Voice For Liberty

Tag: Elections

  • At forum, Kansas Secretary of State candidates have different attitudes regarding voter fraud

    Last week’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Republican Party featured a forum with the three candidates seeking the Republican party nomination for Kansas Secretary of State. The candidates and links to their campaign websites are J.R. Claeys, Elizabeth “Libby” Ensley, and Kris Kobach.

    During the forum, the different attitudes of the candidates towards the extent of voter fraud in Kansas and the measures that should be taken to combat it — such as photo ID and proof of citizenship — became apparent.

    In his opening remarks, Kobach mentioned his role in helping write the recently-past Arizona immigration law. He said during the past 10 years, at both the United States Department of Justice and privately, he’s worked to help cities and states enforce the law. His goal for the next four years, should he be elected Secretary of State, would be to help Kansas restore the rule of law in its elections.

    He said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a “whole division designed for immigrants’ rights.” He said that the ACLU will be the “first to run into the courtroom if we try to pass a photo ID law in Kansas.” He also mentioned the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as another group involved in the immigration fight, and it has sued Arizona over its law.

    (A photo ID law would require voters to identify themselves with a photo ID, such as a drivers license, when they vote.)

    Kobach said that both of these organizations are willing to sell out the rule of law in order to gain political power. Democrats, he said, view illegal aliens as a source of votes, and that is why Democrats always oppose photo ID laws. “In my definition, that is the highest form of corruption. That’s corruption, not for money, but for power.”

    Kobach said that he is in favor of a photo ID law. The problem, he said, is making a law stick, as these laws are challenged by the ACLU wherever they are passed. As a constitutional law professor, he believes he can write a bill that will survive a court challenge. He said he’ll defend the law, “because nothing makes my day like a lawsuit against the ACLU.”

    Kansas must also prosecute voter fraud, he said. He mentioned a report from the secretary of state’s office where 11 counties in Kansas where voter fraud was reported, but there were no state prosecutions. He said the problem is that when prosecutions are forwarded to the local county attorney, prosecutions do not result because of lack of resources or wrong incentives, and in some cases, lack of political will. He proposes parallel jurisdiction, where either the local county attorney or the Secretary of State could proceed with prosecution.

    Claeys, in his opening remarks, said he had worked for the Republican National committee as a fundraiser, as communications director for the National Small Business Association, and CEO of the National Association of Government Contractors. He also served as an election observer in Bolivia and El Salvador. These countries recently implemented voter security measures.

    Claeys said that photo ID, besides improving the security of voting, actually streamlines the voting process and reduces the training needed for both voters and election workers.

    He said there are 600 statutory duties for the Secretary of State, many having to do with small business. “It is the filing center for the state,” and it is important that businesses be served efficiently and well by that office. Increasing fees and regulations, he added, acts as a tax on business, and he said he will work to keep fees and costs low.

    Ensley’s opening remarks told of the importance of the Secretary of State, noting that “every single business in the state of Kansas touches the Secretary of State’s office.” She said she had worked in the Secretary of State’s office for 11 years, and then for 18 years as the Shawnee County Election Commissioner. Because of that, she said she has the endorsement of the last three Kansas Secretaries of State.

    She said she has been watchful for election fraud during her years as election commissioner, and has provided the evidence that has resulted in the conviction of 12 election criminals.

    She said an important issue to her is military voting, saying that these voters do not have the same rights as local voters. They are not allowed to vote for precinct committee officials or for local ballot questions, for example. She said this needs to be changed.

    Questioning from the audience included a question whether the candidates would pledge to support whoever wins the August primary election. All answered yes.

    Another question mentioned nursing homes, where it was alleged by the questioner that voting fraud is taking place. Kobach said that the “stories are legion” about what happens in nursing homes. He said this type of voter fraud is difficult to detect. But once someone is prosecuted, this will discourage others from contemplating this type of voter fraud.

    Ensley suggested that any suspected voter fraud be reported to local officials. She mentioned a recent Kansas law that allows election officials to work with nursing homes to delver ballots directly to voters, and assist them with voting if requested.

