4 voters charged with intentionally voting twice in Michigan primary election

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is real simple.

The Elector contacts their local Election HQ and they request an absentee Ballot.

When it comes in the Mail they vote it and then take it to an Election Drop Box or to a USPS office or one of their drop boxes or return it to the Election Office in person.

Don't forget that, if there are is no "Election Drop Box" the voter (an "Elector" is different from a voter) has to pay a poll tax in order to vote.

For some reason a lot of Americans seem to forget that one of the things that the "Founding Fathers" lumped into the "Intolerable Acts" was "The Stamp Act" which required the purchase of a government stamp for any official document before it was considered to be effective. In 30 states, a voter is required to purchase a government stamp before their mail-ballot is considered to be effective.

In the Fascist Dictatorial Communist Monarchy to America's north, all mail ballots at the federal and provincial levels are accompanied by a "postage prepaid" return envelope that the voter can use to return their ballot. Now isn't that a really dumb idea?

 

[Objective Voice]

That's the big question. The police said they thought their ballots had been 'spoiled'. Most of the reports say the ballots were flagged as being 'cast' - but I saw at least on that said the flag meant the ballot was issued. The woman interviewed specifically said she checked, and the reason she tried to vote was that the county could NOT find a record of her ballot having been received.

Given that this occurred over several voters, and several election officials, it really sounds like a process issue to me.

In a situation like this, the voters should have been given a provisional ballot to complete and counted later once it's been verified that their original ballot hadn't been counted. In this case, assuming the report of events is correct, the clerk was in the wrong. Base on new facts unknown to me previously, I'm not sure if the clerk's actions are worthy of jail time because the s/he could have believed s/he was following procedure. However, if it can be proven that the clerk had a keen understanding of voting procedures and that his or her intent was to deceive, then yes - throw the book at him/her.

 

[hecatmoggie]

But your question is all wrong, no one will know who the absentee ballots were cast for, so there is that.

Republican's will need to figure this out I agree

 

[hooligan]

I'm undecided here and maybe you can help me out.

• Did she want to ensure that her vote for the Trump backed candidate was recorded?

or

• Did she want to ensure that her vote for the non-Trump backed candidate was recorded?

or

• Did she want to change her vote from the Trump backed candidate to the non-Trump backed candidate?

or

• Did she want to change her vote from the non-Trump backed candidate to the Trump backed candidate?

These distinctions are very important in order to determine whether or not she committed a crime, you know.

I assume you're being sarcastic with the above - but I'm not sure why that sarcasm is directed toward me.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How do you define “ballot harvesting”?

When a celebrity like Bruce Springsteen or Taylor Swift encourage eligible citizens to register to vote and then do so, is that ballot harvesting?

If "A" goes to the "AKME Golden Age Residential and Care Center", picks up the sealed envelopes that ALL 45 residents have placed their own ballots into, dumps all of the envelopes into a cardboard box without examining them, and then empties ALL of the ballots from the cardboard box into a "Drop Box", exactly why should that be illegal?

BE SPECIFIC!

PS - Is there any difference between "B" gathering up 6 envelopes, the contents of which are unknown to "B" and depositing them into a "Drop Box" and "B" driving 6 people to the polls so that those 6 people can cast ballots marked in ways that "B" does not know about? Shouldn't "Voter Harvesting" (read as "driving people to polling locations") also be illegal?

PPS - And shouldn't we be taking a really close look at those so-called "voter registration drives" where political parties attempt to unnaturally increase the size of their vote by "recruiting" voters? Maybe those so-called "voter registration drives" should be banned as well.

PPPS - Oh yes, and what about the most insidious means of manipulating the vote of all - that so-called "election advertising". If you want to keep American elections clean you have to get rid of that as well. (Well, OK, not all of it, candidates for office should be allowed to publish "standard form" notices of a specific size that state only

"_______[fill in name]_______
a candidate for the office of
_______[fill in position]______
who has been nominated by the
_____[fill in political party]____
will be holding a public meeting at
________[fill in time]________
at
_______[fill in location]______
on
________[fill in date]________"​

and to run radio and TV ads that state no more than that so that the voters can see and hear the candidate(s) for themselves and make up their own minds when they have had an opportunity to judge the candidate(s) from personal experience.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is the a BIG difference if you signed an affidavit stating you have not already voted?

