Ballot Harvesting

Mar 2018
Ripe for fraud, which is right up the Dims alley.


Called “ballot harvesting,” critics say the practice is ripe for fraud. Consider “Lulu,” who was recorded trying to “harvest” what she thought was a Democratic voter’s ballot in Rep. Knight’s district.

It’s a “new service,” said Lulu, for “like, people who are supporting the Democratic party.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that 250,000 such ballots were used in Orange County alone, resulting in a Democratic sweep there.

From the Chronicle report:

“We beat Republicans on the ground, fair and square,” said Katie Merrill, a Democratic consultant deeply involved in November campaigns. “Many of the field plans included (ballot harvesting) as an option to deliver voters or their ballots” to the polls.

Those efforts involved identifying voters who might support Democratic candidates and ignoring those who wouldn’t.

In one Orange County household, for example, both the husband and wife were longtime Republicans, said Dale Neugebauer, a veteran Republican consultant. Democratic volunteers came by the house four times, each time asking to speak only with their 18-year-old daughter, a no-party-preference voter, and asking if she wanted them to pick up her signed and completed ballot.

That’s a perfect example of the “thorough and disciplined” ground game the Democrats used, said Merrill.

“We were not wasting time talking to people who weren’t going to vote for Democrats,” she said.​

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Republicans who admitted that Democrats clearly beat them at the new game and that, to compete, they will have to conduct their own “ballot harvesting” efforts.

Before its passage, a group opposed to the bill wrote: “AB 1921 would allow anybody to walk into an elections office and hand over truckloads of vote by mail envelopes with ballots inside, no questions asked, no verified records kept. It amounts to an open invitation to large-scale vote buying, voter coercion, “granny farming”, and automated forgery. AB 1921 solves no problem that a simple stamp can’t solve.”

What Is ‘Ballot Harvesting,’ And How Did California Dems Use It To Nuke The GOP?
Likes: Jimmyb
Apr 2013
Left coast
This is a total Republican construct. "Harvesting" is ensuring that absentee votes, mail-in votes and the like are counted. Of Course the Republican dregs, the unemployed rural detritus are sitting at home and can easily get to the polling stations on voting day. Real people have barriers. And Republicans do everything in their power to make the barriers higher.
Sep 2018
cleveland ohio
Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
The president has continued to claim voter fraud was a problem in the 2016 election. But a look at the facts makes clear fraud is vanishingly rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election. Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

