Absentee Ballot Fraud In Ohio

Another election, followed, as usual, by reports of absentee vote fraud.  This time from Ohio.  The good news is that under Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, it was not the Ohio of 2004. It is an Ohio where problems are detected, investigated, and hopefully corrected, prevented, and prosecuted.

Ironton Tribune: Absentee ballot report sent to Husted <read>

About a month before the November general election Lawrence County Board of Election workers noticed a number of applications for absentee ballots going to one of two post office box numbers. When voters apply for an absentee ballot, they are allowed to have the ballot sent to an address other than their home location.

However when election board workers noticed the same post office boxes appearing repeatedly, they did a random check to see where the voters wanted their ballots sent. On most of the calls, the workers found the phones listed on the applications were disconnected. However, those they did get in touch with said they wanted their ballot sent to their home address.

When Brunner learned of that situation, she ordered a special investigation, sending Columbus attorney Andrew Baker on Oct. 20 to the county courthouse to review those applications.

As we have said before, the risks of mail-in voting including no-excuse absentee voting are to great.  Such voting should be limited to cases where it is absolutely necessary, as it is now in Connecticut.  It also requires strong laws, procedures, and vigilance.


One response to “Absentee Ballot Fraud In Ohio”

  1. mattw

    Unfortunately, it isn’t limited to “cases where it is absolutely necessary” here in Connecticut — there’s a vast gray area where those who work or travel get ABs “just in case,” and wind up in technical violation of the law. I saw at least three people this year bring their ABs back to town hall, personally, on election morning, and they were totally unable to comprehend that they were supposed to rip up their ballot and head over to their polling place to vote.

    Where I do agree with you is that the investigation and enforcement element in the Ohio case was quite valuable, and worth exploring here in CT. I’d rather see proactive investigation and prosecution than obstructing voters from participating because of obscure rules that they don’t understand (and election officials don’t uniformly apply).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.