Sunday, February 16, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
ELECTION FRAUD: Contesting the vote
Do District 37 allegations have any merit or not?
To the editor:
In the discussions of the dropped election challenge in the Assembly District 37 race, there still seems to be some confusion, which I would like to try to clear up ("Assembly chairwoman questions vote challenge," Feb. 5).
There have indeed been allegations of fraud that are being vigorously pursued -- as they should be -- by the Clark County district attorney. Allegations have been made that individuals registered to vote and then voted from addresses that were not their residences. This is a violation of the law and would be fraud.
The 160 individuals who were referred to in the challenge are individuals the contestant claimed should have their votes disqualified because they did not live in Assembly District 37 at the time of the election. What the contestants continually fail to acknowledge, however, is that individuals who move prior to the election but fail to notify the Election Department (classified as inactive voters), must by law be allowed to vote and must vote in their old precinct. This is explained on the Clark County Election Department Web site and was testified to by Clark County registrar of voters Larry Lomax. Those individuals did not commit voter fraud; they followed the law to the letter.
In fact, Mr. Lomax informed Assemblyman Bob Beers of this when he first made the allegations of voter fraud. Mr. Beers has continually confused the two issues.
A person is legally required to vote in the old precinct if he or she moved prior to the election. In fact, these voters must sign a declaration to swear that they moved and provide their new address. Those individuals are the ones the contest wrongly accuses of voter fraud. Those individuals didn't commit any crime.
A recent Review-Journal editorial recommended revisions to the law, and certainly our committee is going to look at ways to improve the process. We will, however, be somewhat restricted in the changes we make by the recently enacted federal election law that requires states to allow every voter who shows up -- but who has moved or didn't provide identification -- to vote with a provisional ballot, which will then be evaluated for validity. This new provision is part of federal legislation pushed by President Bush in response to the election controversy in Florida.
As we continue the discussion, I think it is very important that we carefully distinguish between voter fraud and the legal actions of inactive voters. To accuse individuals who legitimately cast their ballots in the manner prescribed by law of voter fraud, I believe, is unconscionable.
The Legislature has an obligation to gather information so our decisions are not suspect. Serious allegations were made and appear to be without merit. The accusers did not offer testimony and refused to cooperate in providing information.
In conclusion, I applaud anyone who comes forward when they suspect fraud. Mr. Beers and Frances Allen should be thanked for bringing to light the Gary Horrocks matter because registering to vote at a place that is not your residence is illegal and fraudulent. But this contest went further and falsely accused people who legally voted in Assembly 37.
Unfortunately, despite being informed that it is legal for people to vote if they've moved, the contestants filed their challenge and then withdrew it on the last day, without comment. It would be irresponsible for us not to pursue validation of the accusations so those who voted legally can have their names cleared.
CHRIS GIUNCHIGLIANI
LAS VEGAS
The writer, a Democrat, chairs the Assembly Election Committee.
To the editor:
We would like to thank the Review-Journal for the opportunity to have our voices heard in regard to the Assembly District 37 contest. We would like to recount the events that have occurred in an effort to set the record straight.
Two days after the election, we found out that there had been potential tampering of the voting process in District 37. After the bombastic comments of bar owner Gary Horrocks, newspaper articles, and further investigation into alleged voter fraud, we were confident that abuse of the voting process had taken place.
We solicited the views of several attorneys seeking advice on what options were available as recourse. In the final analysis, we were not permitted by state law to seek a judicial remedy, nor could we appeal to an impartial nonpartisan body such as a review board. Our sole option was to file a "statement of contest" with the secretary of state, which would be heard by the Assembly. The law (NRS 293.410), in part, states that "an election may be contested upon the following grounds: (c) That illegal votes were cast and counted for the defendant, which, if taken from him, will reduce the number of his legal votes below the number necessary to elect him" -- which is what we believe occurred.
For the first time in Clark County history the DA's office is investigating voter fraud. An impartial grand jury, which does not probe frivolous allegations, met on Jan. 30 to investigate the charges. Our hopes were for an immediate indictment of Mr. Horrocks. The grand jury, however, is still investigating.
A grand jury indictment would have provided overwhelming evidence of voter fraud -- so overwhelming, we believe it would have overcome the partisan obstacles we may have faced in Carson City. However, we did not have a grand jury indictment prior to the hearing of the contest. State law (NRS 293.427), in part, says "(3) If, before the contest has been decided, a contestant gives written notice to the secretary of state that he wishes to withdraw his statement of contest, the secretary of state shall dismiss the contest." On the next day, Jan. 31, we collectively agreed to withdraw the contest in an effort to curb further taxpayer expense and to allow the Legislature to move on with the "people's work." Consequently, we were unaware that the Selection Committee on Credentials would still consider the contest on Feb. 4 even though it had already been dismissed and no longer existed.
Do not mistake our withdrawal of the legislative contest for a lack of confidence in the voter fraud case. By bringing this electoral manipulation to the forefront, we are attempting to ensure measures will be taken to prevent this from occurring in the future. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. It's the right of the people to have their vote count; our democratic process depends on it.
SANDRA J. VITOLO
FRANCES ALLEN
LAS VEGAS
Ms. Vitolo filed the contest in District 37. Ms. Allen was the losing Republican candidate in the race in question.
