Unveiling Anecdotes and Impersonation Voting: The Undeniable Truth Behind Voter Fraud

Voter fraud, particularly in the form of impersonation voting, has been a subject of controversy and concern, especially during election periods. While the prevalence is often overstated, anecdotes from dedicated volunteers shed light on the reality of what can and does happen.

Witnessing Impersonation Voting

During my volunteer work in a local county in California, we occasionally observed impersonation voting. On a few occasions, it became apparent that a person had voted twice, even dressed similarly. Considering the small voter turnout (around 50-60%) and the fact that many voted absentee or provisionally, the number of such cases was not overwhelming. Judging from the voting period (7 am to 8 pm), with approximately 46 voters per hour, the scale was manageable. Sometimes, the lines were so light that we could attend to other matters for significant stretches of time.

Challenges in Identifying and Addressing Impersonation Voting

Impersonation fraud typically involves voting in one's name and another, often a deceased family member, at the same time or back-to-back. This form of fraud has been reported as one of the most common nationwide. The root cause in California was the outdated voter registration lists, which were no longer updated for accuracy due to the 20-year gap. Despite the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) mandating regular updates, no specific guidelines defined what constituted a "general program" or "reasonable effort." A 2019 lawsuit demanded cleanup of the lists, resulting in the removal of millions of names.

The Role of ID Verification

In California, no ID was required to vote. When we requested ID, it could lead to significant trouble. Often, voters moving from states that required IDs would automatically present them, leading to our directive to turn away. Consequently, impersonation voting was relatively easy. Even attempts to challenge individuals at polling stations could invite scrutiny or even media attention, complicating the process.

Consequences and Impact

When we reported instances of impersonation voting, they were usually rejected due to lack of evidence. The county clerk rarely referred these cases to the District Attorney. Lack of empirical evidence and stringent legal requirements made these instances difficult to prove. While there might have been instances that mattered in local elections, the impact on state or national office elections was minimal. The 2020 Iowa election for the 2nd District U.S. House of Representatives being decided by only six votes underscores the negligible impact of such fraudulent votes.

Conclusion and Reflection

Although voter registration list cleanup post-2019 has likely reduced the incidence of impersonation voting, anecdotes from experienced volunteers continue to highlight the persistence of this issue. The lack of ID verification, outdated registration lists, and stringent evidential requirements pose significant challenges. However, these challenges remain a critical area for improvement to ensure fair and accurate elections.