NYT story on EAC "altering" report on voter fraud

[liam_laddie]

Front page of April 11 edition. Sorry about huge link, but that's what the NYT sent.
As if we didn't already know!

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/washington/11voters.html?ex=1333944000&en=fdeb2b1407d0ae0f&ei
=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>

[Mojorabbit]

1. Oooh

WASHINGTON, April 10 — A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times.

Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.

The revised version echoes complaints made by Republican politicians, who have long suggested that voter fraud is widespread and justifies the voter identification laws that have been passed in at least two dozen states.

Democrats say the threat is overstated and have opposed voter identification laws, which they say disenfranchise the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely to have photo IDs and are more likely to be Democrats.

Though the original report said that among experts “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,” the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that “there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”

The topic of voter fraud, usually defined as people misrepresenting themselves at the polls or improperly attempting to register voters, remains a lively division between the two parties. It has played a significant role in the current Congressional investigation into the Bush administration’s firing of eight United States attorneys, several of whom, documents now indicate, were dismissed for being insufficiently aggressive in pursuing voter fraud cases.


Lots more. Juicy article.

[Wilms]

2. That is soooo messed up.

[JimDandy]

3. And they not only used "voter fraud" correctly, they also defined it! n/t

[mod mom]

4. played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud

that say a lot!

[rumpel]

5. I like the quote...

And in this case, one of the two experts hired to do the report was Job Serebrov, a Republican elections lawyer from Arkansas, who defended his research in an e-mail message obtained by The Times that was sent last October to Margaret Sims, a commission staff member.

“Tova and I worked hard to produce a correct, accurate and truthful report,” Mr. Serebrov wrote, referring to Tova Wang, a voting expert with liberal leanings from the Century Foundation and co-author of the report. “I could care less that the results are not what the more conservative members of my party wanted.”

He added: “Neither one of us was willing to conform results for political expediency.”

For contractual reasons, neither Ms. Wang nor Mr. Serebrov were at liberty to comment on their original report and the discrepancies with the final, edited version.

[Melissa G]

6. I recommend this for those folks who hand around the ER forum

and say that they don't have much of a problem with the EAC part of the Holt bill.