Four Women Indicted in North Texas Voter Fraud Ring

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

I wonder what party they tried to pad? I am gonna go on a limb and say the Democrats and Hillary

 

Four women who are accused of targeting elderly voters in 2016 were indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud and arrested following an investigation by the office of the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The defendants were members of an organized voter fraud ring and were paid to target elderly voters in certain northern Fort Worth precincts in a scheme to generate large numbers of mail ballots, then harvest those ballots for specific candidates, the office's news release said.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/4-Indicted-in-North-Texas-Voter-Fraud-Scheme-497239441.html

 

[bcking 3,157]

What makes you think they gathered fradulent democratic votes? There is nothing to indicate either way in the article. Just curious.

Edited December 4, 2018 by bcking

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

What makes you think they gathered fradulent democratic votes? There is nothing to indicate either way in the article. Just curious.

Because I am very intelligent 😈

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Chris Duffy said:

Because I am very intelligent 😈

That remains to be seen (by that I mean we don't actually know in this case).

 

I'd love to hear your very intelligent assessment of the situation happening in NC.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna942816

[Dashinka 24,493]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

What makes you think they gathered fradulent democratic votes? There is nothing to indicate either way in the article. Just curious.

A little more information on the background of at least two of these women and indeed, they appear to be Democratic Party operatives.

 

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article219920740.html

 

Btw, California made vote harvesting legal, and it seems that made all the difference in the 2018 election.  Still not sure it is prudent to give your mail in ballot to a third party that works for a political party, but I guess it is California.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ballot-harvesting-bounty-how-dems-used-election-law-change-to-rout-california-republicans

[Dashinka 24,493]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

That remains to be seen (by that I mean we don't actually know in this case).

 

I'd love to hear your very intelligent assessment of the situation happening in NC.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna942816

Interesting story, sounds like what happened to the GOP senate candidate in AZ but in reverse.  I guess when a Democrat loses in a tight race it must be fraud.  Seems par-for-the-course now days.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

A little more information on the background of at least two of these women and indeed, they appear to be Democratic Party operatives.

 

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article219920740.html

 

Btw, California made vote harvesting legal, and it seems that made all the difference in the 2018 election.  Still not sure it is prudent to give your mail in ballot to a third party that works for a political party, but I guess it is California.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ballot-harvesting-bounty-how-dems-used-election-law-change-to-rout-california-republicans

I may have missed this whole situation during the election (I missed most things this election cycle).

 

Does the harvesting refer to gather up all the votes, increasing voter turn out in a situation where the voters (who all legally have the right to vote) wouldn't have voted otherwise? Or is there evidence of actual fraud/tampering with the votes?

 

Going around and picking up votes wouldn't necessarily be a problem for me. Of course ideally it would be an organization that goes around and picks up all votes...honestly the real solution is just to make it easier to vote. It was always very easy in Oregon when I lived there.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Interesting story, sounds like what happened to the GOP senate candidate in AZ but in reverse.  I guess when a Democrat loses in a tight race it must be fraud.  Seems par-for-the-course now days.

Is there a similar story about unusual voting statistics in Arizona that corroborate it, or just "some dude" on Twitter?  

Edited December 4, 2018 by bcking

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

27 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

A little more information on the background of at least two of these women and indeed, they appear to be Democratic Party operatives.

 

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article219920740.html

 

Btw, California made vote harvesting legal, and it seems that made all the difference in the 2018 election.  Still not sure it is prudent to give your mail in ballot to a third party that works for a political party, but I guess it is California.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ballot-harvesting-bounty-how-dems-used-election-law-change-to-rout-california-republicans

Maybe I should change my name to Perry Mason.😈

[Dashinka 24,493]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

Is there a similar story about unusual voting statistics in Arizona that corroborate it, or just "some dude" on Twitter?  

If you look at the number of votes the GOP governor received in AZ vs the number of votes the GOP senate candidate got, there were some questions which is similar to what is being questioned in this case.  Of course in AZ it was chalked up to splitting ballots since the Democrat won the seat, but whatever.

[Dashinka 24,493]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

I may have missed this whole situation during the election (I missed most things this election cycle).

 

Does the harvesting refer to gather up all the votes, increasing voter turn out in a situation where the voters (who all legally have the right to vote) wouldn't have voted otherwise? Or is there evidence of actual fraud/tampering with the votes?

 

Going around and picking up votes wouldn't necessarily be a problem for me. Of course ideally it would be an organization that goes around and picks up all votes...honestly the real solution is just to make it easier to vote. It was always very easy in Oregon when I lived there.

My understanding of vote harvesting, people (typically political operatives) go around and offer to get someone's mail in ballot to the proper election authorities.  California made it legal to do this prior to the 2018 election, so of course a virtual army of political operatives headed out to areas where people may be more inclined to accept their help (nursing homes, retirement communities, etc.).  The question in my mind relative to this vote harvesting is the provenance of the ballot since a third party not connected to the election is handling it.  I don't think these harvesters have to abide by any of the rules that an election worker or postal worker would with respect to these ballots.  It appears that TX is not allowing this practice, and there was a recent court case in AZ where a Democrat operative filed a federal lawsuit that the AZ law not allowing vote harvesting was unconstitutional based on the 1st Amendment.  This was struck down by the 9th Circuit.  However, it appears that AZ has elected a Democrat SOS and she has already signaled she wants to allow vote harvesting.

 

https://tucson.com/news/local/federal-appeals-court-upholds-arizona-s-ban-on-delivering-other/article_67448601-a740-574c-aa14-86bd1bd12990.html

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

My understanding of vote harvesting, people (typically political operatives) go around and offer to get someone's mail in ballot to the proper election authorities.  California made it legal to do this prior to the 2018 election, so of course a virtual army of political operatives headed out to areas where people may be more inclined to accept their help (nursing homes, retirement communities, etc.).  The question in my mind relative to this vote harvesting is the provenance of the ballot since a third party not connected to the election is handling it.  I don't think these harvesters have to abide by any of the rules that an election worker or postal worker would with respect to these ballots.  It appears that TX is not allowing this practice, and there was a recent court case in AZ where a Democrat operative filed a federal lawsuit that the AZ law not allowing vote harvesting was unconstitutional based on the 1st Amendment.  This was struck down by the 9th Circuit.  However, it appears that AZ has elected a Democrat SOS and she has already signaled she wants to allow vote harvesting.

 

https://tucson.com/news/local/federal-appeals-court-upholds-arizona-s-ban-on-delivering-other/article_67448601-a740-574c-aa14-86bd1bd12990.html

It certainly leaves open the possiblity of actual fraud, but on its own it actually sounds like a reasonable idea. You just need systems in place to protect the vote's integrity (and I'm making no judgment about whether California did, I have no idea.

 

16 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If you look at the number of votes the GOP governor received in AZ vs the number of votes the GOP senate candidate got, there were some questions which is similar to what is being questioned in this case.  Of course in AZ it was chalked up to splitting ballots since the Democrat won the seat, but whatever.

Tried skimming some articles and none (either pro fraud or anti fraud) seem to bring up comparing governor to Senate.

 

What were the numbers? Just comparing Senate and governor votes as a means of claiming fraud seems like pretty weak ground, on it's own.

[Dashinka 24,493]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

It certainly leaves open the possiblity of actual fraud, but on its own it actually sounds like a reasonable idea. You just need systems in place to protect the vote's integrity (and I'm making no judgment about whether California did, I have no idea.

 

Tried skimming some articles and none (either pro fraud or anti fraud) seem to bring up comparing governor to Senate.

 

What were the numbers? Just comparing Senate and governor votes as a means of claiming fraud seems like pretty weak ground, on it's own.

There already is a system in place to ensure vote integrity, it is called a mailbox, or vote in person (except in some states that only vote by mail).  Allowing a third party with a political agenda to collect these votes in my mind completely taints the vote totals.  How do we know if this third party didn't ask the person who they voted for?  How do we know if this third party didn't actually fill in the ballot for the person.  I guess I am very pessimistic when armies of political operatives claim altruistic purposes, but I suppose if it is OK with you, the GOP should start getting into the business of harvesting votes.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

There already is a system in place to ensure vote integrity, it is called a mailbox, or vote in person (except in some states that only vote by mail).  Allowing a third party with a political agenda to collect these votes in my mind completely taints the vote totals.  How do we know if this third party didn't ask the person who they voted for?  How do we know if this third party didn't actually fill in the ballot for the person.  I guess I am very pessimistic when armies of political operatives claim altruistic purposes, but I suppose if it is OK with you, the GOP should start getting into the business of harvesting votes.

I said ideally the system would be run by a third party so that all votes are equally "harvested". Harvesting sounds scary but to me it really just sounds like findings ways to increase voter turn out. Can it be abused? Of course it can. But so can very strict rules involving voting in person (or just the requirement of voting in person, when for many people that may be difficult). Mail in ballots can also be abused without "vote harvesting". The computer voting machines can be abused or faulty. All types of voting can be abused. 

 

Just on its own harvesting isn't necessarily bad and doesn't necessarily mean voter fraud. I'd be all for more ways to make it secure though.

[Dashinka 24,493]

56 minutes ago, bcking said:

I said ideally the system would be run by a third party so that all votes are equally "harvested". Harvesting sounds scary but to me it really just sounds like findings ways to increase voter turn out. Can it be abused? Of course it can. But so can very strict rules involving voting in person (or just the requirement of voting in person, when for many people that may be difficult). Mail in ballots can also be abused without "vote harvesting". The computer voting machines can be abused or faulty. All types of voting can be abused. 

 

Just on its own harvesting isn't necessarily bad and doesn't necessarily mean voter fraud. I'd be all for more ways to make it secure though.

I don't think voting in person, or dropping your own ballot in the mail yourself is any way comparable with the potential of fraud that can occur via vote harvesting.  I guess having a political operative pick up as many mail in ballots as possible does increase voter turnout, but who is overseeing these harvesters?  I suppose we will need to grow government to create more oversight.  Now I would agree with you if you had suggested that the election officials went out and collected the ballots, but to let those with a political agenda do it is simply naïve.