Fraud claims don’t hold up

October 16, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
There’s a fight going on in Indiana against early-voting sites, but the punches are being thrown at the wrong opponent.

A few Republicans in the typically Democratic-leaning Lake County have challenged the use of satellite voting sites because they feared it would increase the chance of voter fraud.

Because of conflicting court rulings in Lake Circuit and Superior courts, the Indiana Supreme Court stepped in and consolidated the cases for a speedy resolution yesterday.

Why? Because people want to vote early. Lines are forming in clerks’ offices and satellite voting sites across the state because people are eager to cast their votes.

The Republicans challenging the early-voting sites are using the excuse of voter fraud to try to make a legitimate claim to close these voting sites, but it seems to me those Republicans want to restrict voters’ access to these sites, which may be easier for voters to get to instead of the clerk’s office. Typically, it’s Democratic voters relying on public transportation or a ride from someone in order to vote. These closer, early-voting sites will help them out more.

How will voting early, in person, increase the chance of voter fraud? Voters will still have to produce a government-issued ID in order to vote, just as they would if they voted on Election Day.

If the Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) want to challenge something, how about absentee voting, in which you don’t have to produce an ID before mailing in your vote? Seems to me that’s where you’ll get your voter fraud, not from in-person absentee ballots cast at a satellite voting site.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT