PDA

View Full Version : Fake signatures may mean Obama didn't actually qualify in Indiana


Caroline Forbes
12-07-2011, 11:27 PM
By ERIN BLASKO
Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND - Minus suspected fakes, then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama likely fell short of the number of signatures needed to appear on the 2008 Indiana primary ballot, and it's possible his opponent, Hillary Clinton, did as well, according to information obtained by The Tribune as part of an investigation into suspected ballot petition fraud.

Trent Deckard, Democratic co-director of the state Election Division, in an e-mail Thursday told The Tribune Obama's 2008 petition for primary ballot placement in the state contained just 534 certified signatures in the 2nd Congressional District. Clinton's petition contained 704 certified signatures, he said.

Presidential candidates must collect at least 500 signatures in each of the state's nine congressional districts to appear on the statewide primary ballot in Indiana.

As reported Sunday, The Tribune, in conjunction with Howey Politics Indiana, has uncovered scores of fake signatures on both the Obama and Clinton petitions in the 2nd Congressional District and specifically St. Joseph County.

Dozens of people whose signatures appear on the Clinton petition have told The Tribune they did not sign the document, and Erich Speckin, a forensic document analyst hired by the paper and Howey Politics identified at least 19 suspected fake Obama petition pages.

Those Obama pages account for more than 100 signatures, meaning, minus the fakes, the former senator likely would not have qualified for ballot placement in the state.

Whether Clinton, a former senator and now secretary of state under Obama, would have qualified is harder to determine. The Tribune has identified 35 fake signatures on her petition in the district at this point.

That said, Speckin identified a number of suspected fake Clinton petition pages as well.

Clinton narrowly defeated Obama in the Indiana primary, and Obama won the state in his general election victory over John McCain.

Even if Obama had not been on the ballot in Indiana, it would not have changed the outcome of the primary election. The former senator and current president won the Democratic nomination for president despite losing to Clinton in Indiana.

There is no evidence Clinton or Obama knew about the fake signatures. Voter registration offices across the state certified both candidates' petitions, as did the Election Division.

No one challenged the petitions at the time.

Responding to the ballot question, state Republican Party Chair Eric Holcomb said in a statement Thursday: "I've consistently said Barack Obama earned his narrow victory in Indiana. If these new allegations are true, that's no longer the case. He wouldn't have visited the state 48 times and aired countless commercials because he wouldn't have even been on the primary ballot."

Holcomb, who has called on the Department of Justice to investigate the Clinton and Obama petitions, also responded to a report that the suspected fake Obama petition pages passed through the county voter registration office on days when the Republican member of the office was out.

"The evidence currently suggests this was clearly not a clerical error or simple oversight," Holcomb said. "Multiple crimes have been committed in a brazen violation of the public trust against the people of Indiana and our electoral process."

As reported by The Tribune on Wednesday, the pages in question bear the stamped signature of Republican Linda Silcott. That indicates Silcott, who missed a number of days of work in early 2008 because of the death of her husband, was out at the time the documents passed through the office.

"With this latest development that the Republican board member was not even present to confirm the validity of these fraudulent signatures, yet another set of questions is raised," Holcomb said.

"Were the forged forms purposely shepherded through the process knowing she was out of the office and approval would come easily? Where did the vetting process break down or was it meant to? ... What knowledge did the Obama and Clinton campaign teams have of the effort to collect fraudulent signatures?"

Holcomb also suggested St. Joseph County Prosecutor Mike Dvorak, whose office is looking into the Obama and Clinton petitions, "recuse himself from any investigation being conducted by his office."

"Believing Prosecutor Dvorak is a victim of this crime, it's essential to maintain complete impartiality in investigating this important case," he said. "Therefore he should step aside and cooperate with those assigned to the investigation."

Dvorak's name and signature appear twice on the Clinton petition. He told The Tribune one of the signatures is his but did not respond to a question about the validity of a second signature sent to him a few days later, saying the matter was now under investigation.

The state Democratic Party declined to comment on the ballot question Thursday. It did, however, question the Election Division's signature totals for Obama and Clinton in the 2nd District.

In an e-mail, the party provided to The Tribune an electronic file of a report released by the division a day before the deadline to file in 2008. The report, generated by a Statewide Voter Registration System petition module, indicates 580 total signatures for Obama in the 2nd District and 734 for Clinton.

In a previous statement, party Chair Dan Parker said he supported an investigation into the fake petition signatures but emphasized that, even without those signatures, both Clinton and Obama would have qualified for the ballot.

"Both had their signatures in well in advance of the deadline," he said. "Both had more than enough signatures. Both would have qualified. If you look at every petition, both would have had more than 500 signatures."

Even 580 Obama signatures, though, would not be enough to make up for more than 100 signatures the handwriting expert says were not legitimate. It will take further analysis to determine whether there are enough faked signatures to push Clinton's legitimate total below 500.

Source: South Bend Tribune (http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/specialreports/sbt-fake-signatures-may-mean-obama-didnt-actually-qualify-in-indiana-20111013,0,3613033.story)

Jill Monroe
12-08-2011, 08:24 AM
i'm aware of this paper b/c it circulates in some parts of MI. the southbend tribune has a reputation as a conservative, republican leaning editorial voice so this article doesnt surprise me. their "smoking gun" is what...19 out of an alleged 100+ signatures verified by a forensic document expert whose credentials are not verifiable. if anyone should be scrutinized its the election commissions & the poll watchers (which are composed of observers from both parties).

meanwhile, Right-wing media often trump up allegations of voter fraud, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the vote and suggesting a need for harsh requirements for voting, such as demanding voters produce government-issued ID at the polls. In some cases, they cite entirely baseless claims or pure speculation. In other cases, what they point to is actually voter registration fraud.

let's talk about voter [registration] fraud & voter SUPPRESSION, the latter of the two happens far more than the former.

