The Cincinnati Enquirer Becomes a Vote Fraud Enabler by Supporting Ohio Issue 2 (Plus My Letter to Them)
One would think that if the ultraliberal Toledo Blade can figure out that Issue 2 is nothing but a permit for laziness and an open invitation to vote fraud, the editorial board at The Cincinnati Enquirer could be counted on to reach a similar conclusion.
Nope (blockquotes are from the editorial):
Issue 2 would let people cast ballots by mail or in person at a site designated by their county board of elections up to 35 days before the election without giving a reason. Such a convenience could boost voter turnout, a goal we all should support, and could ease Election Day lines at the polls.
Boosting voter turnout and elminating every little possible inconvenience is NOT a goal I support. Allowing all people who want to vote an adequate opportunity to do so without undue inconvenence is.
Some believe this system could open the door to voter fraud, although other states who have adopted such systems haven’t seen that result.
The Enquirer editorial board really needs to read the news that comes from their wire services every once in a while. If they did, they would find that absentee vote fraud was a significant issue in the disputed 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State, which has the most lenient absentee voting rules in the country (and becoming even more lenient); Detroit; and East St. Louis, IL, to name just a few.
As noted here, no-excuse-needed absentee balloting, and the resulting larger numbers of absentee ballots cast, increase the likelihood that votes will be coerced, that votes will be cast by someone other than the voter, or that the ballots will be mismanaged or tampered with at the Board of Elections. The same-day absentee-ballot postmark provision in Issue 2 (what I call “The Election-Day Absentee Loophole“) has the potential to throw close races into a 10-day quagmire while absentee ballots trickle in. The fact that absentee ballots can be completed after the polls close will give candidates who are slighlty behind in close races a last chance to “catch up” by rounding up absentee ballots after the polls close but while some post offices are still open. Finally, the fact that the Post Office does not have adequate controls over the proper application of postmark dates opens up the possibility that some absentee ballots illegally mailed after Election Day will look like they were mailed timely.
One possible problem is that it gives each county the option to set up “additional locations” for voting, which could mean unequal access for voters. It also could make campaigns more expensive by forcing candidates, especially challengers, to spend money earlier in order to capture early voters. But greater voter access and participation should be paramount, so we support Issue 2.
The point The Enquirer totally misses is that, as much as possible, election results should reflect the will of the voters as expressed on Election Day; therefore, voter access and participation ON THAT DAY should be paramount. Sure, there are a few legitimate reasons (fewer than those currently allowed) to have to complete an absentee ballot, but there’s no reason why absentee voting should be available to all. Except for a few valid reasons, citizens should be required to vote in person on Election Day.
The Enquirer’s editorial board could not be more wrong. Issue 2 needs to go down, in flames.
______________________
UPDATE: My letter to The Enquirer–
NOTE: DO NOT EDIT. This letter has been posted at BizzyBlog.com to ensure that this “do not edit” request has been honored.
____________________The Enquirer’s support of Issue 2 is an abdication of its responsibility to support the integrity of the voting process in the phony name of “access and participation.”
No-fault (really “no-excuse-needed”) absentee voting is an open invitation to commit election fraud, as we have seen in Washington State, Detroit, East St. Louis, and many other places.
Further, by permitting Election Day postmarking of absentee ballots and allowing 10 days for those ballots to be delivered, Issue 2 will throw the results of close elections into days of unwarranted uncertainty. It will give political campaigns the opportunity to round up even more absentee ballots after the polls close but before the post offices and overnight delivery services close. Finally, since the Post Office’s controls over the accuracy of postmark dates are not airtight, it could even lead to absentee ballots mailed after Election Day being included in the final vote tallies.
Common-sense control over the voting process demands that, with rare exception, voters should vote in person on Election Day. Absentee voting should strictly be limited to true absence and hardship situations, and any absentee ballots must be completed and received by the Boards of Election by Election Day.
For all these reasons, Issue 2 should be soundly rejected. The Enquirer’s support of it is unconscionable.
