Americans Rightly Concerned About Voter Fraud

A new Rasmussen Reports/Heartland Institute survey released Wednesday finds 62% of American likely voters are concerned cheating will affect the 2024 election.

“The fact that more than 60% of likely voters are concerned about election integrity should be a massive wake-up call to all those who refuse to admit that potential cheating in elections is a major problem,” said Chris Talgo, editorial director of The Heartland Institute, adding:

As the 2020 election demonstrated, mass mailing of ballots based on outdated voter rolls, ballot harvesting, unattended drop boxes, and no excuse mail-in voting has made it easier than ever for those who are committed to breaking the law and illegally voting. The fact that nearly one-in-five likely voters received multiple ballots before the 2020 election cements the case for the urgent need for election integrity reform measures across the states.

In some states, however, election-related measures could be leading to greater corruption that could impact the 2024 vote.

In Michigan, for example, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) earlier this month signed into law bills that change how vote recounts are conducted in the state – just in time for the upcoming election.

Whitmer said in a press statement she expects the new bills to “make sure the winner can take office without unnecessary interference.” 

Senate Bills 603 and 604 are “purportedly aimed at preventing frivolous recounts and streamlining complaints over voter fraud,” as LifeSiteNews reported.

The legislation is also touted by Michigan Sen. Stephanie Chang (D) as a “common-sense” way of “strengthening our democracy.”

The news report observed, however, that, in addition to other disturbing provisions, the bills “strip investigatory power for fraud from bi-partisan boards of canvassers and hand it over to county prosecutors.”

SB 603, for example, makes clear that a recount is not to be considered an “investigation or an audit of the conduct of an election,” and will not determine “the qualifications of electors participating in an election or the manner in which ballots are applied for or issued to electors.”

The bill’s text continues:

If a board of canvassers receives a petition to conduct an investigation or an audit of the conduct of an election, a petition to assess the qualifications of electors participating in an election or the manner in which ballots are applied for or issued to electors, or a petition to do anything other than conduct a recount as described in subsection (2), the board of canvassers must deny that petition.

Following that denial, the board is required to refer the issue to a prosecuting attorney or Michigan’s attorney general’s office.

The new law also raises the state’s recount filing fees to account “for the costs of conducting a recount,” and requires that a request for a recount be filed within 48 hours of the certification of votes by a board of canvassers.

As LifeSiteNews summarized:

The bills notably restrict the ability of a candidate to request a recount. Such a request will now only be approved if the discrepancy is likely to flip the election in the challenger’s favor. There are also higher fees for recount requests based on the margin of victory. The move is intended to disincentivize candidates who receive a small percentage of the overall vote. 

“This bill will eliminate what little trust citizens have left in our election systems,” said Republican State Rep. Rachel Smit, a former elections clerk.

In another example of election integrity in the news, a federal judge in Ohio has blocked a state law that restricted who is legally able to return the absentee ballots of disabled voters.

Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio struck down a state election law, in effect since April 2023, that limited the relatives authorized to return the ballots to the disabled voter’s spouse, parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, The Epoch Times reported Tuesday.

Brennan said the law violated the Voting Rights Act.

The law had provided that other unauthorized “facilitators” could be met with a felony charge for mailing an absentee ballot or returning the ballot of a disabled person to the board of elections.

The judge wrote that the law “unambiguously allows disabled voters to choose for themselves who will assist them in voting, and that the Challenged Ohio Law’s limitations of this choice to only certain family members is unlawful and unenforceable.”

According to the news report, 35 states “explicitly allow someone other than the voter to return a voter ballot, with many of these states limiting this ability to a family member or caregiver, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”

The ruling was celebrated by the Ohio chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the League of Women Voters, who filed the complaint.

“This is a win for democracy, “said Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio director. “We are thrilled that the court ordered the state to stop denying Ohioans with disabilities the opportunity to cast their ballots via assistance from a trusted person of their choice.”

But Ben Kindel, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, asserted the ruling is an example of judicial overreach.

“We obviously disagree with the decision, and we’ll be consulting with our counsel, the attorney general, on next steps,” Kindel told The Epoch Times. “This is a challenge to a law passed by the General Assembly, which has the exclusive authority to set the rules of Ohio’s elections, so they’ll likely be considering the court’s ruling here as well.”