Voter registration fraud is not when someone submits a false registration form for Mickey Mouse; voter fraud is when Mickey Mouse actually shows up. Instances of actual voter fraud are very rare; according to the Justice Department, they prosecuted only 17 individuals for casting fraudulent ballots from October 2002 through September 2005. Indeed, even advocates for harsh voting requirements acknowledge there is no "massive fraud in American elections."

They're also not talking about republican controlled congressional district's efforts @ voter suppression which are @ an all time high following the gerrymandering that occurred after the teaparty feuled republican victory in the house of representatives & various gubernatorial victories across the country. indiana is up there near the top w/ their shameless attempts @ voter suppression efforts now trying to ensure anyone who isn't a card carrying republican & isnt savvy enough to know their rights regarding voter registration, not to mention the poor & elderly do not get a fair chance to the ballot box but where's the news on that?

Caroline Forbes
12-08-2011, 11:25 AM
lol double standard

Jill Monroe
12-08-2011, 11:30 AM
how so?

Caroline Forbes
12-08-2011, 11:35 AM
When the liberal media reports on conservatives, it's "the truth" and a big huge deal and everyone's incensed. But when it's something involving a democrat, it's lies. Whether it's one fake signature or 500, it's still wrong. But Democratic politicians are infallible in this country's eyes because the media whitewashes everything that has to do with liberal politicians.

Jill Monroe
12-08-2011, 11:42 AM
When the liberal media reports on conservatives, it's "the truth" and a big huge deal and everyone's incensed. But when it's something involving a democrat, it's lies. Whether it's one fake signature or 500, it's still wrong. But Democratic politicians are infallible in this country's eyes because the media whitewashes everything that has to do with liberal politicians.

did i say that? :sure:

I certainly didnt imply it either.

im not a card carrying democrat. don't confuse a liberal w/ a dem b/c we're NOT the same. i've also said & shown many a time that I do not blindly follow or agree w/ everything that a democrat politician says/does.

i don't see how pointing out what the u.s. justice dept said about allegations of "Fraud" OR the fact there's a difference between voter registration fraud & what this article is talking about OR that the only time this seems to come up is when a dem wins an election is a double standard.

& if we're going to talk about fraud, let's talk about the 2000 elections & how BOXES of ballots in florida inexplicably went MISSING until well after the supreme court awarded the election to Bush (even though he did not win the popular vote). now THAT'S a fraud nobody wants to talk about. that election was STOLEN & several members of the bush cabinet have more than hinted to that in the years since.

Caroline Forbes
12-08-2011, 11:57 AM
See? Double standard ;)

Just because it doesn't come under the purview of the US District Attorney doesn't make it not a crime.

I don't really care about the voter thing but it does go to show that if the parties were reversed we would have a SCANDAL not a buried investigation by a local newspaper.

Rampage
12-08-2011, 12:11 PM
Has it occurred to you that the reason it is 'buried' is because it does not pass normal journalistic muster and therefore would be rejected by any self-respecting editor?

I can say as a scientist that the small sample size does not fully support what they are arguing (the sample is not robust). Additionally the expert defined them as 'suspect' with no qualification. That does not define them as real or fake (simply suspect) and given the mobile nature of people in this country, likely makes a claim not easily refuted given the time that has passed.

I also worry about the lack of credentials and sources listed as someone who decided at the last minute not to get a minor in English primarily through journalism classes. In those situations you generally list credentials when listing an expert and you generally try to find at least one on-the-record source. It seems strange to me that 'dozens' of people claim to have had their identities compromised and not ONE could be bothered to be be quoted for the article.

This is not a double standard issue. This is about having standards, period.

Jill Monroe
12-08-2011, 12:50 PM
Has it occurred to you that the reason it is 'buried' is because it does not pass normal journalistic muster and therefore would be rejected by any self-respecting editor?

that doesnt mean she can't post it here for viewing & discussion :) & these days...does ANYONE [in america] even know a standard of journalistic muster or integrity? after the abolishment of the fair doctorine reporting act in 1987, it's ALL gone down hill.




I can say as a scientist that the small sample size does not fully support what they are arguing (the sample is not robust). Additionally the expert defined them as 'suspect' with no qualification. That does not define them as real or fake (simply suspect) and given the mobile nature of people in this country, likely makes a claim not easily refuted given the time that has passed.

I also worry about the lack of credentials and sources listed as someone who decided at the last minute not to get a minor in English primarily through journalism classes. In those situations you generally list credentials when listing an expert and you generally try to find at least one on-the-record source. It seems strange to me that 'dozens' of people claim to have had their identities compromised and not ONE could be bothered to be be quoted for the article.

This is not a double standard issue. This is about having standards, period.

there are alot of glaring questions in the article & i suppose I am the one who made it a political slant issue when i mentioned how i was aware of the paper b/c of its circulating in MI & that its a conservative/right leaning publication. BUT i stand by my observation that the only time allegations of [voter] fraud make any kind of media splash is when the republicans have lost , or think they'll lose an election...even WITH the gerrymandering they had a good ol' time with after the '10 midterms.

that's not to say that it doesnt happen. even the US Justice dept acknowledges that it does. but its not nearly as widespread as these articles try to make it seem & if anything...voter SUPPRESSION is what we ALL should be concerned about (imo) b/c that marginalizes many groups of ppl.