Nader Ballot Fraud, Part 2
Kari Chisholm
Last night, right here at BlueOregon, we broke the news of the SEIU fraud and forgery investigation into Nader's petition for the Oregon ballot. At a press conference this morning, SEIU released more evidence. The key item: SEIU Local 49 contacted 269 people whose names were on petition sheets - and only 32% report that they actually signed the Nader petitions. The key quote, from SEIU veep Alice Dale: "This fraud is too pervasive to have been committed without at least the complicity of the signature gatherers."
Update 3 p.m. - Associated Press: Union says Nader's circulators forged signatures
Here's the full press announcement from SEIU...
Widespread Forgery Shown on Nader for President Petitions
Evidence of overwhelming and systemic fraud in the Ralph Nader for President petitions was released today by the Service Employees International Union. An analysis of the petition sheets and a direct survey of people whose names appear on the petition suggests at least two-thirds of all signatures turned in by the Nader campaign to date are fraudulent.
Alice Dale, Vice-President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was joined by Ellen Lowe, the chief petitioner of the Initiative Integrity Act, as she released preliminary findings of an investigation into the quality of the first round of signature sheets turned into Multnomah and Washington Counties of the Ralph Nader for President petition.
As part of the investigation, 269 people whose names were on petition sheets have been contacted face to face through SEIU’s research project. Out of those contacts, it was learned that 27% of the addresses do not exist, 22% of the names belong to people who are deceased or do not live at the address, and 17% of the people contacted reported they did not sign the petition. Only 32% of the people contacted whose names appear on the Nader petition report actually signing the petition.
"Based on our experience fighting signature fraud in the past, we believe the problem originates from the circulators themselves," says Alice Dale, Service Employees Union International Vice President. "This fraud is too pervasive to have been committed without at least the complicity of the signature gatherers. Furthermore, looking at the sheets for any length of time raises the question of whether campaign officials knew or at the very least should have known about the false signatures."
Adding to the evidence is the testimonial of a man who witnessed Nader petitioners copying names from a phone book, and another man whose name was forged. Today he will be filing a complaint about the forgery with the Oregon State Elections Division.
"If you look at a copy of my real signature and a copy of the signature on the petition, it is clear that the two don’t match," he says. "The bottom line is that my signature was forged and there are two things I want done about it. I want the Oregon State Elections Division to immediately investigate my complaint of fraud and I join the others in calling on the Ralph Nader campaign not to attempt to qualify for the Oregon ballot using illegal means."
###
Press links will be posted as they become available.
[Cross-posted at the Political State Report.]
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:41 p.m.
Aug 16, '04
There are also charges of fraud in Pennsylvnia.
Aug 16, '04
What profits a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his Soul? Are those so ready and willing to distort and dissemble, to lie, cheat and steal to "win-at-any-cost" in danger of losing their souls? Stay tuned America.
Aug 16, '04
Add West Virginia to the list, though so far I haven't heard of specific evidence of fraudulent signatures, just violations of election law by the signature-gatherers. The verdict is still out, though.
Aug 16, '04
I don't get it...how is it that SEIU came into contact with a list(s) of petition signers? And who made them petition cops anyway? Isn't that the Secretary of State's job? And since they have an obvious interest in keep Nader off the ballot, why should I believe one word they have to say on it?
Voted for Nader last time and will do so this year too!
5:15 p.m.
Aug 16, '04
And who made them petition cops anyway? Isn't that the Secretary of State's job?
I responded to this argument earlier, maybe on the other thread, but it seems to me that it's every citizen's responsibility to police civic processes.
But here's the other part of it: If the Sec. of State and/or the Attorney General looked into possible fraud in the Nader effort, they'd be accused of launching a politically-motivated investigation. Now. the union gets to trake that particular heat, and the state can simply do its job.
And since they have an obvious interest in keep Nader off the ballot, why should I believe one word they have to say on it?
You don't have to. But by the same token, Kafoury and the Nader backers have an obvious interest in getting Nader on the ballot, so why should I believe on word of their denials?
It all goes both ways in this particular game.
Aug 16, '04
But here's the other part of it: If the Sec. of State and/or the Attorney General looked into possible fraud in the Nader effort, they'd be accused of launching a politically-motivated investigation. I really don't think that would happen- it is in their job description to do these exact things. This is what they were hired on to do.
