3 charged in Ohio with voting up to 6 times

[BDKJMU]

"Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November

She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.

The 58-year-old veteran Cincinnati poll worker, indicted Monday, faces eight counts of voter fraud. Two others, one of whom is a nun, have been charged separately.

Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, "Yes, I voted twice," claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there "was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud."

"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," she proclaimed in the interview.

Officials charged that she voted in her own name by absentee ballot and also in person at the polls, but Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Deters said she also is charged with voting in the name of five other people in various elections.

"This is not North Korea," Deters said in a statement announcing the indictments. "Elections are a serious business and the foundation of our democracy. In the scheme of things, individual votes may not seem important, but this could not be further from the truth. Every vote is important and every voter and candidate needs to have faith in our system. The charges today should let people know that we take this seriously."

Richardson made national headlines when the Hamilton County Board of Elections announced that it was investigating whether she voted up to half a dozen times, including on behalf of her granddaughter, India Richardson.

India told Fox News that her grandmother did indeed vote in her name, telling us that "it wasn't a big deal."

But voting twice or in another person's name is illegal.

Prosecutors say the five other people for whom Richardson cast ballots are all relatives.

Sister Marguerite Kloos also faces one count of illegal voting, for allegedly submitting an absentee ballot in the name of a fellow nun, Sister Rose Marie Hewitt, who had died before absentee ballots were sent out. She is accused of opening Sister Hewitt’s ballot, forging her signature and mailing it to the Board of Elections as a vote.

The 54-year-old Kloos has resigned as the dean of the Division of Arts and Humanities at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati, where she still serves as an associate professor of religious and pastoral studies.

Kloos was not indicted but faces what is known as an information, because her lawyer contacted prosecutors and she agreed to cooperate and plead guilty.

"As a valued member of the Mount community, our thoughts are with her during this difficult time," the college said in a written statement. "We respect her privacy and will not comment further on this matter at this time."

Russell Glassop, 75, also is charged with illegal voting. He is accused of voting on behalf of his wife, who died before election day.

But it was Richardson's case, and the possibility of repeated votes, that shocked many. She faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted. Efforts to contact her and her lawyer have been unsuccessful.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections recently held hearings on cases of possible double voting and voter fraud, part of a statewide review ordered by Secretary of State John Husted. He called on all 88 counties to review complaints of fraud, as well as voter disenfranchisement.

“Every voter must play by the rules, and if they don’t they will be held accountable,” Husted, a Republican, said in a written statement. “For voters to have confidence in our elections, we must prosecute every case of voter fraud in Ohio.”

Last month, Husted told Fox News that Richardson's case was especially troubling, because "it appears she not only attempted to vote more than once, but was actually successful at it and having those additional votes counted."

"Most attempts are caught by the system. But there are cases that do slip through, as this one does, and we need to make sure that we really send a strong message, that if you do this, you are going to be held accountable,” Husted said. “It might mean fines, it might mean jail time."

Hamilton County prosecutors are investigating three additional cases of possible voter fraud.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... -november/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

And according to some donks on here, voter fraud never takes place.....

[LeadBolt]

Sounds like a loyal supporter of "Landslide Lyndon"

[houndawg]

And according to some donks on here, voter fraud never takes place.....

No to worry, BDORKJMU, it's Ohio.

The voting machines changed them to Romney votes.

[Ivytalk]

Dang Donk nuns!

[Grizalltheway]

And according to some donks on here, voter fraud never takes place.....

No, people just reject your dumbass assertion that it's widespread enough to tip national elections in favor of the Dems.

[kalm]

And according to some donks on here, voter fraud never takes place.....

No, people just reject your dumbass assertion that it's widespread enough to tip national elections in favor of the Dems.

But it's a great dog whistle to fire up the conk base.

[Col Hogan]

And according to some donks on here, voter fraud never takes place.....

No, people just reject your dumbass assertion that it's widespread enough to tip national elections in favor of the Dems.

So, him much would be required to take action, in your opinion???

[Baldy]

Donks.

[ASUMountaineer]

And according to some donks on here, voter fraud never takes place.....

No to worry, BDORKJMU, it's Ohio.

The voting machines changed them to Romney votes.

Now that's an excellent retort...complete with name calling. #winning

[kalm]

No, people just reject your dumbass assertion that it's widespread enough to tip national elections in favor of the Dems.

So, him much would be required to take action, in your opinion???

Action should always be taken, but it's not nearly the problem your side makes it out to be.

[GannonFan]

Only something so partisan could be handled like this. Dems don't want to do anything because they say the GOP is blowing it out of proportion, and the the GOP is probably blowing it out of proportion.

But when we know pretty well that something like 1 out of every 8 records in America is incorrect, and that voting irregularities happen all the time, and when we know that local control of elections leads to abuse in both directions, then it should take people of just some integrity to say that common sense dictates that we clean up the way we handle elections. However, there's not a lot of integrity from Dems (there's no problem at all) and GOP'ers (it's a vast conspiracy) these days.

[clenz]

So, him much would be required to take action, in your opinion???

Action should always be taken, but it's not nearly the problem your side makes it out to be.

How wide spread does it need to be for it to actually matter to you?

123,726,414 were cast in the last election and Obama won by 3,473,402....I may have fucked the math on this one up..but if just 6% ( a mere 3,756,924 voters) of Obama's voters voted multiple times (2 or 3 each) that would have given Romney the election.

6% of people voting for Obama is just 3% of all voters.....only 3%. What % of votes have to be illegal for it to matter?


Let's not pretend that Romney didn't have voters do the same thing though.


So again, how wide spread does it need to be for it to start to matter?

[Col Hogan]

So, him much would be required to take action, in your opinion???

