Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process. Hillary Clinton
Wednesday, I spoke with a member of the Colorado secretary of state’s office, who expressed concern about the ambiguous Facebook post described in my blog post earlier this week. There were two options: the secretary of state’s office might choose to ask the district attorney to investigate. Or, I might choose to file a complaint myself. In either case, the district attorney would then most likely contact the individual who authored the original post. I asked what the purpose of such an investigation would be and the response was
- Find out if an illegal act occurred
- Reinforce the understanding of what is legal and what is not in an election and
- Emphasize the importance of the integrity of the election results
After two days of discernment, I decided not to provide anyone with the author’s name. I think she would be more intimidated than educated at this stage, and I don’t want to be a part of that. Whether she did something wrong, or intended to do something wrong, is known to her. It’s not something for me to help pursue.
The issue I’d hoped to highlight is my sudden realization about how risky the mail-in ballot system is. I think that has been accomplished. Anyone who has followed this story now knows with clarity what is legal and how important election integrity is. I don’t think filing a complaint in this instance will help reform the insecure mail-in ballot process.
Colorado is not the only state trying to surmount the security challenges related to mail in voting. Maryland has concerns as well. Common Cause says voting by mail can increase turnout by 4-5%.
However, the New York Times says voter fraud is “…vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention…“ They add “In the last presidential election, 35.5 million voters requested absentee ballots, but only 27.9 million absentee votes were counted, according to a study by Charles Stewart III, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”
If one cannot reasonably guarantee the security and authenticity of the ballots, then the convenience is not worth the risk. Since I live somewhere between eight to ten miles from the closest option for a voting site, this is a not-inconsiderable concern for me, especially during the rugged Colorado winters. But I’d rather have authentic ballots reflecting the voters’ intent than free range orphan ballots readily available for use by whomever finds them.
There are political forces (one particular party, really) that benefit most consistently from voter fraud.
When common sense measures are put forth, like presenting a photo ID or cross-checking voter roles with other states to weed out discrepancies, those forces launch vociferous opposition to those measures.
It’s strange how it’s racist to be asked for a picture ID when you vote, but no one complains that a picture ID is required for buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, attending an event where the President of the US is in attendance, or boarding a plane.