Was the Democratic Primary Just Manipulated, or Was It Stolen?
Monday, 13 June 2016 00:00 By Ben Ptashnik and Victoria Collier, Truthout |
News Analysis
Hillary Clinton addresses a Planned Parenthood Action Fund gathering in
Washington, June 10, 2016. (Stephen Crowley / The New York Times)
The debacle that was the 2016 primary season is nearly over, but the primary
system itself may have destroyed faith in American democracy. Certainly it
has divided the Democratic Party.
The Internet is awash with accusations that the Democratic primary was
rigged; anger, confusion, and fault-placing are running wild, and so are the
online right-wing "trolls" who feed the fires of discord between the two
camps of the Democratic Party through misinformation and divisive invective.
With buyers remorse sweeping the GOP, election fraud lawsuits pending,
millions of Bernie Sanders supporters crying foul and some vowing "Bernie or
Bust," many are even forecasting the breakup of the two-party system.
So where does the truth lie, and where do we go from here? How do we
separate malfeasance from propaganda?
The Suppression of Democratic Party Populism
The truth is that the Democratic primary was hobbled at the starting gate by
blatant partisanship on behalf of Hillary Clinton by the DNC and the
mainstream media.
The heavy-handedness of the Democratic Party elite -- particularly Debbie
Wasserman's actions as party chair in restricting debates, followed by her
open admission that the purpose of superdelegates is to crush the
possibilities of grassroots candidates rising to challenge the party
establishment -- was called to account even by Democrats. Telling a
passionate, reform-minded populist movement "were rigged to suppress you"
is not the best way for the head of a party to start an election season.
Calls for Wassermans removal were not isolated.
The primary process was also one of the most distorted media political
events we have witnessed in recent years, with the networks exhibiting an
astonishingly destructive lust for profits by handing Donald Trump billions
of dollars in free airtime in order to build ratings, even as they
deliberately tuned out Sanders campaign.
The California primary finale provoked ubiquitous outrage as the Associated
Press played queen-maker, anointing Clinton the nominee based on secret
interviews of the superdelegates, who will not actually cast their votes
until the Democratic Convention in July.
GOING FORWARD, ALL CANDIDATES AND PARTIES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE
FOUNDATIONAL ELECTION REFORM A CENTRAL FOCUS OF THEIR WORK.
This move came a day before the last major primary date, possibly
suppressing voter turnout in our most populated state where registration had
reached record levels. Even the DNC publicly protested what was seen as a
pointless slap in the face to the millions of voters who had yet to cast a
ballot. Such media interference only fosters overall distrust and the
conviction that powerful networks are aligned with Clinton and manipulating
in her favor.
It also conjures memories of the 2000 election when Fox News wrongly called
the presidential race for George W. Bush in Florida, forcing Al Gore to
contest the results. Meanwhile, the press shot him full of "sore loser"
arrows, and he eventually rolled over to die quietly. This is presumably
what the networks expected of Bernie Sanders.
Yet, the game has changed.
Social Media vs. Corporate Media
For the first time during a national campaign, the full force of online
alternative news outlets and social media came to the plate, taking on the
powers that be with relentless coverage and viral Facebook and Twitter
posts, circumventing the editorial whitewash and blackouts of the corporate
press.
When the networks ran with incendiary headlines claiming Sanders supporters
had engaged in mass violence at the Nevada Caucus, online journalists and
activists outed the story as false. Numerous cell phone videos proved them
right.
In truth, that the Bernie Sanders campaign was born and lived at all is due
only to his network of web-savvy supporters, sharing documentation of his
speeches and actions from the 1960s through his career in office, posting
the images from his nascent grassroots campaign, packing halls and
overfilling stadiums. All of this was largely ignored by the corporate
press, as though his skyrocketing underdog candidacy simply did not exist.
The result of all this manipulation is evident on websites for election
integrity, voting rights and third parties which previously could count a
few hundred interested supporters. Many find that the number of voters today
who believe they are being lied to, and that the electoral system urgently
needs reform, are swelling into the thousands.
Millions are registering their disaffection in polls, with 66 percent of the
public now saying they distrust the primary system.
But there is a downside to this. With the social media revolution we are
also confronted by rampant misinformation shepherded by an army of trolls.
Confused voters are being goaded to assume election fraud at every turn and
in every contest, and to blame Hillary Clinton and her surrogates directly,
not just for all insider manipulations, but also for every possible flaw,
glitch, and screw up in the voting system.
