Here’s one of the least-understood aspects of the voter ID trial: The missing subject of “voter fraud.” Before hearings began in Applewhite v. Pennsylvania, both parties stipulated that “there have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.” And yet, and yet… you can’t keep a good voter fraud story down. The petitioners’ final witness of the hearings was Lorriane Minnite, a professor at City College in New York and author of The Myth of Voter Fraud. The states’ attorneys objected as she started to talk about specific fraud prosecutions and indictments. The objection was overuled. “They cited the legislation in their opening brief,” explained Michael Rubin, one of the D.C.-based attorneys who’s helping out the petitioners here. “Voter fraud’s been coming up in testimony.” The petitioners interrogated Minnite for more than 90 minutes, walking through many op-eds worth of fraud myths, fraud facts, fraud definitions, and the real problems with ballot-counting. When they were done, Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Crawley promised a “few questions” and started trying to undermine Minnite’s credibility.
“Your formal education, if I read your CV correctly, does not include specific training in election administration, does it?” he asked. “I don’t know what you mean by training,” said Minnite. “Did you get any degree or take courses that were specifically geared toward election administraion?” “Actually, there are no degrees in election administration.” Crawley couldn’t really win. He got Minnite to admit that she had not volunteered as a poll worker, then tried to prove that the “voter fraud really is a problem” school needed to be taken seriously.
Full Article: Voter ID on Trial: The Hans von Spakovsky Wars.