NC Robo Calls Cost Women’s Voices Women Vote $100,000

It is about time. Women’s Voices, Women Vote broke NC law by making anonymous robo calls to voters during early voting of the primary. They also sewed confusion by mass mailing official looking voter registration forms to voters who were already registered or who were ineligible to vote. In dozens of states, during the primary, and since then, WVWV’ s confusing mailers have caused registered voters to think they weren’t registered, and has clogged registrars’ offices with duplicate and sometimes inaccurate voter registration forms. WVWV was sending “registration forms” to small children, deceased people, and already registered voters in dozens of states. Several states are seeking to create new laws to prevent this type of chaos again, since WVWV has repeatedly ignored officials complaints about the group’s practices. WVWV cannot “work” in North Carolina again until or unless it provides a written plan to the Attorney General’s office on how WVWV would comply with the law.

Political group to pay $100,000 for robo calls October 21, 2008

RALEIGH – A group that made political robo calls before the May primary that violated state law has agreed to pay $100,000 in penalties and is barred from operating in the state before the November election, the State Attorney General’s Office announced today.

The group, Women’s Voices Women Vote, today agreed to pay $100,000 in civil penalties, the office announced. The money will go to North Carolina schools.
The organization also agreed not to resume any voter registration, education, turnout or similar activities in the state until after the Nov. 4 election. Future voter activities would have to comply with state law, and the group would have to provide the Attorney General’s Office with a written description of how it would ensure its compliance with the law.

The Attorney General’s Office began investigating Women’s Voices Women Vote after it began calling people shortly before the primary

The prerecorded calls told people that they would soon receive voter registration forms in the mail, which they should fill out and submit. But the deadline to register by mail had passed, and some call recipients already were registered to vote, causing confusion, according to the Attorney General’s Office.

…more at the link

North Carolina and the ACORN Voter Registration Drive

I wanted to get the straight facts about the North Carolina Acorn voter registration story, so I interviewed one of the North Carolina County Election Directors who reported some of the bad ACORN forms.

Acorn submitted about 28,000 registration forms in North Carolina. Contrast that with nearly 700,000 new registrations in the state. Readers, please remember, we have bi-partisan members on every County backing up our Election Directors as watchdogs. They are looking out for you. In the news article NC election officials investigate voter forms , few forms were considered suspect; there were about 120 for Durham County and about 30 from Wake County. These are the only counties that complaints have been reported in. “Durham elections director Mike Ashe said ACORN helped the county develop a system to trace problems.”

Yesterday, I called up Mike Ashe, Director of Elections in Durham County, who reported some of the fraudulent registration forms that were submitted by ACORN. I felt that Mr. Ashe would be the best source of information on this issue, given that he had first hand experience.

I have paraphrased the first part of Mike’s answers to my questions, (hence no quote marks) in order to make the answers less conversational and clearer to those who aren’t versed on voter registration issues. The last half are direct quotes.

Question to Mike Ashe: What happens when you get ACORN forms?

Answer: (paraphrased)
We have several processes to screen them. Forms must be complete in order to process them. Voters must supply their birth date, a drivers license number or the last 4 digits of their social security number. Voters must sign the forms.

We run matches of the applicant’s last 4 digits of their social security number or their drivers license number against corresponding govt databases. Any form that doesn’t get a match, is coded must show ID the first time they vote. If the form does not provide these numbers, then the registration is flagged and the voter must provide ID the first time they vote.

Answer: (Direct Quote) “The ACORN issue was not ever voter fraud, but voter registration fraud trying to steal money from ACORN. Trying to get their quota. Lots of bogus to defraud their employer.

Durham got several applications for the same guy. The county doesn’t turn in dozens of apps for the same guy. ACORN is required by law to turn in all apps. They (ACORN) flag the ones that they think are suspicious, they provide a cover sheet.

(We election officials) Have ability to reject , we are required to process all the forms, some go directly into the reject queue because of missing info, alot of them are very obvious. Many took pages out of the phone book. Alot don’t have the date of birth, missing alot of required information.”

