June 1, 2016 (BLOG Entry) — We must have struck a nerve! The reliably Leftist tabloid, Indy Week, brought back Jane Porter, to attack yours truly yesterday, over the damaging video we released last Thursday, showing a 12-year veteran election assistant trying to trick Unaffiliated voters out of getting a Republican ballot.
Sticking with their tired fraud-denying narrative, her lead paragraph set the tone.
It’s primary season (again) and Jay DeLancy from the”Voter Integrity Project” is stirring up trouble that doesn’t exist—again.”
What trouble “doesn’t exist” in the Indy world? Usually, the answer to that question is two words: vote fraud. As long as the public buys into the myth that vote fraud is “nonexistent or extremely rare,” they get away it. Granted, they bring in a lot of academic heavy hitters, but the only voter impersonation fraud the author defined as “credible,” was the cases that were prosecuted…and NONE of the eyewitness accounts we’ve recorded over the years were prosecuted. Nor were the hundreds of cases we heard but could not record for various reasons.
The fallacy is like launching a teapot into space and then somebody builds a telescope to see it. Since they cannot find it, they (falsely) conclude that it’s not there. Social scientists call this, “confirming the null hypothesis,” and such reasoning will get you kicked out of any dissertation committee meeting…but that weak argument is all the Left has.
But, I digress.
This time, we had video that proved the voter suppression efforts of a Democrat elections employee. So, before you watch it, note that she referred to the video with terms like, “selectively edited,” and “taken out of context.” Then Ms. Porter ridiculed my suggestion that the partisan employee could be charged with voter suppression, which is a felony under NC election law.
Taking her words one smear at a time…
Starting with the editing. Originally, I posted an unedited version, but thought twice after getting sage advice from an amazing VIP supporter, who advised us to remove my address. Yup. I edited out the part where I gave the official my residential address. Other than that, the video runs continuous until I hit the “pause” button on my cell phone.
Second, we got the usual claim that it was taken “out of context.” By coupling that with the previous comment, she is hoping you will just take her word for it and not bother watching the video. To which, I say, Cazarts!!! This video must be more damaging than we originally realized if they are pulling out THOSE tired cliches!
Third, downplaying the severity of the crime is certainly Ms. Porter’s prerogative, but it cheapens her intellect to do so. Let’s delve into the area of racial tensions to see if she would characterize things differently. (continued below images).[In case you missed the earlier hubbub, click on these two images to see the two videos that started the fuss.]
A Fairy Tale
Changing the skin color and party affiliations of the people involved would make a nice fairy tale:
- Suppose the three disenfranchised voters had all been black Democrats instead of white Republicans.
- Suppose all three disenfranchised voters had been denied the chance to vote in a Democratic primary.
Would the Indy Week allow one of their reporters to dismiss the accusations so arrogantly?
And better yet, which of our nation’s money-grubbing race hustlers would find a TV camera first? Would it be Al Sharpton? Or would Black Lives Matters, Inc beat him to the mic? For what it’s worth, my money’s on the home-grown one, the right-honorable Rev Barber. Would any of those groups demand prosecution if a film emerged that showed a three black Democrats being tricked out of voting in a low-turnout primary? Of course they would.
Okay. The fairy tale is over.
The Indy Week fails to grasp the idea that vote fraud hurts both sides, because it undermines public trust in the process. The sooner they recognize the truth of that last sentence, the higher their stock will go as anything more than just a left-wing tabloid.
Back to Porter’s article, hat tip to her for calling Wake BOE director GarySims, who spun thus:
From what I observed, it definitely did appear as though the precinct official was the biggest victim of this, in that she was trying to help too much by explaining the ballots,” — Wake BOE Director, Gary Sims
A victim for getting caught red-handed? Right.
The only way to decide who’s right or wrong in this discussion is to watch the “Torrey Video” and decide for yourself.
If she wanted to help, she would have simply stated the four ballots the unaffiliated voter can opt to select. “Helping” is not confusing voters with her explanation about what’s on which ballots. She just needed to offer the four ballots and silently wait for a reply.
Meanwhile, we received another credible report last night.
Wake, Orange, Cumberland and now . . . Durham.
This time, Ted Hicks, an Unaffiliated Durham County voter and former GOP big wig, wasn’t even asked for his ballot preference before being handed a Nonpartisan ballot. He lives in the 4th Congressional District and had every intention of voting in that primary, but the employee handed him a ballot that wouldn’t allow him to do so. He fixed the problem before casting his vote. Here was Ted’s Facebook post on the matter:
Just went to vote. Got my ballot and had to turn back to the front desk because I noticed that the ballot contained ONLY the Judicial race. There was no Congressional race on my ballot. I won’t claim malfeasance, but given Jay DeLancy‘s post from the Voter Integrity Project, it sure is curious.
Was it malicious? He didn’t think so, but we have no way of knowing. For whatever reason, election employees are either poorly trained or horribly devious. We hope it’s the former.
But the bottom line us that something is broken. Call it a training issue. Call it a public awareness problem. Call it voter suppression. Call it anything you want; but one way or another, this must be fixed. And if election officials take a devil-may-care attitude, then they will reap the price for it in November.