For example, we recently happened upon a Facebook post of a mainstream news
article claiming two hundred deceased voters are still listed as casting
ballots in California. The post headline screamed: "CLINTON VOTING DEAD
PEOPLE TO WIN CALIFORNIA!"
The article in no way associated Hillary Clinton with this particular voting
problem. Nevertheless, many supposed anti-Clinton voters joined the chorus
of Facebook outrage.
Perhaps these people are well meaning but simply didnt bother to read the
article. However, it is also possible that right-wing trolls are instigating
further dissent in the Democratic ranks through just this kind of hysterical
and misleading social media posting. In fact, its likely that a good
portion of the worst online bile spewed from both camps is actually trolling
by people pretending to support Clinton or Sanders, to sow discord and deep
seated animosity on the left.
A recent shocking Bloomberg article "How to Hack an Election" is an expose
on Andrés Sepúlveda, who led clandestine operations to steal elections in
Latin America through every kind of manipulation.
A HEFTY PERCENTAGE OF THE SUPPRESSION SEEN IN THE PRIMARIES CAN BE TRACED
BACK TO THE LONG-STANDING ATTACK ON VOTING RIGHTS SPEARHEADED BY RIGHT-WING
FORCES SINCE 2010.
His "package" deal included defacing campaign websites, breaking into
opponents donor databases, spying, stealing, smearing, hacking smartphones,
spoofing and cloning Web pages, and sending mass e-mails and texts -- a full
range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs
were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants.
Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known
about his role; he says he met only a few.
On the question of whether the US presidential campaign is being tampered
with, he is unequivocal. "Im 100 percent sure it is," he says.
Sadly, its a new kind of challenge to discern the truth these days, but
its more important than ever that we try, or we will not know where to
focus our outrage or channel our efforts to effect reform. Additionally,
spreading unfounded accusations can fatally undermine the credibility of a
reform movement.
Are the Accusations of Fraud Backed Up by the Facts?
When it comes to accusations of fraud, the fact is that a hefty percentage
of the suppression seen in the primaries can be traced back to the
long-standing attack on voting rights spearheaded by right-wing forces since
2010. The American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC and the Tea Party
coordinate these attacks with funding from the Koch Brothers.
The plot to suppress the votes of progressive and Democratic-leaning youth
and minorities is well documented, and even admitted to by a number of
Republican politicians and operatives.
Thirty-two states, mostly controlled by Republican Legislatures and
Governors, have so far promulgated draconian voter suppression laws or
regulations. Since the Supreme Court gutted section four of the Voting
Rights Act three years ago, 17 states proceeded to apply wholesale
gerrymandering and suppression of students and Native American, African
American, Asian American and Latino voters.
These strategic assaults on democracy have led to the recent formation of
the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, Co- chaired by Representatives Marc
Veasey (D-TX), Terri Sewell (D-AL), Bobby Scott (D- VA), and civil rights
icon John Lewis (D-GA). Now 71 members, the Caucus is dedicated to restoring
the Voting Rights Act, and reforming the insecure, aging voting technology
that is used to count our elections results through the VOTE Act.
All progressive and Democratic candidates will be affected in November by
voter suppression, including Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. Yet, in
the Arizona primary, the downsizing of polling stations from 400 to 60 were
widely blamed on Clinton, even though the results clearly impacted her
supporters as well. (The accusations against Helen Purcell, the Republican
Maricopa County recorder who took responsibility for the shut-downs, is a
good example of of online misinformation that goes viral.)
However, while some voters might be at times misled, it is wrong to accuse
them of baseless paranoia for fearing the overt partisanship and conflict of
interest in the elections establishment itself.
Partisan Oversight and Structural Deficiencies
In the United States, our elections are often administered by ultra-partisan
secretaries of state and, in the case of primaries, by party officials who
tend to have preferences and exploit their positions.
The fact that some secretaries of state, including Alison Grimes of Kentucky
and Alex Padilla of California, are actively supporting Hillary Clinton even
as they command the elections process in their state, contributes to an
atmosphere of anxiety and honest concerns that strings may be pulled behind
the scenes.
The same paranoia rightfully grips Democrats en masse when ultra-partisan
Republican secretaries of state control the general election process.
In 2000, the infamous Katherine Harris of Florida manipulated the Bush v.
Gore debacle, and Kenneth Blackwell presided over Ohios tainted election of
2004. That reelection handed the presidency to George W. Bush through mass
voter purging and GOP-controlled computer servers that flipped the
electronic vote results in the middle of the night before loading them onto
Blackwells website. Blackwell was, at the very same time, the Co-Chair of
the Committee to Re-elect George W. Bush. The certification of the Ohio
election was challenged in Congress but failed to stop Bushs coronation.
