Early and often - absentee voting fraud

National Review, June 17, 1996 by Rich Lowry

Which is just one example of the hurdles Ellen Sauerbrey faced in getting access to evidence and getting it into court. Judge Thieme, a Democratic appointee, repeatedly excluded evidence on the grounds that it wasn't based on original records, or that it wasn't presented in time to meet his fast-track timetable for discovery --when it was the non-cooperation or footdragging of Maryland officials that made it impossible for Mrs. Sauerbrey to comply. A nice Catch-22. The Attorney General's office, meanwhile, represented both the city board and the state elections board in the case, even though their interests were often opposed (the state board was in some instances sharply critical of the city board). According to Daniel Earnshaw, an outspoken former member of the state board, ''the Attorney General's office did everything within its power to conceal evidence [and] to defend the criminal actions of elections officials from the Baltimore City board.''

Ellen Sauerbrey's difficulties in her unsuccessful challenge are typical in one-party areas. When Republican Perry Hooper Sr. emerged as the winner of a tight 1994 election for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice over incumbent Democrat Sonny Hornsby, ]Democrats turned to the courts. They sought to count 1,700 absentee ballots from Democratic areas even though the ballots had not been notarized or witnessed as required by law. The issue eventually reached the state Supreme Court. Three justices had contributed to their colleague Hornsby's campaign. Another had received $10,000 in contributions from the law firm of Hornsby's son, while Hornsby's lawyers had plied the court with generous contributions. The justices ruled -- surprise -- Hornsby's way. A federal court eventually threw out the invalid absentees and declared Perry Hooper the winner, equating the attempt to change absentee rules mid-course to ''ballot-box stuffing.''

Republican Bruce Marks had a similarly arduous road in his 1993 Philadelphia case. In Pennsylvania judges are elected and, in Philadelphia, all owe their jobs to the Democratic machine. When Marks tried to get the suspiciously high number of absentee ballots impounded the day before the election, Judge Gregory Smith, the son-in-law of a Democratic state senator, refused him a hearing. The next day the election judge, Eugene Maier, a former Democratic city commissioner, also refused. Judge Maier retained jurisdiction after the election and brushed aside all of Marks's challenges to absentee ballots. In a last-ditch effort, 50 voters filed to contest the election. The judge? Mark Bernstein, a former Democratic ward leader. He ruled the voters would have to put up a $50,000 cash bond to get a hearing. To get relief, Marks finally had to turn to the federal courts.

Nationwide, thanks to 1993's Motor Voter bill, vote fraud stands to continue to thrive. Motor Voter imposes the fraud-friendly rules pioneered in California on the rest of the country. In addition to making it possible to register when getting a driver's license, the law forces states to permit mail-in registration, a big contributor to fraud in California. It actually forbids workers at government offices to challenge new registrants. The law also forbids states to conduct vigorous purges of deadwood. Under Motor Voter, a state cannot purge a voter who has moved without sending him a notice attempting to confirm his new address. If the voter responds in writing he can be struck from the rolls in his old area; otherwise, he can be struck only after failing to vote in two federal general elections. Under Motor Voter, that Mexican assassin who registered in 1990 and re-registered in 1993 could not have been purged until November 9, 1996 (provided he didn't vote).