I completely agree with Mike D: And since they have an obvious interest in keep Nader off the ballot, why should I believe one word they have to say on it?
This is not the union's job, and if anyones action could be seen as politically motivated or partisan, I would say it would be the SEIU as they have recently endorsed John Kerry.
This action by the SEIU was unecessary, and riddled with a hidden agenda. I heavily condemn it. This kind of examination and press release is to be done by those who are hired/voted to so.
-A democrat voting for Kerry
Aug 16, '04
Mike D and pdxkona - The fact that you don't agree with SEIU conducting this investigation doesn't change what they uncovered in that investigation. Do you really think that they are just making this stuff up?
7:22 p.m.
Aug 16, '04
It's the height of naivete to believe that the state, if they had launched an investigation on its own, would not have been accused of playing politics. They're accused of playing politics all the time -- they were accused of playing politics when they began enforcing a previously-announced rule regarding signature sheets. Of course they would have been accused of politics in this case as well.
7:23 p.m.
Aug 16, '04
Re: What SEIU uncovered. Watching coverage of today's news conference on the news, I noticed that some of the errors are things such as signatories addresses being listed as a street number that technically would have been the tree between two houses.
10:27 p.m.
Aug 16, '04
How is it that SEIU came into contact with a list(s) of petition signers? And who made them petition cops anyway? Isn't that the Secretary of State's job?
Answers: 1) Petitions are public documents, and are available upon request from the Sec State. 2) SEIU has lots of experience evaluating petitions - as they were one of the lead unions that set up the Voter Education Project, which discovered massive identity theft and fraud/forgery happening amongst the right-wing petition collectors. 3) Yes, it is. And, of course, they'll do the legal evaluation of signatures. There's no reason, though, for SEIU - or anyone else - not to be a watch-dog on the process.
If it hadn't been for the VEP, we would never have known how prevalent the fraud was among the anti-tax signature gatherers.
(Full disclosure: I built VoterEducationProject.org, which is now closed down.)
Aug 16, '04
re b!X's initial comment:
Nader is not trying to gain the whole world, just a place on the ballot. This is something his opponents are strangely keen to deny him (particularly odd behaviour from those who willingly label themselves democrats). America has never been tuned in, so it can't stay tuned in.
Personally I think Nader is just as crazy as Bush and Kerry, but I will sign a petition for any candidate to get on the ballot (and have signed only once for Nader) because the ballot rules are so ludicrous. I reckon I know who you'll be voting for this year.
Aug 16, '04
sorry, that was bill deiz's comment, not b!x's.
Aug 17, '04
I am not sure I understand the logic of the Nader supporters. In other states he is the candidate of the Reform party, a small right wing party that nominated Pat Buchanan the last time around. I don't know a lot about his politics (not very high on my list of priorities), but based on his republican backers in Oregon and in other states, on paper he looks quite a bit to the right of center. He is an opponent of the Democratic Party in a winner takes all election. His supporters are complaining that we are not interested in helping him be on the ballot, and that we are doing anything legal to prevent him from taking votes that could help us win, and that we are not facing the other way when blatant violations of the election law are uncovered.
Sorry guys, but we care for the future of our country. There is an important job to do in Washington, cleaning up the disaster of the current administration. That is why we are determined to win Oregon for Kerry. If you are not with us, you are against us. And if you can't stand the heat, please get out of the kitchen.
11:15 a.m.
Aug 17, '04
And who made them petition cops anyway? Isn't that the Secretary of State's job?
Yes but (official hat on here), SoS enforcement of elections laws is complaint-driven. We rely on democracy-minded citizens to keep an eye on procedure and tell us if something is amiss so that we can launch an investigation. We don't have the resources or the authority to run around investigating things that haven't been documented by a complaint backed with some sort of evidence - we don't ever just launch an independent investigation.
That said, signature fraud is a class C felony, and the Secretary of State and Department of Justice will thoroughly investigate each and every complaint that comes in.
12:42 p.m.
Aug 17, '04
Oh, good. I was hoping Anne would have a chance to show up in one of the threads on this.