Commentary: I hope that knowledge of the screening process provides some reassurance to you. I feel that we would hear more about this from election officials or their Board of Elections members, the members being appointed by the political parties themselves, if we didn’t have the needed controls to prevent actual voter fraud.

Remember, your County’s Director of Elections is a non partisan employee of the County. In addition, both political parties have a representative on each County’s Board of Elections. These Board of Elections members are appointed by the county’s political party Chairmen. These members sit in on canvassing meetings and policy meetings on a regular basis. They would see and hear about any questionable voter registration forms.

To find out who your County’s BoE members are, you can go to your County Board of Elections website , visit this link

Times story on voter databases gets it wrong on North Carolina

Times story on voter databases gets it wrong on North Carolina
Rumor control. New York Times article misleading. The NY Times yesterday ran a thinly researched article on voter purges in several states including North Carolina, “States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal” (10/08/08) . It uses lots of vague talk like “seems,” “appears,” or “may have . . .,” without much elaboration or direct reporting. The NY Times reporter did not cite comments from any North Carolina election officials or any local advocacy groups.

The NY Times reporter even seems to clear North Carolina in his response to my email asking what was going on.

The NY Times reporter even seems to clear North Carolina in his response to my email asking what was going on. Read it here:

From: Ian Urbina
To: joyce mccloy
Subject: RE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Date: Oct 9, 2008 9:03 AM

From what we can see in the data, NC does not seem to have any major redflags. Best we can tell, it looks like the number of people coming off therolls would roughly correspond with the number of people leaving the stateor dying during that period (both of which are legitimate reasons to removepeople within 90 days before an election).

Ian

Read more here

North Carolina: Straight-ticket omits presidential race

Its good to see that someone is raising the alarm. Too bad there’s nothing about the dangers of straight ticket voting in the voter guide sent to millions of North Carolina voters. Actually, it is too bad that North Carolina has this convoluted straight ticket-does-not-count-for-President law in the first place. Every four years NC ranks in the highest undervotes for the presidential contest. An undervote occurs when people people cast a ballot, but either chooses not to vote in a particular contest, or for some reason the vote is not recorded and tallied.

In 2004, Scripps Howard News Service reported that voters who mark the “straight-party-ticket voting” option must also vote separately for president. Every four years, tens of thousands of voters in both states (North Carolina and South Carolina) apparently forget to do this.

Straight-ticket omits presidential race
By James T. Hamilton Special to The Observer
Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 07, 2008

Hundreds of thousands of new voters have been added to North Carolina’s voter registration rolls this year. The candidates, parties and interest groups will spend millions to get N.C. voters to the polls. Once these voters are in the voting booth, however, thousands will be disenfranchised by the design of the ballot.

Imagine, for example, you are a first time voter with a desire to vote straight party – to vote for all the candidates of a particular party. If you look at the official ballot that Mecklenburg County and all other counties are set to use on Nov. 4, you’ll find the following sentence: “A Straight Party vote is a vote for all candidates of that party in partisan offices. Individual partisan office selections are not necessary if you select a Straight Party below.”

If you followed those directions, filled in the Democratic or Republican oval in the Straight Party Voting section and then left, you might think you’d just voted for president.
But you would be wrong.

Obscure change to the law

On North Carolina’s ballot, the presidential contest is not included in the list of “Partisan Offices.” In order to cast a vote for president and a straight party vote, you need to make two marks – one in the presidential contest and the other in the straight party section. (And a straight-ticket vote does not cast a vote in judicial races, because those are nonpartisan.)
A state law passed in 1967 prohibits the combination of the vote for the president with any other office on the ballot. Why would a General Assembly controlled by Democrats in 1967 pass such a law? Straight party voting reduces the time it takes people to vote. It also means more votes are cast for offices lower on the ballot because people can simply register their vote for all partisan offices with one mark.