    Claeys agreed that prosecutions would serve as a deterrent to others.

    One questioner noted that several recent holders of the Secretary of State’s office have run for, or aspired to run for, Kansas governor. Do you have political ambitions beyond Secretary of State? Claeys and Ensley answered no. Kobach answered that the future is difficult to predict, but that he probably would not occupy that office for 16 years, as Ron Thornburgh would have if he served out his last term.

    In my question, I asked about the claim of the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, based on evidence from then-Secretary of State Thornburgh, that voter fraud in Kansas is not a significant problem.

    Kobach said that there is voter fraud, it is a problem, and he doesn’t know why Holman doesn’t believe it is a problem.

    Ensley said that Kobach is referring to alleged voter fraud. She said she’s done statistical research on aliens registering to vote. She identified the six counties in Kansas that are required to do bilingual ballots and asked these county clerks — these are the election officials in these counties — about the situation in their county. She said that each clerk said that they watch out for illegal registrations and voting, but that it is not a significant problem in their counties.

    She said she compared the proportion of the population that is registered to vote statewide with the same figure in these six counties. If a large number of ineligible registrations was a problem, these counties should have a higher than average number. She found that these counties had a lower proportion of registered voters than the stateside average, which lead her to believe that registration and voting by aliens is not a problem.

    She said that having to prove citizenship in order to vote would lead to lower voter turnout by eligible voters, and she is not in favor of requirements to prove citizenship. Displaying her tattered birth certificate, she described how it would be difficult for many citizens to obtain their birth certificate in order to prove they are citizens and eligible to vote. Her contention that requirements to prove citizenship creates more barriers to Americans than it prevents aliens from registering to vote was greeted with disapproval from the audience.

    Claeys mentioned the Arizona voter law — which he said he favors — which requires proof of citizenship, with several ways to provide proof. He added that even a small amount of voter fraud is important. “Anytime someone votes who’s not supposed to be, they’re taking your vote away.”

    Kobach added that courts have not agreed that requirements to produce citizenship documents such as birth certificates are too much of a burden. He added that these requirements apply to only newly-registered voters, not currently registered voters. He also produced several reasons as to why Ensley’s survey of voter registration rates in counties may not be valid.

    Later questioning brought out a distinction between “voter ID” and “photo ID.” Voter ID can take many forms, such as a utility bill showing a voter’s name and address. Kobach and Claeys are in favor of requiring a state-issued photo ID, while Ensley said voter ID is sufficient.

    Some in the audience asked questions that showed they believed a photo ID was more secure than other forms of ID, but Ensley pointed to easy availability of fake IDs, both photo and other.

    — —

    Eagle editorialist Holman’s op-ed from last May contained this statement: “Fraudulent voting, particularly by an illegal immigrant, makes no sense, because there is little to nothing to gain by the individual voter — while the potential punishment is severe.” (“Beware of claims of voter fraud,” May 28, 2009 Wichita Eagle)

    This curious claim by Holman — that there is little to gain by individuals when they vote– might make anyone wonder why they should make an effort to vote.

  • Bigger danger of healthcare bill: the arrogance of Congress

    By Eric O’Keefe.

    We may never fully know the damage that will be done by the massive health care bill Congress passed on Sunday, but one thing is certain: It will lead to lower-quality care at higher costs.

    Dozens of new health boards will come on line in the next few years, as bureaucrats gradually take control of our health care system. Who knows how many bright college students will decide to avoid medical careers because they don’t want to follow orders from these bureaucrats?

    As alarming as some of the bill’s provisions are, what’s more dangerous is the arrogance this Congress demonstrated.

    The House of Representatives used to represent; now it rules.

    This health care reform was widely debated for a year, and it became less popular by the month. A weekend poll by Rasmussen Reports showed the depth of that unpopularity, with only 26 percent strongly supporting the reform and 45 percent strongly opposing it.

    How can elected representatives defy the considered will of the people?

