Letter to Jim Condos: Voter fraud is voter suppression

Dear Mr. Condos,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about HR 1, the “For the People” Act, in your recent opinion piece published by True North Reports on March 10th. While your piece is worthy of comment in a number of respects, it was the following quote that caught my attention above all else:

“Make no mistake, the words ‘voter fraud’ and ‘voting integrity’ are used together to mask voter suppression.”

You are correct that voter fraud, voting integrity, and voter suppression are intrinsically linked. However, to claim that discussions of voter fraud and voting integrity merely serve to divert attention from voter suppression is an overly simplistic analysis, and one that is frequently incorrect.

Public domain

“If we are to move forward with confidence that our elections are free, fair and representative of the will of the people, we must be willing to engage in an honest and fair-minded critique of our electoral processes.”

Voter fraud is made possible by a lack of voting integrity. When voter fraud occurs, the result is voter suppression — ballots cast fraudulently have the effect of diluting the pool of legitimate votes, while ballots that are illegitimately disqualified, destroyed, or “lost” are suppressed in the most literal sense. In any case, the will of the people is subverted. Thus, if one is concerned about voter suppression, one must also be concerned with voter fraud, and by extension, voting integrity.

Case in point: our local elections on March 2, 2021. As a resident of North Bennington, VT, a village in the town of Bennington, I was eligible to cast three ballots on March 2nd: one for the village, one for the town, and one for the local school district. The village ballot was a mail-in ballot provided automatically to all “active” voters in the village, whereas the town and school district ballots were to be cast in person (unless mail-in ballots had specifically been requested). In-person voting was not an option for the village ballot, but voters were allowed to submit the ballot directly to the village offices in lieu of mailing it. Voting for the town and school district ballots was to take place at a separate polling location approximately five miles from the village offices. Sound confusing? Just wait, it gets better.

I chose to submit my village ballot directly to the village offices. Upon arriving at the offices, there was no official ballot collection box to be found. I inquired as to where I should submit my ballot and was directed to a cardboard box on the floor, adjacent to the entrance and across the room from the two workers who were present. Names and return addresses on the stack of ballots in the box were clearly visible. I placed my ballot in the box along with the others. Next, I was informed by one of the workers that residents of North Bennington who wished to cast the school district ballot would have to do so at the village offices instead of the polling place in Bennington proper, contrary to the information that had previously been provided. I was given a copy of the school district ballot, which I proceeded to fill out. Again, there was no official ballot box for the completed ballots, which were simply placed in a pile on the table. The village clerk, who typically oversees the proceedings, was notably absent. I was told that she had left to shuttle ballots between polling places. I departed the offices, traveled the five miles to the polling location in Bennington, and cast my final ballot for the town — this time, to my surprise and relief, uneventfully.

The process I observed in North Bennington on March 2nd is a prime example of how a lack of voting integrity creates numerous opportunities for voter fraud, thereby enabling voter suppression. If procedures such as the ones I observed are the norm in small communities in Vermont and elsewhere across the country, it should come as no surprise that distrust in electoral integrity is widespread. One should not claim that voters with concerns about electoral integrity are engaging in “cry wolf tactics” when those concerns are clearly legitimate and reality-based.

Please know that I do not suspect any of the individuals supervising the voting process in North Bennington to be guilty of unscrupulous behavior or intentional wrongdoing. On the contrary, I am confident that they utilized every resource available to them to adapt to the sudden and dramatic changes in voting protocols that have been implemented in Vermont over the course of the past year. Before making additional changes to our voting protocols at the federal level, as proposed in HR 1, we must consider whether such changes can be implemented safely and effectively at the local level — particularly for small rural communities like North Bennington, many of which lack the resources of the urban centers most familiar to the congressional Democrats who sponsored this legislation.

As you rightfully acknowledge in your piece, the strength of our democratic institutions is proven through continual debate. To equate discussion of voter fraud and voting integrity with attempts at voter suppression is to discourage the very debate that makes our nation stronger. If we are to move forward with confidence that our elections are free, fair and representative of the will of the people, we must be willing to engage in an honest and fair-minded critique of our electoral processes. Such a critique must not only consider the ability of eligible voters to access the polls, but the integrity of the electoral process as a whole, and the multitude of ways in which that process can potentially be subverted.

We are fortunate to live in a country that allows us to carry on this conversation — for now, at least. Thank you again for sharing your views.

A Concerned Voter

Image courtesy of Public domain

8 thoughts on “Letter to Jim Condos: Voter fraud is voter suppression

  1. If you want voter ” integrity “, well it’s pretty simple, you go to your local polling place
    or you ” request ” an absentee ballot with identification for both scenarios and any
    other voter process is just asking for issues & concerns……. yup, “aka” ….. fraud !!

    If Mr.Condos believes that flooding the state with ” publisher clearing house ” ballots,
    then he is part of the problem.

    If we don’t have voter integrity, then we have nothing, and that what they want.

  2. Voter List Manipulation


    Dem/Progs likely know:

    – Illegals, with and without documents, are not allowed to vote, per US Constitution.
    – Legal US residents (who are not citizens), with green cards, are also not allowed to vote, per US Constitution.

    Dem/Progs aim to have EVERYONE VOTE, dead or alive, a la Tracy Adams in Georgia.