The 2016 primaries and caucuses laid bare not only the partisanship, but the
structural deficiencies of American elections administration, built on a
byzantine set of voting regulations and processes controlled by local and
county administrators -- a dizzying maze of procedures that dictate voter
registration, auditing paper ballots and processing mailed-in and
provisional ballots.
Provisional Ballots and Other Irregularities
Its unclear how many hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of voters
were given provisional ballots in the 2016 primary, either because they were
purged from the voter rolls, their registration was mysteriously changed
from one party to another (with some reporting their signatures were
forged), they did not receive their mail-in ballot, or aging electronic
voting machines broke down at the polling location. Voters reported that
provisional ballots were being "given out like candy."
These provisional ballots are a creation of the 2002 Help America Vote Act.
They may or may not be counted as cast ballots based on the particular
integrity of a given county and the so-called "eligibility" of the voter.
The requirements for eligibility are unclear for voters who have to prove
their registration was actually valid, even when they were wrongly purged or
their status was changed without their consent.
According to the watchdog group Election Protection, areas with high
percentages of racial and ethnic minority voters have the highest rates of
provisional ballots, and a large proportion of these ballots are typically
rejected.
Compounding the confusion and distrust are varying vote-tabulating systems
in each state and in over 4,000 voting jurisdictions. Most are centered
around privately programmed, "black box" electronic voting systems with code
that cannot be inspected by the public or elections officials. A lack of
rigorous audits means that no one can actually prove our votes were
accurately counted. Throughout the nation, unaccountable companies like
Dominion and Scytl -- a foreign vendor and host of unknown sub-vendors --
now control voter registration, voter rolls, voting machine software and the
collating and reporting of voting results. Voting machines can sit
unattended for weeks before elections, giving pause to all security experts.
Throw into this confounding mix poor poll worker trainings, too few polling
locations, a lack of parking spaces, missing voter rosters, insufficient
ballots and an overall stunning dearth of resources provided for American
elections, and after a while its impossible to tell whether the problem is
malice or incompetence -- or if theres even a discernible difference.
The only clear fact is that countless people were unable to vote, and even
more dont know whether their votes were actually counted.
Some voters have taken surreptitious video of the chaos they encountered in
their polling location.
On June 7 alone, the nationwide nonpartisan Election Protection hotline
received more than 1,300 calls as voters in California, New Jersey, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota and New Mexico reported a litany of problems.
More than half of the calls received were from California voters.
It is still unknown how many provisional ballots in Californias 58 counties
will be rejected or accepted. The counting continues for weeks, with
questions legitimately raised about oversight of the ballots.
Suspicions Run Rampant
Before we storm our local Boards of Election with pitchforks, we should
remember that there are many competent, even exceptional election
supervisors, clerks, and poll workers who do their best under pressure with
shrinking resources and a populace who often cant be bothered to learn the
rules before complaining about the results (you know who you are).
However, the onus should not rest on the voters to inform themselves of
rules and changes, to protect their ballots, or to defend their properly
registered voting status.
Suspicions are now rampant that the 126,000 voters wrongly purged in New
York, particularly in Brooklyn, were intra-party rigging targeting likely
Sanders supporters.
THE LONGSTANDING FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO ADDRESS THE MANY
INJUSTICES AND FAILURES IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS HAS LED TO A CRISIS POINT.
Although no evidence currently proves this accusation, concerns are
augmented by the fact that the DNC voter lists firewall reportedly came down
twice, giving both campaigns access to each others private lists. These
lists may have included voter preference information, providing an
opportunity for mischief, though so far no proof exists that these lists
were used to purge Bernie supporters.
To prove the purges were targeted against Sanders supporters, evidence would
need to show that they were disproportionately among the 121,000 given
"affidavit ballots," which are equivalent to provisional ballots. Currently,
we understand that 90,000 of those ballots have been rejected. Meanwhile,
the purged voters have reportedly been restored to the New York voting
rolls, but that's cold comfort for those whose votes were invalidated in the
primaries.
Even less comfort could be found for the voters who claim that, during an
electronic voting audit in Chicago, the machines had apparently not tallied
all of the votes for Bernie Sanders. Witnesses at a hearing held by the
Chicago Board of Elections reported that, instead of investigating the
machine count, the audits were simply fixed to match the machine results,
literally erasing Sanders votes and adding votes to Clintons tally.
If these allegations are true, one would think this would certainly qualify
as fraud. Its little wonder that many Sanders supporters are vexed.
The disturbing video of the voter testimony before the Chicago Board of
Elections went viral. Another fact to emerge from the meeting is that the
audit tabulation cannot be used to change the results of an election. It is
only a means to test the voting equipment, rendering it useless for exposing
and combatting election fraud.
Meanwhile, nationwide primary voting results are being called into question
based on consistent anomalies in exit polling, which apparently affected
only the Democratic race and not the Republican, with disparities favoring
Hillary Clinton disproportionately. Exit polls are internationally
considered a reliable indicator of election veracity and are one of the only
"forensic" tools available in the United States to determine the accuracy of
the secret machine counts. Before the final definitive primary races on June
7, including California, all exit polls were cancelled without explanation.
Grassroots organization nationwide have filed or are planning to file
lawsuits challenging primary results and demanding access to raw voting
materials including ballots and poll tapes that are often off limits to
public inspection.
Going Forward: Fixing the Mechanics of Elections
Neither Clinton nor Sanders has fully addressed the maelstrom of election
fraud fury swirling around their primary campaigns. This is perhaps to be
expected from candidates who must stay afloat in treacherous political
waters. Sanders in particular would be fatally vilified in the press for
suggesting that the primaries were stolen.
But the longstanding failure of the Democratic Party to address the many
injustices and failures in the electoral process has led to a crisis point
where their candidates and the party itself are being injured. Lack of trust
in the system is reaching a breaking point.
Going forward, all candidates and parties have a responsibility to make
foundational election reform a central focus of their work.
The US currently follows none of the established principles such as public
transparency that guide an honest and fair electoral process, so our
elections cannot even be monitored by international observers. We are ranked
47th out of 139 countries in our integrity of elections, according to a
Washington Post report.
"In the United States, the 2012 presidential election and the 2014
congressional elections were ranked worst of any long-established democracy,
especially on campaign finance and electoral registration," the report's
authors concluded.
The question now is how do we permanently reform our system, and what we can
do in the next five months before the November elections, whether we support
Sanders, Clinton, Jill Stein of the Green Party, some other candidate or no
candidate at all. How can we build a just society unless we repair the
mechanics of how our democratic elections are controlled?
What's the Solution Going Forward?
The answer starts with making sure progressive voters are not
disenfranchised through various voter suppression tactics, and that election
technology is secure. We must ensure that every eligible citizen can easily
vote, and that every vote is counted as cast.
Heres a short to-do list:
Push for party platform changes in the Democratic National
Convention this July through the delegates and committees. End the use of
Democratic Party superdelegates to restrict grassroots and populist
political campaigns. Promote transparent party primary elections
administrators who are not working for any particular candidate.
Help educate Congress and state legislatures about the need for
reform and that greater resources and training are needed for election
workers. Lobby your legislators to introduce or pass legislation for clean,
transparent, verified elections, not administrated by partisans, and to
re-establish the strict federal laws that prevent suppression and
gerrymandering of districts in the states and jurisdictions once governed by
section four of the Voting Rights Act.
Fight to terminate control of Election Day technology from private
vendors, make all vote counting processes transparent and publicly
observable, and make voting materials accessible as public records.
Immediately outlaw the use of touchscreen (direct-recording
electronic, or DRE) voting machines that are vulnerable to fraud and provide
no paper ballot to audit results or recount.
Join organizations and coalitions fighting for elections reform.
Mobilize protests against voter suppression, corrupt voting
officials and voting systems.
Become a poll worker yourself.
Vote and help others to register and vote. And be sure to check your
registration status -- right now!
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
VICTORIA COLLIER
Victoria Collier is communications director of the National Election Defense
Coalition, and the Justice Action Mobilization Network. She is the author of
"How to Rig an Election," published in Harper's Magazine.
BEN PTASHNIK
Former Vermont State Sen. Ben Ptashnik is a fusion movement strategist, and
lifelong political organizer. He currently serves as executive director of
the National Election Defense Coalition, and as policy director of the
Justice Action Mobilization Network, a climate justice organization.
RELATED STORIES
Bernie Sanders Vows to Take His Fight All the Way to Democratic Convention
By Elizabeth Preza, AlterNet | News Analysis
Hillary Clinton: The Neocon in Democrat's Clothing
By Pierre Guerlain, Truthout | Op-Ed
Bernie Sanders Might Soon Be Out of the Race, but Not the Revolution
By Sarah van Gelder, YES! Magazine | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Was the Democratic Primary Just Manipulated, or Was It Stolen?