Not in the least. The difference exists regardless of whether you signed an affidavit or not.

You have NOT "voted" until such time as your ballot has been examined and the identity of the candidates which you had selected has been determined.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I assume you're being sarcastic with the above - but I'm not sure why that sarcasm is directed toward me.

You were merely "collateral damage", if "damaged at all you were".

Those questions are EXISTENTIALLY important to a great many people so that they can know whether to cheer or jeer.

 

[hooligan]

You were merely "collateral damage", if "damaged at all you were".

Those questions are EXISTENTIALLY important to a great many people so that they can know whether to cheer or jeer.

I'm following now. We are fully agreed on your 2nd statement.

I honestly feel for the woman who was interviewed by VoteNow or whatever that outlet was. Again, IF her story is accurate - she went to her local polling place because she was worried (for some reason) that her mail-in ballot didn't get processed/counted. Setting aside the fact there is a website where you can go and check for yourself, IF the poll worker actually told her "no, we show no record of you voting" and "you can go ahead and vote here today", there's no way she should be prosecuted.

 

[BlueTex]

Not in the least. The difference exists regardless of whether you signed an affidavit or not.

You have NOT "voted" until such time as your ballot has been examined and the identity of the candidates which you had selected has been determined.

They HAD already voted...

Nessel said that the four people appeared at their respective polling locations on election day to request primary ballots to vote. When they arrived, they were informed by volunteers that they had already completed and returned absentee ballots.

In each instance in three precincts, the workers saw the warnings on the poll book, which is an electronic record for poll workers, that indicated the voters had already completed and returned an absentee ballot, and it had been received and approved for tabulation.

"Despite the clear and obvious warnings, the election workers on site contacted a designated municipal call-in center, seeking direction from the assistant clerks," Nessel said.

7 charged in alleged double-voting case in St. Clair Shores during August 2024 primary

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced charges against seven people – including three city workers – for an alleged double-voting incident in the August 2024 primary.

www.wxyz.com

 

[dcsports]

Of course they are all saying they "believed" they weren't breaking the law or didn't believe they were breaking the law.

ok, and?

Apparently the polling officials believed them, as well as the police and the DA.

The AG didn't, but she didn't know what their reasoning was either.

 

[dcsports]

The local DA agrees with the AG pursuing charges...

“I respect the Attorney General’s jurisdiction and investigatory resources. It is not unusual for the AG to charge criminal cases, in which a local prosecutor did not. I expect justice will be served. I have no further comment on this on-going case,” Lucido said in a statemet.

7 charged in alleged double-voting case in St. Clair Shores during August 2024 primary

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced charges against seven people – including three city workers – for an alleged double-voting incident in the August 2024 primary.

www.wxyz.com

lol. The local DA declined to press charges. I don't take 'I have no further comment' to be a ringing endorsement.

 

[dcsports]

Is the a BIG difference if you signed an affidavit stating you have not already voted?

did anyone do that?

 

[BlueTex]

did anyone do that?

Three of the four did..

She also said that three of the four voters falsely completed an affidavit where they wrongly claimed they had not voted in the election.

It's then alleged that the clerks altered the qualified voter file to show that the absentee ballot were rejected and didn't make any effort to make sure the ballot was rejected by the absentee ballot counting board here.

According to the attorney general, both the in-person votes and the absentee votes were counted in the election.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Reportedly, all 4 were told that their votes were already processed, hence the need for the election staff to illegally modify the ebooks.

At least one was NOT told that her vote had already been processed. That one person was told that no record of her mail ballot already having been returned could be found.

Please explain how a ballot that cannot be found can be "processed".

The people were "flagged" NOT because their votes had "been processed", but because there was a record of them having been issued a mail ballot. For, at least one of them, further tracking could not find any record of their mail ballot ever having been received could be found.