But for Southern Democrats in the 1960s, the specter of increasingly liberal candidates at the top of the ticket raised a problem. If the vote for president were included in the straight party option, Democrats who did not like the presidential nominee might be less inclined to vote straight party. The solution – separate the vote for president from the straight party vote.
Unfortunately, this ballot design introduces confusion. Some voters check the straight party option without realizing the need to vote separately in the presidential race. In studying the effect of ballot design on voting outcomes in North Carolina in 1992, Duke professor Sunny Ladd and I estimated that the straight party voting option caused nearly 1 percent of voters who went to the polls to fail to cast a vote in the presidential race.

Enough to make a difference?

If the ballot design causes about 1 percent of voters to fail to register their preferences, should we worry? In many elections, the presidential vote in North Carolina is not close. But in 1992, George H.W. Bush narrowly defeated Bill Clinton in North Carolina by getting 43.34 percent of the vote versus 42.65 percent for Clinton. Polls indicate this year, for the first time in many years, the presidential race in North Carolina might be similarly close.

Election officials know the straight party voting option is confusing. The ballot for 2008 contains reminders that you need to vote separately for the office of president.

Yet the ballot instructions are still hard to follow. The McCain and Obama campaigns should experiment now with different get-out-the-vote instructions that are phrased so voters actually cast their ballots for president when they go to the polls. After the 2008 election, the state should also engage in focus groups and other research to make sure future ballots are less confusing.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain are promising to bring change to Washington. It would be highly ironic if the version of change N.C. voters select is based not on their views of the candidates in 2008 but on the design of the ballot selected by the General Assembly in 1967.
James T. Hamilton is the director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University.


North Carolina Elections Rumor Control: Wearing political t-shirts, hats etc. to the polls is not against NC law

This rumor has been spotted mostly amongst the Obama camp. Emails are warning supporters that wearing political gear, hats, t-shirts, buttons etc – that feature a political candidate to the polling places is against the law. It is FALSE.

The rumor comes in an email entitled “Please advise everyone you know not to wear Obama gear to the polls”. The claim is that this is considered “electioneering” or campaigning and no one can campaign within 100 feet of the polls, so wearing political gear will get you turned away.

None of those rumors are true, at least not for North Carolina. but please don’t take my word for it. If you wear your Obama t-shirt, McCain t-shirt, Bob Barr t-shirt, or Cynthia McKinnie t-shirt, will you get turned away from the polls? To clear matters up, I emailed Don Wright, the General Counsel for the North Carolina State Board of Elections today. He replied in a matter of minutes and explained:

From: Don Wright
To: Joyce McCloy
Subject: RE: electioneering question
Date: Sep 24, 2008 3:16 PM

This rumor has been circulating for several days.We allow voters to wear items inside the polling place in North Carolina. But other states may differ (I understand Tenn. does not allow it)A NC voter may enter a voting place to vote wearing political items as long as they…

proceed to vote in a orderly and timely manner, and do not attempt to electioneer within the voting place. A voter wearing a t-shirt saying “Vote for X”that shouts “vote for X” or places his T-shirt in the sightline of voters asking support for “X” is obviously electioneering and will be asked to refrain from the conduct at once, and if they continue will be removed.

A voter that has a political cap, T-shirt, or button and does not electioneer within the polling place will be allowed to vote in a normal matter. A voter wearing a political item does not violate GS 163-166.4
Don Wright
General Counsel