Monday, 13 June 2016 00:00 By Ben Ptashnik and Victoria Collier, Truthout |
News Analysis
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton addresses a Planned Parenthood Action Fund
gathering in Washington, June 10, 2016. (Stephen Crowley / The New York
Times)
The debacle that was the 2016 primary season is nearly over, but the
primary system itself may have destroyed faith in American democracy.
Certainly it has divided the Democratic Party.
The Internet is awash with accusations that the Democratic primary was
rigged; anger, confusion, and fault-placing are running wild, and so are the
online right-wing "trolls" who feed the fires of discord between the two
camps of the Democratic Party through misinformation and divisive invective.
With buyers remorse sweeping the GOP, election fraud lawsuits pending,
millions of Bernie Sanders supporters crying foul and some vowing "Bernie or
Bust," many are even forecasting the breakup of the two-party system.
So where does the truth lie, and where do we go from here? How do we
separate malfeasance from propaganda?
The Suppression of Democratic Party Populism
The truth is that the Democratic primary was hobbled at the starting gate by
blatant partisanship on behalf of Hillary Clinton by the DNC and the
mainstream media.
The heavy-handedness of the Democratic Party elite -- particularly Debbie
Wasserman's actions as party chair in restricting debates, followed by her
open admission that the purpose of superdelegates is to crush the
possibilities of grassroots candidates rising to challenge the party
establishment -- was called to account even by Democrats. Telling a
passionate, reform-minded populist movement "were rigged to suppress you"
is not the best way for the head of a party to start an election season.
Calls for Wassermans removal were not isolated.
The primary process was also one of the most distorted media political
events we have witnessed in recent years, with the networks exhibiting an
astonishingly destructive lust for profits by handing Donald Trump billions
of dollars in free airtime in order to build ratings, even as they
deliberately tuned out Sanders campaign.
The California primary finale provoked ubiquitous outrage as the Associated
Press played queen-maker, anointing Clinton the nominee based on secret
interviews of the superdelegates, who will not actually cast their votes
until the Democratic Convention in July.
Going forward, all candidates and parties have a responsibility to make
foundational election reform a central focus of their work.
This move came a day before the last major primary date, possibly
suppressing voter turnout in our most populated state where registration had
reached record levels. Even the DNC publicly protested what was seen as a
pointless slap in the face to the millions of voters who had yet to cast a
ballot. Such media interference only fosters overall distrust and the
conviction that powerful networks are aligned with Clinton and manipulating
in her favor.
It also conjures memories of the 2000 election when Fox News wrongly called
the presidential race for George W. Bush in Florida, forcing Al Gore to
contest the results. Meanwhile, the press shot him full of "sore loser"
arrows, and he eventually rolled over to die quietly. This is presumably
what the networks expected of Bernie Sanders.
Yet, the game has changed.
Social Media vs. Corporate Media
For the first time during a national campaign, the full force of online
alternative news outlets and social media came to the plate, taking on the
powers that be with relentless coverage and viral Facebook and Twitter
posts, circumventing the editorial whitewash and blackouts of the corporate
press.
When the networks ran with incendiary headlines claiming Sanders supporters
had engaged in mass violence at the Nevada Caucus, online journalists and
activists outed the story as false. Numerous cell phone videos proved them
right.
In truth, that the Bernie Sanders campaign was born and lived at all is due
only to his network of web-savvy supporters, sharing documentation of his
speeches and actions from the 1960s through his career in office, posting
the images from his nascent grassroots campaign, packing halls and
overfilling stadiums. All of this was largely ignored by the corporate
press, as though his skyrocketing underdog candidacy simply did not exist.
The result of all this manipulation is evident on websites for election
integrity, voting rights and third parties which previously could count a
few hundred interested supporters. Many find that the number of voters today
who believe they are being lied to, and that the electoral system urgently
needs reform, are swelling into the thousands.
Millions are registering their disaffection in polls, with 66 percent of the
public now saying they distrust the primary system.
But there is a downside to this. With the social media revolution we are
also confronted by rampant misinformation shepherded by an army of trolls.
Confused voters are being goaded to assume election fraud at every turn and
in every contest, and to blame Hillary Clinton and her surrogates directly,
not just for all insider manipulations, but also for every possible flaw,
glitch, and screw up in the voting system.