    Because defiance becomes an easy habit when you know that there is almost no chance you will lose your next election. The loss of accountability enables public servants to indulge their own lust for power. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    If we do not address the problem of a permanent class of rulers in Congress, we will watch Congress bankrupt the country and destroy the republic.

    Most members of the House represent specially drawn districts where one party dominates. As a result, these members face no primary election challengers and only nominal competition in the general election.

    Congressional entrenchment is not a product of popularity; Congress has routinely been unpopular the past 30 years. A February survey by Rasmussen Reports showed approval of Congress at a historic low, with only 10 percent rating their performance as good or excellent. Rasmussen also found 63 percent favor replacing the entire Congress.

    Unfortunately, that will not happen. Even during this year’s extreme political turmoil, you can be confident that over 80 percent of House incumbents will win yet again in November. In most modern US elections, more than 95 percent of House incumbents are reelected.

    The reason is a century of entrenchment by incumbents looking out for themselves. They have large staffs and budgets to run a permanent campaign; they have pork and patronage to distribute at taxpayer expense; and they enacted campaign restrictions to hobble challengers.

    With mostly one-party districts, incumbents own their seats unless they face serious primary challenges. But party organizations controlled by incumbents work to discourage primary challenges, regardless of the performance of the incumbent. In fact, only eight incumbents have lost their primary races in the past three elections combined – that’s a renomination rate of over 99 percent.

    To regain congressional accountability, we must work outside the political parties to set the standard of acceptable behavior, and to enforce it in primary elections.

    In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won the close House races and took control of Congress because voters were tired of big-spending Republicans. In 2010 voters will defeat Democrats in close elections, and the House is likely to return to Republican control. But what will those Republicans do? Should we trust them to behave this time?

    I would say no. Congress will not behave on its own because the political parties now exist to serve the politicians, not the taxpayers.

    That’s why the development of the tea party movement has been so forceful and swift. Tea party leaders stepped up because both parties had failed us. Yet they understand that you don’t solve the problem of two unaccountable parties by creating a third. What we really need is a way to hold politicians of any party accountable, and that begins with independent organizations demanding accountability, and backing primary challengers to representatives of both political parties who fail to live up to their job title: Representative.

    In 2010, tossing out some big-spending Democrats may be all that voters can accomplish. But if we don’t solve the bigger problem of creating the organizations to systematically hold politicians accountable, we will only get another round of broken promises on the road to ruin. The fate of the republic depends on building an independent system to hold Congress accountable to the taxpayers.

    Eric O’Keefe is chairman of Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based nonprofit focused on communicating free-market principles.

  • Kansas senate debate centers on free speech, transparency

    This afternoon the Kansas Senate debated for about 90 minutes on an amendment that would require more disclosure for “issue ads” or communications in favor of candidates by third parties.

    Senator Terrie Huntington, a Republican from Fairway, introduced the amendment to Senate Substitute for HB 2079. Its language, apparently identical to Senate Bill 418, states: “Any person who spends or contracts to spend an amount of $500 or more per calendar year for any electioneering communication” must file reports that disclose the identity of the donor and the amount of the contribution.

    At one point in the debate, Senator Terry Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, asked Huntington why it is the government’s business who makes a contribution? Huntington replied the she didn’t know why the government has campaign finance laws, except that she has to file reports of her contributors.

    Bruce also objected to what he called “loose language” in the bill. Several times he asked about the use of the word “specifically,” saying that the bill was vague in who would be required to disclose contributions. He suggested that churches might have to disclose their donors if this amendment becomes law.

    Senator Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who is the long-time minority leader of the Senate, said that this amendment applies only to those who contribute over $500 for the purpose of electioneering communication. He added that this type of communication does not include communications made by membership organizations solely to their members. That would not be covered by this amendment, he said.

    Senator Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, made a case for anonymous free speech based on the Constitution. People should be allowed to state an opinion, she said. She referred to a series of “Snoop dog” ads used in recent elections that were, she said, traced back to abortion doctor Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. Noting that Tiller was murdered last year, she said “somebody got upset, and he was murdered. And that’s why we protect free speech, and that’s why we allow for anonymous free speech.”

