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. 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