For example, we recently happened upon a Facebook post of a mainstream news
article claiming two hundred deceased voters are still listed as casting
ballots in California. The post headline screamed: "CLINTON VOTING DEAD
PEOPLE TO WIN CALIFORNIA!"
The article in no way associated Hillary Clinton with this particular voting
problem. Nevertheless, many supposed anti-Clinton voters joined the chorus
of Facebook outrage.
Perhaps these people are well meaning but simply didnt bother to read the
article. However, it is also possible that right-wing trolls are instigating
further dissent in the Democratic ranks through just this kind of hysterical
and misleading social media posting. In fact, its likely that a good
portion of the worst online bile spewed from both camps is actually trolling
by people pretending to support Clinton or Sanders, to sow discord and deep
seated animosity on the left.
A recent shocking Bloomberg article "How to Hack an Election" is an expose
on Andrés Sepúlveda, who led clandestine operations to steal elections in
Latin America through every kind of manipulation.
A hefty percentage of the suppression seen in the primaries can be traced
back to the long-standing attack on voting rights spearheaded by right-wing
forces since 2010.
His "package" deal included defacing campaign websites, breaking into
opponents donor databases, spying, stealing, smearing, hacking smartphones,
spoofing and cloning Web pages, and sending mass e-mails and texts -- a full
range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs
were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants.
Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known
about his role; he says he met only a few.
On the question of whether the US presidential campaign is being tampered
with, he is unequivocal. "Im 100 percent sure it is," he says.
Sadly, its a new kind of challenge to discern the truth these days, but
its more important than ever that we try, or we will not know where to
focus our outrage or channel our efforts to effect reform. Additionally,
spreading unfounded accusations can fatally undermine the credibility of a
reform movement.
Are the Accusations of Fraud Backed Up by the Facts?
When it comes to accusations of fraud, the fact is that a hefty percentage
of the suppression seen in the primaries can be traced back to the
long-standing attack on voting rights spearheaded by right-wing forces since
2010. The American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC and the Tea Party
coordinate these attacks with funding from the Koch Brothers.
The plot to suppress the votes of progressive and Democratic-leaning youth
and minorities is well documented, and even admitted to by a number of
Republican politicians and operatives.
Thirty-two states, mostly controlled by Republican Legislatures and
Governors, have so far promulgated draconian voter suppression laws or
regulations. Since the Supreme Court gutted section four of the Voting
Rights Act three years ago, 17 states proceeded to apply wholesale
gerrymandering and suppression of students and Native American, African
American, Asian American and Latino voters.
These strategic assaults on democracy have led to the recent formation of
the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, Co- chaired by Representatives Marc
Veasey (D-TX), Terri Sewell (D-AL), Bobby Scott (D- VA), and civil rights
icon John Lewis (D-GA). Now 71 members, the Caucus is dedicated to restoring
the Voting Rights Act, and reforming the insecure, aging voting technology
that is used to count our elections results through the VOTE Act.
All progressive and Democratic candidates will be affected in November by
voter suppression, including Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. Yet, in
the Arizona primary, the downsizing of polling stations from 400 to 60 were
widely blamed on Clinton, even though the results clearly impacted her
supporters as well. (The accusations against Helen Purcell, the Republican
Maricopa County recorder who took responsibility for the shut-downs, is a
good example of of online misinformation that goes viral.)
However, while some voters might be at times misled, it is wrong to accuse
them of baseless paranoia for fearing the overt partisanship and conflict of
interest in the elections establishment itself.
Partisan Oversight and Structural Deficiencies
In the United States, our elections are often administered by ultra-partisan
secretaries of state and, in the case of primaries, by party officials who
tend to have preferences and exploit their positions.
The fact that some secretaries of state, including Alison Grimes of Kentucky
and Alex Padilla of California, are actively supporting Hillary Clinton even
as they command the elections process in their state, contributes to an
atmosphere of anxiety and honest concerns that strings may be pulled behind
the scenes.
The same paranoia rightfully grips Democrats en masse when ultra-partisan
Republican secretaries of state control the general election process.
In 2000, the infamous Katherine Harris of Florida manipulated the Bush v.
Gore debacle, and Kenneth Blackwell presided over Ohios tainted election of
2004. That reelection handed the presidency to George W. Bush through mass
voter purging and GOP-controlled computer servers that flipped the
electronic vote results in the middle of the night before loading them onto
Blackwells website. Blackwell was, at the very same time, the Co-Chair of
the Committee to Re-elect George W. Bush. The certification of the Ohio
election was challenged in Congress but failed to stop Bushs coronation.