    Senator Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Fowler in southwest Kansas, raised the issue of how this amendment would affect unions and their communications. Huntington said that unions are not formed for the express purpose of campaign electioneering.

    Hensley said that unions typically form political action committees, which must disclose their contributors. If they don’t do that, they are treated the same as corporations.

    Huelskamp raised the question what if an organization sends out a communication to their members, but someone else — not a member — inadvertently receives the communication? This is important, as the language of the amendment says that communication solely to members is not covered. Huntington did not seem to have a satisfactory answer to this.

    What about editorials, Huelskamp asked? Huntington said that editorials printed in newspapers not controlled by the candidate are not covered by the proposed amendment. Huntington said that newspaper editorials are not written for the purposes of electioneering, which Huelskamp disputed, noting that editorialists “write all the time trying to influence elections.” He recognized the concern that some have for the wealthy influencing elections, and that some own newspapers and other outlets. Why do they get to editorialize and send out their opinions?

    Huntington noted that newspapers are covered under the freedom of the press guaranteed in the Constitution, and that we all know who owns the newspaper. Huelskamp said that ownership is not necessarily known in all cases. He asked about the distinction between an individual buying an ad in the newspaper versus an editorial writer saying the same thing. Would the ad buyer be subject to disclosure, but not the editorial writer? What is the reason for the distinction, he asked?

    Huntington replied that editorials are not included in the definition of electioneering communications in this amendment. Huelskamp pressed for the reason why this is so. Huntington replied that these do not expressly advocate for or against a particular candidate, so they were not included in the definition of electioneering communication.

    Huelskamp noted that express advocacy is the whole purpose of this amendment, so why are these exemptions in the amendment? Huntington was not able to give a specific answer.

    Huelskamp said that this amendment would create a situation where a newspaper editorial writer could write something, and then a private citizen could pay for an ad with the exact same language, and the citizen — not the editorial writer — would be subject to election reporting requirements. Why, he asked, should those who own a newspaper have more free speech than others?

    During the debate there seemed to be confusion on spending $500 or more on a communications piece versus contributing $500 or more to an organization.

    Huelskamp mentioned a case in 1958 Alabama, where that state tried to determine who were members of the NAACP. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to anonymous groups to get together and influence the political process, he said. Legislation like the proposed amendment, he told the Senate, would have prevented the NAACP from reporting on the action of the Alabama legislature.

    In closing, Huelskamp said that even ads that let citizens know what elected officials are doing are affected by laws like these. The purpose of this amendment, he said, is to limit and chill speech of those who might disagree.

    Hensley said this amendment is about the peoples’ right to know. He mentioned the organization Americans for Prosperity, saying he thinks it doesn’t want people to have the right to know about their contributions and expenditures. He said that AFP is, in fact, electioneering.

    Hensley contended again that all the amendment says is that if you contribute more than $500, you’re going to have to disclose. He said we know who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor.

    Hensley mentioned an award he received from Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, and that Huelskamp was also honored as a “friend of the public’s right to know. That’s what this is all about.”

    Joining the debate again, Bruce addressed the issue of whose information will be made public. He said that this amendment would require disclosure of anyone who has contributed $500 or more to an organization.

    Senator Jeff Colyer delivered a short lesson on American history, telling how founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson wrote anonymously — electioneering, Colyer contended.

    In a roll call vote, the amendment failed with 18 votes in favor, and 21 against.

    Analysis

    Hensley’s accusation of Americans for Prosperity reveals the true target of this amendment. It, along with a few other organizations, are being singled out in this proposed law. These organizations are largely conservative, although those on the political left have tried to hide large political contributions, as a Kansas Meadowlark investigation revealed.

    I believe that Hensley confuses government action with private action. Open records, which is an issue Huelskamp has been closely involved with, is concerned with citizens’ right to know what government is doing. This amendment addresses actions that private individuals may take. There’s a huge distinction between the two, and that’s one of the largest issues in this amendment.

