Election "fraud" fog in Nashville

Mark at "Dork Nation" (Republicans Allege Vote Fraud in Nashville) is sifting through a report (here) of a report about a recent dust up at a Davidson County early voting site (via A.C. Kleinheider). It should go without saying that the organic, real time, unedited, entertainment-focused medium of talk radio is a messy venue for sorting out the facts in such a situation, but here goes . . .

Actually, the problem (based on my conversations with Election Commission insiders) was that a person (an interpreter) was claiming authority to accompany voters into the polling booth to assist them with voting . . . that's not legal, unless the Officer of Elections concludes the voter is unable to vote without assistance and unless the voter requests that the person accompanying him/her be allowed to assist him/her. And the law only contemplates illiterate or some other physical disability, but I guess illiteracy can reasonably be construed to include persons "illiterate in English." T. C. A. § 2-7-116. That's a debate for another day.

Also, though Mark (and ACK) imply that the statute summarily dispenses with claims that ID is required to cast a ballot, completing an affidavit of identity (in lieu of proper ID) is only one step in the process of determining if the person can vote. The code further requires that the information on the affidavit be compared with the information on file (his/her signature and other info collected when a person registers). If everything is perceived to be on the up and up, they're given a normal ballot; if not, they're allowed to vote with a provisional ballot. T. C. A. § 2-7-112

But something that needs to be pointed out in this whole debate is that one means of undermining ballot integrity is by flooding a polling place with potential voters who require special treatment. Given the histrionics about voter suppression and other forms of "disenfranchisement," poll workers are often motivated to give the demanding party (e.g., the ACORN or La Raza rep. or the friendly ACLU lawyer-on-loan) whatever they demand rather than wait for confirmation from Election Comm. HQ or rather than go through all the steps that are required for determining the person's eligibility to vote. One clever trick I've heard of (I think in PA in 2006) is to swamp a polling place (which invariably has a limited number of provisional ballots) with "ineligible" voters who ultimately are allowed to cast normal, untraceable ballots rather than be turned away because of a shortage of provisional ballots.

Complicated and rife with technicalities, you say? No doubt; but it is difficult to conduct a fair ballot (actually, it is almost impossible, especially if you expect it to be simple and easy) when determined persons have concluded that the end of winning an election justifies even immoral means.