Action should always be taken, but it's not nearly the problem your side makes it out to be.

So, how much equals a problem worth legislation to deal with this problem???

[BlueHen86]

Action should always be taken, but it's not nearly the problem your side makes it out to be.

So, how much equals a problem worth legislation to deal with this problem???

The cartoon makes sense to me.

[JohnStOnge]

I think it is real. I think it consistently works, on balance, in favor of Democrats in national elections. And I think it is indeed prevalent enough to swing very close national elections in favor of the Democrats. There are many reasonable people, for instance, that think that it made the difference in the race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. And I think it came pretty darned close to making the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

I bookmarked articles following the 2000 election in which there were things like a woman in Florida saying she voted for Gore 10 times. Also articles about all of the illegal votes by people not eligible to vote and how it was reasonable to think that dross went overwhelmingly to Gore.

I also, as I've written before, well remember a conversation between Republican and Democratic political consultants I heard on Louisiana public radio talking about how Mary Landrieu won her Senate election over Woody Jenkins. Both agreed that voter fraud in Orleans Parish got Landrieu in. Seriously. The Democratic consultant agreed that is true. But he said it was the Republicans' fault for not taking the steps necessary to monitor the polls. Of course if the Republicans do that they're accused of voter suppression efforts.

To me it's just a part of the background. Republicans just need to accept the fact that the Democrats start with an advantage in that area. And all you have to do to validate it in a common sense way is just contemplate what has happened when efforts to curtail voter fraud have been made or when steps that would make voter fraud easier are proposed. If something is proposed that would make voter fraud more difficult, Democrats oppose it and Republicans favor it. If something is proposed that will make voter fraud easier, Democrats favor it and Republicans oppose it. It's as predictable as the sun coming up each morning and it ought to tell you something.

[kalm]

Action should always be taken, but it's not nearly the problem your side makes it out to be.

So, how much equals a problem worth legislation to deal with this problem???

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

[GannonFan]

So, how much equals a problem worth legislation to deal with this problem???

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

How do laws on the books fix the problem of voter rolls that are fraught with errors? Like I said before, when we moved my wife was still on the rolls in her prior two places of residence - no law could stop her from voting in three different locales in the same election. Or stop anyone else casting a vote for her. Heck, she might still be on the rolls in Philly where she lived. Why can't it be fixed, what's so sacrosanct about the current situation that we can't take common sense approaches to make sure everyone who is able to vote only votes once? And what does it matter that both sides do it? Why should anyone's vote being superceded by voter fraud be minimized just because the net effect may be that both parties benefit? The rest of the world seems to mostly do a better job of this than we do by simply making sure everyone who can vote is permitted to vote and that they only do it once.

At the end of the day, this is the basis of our entire political system - you'd think everyone would want to make sure we do this correctly. But hey, it's just a minor thing, right?

[kalm]

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

How do laws on the books fix the problem of voter rolls that are fraught with errors? Like I said before, when we moved my wife was still on the rolls in her prior two places of residence - no law could stop her from voting in three different locales in the same election. Or stop anyone else casting a vote for her. Heck, she might still be on the rolls in Philly where she lived. Why can't it be fixed, what's so sacrosanct about the current situation that we can't take common sense approaches to make sure everyone who is able to vote only votes once? And what does it matter that both sides do it? Why should anyone's vote being superceded by voter fraud be minimized just because the net effect may be that both parties benefit? The rest of the world seems to mostly do a better job of this than we do by simply making sure everyone who can vote is permitted to vote and that they only do it once.

At the end of the day, this is the basis of our entire political system - you'd think everyone would want to make sure we do this correctly. But hey, it's just a minor thing, right?

Why do you think I'd disagree with any of this?

[Col Hogan]

So, how much equals a problem worth legislation to deal with this problem???

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

Kinda like gun laws...step up enforcement rather than adding new restrictions...I can live with that, but can others???

[kalm]

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

Kinda like gun laws...step up enforcement rather than adding new restrictions...I can live with that, but can others???

I can

[D1B]

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

Kinda like gun laws...step up enforcement rather than adding new restrictions...I can live with that, but can others???

I can, as long as we enforce a restriction that no one can posses or own a gun, unless it's for game hunting purposes only.

[89Hen]

No, people just reject your dumbass assertion that it's widespread enough to tip national elections in favor of the Dems.

But it's a great dog whistle to fire up the conk base.

Typical Dems. Who cares about voter fraud?

[ASUMountaineer]

Kinda like gun laws...step up enforcement rather than adding new restrictions...I can live with that, but can others???

I can, as long as we enforce a restriction that no one can posses or own a gun, unless it's for what I use guns to do.

FIFY.

[ASUMountaineer]

I don't know but seems like there are already laws on the books. Perhaps enforcement needs to be stepped up. But it still seems like a minor issue that is perpetrated by both sides.

How do laws on the books fix the problem of voter rolls that are fraught with errors? Like I said before, when we moved my wife was still on the rolls in her prior two places of residence - no law could stop her from voting in three different locales in the same election. Or stop anyone else casting a vote for her. Heck, she might still be on the rolls in Philly where she lived. Why can't it be fixed, what's so sacrosanct about the current situation that we can't take common sense approaches to make sure everyone who is able to vote only votes once? And what does it matter that both sides do it? Why should anyone's vote being superceded by voter fraud be minimized just because the net effect may be that both parties benefit? The rest of the world seems to mostly do a better job of this than we do by simply making sure everyone who can vote is permitted to vote and that they only do it once.

At the end of the day, this is the basis of our entire political system - you'd think everyone would want to make sure we do this correctly. But hey, it's just a minor thing, right?

We don't always agree, but we do here.