    In making his remarks about knowing who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor, Hensley may have forgotten about unsigned editorials and features like the anonymous and popular Opinion Line in the Wichita Eagle. Most newspapers also allow comments to be left to articles on their online editions, and these are almost always an anonymous form of communication and commonly used for blatant electioneering.

    A problem with this amendment is that individuals may make contributions to organizations for general use, not earmarking the dollars for any specific use such as a political mailing. How would organizations decide whose contributions to disclose?

    In the end, the best solution is a government so small, so limited and powerless, that it doesn’t much matter who is in charge. Then campaign finance won’t be very important.

    This vote is part of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

  • Wichita’s Paul Soutar on the ground in Massachusetts

    Kansas Watchdog‘s Paul Soutar is in Massachusetts contributing to coverage of the special election for the United States Senate. Paul filed a report yesterday: Springfield Union Locals Come Out for Coakley.

    He’s right in the thick of it, too. American Spectator reports in Coakley Supporters Try to Intimidate.

    Video is at Martha Coakley Supporters Wrap Paul Soutar In Sign:

  • Kansas judicial selection needs examination, reform

    The upcoming retention election for Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier provides an opportunity to examine the judicial selection process in Kansas.

    In the Kansas Liberty news report Republicans won’t campaign against Justice Beier in 2010, University of Kansas School of Law professor Stephen Ware explains the perverse dynamics of Kansas judicial retention elections:

    “With no opposing candidate, there’s no one with an incentive to raise money for a challenge and to advocate change,” Ware said. “So voters don’t see the sort of discussion of the issues that would spark an interest in the judiciary. This lack of interest by the citizenry allows lawyers to decide the liberal or conservative direction of the courts because lawyers play the dominant role in initially selecting justices and then those justices stay on the court until retirement because they face no challenge from meaningful elections.”

    The problem is one of perception. The judicial retention elections appear to give citizens a voice. The state holds elections, after all. But as Professor Ware explains, the choice is illusory. More about this and Ware is in my post Kansas has the appearance, without the reality, of judicial accountability.

    Ware’s 2007 research on this matter may be read at The Bar’s Extraordinarily Powerful Role in Selecting the Kansas Supreme Court. The opening sentence of this report starkly states the uniqueness of the process in Kansas: “Kansas is the only state in the union that gives the members of its bar majority control over the selection of state supreme court justices.”

  • Democracy thrives as Ballotpedia surpasses the 10 million page views milestone

    From the Sam Adams Alliance.

    Chicago, June 8 — When Americans went to the polls in November and continued casting ballots during the 2009 off-year elections, they turned to Ballotpedia (www.ballotpedia.org) to get objective information about candidates and ballot initiatives. The California pages pertaining to Proposition 8 and the more recent ballot measures alone garnered more than 1.3 million page views. That is why the Ballotpedia community is celebrating its 10 millionth page view.

    “During the November election as well as the current off-year elections that feature many local races as well as ballot initiatives, Ballotpedia became the source used by voters as well journalists looking for hard to find information,” said John Tsarpalas, President of the Sam Adams Alliance, sponsor of Ballotpedia. “10 million pages viewed in just two years is a great testament to how valuable of a resource Ballotpedia has become.”

    The role Ballotpedia has played in the political process can be measured in the popularity of its pages. An internet search (Google) of California 2008 ballot measures, including Proposition 8, demonstrates the importance of Ballotpedia, as its pages consistently rank in the top three most visited sites.

    As a wiki-based website, anyone can contribute and edit content, which means the people are responsible for researching and adding information that is often hard to find.

    “Citizen involvement in the political process is alive and well in America and Ballotpedia is the proof,” said Tsarpalas. “Information is power and the everyday people who make up the Ballotpedia community have created an amazing informational resource that empowers people with knowledge.”