January 31, 2017
Sep 2018
cleveland ohio
Studies Agree: Impersonation Fraud by Voters Very Rarely Happens
  • The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”
  • A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.”
  • A 2017 analysis published in The Washington Post concluded that there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that Massachusetts residents were bused into New Hampshire to vote.
  • A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.
  • Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012-2016.
  • A review of the 2016 election found four documented cases of voter fraud.
  • Research into the 2016 election found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
  • A 2016 working paper concluded that the upper limit on double voting in the 2012 election was 0.02%. The paper noted that the incident rate was likely much lower, given audits conducted by the researchers showed that “many, if not all, of these apparent double votes could be a result of measurement error.”
  • A 2014 paper concluded that “the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.”
  • A 2014 nationwide study found “no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud” in the 2012 election.
  • A 2014 study that examined impersonation fraud both at the polls and by mail ballot found zero instances in the jurisdictions studied.
  • A 2014 study by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, which reflected a literature review of the existing research on voter fraud, noted that the studies consistently found “few instances of in-person voter fraud.”
  • While writing a 2012 book, a researcher went back 30 years to try to find an example of voter impersonation fraud determining the outcome of an election, but was unable to find even one.
Sep 2018
cleveland ohio
  • A 2012 study exhaustively pulled records from every state for all alleged election fraud, and found the overall fraud rate to be “infinitesimal” and impersonation fraud by voters at the polls to be the rarest fraud of all: only 10 cases alleged in 12 years. The same studyfound only 56 alleged cases of non-citizen voting, in 12 years.
  • A 2012 assessment of Georgia’s 2006 election found “no evidence that election fraud was committed under the auspices of deceased registrants.”
  • A 2011 study by the Republican National Lawyers Association found that, between 2000 and 2010, 21 states had 1 or 0 convictions for voter fraud or other kinds of voting irregularities.
  • A 2010 book cataloguing reported incidents of voter fraud concluded that nearly all allegations turned out to be clerical errors or mistakes, not fraud.
  • A 2009 analysis examined 12 states and found that fraud by voters was “very rare,” and also concluded that many of the cases that garnered media attention were ultimately unsubstantiated upon further review.
  • Additional research on noncitizen voting can be found here: Analysis: Noncitizen Voting is Vanishingly Rare.
  • Additional resources can be found here: Analysis and Reports.
Courts Agree: Fraud by Voters at the Polls is Nearly Non-Existent
  • The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion finding that Texas’s strict photo ID law is racially discriminatory, noted that there were “only two convictions for in-person voter impersonation fraud out of 20 million votes cast in the decade” before Texas passed its law.
  • In its opinion striking down North Carolina’s omnibus restrictive election law —which included a voter ID requirement — as purposefully racially discriminatory, the Fourth Circuit noted that the state “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.”
  • A federal trial court in Wisconsin reviewing that state’s strict photo ID law found “that impersonation fraud — the type of fraud that voter ID is designed to prevent — is extremely rare” and “a truly isolated phenomenon that has not posed a significant threat to the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections.”
  • Even the Supreme Court, in its opinion in Crawford upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, noted that the record in the case “contains no evidence of any [in-person voter impersonation] fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Two of the jurists who weighed in on that case at the time — Republican-appointed former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and conservative appellate court Judge Richard Posner — have since announced they regret their votes in favor of the law, with Judge Posner noting that strict photo ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Government Investigations Agree: Voter Fraud Is Rare
  • Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate.
  • Texas lawmakers purported to pass its strict photo ID law to protect against voter fraud. Yet the chief law enforcement official in the state responsible for such prosecutions knew of only one conviction and one guilty plea that involved in-person voter fraud in all Texas elections from 2002 through 2014.
  • A specialized United States Department of Justice unit formed with the goal of finding instances of federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections, and were able to prove that 0.00000013 percent of ballots cast were fraudulent. There was no evidence that any of these incidents involved in-person impersonation fraud. Over a five year period, they found “no concerted effort to tilt the election.”
  • An investigation in Colorado, in which the Secretary of State alleged 100 cases of voter fraud, yielded one conviction.
  • In Maine, an investigation into 200 college students revealed no evidence of fraud. Shortly thereafter, an Elections Commission appointed by a Republican secretary of state found “there is little or no history in Maine of voter impersonation or identification fraud.”
  • In Florida, a criminal investigation into nine individuals who allegedly committed absentee ballot fraud led to all criminal charges being dismissed against all voters.
  • In 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott initiated an effort to remove non-citizen registrants from the state’s rolls. The state’s list of 182,000 alleged non-citizen registrants quickly dwindled to 198. Even this amended list contained many false positives, such as a WWII veteran born in Brooklyn. In the end, only 85 non-citizen registrants were identified and only one was convicted of fraud, out of a total of 12 million registered voters.
  • In Iowa, a multi-year investigation into fraud led to just 27 prosecutions out of 1.6 million ballots cast. In 2014 the state issued a report on the investigation citing only six prosecutions.
  • In Wisconsin, a task force charged 20 individuals with election crimes. The majority charged were individuals with prior criminal convictions, who are often caught up by confusing laws regarding restoration of their voting rights.
The verdict is in from every corner that voter fraud is sufficiently rare that it simply could not and does not happen at the rate even approaching that which would be required to “rig” an election. Electoral integrity is key to our democracy, and politicians who genuinely care about protecting our elections should focus not on phantom fraud concerns, but on those abuses that actually threaten election security.
As historians and election experts have catalogued, there is a long history in this country of racially suppressive voting measures — including poll taxes and all-white primaries — put in place under the guise of stopping voter fraud that wasn’t actually occurring in the first place. The surest way toward voting that is truly free, fair, and accessible is to know the facts in the face of such rhetoric.
Voting Rights & Elections
Myth of Voter Fraud
Jun 2018
South Dakota
"Harvesting" is ensuring that absentee votes, mail-in votes and the like are counted.
The entire post is wrong but this is the most important piece of it.
The way Harvesting is applied isn't to insure that all votes are counted, it's there to insure that all votes of a certain party are counted. The act of gathering votes from registered voters for delivery to be included in the count is subject to selective collection. It would require operatives from all parties collecting the ballots to insure their fair collection. It should never be up to the party to decide whose vote is "collected" it is the responsibility of the voter to see that it is done. I can imagine the recipient of a ballot in the mail getting a knock on the door from an operative demanding they fill out the ballot and surrender it. Personally I, and I bet many others, would view this in much the same way I welcome a visit by the local JWs.
Last edited:
Nov 2005
Ballot harvesting is a con the Dims dreamed up. It is the old 'vote early, vote often' dressed in new clothes.
Explain it in your own words instead of blindly throwing out a link that comes from a clearly biased source, explain how ballot harvesting is wrong.

Your link never explains why it is actually wrong. It whines about different things (like ballot harvesters being paid) but that in no way demonstrates an illegality or voter fraud.
In the various threads on here, Repubs throw mud at the concept of ballot harvesting blindly but can never explain how it actually amounts to fraud...

It's typically legal for a household member to bring the ballot to the polling place.
With ballot harvesting, it makes it legal for somebody other than a household member to bring the ballot to the polling place.
Where is the inherent fraud or needed illegality in this?

The stupid part of this is
# it's legal for anybody else to drop a voter's mail-in ballot in the mail.
# it's legal for anybody else to drop a voter's mail-in ballot in another approved mail-in ballot receptacle.
Yet Repubs can't think that far ahead because they only read what they're supposed to be angry about these days. They can't think for themselves to explain why it's wrong.

Why is ballot harvesting wrong?

Similar Discussions