Now the following are HYPOTHETICAL scenarios, so don't bother with any "But that isn't what happened." types of responses, OK.

The state of Confusiana is a battleground swing state, there are 10 electoral divisions in Confusiana. Five of the electoral divisions are firmly in the camp of the "Ecru Party and five are firmly in the "Taupe Party". The person who is in charge of the election machinery is a staunch supporter of the "Ecru Party" and causes mail ballots to be sent to every voter in the five electoral districts that are going to "Vote Taupe". However, through a computer error, all of those mail ballots are sent to a single address in the state of "South Tennarkgeorgexs" and none of the voters in the "Taupe" electoral divisions ever see any of them. On Election Day a voter in a "Taupe" electoral division attempt to vote. That voter is "flagged" because there is a record of them having been sent a mail ballot. On searching further no record that that mail ballot has been submitted can be found.

• Should that voter be allowed to have a "second ballot"?

And, if the voter actually received an unsolicited mail ballot and says that they discarded it because they thought that it was a hoax and a further search shows that there is no record of the mail ballot having been submitted.

• Should that voter be allowed to have a "second ballot"?

And, if no mail ballot was actually sent, but the computer says that one was and a further search shows that there is no record of the mail ballot having been submitted.

• Should that voter be allowed to have a "second ballot"?

In each of the above cases, should the voter be charged with a crime and prosecuted? BE SPECIFIC and cite legal precedent.

 

[dcsports]

In a situation like this, the voters should have been given a provisional ballot to complete and counted later once it's been verified that their original ballot hadn't been counted. In this case, assuming the report of events is correct, the clerk was in the wrong. Base on new facts unknown to me previously, I'm not sure if the clerk's actions are worthy of jail time because the s/he could have believed s/he was following procedure. However, if it can be proven that the clerk had a keen understanding of voting procedures and that his or her intent was to deceive, then yes - throw the book at him/her.

Agreed. In my state, that would have been a provisional ballot with everyone submitting statements to be evaluated later. I don't know if this state does that. But it's really not on the voter to figure out the process - even the AG said it was complicated. They're going to rely on the poll workers. If they were honest, I can't see them being charged.

And sure, it all depends on the intent. Again, it seems to me that if this happened four times, involving three different people, there was probably a process or policy gap.

 

[dcsports]

Three of the four did..

She also said that three of the four voters falsely completed an affidavit where they wrongly claimed they had not voted in the election.

It's then alleged that the clerks altered the qualified voter file to show that the absentee ballot were rejected and didn't make any effort to make sure the ballot was rejected by the absentee ballot counting board here.

According to the attorney general, both the in-person votes and the absentee votes were counted in the election.

source? I haven't seen that anywhere. And again, depending on the wording, they might have thought it's true. If the county couldn't find a record of their ballot, did they truly vote?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They HAD already voted...

Nessel said that the four people appeared at their respective polling locations on election day to request primary ballots to vote. When they arrived, they were informed by volunteers that they had already completed and returned absentee ballots.

In each instance in three precincts, the workers saw the warnings on the poll book, which is an electronic record for poll workers, that indicated the voters had already completed and returned an absentee ballot, and it had been received and approved for tabulation.

"Despite the clear and obvious warnings, the election workers on site contacted a designated municipal call-in center, seeking direction from the assistant clerks," Nessel said.

7 charged in alleged double-voting case in St. Clair Shores during August 2024 primary

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced charges against seven people – including three city workers – for an alleged double-voting incident in the August 2024 primary.

www.wxyz.com

Ummmm - you do realize that "voting" is not completed until the ballots have been examined and the identities of the preferred candidates determined for each ballot, don't you?

Using your line of "logic" the election would be completed at the close of polls and there would not be any need to actually determine, count, record, and tabulate the markings on the individual ballots.

 

[BlueTex]

source? I haven't seen that anywhere. And again, depending on the wording, they might have thought it's true. If the county couldn't find a record of their ballot, did they truly vote?