§ 163 166.4. Limitation on activity in the voting place and in a buffer zone around it.
(a) Buffer Zone and Adjacent Area for Election Related Activity. – No person or group of persons shall hinder access, harass others, distribute campaign literature,place political advertising, solicit votes, or otherwise engage in election related activity in the voting place or in a buffer zone which shall be prescribed by the county board of elections around the voting place. In determining the dimensions of that buffer zone for each voting place, the county board of elections shall, where practical, set the limit at 50 feet from the door of entrance to the voting place, measured when that door is closed, but in no event shall it set the limit at more than 50 feet or at less than 25 feet. Except as provided in subsection
(b),the county board of elections shall also provide an area adjacent to the buffer zone for each voting place in which persons or groups of persons may distribute campaign literature, place political advertising, solicit votes, or otherwise engage in election related activity.
(b) Special Agreements About Election Related Activity. – The Executive Director of the State Board of Elections may grant special permission for a county board of elections to enter into an agreement with the owners or managers of a nonpublic building to use the building as a voting place on the condition that election related activity as described in subsection
(a) of this section not be permitted on their property adjacent to the buffer zone, if the Executive Director finds all of the following:
(1) That no other suitable voting place can be secured for the precinct.
(2) That the county board will require the chief judge of the precinct to monitor the grounds around the voting place to ensure that the restriction on electionrelated activity shall apply to all candidates and parties equally.
(3) That the pattern of voting places subject to agreements under this subsection does not disproportionately favor any party, racial or ethnic group, or candidate.An agreement under this subsection shall be valid for as long as the nonpublic building is used as a voting place.
(c) Notice About Buffer Zone. – No later than 30 days before each election,the county board of elections shall make available to the public the following information concerning each voting place:
(1) The door from which the buffer zone is measured.
(2) The distance the buffer zone extends from that door.
(3) Any available information concerning where political activity, including sign placement, is permitted beyond the buffer zone.
(d) Buffer Zone at One Stop Sites. – The provisions of this section shall apply to one stop voting sites in G.S. 163 227.2, except that the notice in subsection
(c) of this section shall be provided no later than 10 days before the opening of one stop voting at the site. (2001 460, s. 3; 2003 365, s. 1; 2007 391, s. 13.)

—–Original Message—–

From: Joyce McCloy Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Don Wright
Subject: electioneering question

North Carolina State Board of Elections
Don Wright, General Counsel
Dear Don;

Can you clear something up for me.Is there a restriction against voters wearing t-shirts, hats etc to the polls, while voting – that bears the likeness of a political candidate or in other ways shows support for a candidate?

There are several rumors about this circulating around the state and I also heard discussion on a radio show.Some rumors say that you won’t be allowed in the voting area if you wear such attire, or that you won’t get to vote unless you change clothes etc. None of these rumors are substantiated in any way by citing NC law.

Please advise.Regards;
Joyce McCloy
NC Coalition for Verified Voting
http://www.ncvoter.net/

Registration mailers from Women’s group can disenfranchise you

Not so innocent. They’re at it again. Women’s Voices, Women Vote, aka The Voter Participation Center. Sending out registration forms to people already registered, sometimes with incorrect information, mispelled name or incorrect address.

We all thought that besides the illegal and very misleading robo calls in North Carolina that WVWV was basically “harmless” except for them swamping election officials with redundant forms for voters who were already registered. And that they were only inconsiderate jerks for sending registration forms to people who had been deceased for 5 years or more, or for sending registration forms to 8 year olds, or to people who are already registered.

IF people aren’t careful, and send in the WVWV registration form, they may be sending in a form that misspells their name or has a small detail wrong, has a wrong address, or other mistake which in turn could get that person kicked off of the rolls.

Election directors tell me that voters often don’t notice if/when WVWV has put the wrong address on the registration form. The voter sends the form in, and the BoE changes the voters address to match the one on the WVWV form. This could change your polling place location or even cause you to get a provisional ballot or even get you kicked off the rolls.
Considering that Florida and 4 other states are requiring strict matching for new registrations or they block your registration, this is awful.

WVWV goes by the name of http://www.voterparticipationcenter.org/ also.

Here’s a note from a Florida voter who got 2 of the scam registration forms, posted to one of my blogs:

I got a fake voter registration form twice from http://www.voterparticipationcenter.org/ instructing me to send my registration to Florida Department of State-Divison of Elections in Tallahassee,Fl I am registered to vote in my county just like everyone else. First big envelope was large and offical looking the second using my middle name came from Boston Mass. Some stinky pooh is going on here Wish I had not thrown first envelope away,but I have the second piece of misleading caging garbage.so there is a concerted effort to mislead voters.It says if you are not sure call 1 866-308-6739

Who is WVWV trying to help? Many of their Board members are former or current staffers for either of the Clintons. Many of the BoE have businesses that receive contracts from WVWV.
Perhaps friends of the Clintons could address this potentially disenfranchising scheme.