    To make that happen, Dem/Progs in Georgia, or any other state, want “inclusive” registered voter lists.

    Vermont Secretary of State Condos, and his counterparts in other states, should focus on registered voter lists and loose-goosy, leftist, voting “requirements”

    In Democrat-controlled Vermont cities and towns, feeding fake ballots (stuffing the ballot box) is a common practice, as is feeding the same ballot multiple times, as was done in Georgia counting centers which, unbeknownst to counting folks, were recorded ON VIDEO.

    Manipulating voter lists provides corrupt election officials more names to “play” with, to enhance Democrat power and command/control.

    Some “unlikely” voters would show up to vote in person.

    You already voted.
    How could that be I never received a ballot?
    Our records show you did. Here is a spare ballot.
    Just sign this affidavit, so we can “classify” you for the next time.

    1) Not deleting dead people
    2) Not deleting people who moved to another state
    3) Enabling non-citizens and illegal aliens to vote (with documents, or not)
    4) Enabling temporary residents to vote, even if they would reside less time in state than required by law. That requirement should be at least one year to avoid shenanigans
    5) Enabling convicted felons to vote (in jail, on parole, or not)
    6) Enabling under-age people to vote
    7) Enabling feeble-minded people in nursing homes to “vote”, by “proxies” filling in their ballots, without even telling them
    8) Enabling out-of-state students, citizen or not, to vote; they should vote in their own state, AT ALL TIMES, NO EXCUSE.
    9) Enabling “motor voting” to ALL COMERS, documented or not.
    10) Enabling ballot drop off boxes that are unsupervised 24/7, not monitored by video, a major fraud opportunity
    11) Enabling indiscriminate mail-in voting (taking advantage of COVID conditions), a major fraud opportunity, as President Carter predicted a few decades ago
    12 Enabling VOTING MACHINES that are:

    1) Programmable to switch votes to favored candidates, as was proven in court cases.
    2) Connected to state-owned servers, which enables centralized observation of real-time vote counting by whomever, etc.,
    3) Connectable to the internet for “REMOTE MONITORING AND PROGRAMMING”, even by foreign actors, such as China, etc.

    NOTE: The Legislature of New Hampshire became Republican, because the activist “student vote” was absent.
    They likely voted in their own states as well; “every vote counts”.

  3. What H.R. 1 Would Do

    Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.

    Make it easier to commit fraud and promote chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials would have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and the eligibility of an individual to vote and could not anticipate the number of ballots and precinct workers that would be needed at specific polling locations.

    Hurt voter turnout through 15 days of mandated early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts; it would raise the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.

    Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals (as opposed to “citizens”) from state and federal databases, such as state Departments of Motor Vehicles, corrections and welfare offices, and federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the Department of Labor, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services. This would register large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens, and cause multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals and put federal agencies in charge of determining a person’s domicile for voting purposes (as well as that individual’s taxing state).

    Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registration that is not tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license. It would make it a criminal offense for a state official to reject a voter registration application even when it is rejected “under color of law” because the official believes the individual is ineligible to vote. It would also require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register; when combined with a ban on voter ID and restrictions on the ability to challenge the eligibility of a voter, this would effectively ensure that underage individuals could vote with impunity.

    Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precincts, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud.

    Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves. It would ban witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots; force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day; and require states to allow vote trafficking (vote harvesting) so that any third parties—including campaign staffers and political consultants—can pick up and deliver absentee ballots.

    Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever removing registrants due to a failure to vote no matter how much time has elapsed. It also would substantially limit the public release of voter registration information, making it almost impossible for nonpartisan organizations to verify the accuracy of registration rolls, and prohibit states from using undeliverable election mail as a basis for challenging a registrant’s eligibility.

    Ban state voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

    Violate the First Amendment with respect to a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 would add a provision criminalizing “hindering, interfering, or preventing” anyone from registering or voting, which is so vague and so broad that it could prevent providing any information to election officials about the ineligibility of an individual, such as an applicant not being a U.S. citizen.

    Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech, including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 would impose onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public; its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment—the modern equivalent of the type of disclosure requirements the U.S. Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) held violated associational rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.

    Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity, eliminating the ability of the residents of specific states to make their own decisions about what rules should govern their state government officials.

    Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison regardless of uncompleted parole, probation, or restitution requirements. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
    Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 would make it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandate the inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that would take away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decisions about redistricting.

    Authorize the Internal Revenue Service to engage in partisan activity. H.R. 1 would permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations before granting tax-exempt status, thus enabling IRS officials to target organizations engaging in First Amendment activity with disfavored views.

    Limit access to federal courts for anyone challenging H.R. 1. The bill would prohibit the filing of any lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 1 anywhere except in the District Court for the District of Columbia and would allow the court to order all plaintiffs and intervenors, regardless of their number (such as all 50 states), “to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument,” severely limiting the legal representation and due process rights of challengers.

    Establish a “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” that would threaten the independence of the judiciary. H.R. 1 defines “democratic institutions” as those that are “essential to ensuring an independent judiciary, free and fair elections and the rule of law.” The commission would be given the authority to compel judges to testify and justify their legal decisions, threatening their independent judgment and subjecting them to political pressure and harassment.

    • Waiver of white flag? Well not I and the pressure is on!

      PS – the reference is to surrender – nothing more!

Comments are closed.