7 charged in alleged double-voting case in St. Clair Shores during August 2024 primary

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced charges against seven people – including three city workers – for an alleged double-voting incident in the August 2024 primary.

www.wxyz.com

 

[hooligan]

At least one was NOT told that her vote had already been processed. That one person was told that no record of her mail ballot already having been returned could be found.

Please explain how a ballot that cannot be found can be "processed"....

That's the lady's story, yes. As I've already said - IF that's true, she shouldn't be prosecuted.

The people were "flagged" NOT because their votes had "been processed", but because there was a record of them having been issued a mail ballot....

That's incorrect, according to the State of Michigan:

...An electronic poll book showed that the four had already voted. But after poll workers consulted with local election staff, they were still allowed to vote again, Nessel said...

4 voters charged with intentionally voting twice in Michigan primary election

Michigan authorities say four people in suburban Detroit intentionally voted twice in the state's August primary election.

apnews.com

Already voted - i.e. their mail-in ballots had been processed for tabulation, which is the last stage of a mail-in ballot that can be tied back to a specific voter. Once it's processed, there would be no way to "spoil" that mailed ballot to prevent a double-vote - they couldn't identify what ballot belonged to that voted, by design.

 

[KingSolomon]

Of course they are all saying they "believed" they weren't breaking the law or didn't believe they were breaking the law.

dcsports has a point regarding the one lady. We haven't heard any more details about the other three. It's apparent the someone got flagged,but we don't know how many. The article doesn't provide a lot of detail. The ones that were flagged should have accepted that and walked away because at that point they knew their votes had been counted. As for the workers, we don't know if they were at the same location or not, but if they allowed the voters to vote after noting the flags, they violated the law. The one "no flag" situation that we know of is unique. In that case, there doesn't appear to be a legal issue.

 

[hooligan]

Ummmm - you do realize that "voting" is not completed until the ballots have been examined and the identities of the preferred candidates determined for each ballot, don't you?

For absentee ballots, that's not true. Once the ballot is processed, it can no longer be connected to the voter who cast it, that whole "secret ballot" thing. For absentee ballots, the voting is complete as soon as they are signature verified and processed for tabulation.

 

[hooligan]

dcsports has a point regarding the one lady. We haven't heard any more details about the other three. It's apparent the someone got flagged,but we don't know how many. The article doesn't provide a lot of detail. The ones that were flagged should have accepted that and walked away because at that point they knew their votes had been counted. As for the workers, we don't know if they were at the same location or not, but if they allowed the voters to vote after noting the flags, they violated the law. The one "no flag" situation that we know of is unique. In that case, there doesn't appear to be a legal issue.

According to the State of Michigan, all 4 were flagged as having already voted - see post #169.

 

[KingSolomon]

Thats pure bullshit. I am a poll worker.

Get informed before spewing nonsense.

I don't know what State you work in, but in my State we don't have Supervisors; We have PLC's. I've been a poll worker for over 20 years, so learn the facts before you start shooting your mouth off. Different States have different systems.

 

[hooligan]

I don't know what State you work in, but in my State we don't have Supervisors; We have PLC's. I've been a poll worker for over 20 years, so learn the facts before you start shooting your mouth off. Different States have different systems.

But your experience is in Ohio, not MI, correct?

Full disclosure - I've never worked a polling station in MI so I don't know what the staffing looks like.

 

[Lutherf]

That supervisors would knowingly instruct underlings to ignore and override the safeguards - to take steps to legitimize duplicate voting - is very, very troubling.

Is this kind of antidemocratic, illegal behavior being duplicated by Republicans, both voters and election officials, in other counties across the country?

To be fair, this kind of thing is being ADVOCATED for by a large swath of the population. Nearly half the nation asks for no restrictions whatsoever on casting a ballot. If one isn't required to provide identification, eligibility to vote or verification that they are the one that filled out a registration or a ballot AND that signatures on file are not to be checked with any sense of skepticism then the ultimate result is that there will no longer be controls on elections. It is, as we have been told countless times, the only way we can save democracy.