The 2016 primaries and caucuses laid bare not only the partisanship, but the
structural deficiencies of American elections administration, built on a
byzantine set of voting regulations and processes controlled by local and
county administrators -- a dizzying maze of procedures that dictate voter
registration, auditing paper ballots and processing mailed-in and
provisional ballots.
Provisional Ballots and Other Irregularities
Its unclear how many hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of voters
were given provisional ballots in the 2016 primary, either because they were
purged from the voter rolls, their registration was mysteriously changed
from one party to another (with some reporting their signatures were
forged), they did not receive their mail-in ballot, or aging electronic
voting machines broke down at the polling location. Voters reported that
provisional ballots were being "given out like candy."
These provisional ballots are a creation of the 2002 Help America Vote Act.
They may or may not be counted as cast ballots based on the particular
integrity of a given county and the so-called "eligibility" of the voter.
The requirements for eligibility are unclear for voters who have to prove
their registration was actually valid, even when they were wrongly purged or
their status was changed without their consent.
According to the watchdog group Election Protection, areas with high
percentages of racial and ethnic minority voters have the highest rates of
provisional ballots, and a large proportion of these ballots are typically
rejected.
Compounding the confusion and distrust are varying vote-tabulating systems
in each state and in over 4,000 voting jurisdictions. Most are centered
around privately programmed, "black box" electronic voting systems with code
that cannot be inspected by the public or elections officials. A lack of
rigorous audits means that no one can actually prove our votes were
accurately counted. Throughout the nation, unaccountable companies like
Dominion and Scytl -- a foreign vendor and host of unknown sub-vendors --
now control voter registration, voter rolls, voting machine software and the
collating and reporting of voting results. Voting machines can sit
unattended for weeks before elections, giving pause to all security experts.
Throw into this confounding mix poor poll worker trainings, too few polling
locations, a lack of parking spaces, missing voter rosters, insufficient
ballots and an overall stunning dearth of resources provided for American
elections, and after a while its impossible to tell whether the problem is
malice or incompetence -- or if theres even a discernible difference.
The only clear fact is that countless people were unable to vote, and even
more dont know whether their votes were actually counted.
Some voters have taken surreptitious video of the chaos they encountered in
their polling location.
On June 7 alone, the nationwide nonpartisan
&SDG<90:.&RE=MC&RI=4281660&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=1569&Action=Fo
llow+Link" target="_blank"Election Protection hotline received more than
1,300 calls as voters in California, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota and New Mexico reported a litany of problems. More than half of
the calls received were from California voters.
It is still unknown how many provisional ballots in Californias 58 counties
will be rejected or accepted. The counting continues for weeks, with
questions legitimately raised about oversight of the ballots.
Suspicions Run Rampant
Before we storm our local Boards of Election with pitchforks, we should
remember that there are many competent, even exceptional election
supervisors, clerks, and poll workers who do their best under pressure with
shrinking resources and a populace who often cant be bothered to learn the
rules before complaining about the results (you know who you are).
However, the onus should not rest on the voters to inform themselves of
rules and changes, to protect their ballots, or to defend their properly
registered voting status.
Suspicions are now rampant that the 126,000 voters wrongly purged in New
York, particularly in Brooklyn, were intra-party rigging targeting likely
Sanders supporters.
The longstanding failure of the Democratic Party to address the many
injustices and failures in the electoral process has led to a crisis point.
Although no evidence currently proves this accusation, concerns are
augmented by the fact that the DNC voter lists firewall reportedly came down
twice, giving both campaigns access to each others private lists. These
lists may have included voter preference information, providing an
opportunity for mischief, though so far no proof exists that these lists
were used to purge Bernie supporters.
To prove the purges were targeted against Sanders supporters, evidence would
need to show that they were disproportionately among the 121,000 given
"affidavit ballots," which are equivalent to provisional ballots. Currently,
we understand that 90,000 of those ballots have been rejected. Meanwhile,
the purged voters have reportedly been restored to the New York voting
rolls, but that's cold comfort for those whose votes were invalidated in the
primaries.
Even less comfort could be found for the voters who claim that, during an
electronic voting audit in Chicago, the machines had apparently not tallied
all of the votes for Bernie Sanders. Witnesses at a hearing held by the
Chicago Board of Elections reported that, instead of investigating the
machine count, the audits were simply fixed to match the machine results,
literally erasing Sanders votes and adding votes to Clintons tally.