Aug 17, '04
marcello seems to be wilfully missing the point here. I am not a backer of nader (I will vote for badnarik), but I believe he should be on the ballot. the same can be said (presumably for less edifying reasons on the whole) for the republicans who have helped him out. The views of those who sign to get him on the ballot obviously have little bearing on his policies. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. His policies are clearly well to the left of what Kerry has to offer, as can be seen by a quick glance at his website.
Surely there is a standard procedure for verifying signatures after they have been presented to the state anyway. If fraud has occurred the signatures will be thrown out at that point.
If the union's purpose was to help the state out why was there any need for a press announcement?
4:38 p.m.
Aug 17, '04
It's both legit and helpful for unions or others to bring attention to issues of fraud and forgery in signature gathering. Nader has been prolific in his use of the press to accuse Democrats of "dirty tricks," and it seems only fair to publicly point out that his troops aren't so clean themselves.
Why should Nader (of all people) be given a special pass to ignore the rules that everyone else has to follow and put himself on a ballot using fraud and forgery without being questioned about it?
Beyond that, the people of Oregon have a right to know if they're being duped and defrauded, or if their elections system is being abused. And such publicity can help deter future fraud. I would thank SEIU, the Voters Education Project, and anyone else who takes the time to watch signature verification (it is open to the public) for vigilantly protecting the integrity of our elections.
Surely there is a standard procedure for verifying signatures. At the county level, elections officials compare the signature on the petition sheet with the signature on the voter registration card. But while we can catch duplicates, we can't always catch a good forgery unless there's some obvious discrepancy or a complaint about forgery.
Seems to me that SEIU's purpose was dual: provide allegations of fraud to the SoS for investigation, and call public attention to the fact that Nader troops were acting fraudulently and abusing the elections system. As a voting citizen, I'm glad they took the time to put that in the press.
Aug 17, '04
The whole point of requiring signatures to be on the ballot is that we want to have candidates that demonstrate that they have a minimum support among the population. In Oregon, the requirements for independent candidates are reasonably low, and if you can't even get those few thousands signatures (legally) you don't belong on the ballot. Nader has to get signaturees people like Mark who will not vote for him in the election, in order to qualify. I can't see that he has demonstrated any support from voters, this time around.
6:32 p.m.
Aug 17, '04
Mark, you seem to want to have it both ways--Nader should be allowed on the ballot, but it shouldn't be a political process. The Republicans want him on there for the same reason the Dems don't--because Bush is more likely to win the state if he is. Fair enough. No one is saying Nader doesn't have the right to get on the ballot, but if Naderites think it's all going to be high-minded civic loveliness, they've got another thing coming. Dems don't want him. In a democracy, that's their right, too.
Aug 19, '04
'The whole point of requiring signatures to be on the ballot is that we want to have candidates that demonstrate that they have a minimum support among the population.'
If this is the case it serves very little purpose other than avoiding a cluttered ballot paper (which doesn't seem to worry us when we are consider the mayoral primary here in Portland). Clearly the real purpose of the rules is actually to make life difficult for any third party candidates. Both major parties obviously have a vested interest here (as is the case countrywide). Hence the rules have little to do with what Jeff calls "high-minded civic loveliness" and I have another reason never to vote for a republican or democrat.
'Mark, you seem to want to have it both ways--Nader should be allowed on the ballot, but it shouldn't be a political process.'
Given my opinion of the motivation behind the rules I am hardly surprised by any unedifying (but presumably not illegal) moves of the democrats. Nader should not be allowed on the ballot if he doesn't gain enough signatures because that's what the law says. I believe the law is foolish though. I believe that this should not be a political process because the process should not exist. How restricted can ballot access be without it blatantly impinging on democracy?
Aug 22, '04
Republicans try to sign up petitions signatures for ballot = Blame Ralph Signature Gatherers cheat on forms = Blame Ralph Bush wins 2000 = Blame Ralph Corporations & Duopoly controls our government = Ignore Ralph CarSafety/Enviroment/Labor/Consumer Rights/Health/etc = Ignore Ralph Democracy/Anti-War/Election Reform/endCorporateWelfare = Ignore Ralph
I have not a bit of doubt that most whom Blame Know the least of all about the man and his principles Blame Ralph cause the Truth Hurts Ignore Ralph cause you’re sold out