Where else is the fraud?

October 28, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Why does it always have to be Lake County? It’s election time, so once again, there are allegations flying that shenanigans are going on in Northern Indiana.

Voter fraud is a big deal. If it isn’t caught, it can damage and taint election results. If it is caught, it calls into question other legitimate voters’ ballots or registrations.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita is crying fraud up in Lake County, alleging 1,438 fraudulent voter applications have been submitted to the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration. Rokita wrote a letter, providing stats and data to show the probability of fraudulent voter registration, and sent it to the U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Indiana, the Lake County prosecutor, FBI, and Attorney General Steve Carter. In the letter, it appears he links these fraudulent submissions to ACORN, which is in hot water all over the country for allegedly faking voter registration applications.

While I could go on about Lake County and its history of proven or alleged election fraud, what about the rest Indiana? I haven’t heard anyone cry foul over voter registrations in any other part of the state.

ACORN targets lower and moderate income and minority residents when registering voters. There are numerous counties in Indiana that have diverse populations like Lake County. Why aren’t we hearing these allegations in Marion, Allen, Vanderburgh, St. Joseph, Monroe, or other counties? I’m sure ACORN or other voter registration groups were out trying to register people in those counties, too.

Are officials hyper-vigilant in their watching of Lake County, not digging hard enough to find evidence of voter fraud in other counties, or is it really just an isolated problem?
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT