Investigation Reveals New GOP Tactic to Purge Millions of Minority Voters in 28 States
Interview with Greg Palast, journalist and author, “Billionaires and Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps”, conducted by Scott Harris
A six-month investigation conducted by journalist and author Greg Palast for Al Jazeera America has uncovered a new method by which 28 states, mostly controlled by the Republican Party, have threatened to purge as many as 3 million predominantly minority voters from the voting rolls in the 2014 midterm election and beyond. Palast’s report, titled: “Jim Crow Returns,” examines something called the Interstate Crosscheck System, a project of right-wing Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who’s known for his advocacy of restrictive voter ID laws and anti-immigrant legislation nationwide.
State governments using the Interstate Crosscheck System have compiled a list of nearly 7 million voters’ names who officials claim have voted in two or more states during the same election, which is a felony crime. However, the list of suspect voters are determined by finding a simple match of first and last names in two or more states, disregarding different middle names, and with no apparent effort to filter out the vast majority of blameless individuals by using unique birthdates and/or Social Security numbers.
When Palast requested copies of the voter purge lists from these 28 states, only three responded: Georgia, Washington and Virginia. Upon close examination, Palast found that Georgia’s Republicans had a list of an estimated 500,000 suspected double voters based solely on simple matches of first and last names from other states, with no other corroborating evidence. Georgia’s Democratic legislators were shocked to hear that they had not been informed about the state’s plan to purge this large group of voters. Documents turned over to Palast by Virginia officials revealed that state government had already purged more than 41,000 voters on the dubious information supplied by the Crosscheck system. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Greg Palast, who summarizes the findings of his “Jim Crow Returns” investigation and the potential that the purge of millions of Crosscheck identified voters could play a decisive role in deciding key contests in the 2014 election that will determine control of the U.S. Senate.
GREG PALAST: The total list is 7 million names and they say that’s 3 1/2 million double-voters. It’s the biggest crime wave in American history if it’s true. But it’s not true. It’s not a flawed list. It’s not a “bad list.” As far I can tell, there’s not a single double-voter on the list of 7 million. For Al-Jazeera, the website and television news there. I was able to get these lists and typical of the list, are names like John Adams Smith voting in Virginia and he’s supposed to be the same person as John Larry Smith in Georgia. And that’s a typical match. That’s not just something I picked out to make it look bad. Literally, 26 percent, that is almost two million of the supposed double-voters in fact have a mismatch, or no match of middle name. Tens of thousands, probably a little over a 100,000 names have “junior and senior mismatch. While they advertise having Social Security numbers, the internal instructions which we obtained at al Jazeera show that if there are Social Security numbers, and that’s rare – if they don’t match, and they never do – if they don’t match, your name stays on the purged list. Middle names don’t match, you’re on the list. Junior, senior, doesn’t match, you’re on the list, etc. There are no dates of birth used to knock people out. If the date of birth doesn’t match, hey, you’re still on the list. That’s why 27 states have 7 million names or 3.5 million supposed double-voters.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Greg, your report says Virginia has purged 41,000 voters as a result of this Crosscheck list. Do we know the numbers of voters in other states combined that have lost their vote because of this dubious Crosscheck system?
GREG PALAST: Well, that’s one of the problems is that, again, remember, they wouldn’t give us the list because they said it’s a criminal investigation. So they’re playing another game. They’re not telling how many people are getting knocked off in other states. Only Virginia, which seemed to proudly announce that it had removed 41,000 voters from the voter rolls as alleged double-voters. If you consider Virginia is typical, that’s about 10 percent of their list. They said they’re going to get more. They call it “low-hanging fruit.” Given that the list is pretty heavily racial, that’s a pretty loaded statement. So if the other states are purging at the Virginia rate, you’re looking at three-quarters of a million to a million people are going to eventually altogether lose their vote because of this accusation that they’re voting twice. So again, we’re having elections which are being decided not by what the vote is, but who’s blocking the vote. It’s a secret purge. And that’s one of the things that makes it insidious and most dangerous.