If these allegations are true, one would think this would certainly qualify
as fraud. Its little wonder that many Sanders supporters are vexed.
The disturbing video of the voter testimony before the Chicago Board of
Elections went viral. Another fact to emerge from the meeting is that the
audit tabulation cannot be used to change the results of an election. It is
only a means to test the voting equipment, rendering it useless for exposing
and combatting election fraud.
Meanwhile, nationwide primary voting results are being called into question
based on consistent anomalies in exit polling, which apparently affected
only the Democratic race and not the Republican, with disparities favoring
Hillary Clinton disproportionately. Exit polls are internationally
considered a reliable indicator of election veracity and are one of the only
"forensic" tools available in the United States to determine the accuracy of
the secret machine counts. Before the final definitive primary races on June
7, including California, all exit polls were cancelled without explanation.
Grassroots organization nationwide have filed or are planning to file
lawsuits challenging primary results and demanding access to raw voting
materials including ballots and poll tapes that are often off limits to
public inspection.
Going Forward: Fixing the Mechanics of Elections
Neither Clinton nor Sanders has fully addressed the maelstrom of election
fraud fury swirling around their primary campaigns. This is perhaps to be
expected from candidates who must stay afloat in treacherous political
waters. Sanders in particular would be fatally vilified in the press for
suggesting that the primaries were stolen.
But the longstanding failure of the Democratic Party to address the many
injustices and failures in the electoral process has led to a crisis point
where their candidates and the party itself are being injured. Lack of trust
in the system is reaching a breaking point.
Going forward, all candidates and parties have a responsibility to make
foundational election reform a central focus of their work.
The US currently follows none of the established principles such as public
transparency that guide an honest and fair electoral process, so our
elections cannot even be monitored by international observers. We are ranked
47th out of 139 countries in our integrity of elections, according to a
Washington Post report.
"In the United States, the 2012 presidential election and the 2014
congressional elections were ranked worst of any long-established democracy,
especially on campaign finance and electoral registration," the report's
authors concluded.
The question now is how do we permanently reform our system, and what we can
do in the next five months before the November elections, whether we support
Sanders, Clinton, Jill Stein of the Green Party, some other candidate or no
candidate at all. How can we build a just society unless we repair the
mechanics of how our democratic elections are controlled?
What's the Solution Going Forward?
The answer starts with making sure progressive voters are not
disenfranchised through various voter suppression tactics, and that election
technology is secure. We must ensure that every eligible citizen can easily
vote, and that every vote is counted as cast.
Heres a short to-do list:
Push for party platform changes in the Democratic National
Convention this July through the delegates and committees. End the use of
Democratic Party superdelegates to restrict grassroots and populist
political campaigns. Promote transparent party primary elections
administrators who are not working for any particular candidate.
Help educate Congress and state legislatures about the need for
reform and that greater resources and training are needed for election
workers. Lobby your legislators to introduce or pass legislation for clean,
transparent, verified elections, not administrated by partisans, and to
re-establish the strict federal laws that prevent suppression and
gerrymandering of districts in the states and jurisdictions once governed by
section four of the Voting Rights Act.
Fight to terminate control of Election Day technology from private
vendors, make all vote counting processes transparent and publicly
observable, and make voting materials accessible as public records.
Immediately outlaw the use of touchscreen (direct-recording
electronic, or DRE) voting machines that are vulnerable to fraud and provide
no paper ballot to audit results or recount.
Join organizations and coalitions fighting for elections reform.
Mobilize protests against voter suppression, corrupt voting
officials and voting systems.
Become a poll worker yourself.
Vote and help others to register and vote. And be sure to check your
registration status -- right now!
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Victoria Collier
Victoria Collier is communications director of the National Election Defense
Coalition, and the Justice Action Mobilization Network. She is the author of
"How to Rig an Election," published in Harper's Magazine.
Ben Ptashnik
Former Vermont State Sen. Ben Ptashnik is a fusion movement strategist, and
lifelong political organizer. He currently serves as executive director of
the National Election Defense Coalition, and as policy director of the
Justice Action Mobilization Network, a climate justice organization.
Related Stories
Bernie Sanders Vows to Take His Fight All the Way to Democratic Convention
By Elizabeth Preza, AlterNet | News AnalysisHillary Clinton: The Neocon in
Democrat's Clothing
By Pierre Guerlain, Truthout | Op-EdBernie Sanders Might Soon Be Out of the
Race, but Not the Revolution
By Sarah van Gelder, YES! Magazine | Op-Ed
Show Comments
