reporting on this matter.

Once again, my Wingnut friend, you've made a damn fool of yourself!

Rigggghhhhhtttttttt Ernie, they're all "non-partisan"

Wingnut -

I haven't a clue what their party affiliation is. None of the coverage I saw mentioned it one way or another and, as you may have noticed, that's not what this story is about.

When I do mention party affiliation in such stories, there is usually a reason for it. Most often, in this type of story, it would be to underscore how the very people claiming disingenuously that there is massive "Democratic voter fraud" going on requiring Photo ID legislation that will disenfranchise thousands of voters, happen to be people like Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich who are, themselves committing massive voter fraud - actual fraud, not the type they are pretending that Democrats are pulling off.

But of course you know that. You're just too much of a partisan to be honest with yourself, much less us, about it.

But, tell ya what, get your party to stop their UnAmerican voter suppression work, and I'll be happy to cover this shit and NEVER mention anybody's party again. I don't give a damn whose gaming the system. I want a system that makes it damn near impossible for them to do so (at least not without getting easily caught.). Period.

Get it yet, son?

Madison Voices @6 & Brad @10 ~

As I understand it, Ben Manski and the Wisconsin Wave volunteered to assist several groups that were already working on this WI RECALL citizen audit project - yes, among them:the WISCONSIN CITIZENS for ELECTION PROTECTION.

Founded last year in response to the alarming irregularities in the WI Supreme Court Recount (Prosser vs Kloppenberg) - WCEP has been doing outstanding work in the field for over a year; gathering FOIAs/holding the GAB and elected officials accountable /reaching out to clerks and the WI public to educate them re: their rights under the WI statutes for HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS...

They're aces.

I seem to remember that a contingent from WCEP then became WISCONSIN COUNTS! (around the time of BOB FEST last year with The Wave subsequently teaming up with both (all) of the groups we had working to unravel the mess that was the April 5, 2011 SC election.

Great to see those relationships remain cemented.

http://electionprotectionwisconsin.com/

Madison Voices - adding: Margie confirms (in Brad's Fri. night Malloy interview), there were no discrepancies found in Rock Co. from election night to citizen audit (or only one very minor one), so the article above seems to have that right.

That said, we didn't really EXPECT any wonk from Rock Co...we expected anomalies in RACINE, where Margie confirms they are, in fact, finding some very disturbing irregularities.

...and the GAB's odd advisory opinion re: the public's access to THEIR OWN ballots wasnt the least bit surprising. Kevin Kennedy and Reid Magney went out of their way to cherry-pick and cobble together bits of various election laws they could twist around to discourage clerks from complying w/ these citizen requests.

Ms. Dixon --- Yes, there are reasons to be concerned about RACINE and not for the noise that repugs have been making.

But what I would most want to see is some recounts of areas that

1. Went FOR walker
2. Tallied votes on "free" command central machines
3. Areas where Walker not only "won", but increased his margins over 2010

Thanks all - important stories here. I still believe that a national dialog is the only way we can get these types of issues resolved state-by-state.

Brad, Mr. Cannings, Ms. Dixon, and everyone else's work is appreciated.

I did just update my running list of Walker lies, now more than 180 links (not necessary individual lies/flip-flops, but unique posts/stories). This is a HUGE number because I have not taken the time to document anything prior to 2010.

Walker cannot possibly be a serious candidate if the media did not catapult his lies --- election integrity and the type of massive media failure we are seeing in Wisconsin are related.

And we can't solve one problem without addressing the other.

Integrity of vote by mail can be achieved, such as using " confirmation codes" (google this since its conspicuously absent from these pages). Unfortunately, however, "church" or "club" voting, where voters are "assisted" with filling absentee ballots, or "kitchen table" voting, have no known solution.

It's also worth noting that the "gold standard" mentioned above has unacceptable ballot secrecy, since ballots are readily identified in vote buying and/or coercion schemes (even from a distance on a video) by the way they are marked, write-ins, the pattern of votes cast, and even which contests are left unvoted.