    The Ballotpedia community is not resting on its laurels. Contributors are adding information every day, including recent legislative and gubernatorial action pertaining to ballot access in Nevada and Oklahoma, respectively. Both states have made the citizen initiative process more difficult.

    Contact:
    Paul Miller, Communications Director
    Sam Adams Alliance
    312-920-0080 ext 302
    847-845-3501 cell

    Ballotpedia is a free, collaborative, online encyclopedia about elections, ballot measures and access, petitions and ballot law, recalls, school and local ballot measures, and state legislatures. Launched in May 2008, Ballotpedia is a project of the Sam Adams Alliance.

  • Wichita election watch parties

    There isn’t a whole lot of interest in today’s primary elections in Wichita. None of the school board races had enough candidates to require a primary. Two of the three city council races did, but probably the only district where’s there’s any doubt as to the outcome (at least as far as who will advance to the general election) is district 6, which features Janet Miller, Bob Aldrich, Ken Thomas, and Damon Isaacs. Here’s information about two election night parties that I know of:

    Bob Aldrich: Tuesday, March 3rd at the Wichita Area Builders Association building 730 North Main Street (parking in rear), starting at 6:00PM. Link to Google map.

    Ken Thomas: Tuesday, March 3rd, starting at 6:00PM at Caffe Moderne, 300 N. Mead, Suite 108, Old Town Square Wichita (Behind Rock Paper Scissors). Link to Google map.

    You can get more information about these candidates by clicking on Wichita City and School District Candidate Websites and News Coverage.

  • Wichita Chamber of Commerce values

    Here’s a message that Bryan Derreberry, president of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, sent to Chamber members. Note that this message doesn’t mention the role its political action committee played in the third Sedgwick County Commission district. In that race, the PAC spent some $19,000 of its $48,000 in an effort to elect Goddard mayor Marcey Gregory. Her opponent, longtime taxpayer advocate Karl Peterjohn, is just the type of candidate you’d expect chambers of commerce to support.

    But that’s changed. Stephen Moore in the article “Tax Chambers” published in The Wall Street Journal on February 10, 2007 wrote this: “In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper.”

    Mr. Derreberry’s letter mentions “pro-business values.” At one time this meant something approaching free-market values. But now, Ronald Reagan’s prediction is being fulfilled here in Wichita: “What is euphemistically called government-corporate ‘partnership’ is just government coercion, political favoritism, collectivist industrial policy, and old-fashioned federal boondoggles nicely wrapped up in a bright-colored ribbon. It doesn’t work.”

    November 18, 2008
    Dear Chamber Members:

    This election cycle was a resounding success for the candidates supported by the Wichita Area Business Political Action Committee (WABPAC) as we raised more than $48,000 to support pro-business state and local candidates. The Chamber’s political action committee identified and supported 39 state legislative candidates and three Sedgwick County Commissioner candidates winning 36 of the 39 races in which WABPAC was involved (93% elected).

    The litmus test for the PAC’s engagement and support was whether a candidate had demonstrated an ability to listen and work with the business community to assure that your company, or organization, had the most competitive environment possible in which to excel. WABPAC’s Board of Trustees wants to thank every Chamber member who reviewed the PAC’s support recommendations and voted accordingly. The reason behind this appreciation is that the Chamber’s collective voice has its greatest impact when business members engage themselves in the election process and elect candidates who embrace pro-business values and understand the challenges you face daily.

    A strong, collective pro-business vote is also an outstanding way to support incumbent state legislators and local elected officials who have successfully advanced our region’s top priorities. Bottom line – we need to effectively support the business-attuned elected officials who support us. Our South Central Kansas state legislative delegation has been an adept and courageous partner in advancing our metro area’s top policy and program goals. Your combined voice, in supporting the PAC and re-electing a majority of this delegation, assures the return of legislators to Topeka willing to champion our most important business priorities.

    Respectfully,
    Bryan Derreberry

  • Chuck Baldwin for President. Maybe.

    My friend Leslie Carbone has endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president. I’d been decided on Bob Barr for some time, but Leslie’s got me thinking.