BETWEEN THE LINES: You’ve been doing some critical investigations of partisan voter purges since that tumultuous 2000 presidential election. What’s it going to take to correct this failed system of partisan voting that is now is in full swing across so many states across the country?
GREG PALAST: Voters have to be upset about it. We have to decide as a nation that everyone has the right to vote and we will defend it no matter what that vote is. We now think it’s very cute to knock out the opponent’s voters. They say, “Well now that’s the rules.” And so this is a huge problem and unfortunately at the moment, most purges like that are especially racially based are conducted by Republicans on a mass basis because they benefit when they knock out minorities, the usual targets these purges.
The problem is, Democrats have been doing it too, not effectively, not as well. I’ve seen it all over the country. We have Hispanic Democrats knocking out Native American voters in New Mexico, for example. And so, because all parties’ hands are dirty, we can’t expect the parties to take this on. You think, oh, well the Democrats want to stop this because it’ll stop Democrats from voting. No, no, Democrats have their hands in this. So it’s we the people. There are a lot of good organizations. Tonight, I just spoke to Rev. Barber of the Moral Monday movement. He’s filing a complaint. You have the Asian American Defense League looking at this because so many Asian Americans are affected by any purge involving common names. And they know why they’re being targeted. Seventy-three percent of Asian Americans vote Democrat. But we’ll only be able to end it when citizen organizations say no-no, we all get to vote. Otherwise, it ain’t America, it ain’t democracy. No other way to do it.
See more of Greg Palast’s work at gregpalast.com.
Related Links:
- Interview with Greg Palast, conducted by Scott Harris, Counterpoint, Nov. 3, 2014 (32:!3)
- “Jim Crow Returns: Millions of Minority Voters Threatened by Electoral Purge,” Al Jazeera, Oct. 29, 2014
- “Palast America Tonight Video Report Part #1,” America Tonight, America Al Jazeera, Oct. 29, 2014
- “Palast America Tonight Video Report Part #2,” America Tonight, America Al Jazeera, Oct. 29, 2014
- “Look up Your Name on the Crosscheck Voter Purge-List,” Al Jazeera, Oct. 29, 2014
- “Billionaires and Ballot Bandits,” by Greg Palast, GregPalast.com
- “Jim Crow Returns: Greg Palast Extended Interview Video and Transcript,” State of Belief, Nov. 1, 2014
- “The New Face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America,” People for the American Way
- “It’s on: Battle for soul of the GOP,” Politico
Voter Suppression Laws Field Tested in 2014 Election, May Have Determined Outcome in Several Races
Interview with Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez, senior attorney with Advancement Project, conducted by Melinda Tuhus
As citizens across the U.S. cast ballots in the 2014 mid-term election, 22 states, most of them controlled by the Republican Party, had passed a variety of laws that made it harder for specific groups of people to vote. The measures included a reduction in the days and hours of early voting, new obstacles placed on absentee ballots, making the registration of new voters more difficult and imposing restrictive voter ID laws, which in Texas alone were estimated to prevent 600,000 citizens from voting. This avalanche of new voting restrictions followed the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling, which gutted a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
While Republican lawmakers assert new limits on voting rights have been introduced to prevent voter fraud, independent analysis has found no evidence to support their claim. Civil liberties and civil rights groups have long charged that the drive to make voting more difficult disproportionately affects minority voters and is part of a strategy to gain partisan political advantage for the GOP. Laws designed to disenfranchise voters appear to also target college students, low-income voters, senior citizens and legal immigrants who often vote for Democratic candidates.
Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez, senior attorney and director of Voter Protection for Advancement Project, a multi-racial civil rights organization that works to achieve systemic change on issues of democracy voting rights and access to justice. Here, she describes some of the voter laws her group has challenged through litigation – and the coordination of community organizing leading up to, and following the Nov. 4 election.
Find more information on Advancement Project at Advancementproject.org.
Related Links:
- “Map of Shame 2014,” LawyersCommittee.org
- “Spreading Suppression: Restrictive Voting Laws Across the United States,” Fair Elections Network, Aug. 7, 2012
- “Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act,” New York Times, June 25, 2013
- “Voter Suppression 101: How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise,” Center for American Progress, April 2012
- “Think Getting a Government-Issued ID is Easy? Think Again,” Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
- “Looking to 2012 Election, Republicans Enact Voter Suppression Legislation Across the U.S.,” Between The Lines, July 27, 2011
- “Supreme Court Allows Ohio to Slash Early Voting Hours as GOP Legislatures Seek to Suppress Minority Vote Nationwide,” Between The Lines, Oct. 8, 2014
-
Covert Corporate Cash Funneled Through U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tops List of Dark Money Donors in 2014 Congressional Campaigns
Posted Nov. 5, 2014
Interview with Sam Jewler, communications officer with Public Citizen’s U.S. Chamber Watch, conducted by Scott Harris
Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case in January 2010, the floodgates of unlimited and unaccountable money have been pouring into U.S. political campaigns. Attempts made to pass congressional legislation to mitigate the effects of the high court ruling that supported the expansion of secret corporate campaign contributions in U.S. elections have thus far all failed.
Therefore, it’s not surprising to find that an unprecedented amount of money was spent in this year’s midterm election by so-called “dark money groups,” a class of nonprofits that are prohibited from coordinating with candidates and are not legally required to disclose their donors. These groups have provided the funds for more than half of all spending by outside groups in the most competitive U.S. Senate races this year.
A new report from Public Citizen underscores the now dominant role secret corporate campaign cash now plays in U.S. politics. The report, titled, “The Dark Side of Citizens United,” found that U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the nation’s biggest spender of undisclosed money in the 28 of 35 congressional campaigns it has gotten involved in 2014. According the analysis, the chamber has spent an average of $908,000 per race – and nearly all the more than $32 million spent has gone to support Republicans or oppose Democratic candidates. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Sam Jewler, communications officer with Public Citizen’s U.S. Chamber Watch and author of the “Dark Side” report, who discusses how the deregulation of campaign spending, brought on by Citizens United, “threatens to disempower and discourage voters, making government less transparent and less accountable.”
Find links to the “The Dark Side of Citizens United,” report and related articles by visiting Public Citizen’s project, ChamberWatch.org.
Related Links:
- Interview with Sam Jewler, conducted by Scott Harris, Counterpoint, Nov. 3, 2014 (24:42)
- “The Dark Side of Citizens United: U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Biggest Spender of Undisclosed Money in 28 of 35 Congressional Contests in 2014,” Public Citizen, Oct. 29, 2014
- Public Citizen at
- “Unprecedented amount of ‘dark money’ fuels midterm races,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 18, 2014
- “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission/ SCOTUSblog,” Supreme Court of The United States blog, Jan. 21, 2010
- Democracy is for People Campaign” at democracyisforpeople.org
- Democracy for All Amendment Resources at democracyisforpeople.org
- “Historic U.S. Senate Vote; Democracy for All Amendment Is Common Sense, Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen,” Public Citizen, Sept. 8, 2014
This week’s summary of under-reported news
Compiled by Bob Nixon
- At the 2013 U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum in south Xi’an, China, over 150 energy executives gathered to boost extraction of China’s abundant shale natural resources. There was hand-shaking among the chiefs of U.S. energy giants such as Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil. (“The Great Frack Forward,” Mother Jones, Sept. 9, 2014)
- In late October, drivers for the new transportation company Uber turned off their smart phones in protest of low wages. (“The sharing economy’s first strike: Uber drivers turn off the app,” In These Times, Oct. 22, 2014)
- Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is among the top tier of likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates. Among leading Republicans, such as New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Florida’s Jeb Bush, Paul is the only candidate with a strong following among conservative millennials. (“Rand Paul’s 2020 Vision,” American Prospect, Fall 2014)