New: Fake Voter Registration Letter in Florida Misleads Voters

Bill Bucolo in Florida received a phony voter registration letter. The purpose of this letter was to confuse voters, not cage them, as the envelope did not say “do not forward”. The forms can cause problems for the voter if he follows the instructions. The mailers also incorrectly tell voters that in Florida senior citizens do not have to present ID at the polls.

The Obama campaign will have to take action themselves, no one else is going to act swiftly enough. They MUST launch a vigorous phone call campaign to counter the mis-information that is being mass mailed to voters in Florida. We can’t wait for Rep Conyers to launch an investigation that will go nowhere. When we had misleading robo calls in North Carolina during the primary, the Obama campaign set the record straight by giving many voters correct information by phone. The Obama calls prevented the fake robo calls from working. *

Here is Bill’s email sent far and wide:

Subject: Tell me- did you get a fake vote registration letter too?

My Friends (as John McCain would say), I just received a genuine collector’s item… one of the phony voter registration letters the GOP is sending to hundreds of thousands of voters throughout the swing states. See it below.

Let me know if you got one too.

The cheaters who send these want to trick people into screwing up their status with local Supervisors of Elections (images attached). With the encouragement of our Republican owned Secretary of State Kurt Browning, most of these SOEs would probably be only too happy to knock you or me off their books should we make a mistake on the form… or provide information a little differently from what they now have.

My letter supposed to come from the “Department of Children and Families,” and was mailed to me with an E middle initial… mine’s an F. It was mailed out of the Miami Cuban-Republican stronghold of Hialeah, FL. It arrived in a somewhat official looking slightly oversized window envelope with an official looking return address with the word “Circuit,” and the letters DCF.
In addition to a wrong initial in my name… enough to knock me off the polls if anyone sends it in, much less me, the poorly copied registration form also says I don’t have to show an ID if I’m over 65. (that part was real clear). I’m pretty sure that’s not true also. I believe everyone has to show ID if they appear at the polls… but of course I went to the state’s Election’s web site and the link to those rules comes up black… a convenient “glitch.”

But of course voters don’t need to show any ID if they just mail their ballots in. That’s another illogical rationale of the ID law. If I were going to be a phony voter with a slightly different name than the SOE has on their records, I’d just vote by mail. Any court that blesses this stupidity has to be complicit in the fraud- and it certainly seems like intent to fraud by the people who foisted this law. What are the odds that judge is a Republican and/or a fool?

Some people think these letters have “do not forward, return to sender” messages which, if returned tell the GOP who to challenge at the polls. Personally I think that’s an unlikely strategy because it’s so labor intensive. I don’t think they have enough people to do that sort of thing effectively. Letting unsuspecting voters screw up their own registration or show up without ID would be far more efficient for these scum.

Now since this is an obvious vote fraud on a state-wide level, any self respecting state law enforcement agency should be onto this immediately… checking out the commercial mail houses to see exactly who the customer is, etc. But no… on local television today Florida Sec’y State Kurt Browning said the state police were overloaded with too many other kinds of criminals to chase. I guess felony vote fraud for a national election comes after whatever else they do. So we can expect the criminals to avoid repercussions for now… but there’s always later. And a lot of us have a long memory.

Just make sure all of you and your friends and family members verify your registration records carefully. It’s a shame most voters won’t, and a real shame that this plan, along with whatever else the cheaters try may, little slice by little slice, cost us the state… and the other states where ID laws are now in effect. For now.

So, the letter’s a keeper for sure because eventually we’re going to nail these slug perpetrators for the treasonous unAmerican vote suppressors and vote thieves that they are. When this wave of vote stealing and fraud is put in the history books for the social sciences classes that will someday be reinstated in our schools, evidence like my letter will surely be an item worth showing off.

One last thing… If the State and National Dems don’t fight this stuff with prominent advertising, multiple news releases, calls and letters to authorities and media, and in the courts with everything they have, they are flat out incompetent fools, and deserve what ever happens with this latest GOP trick.

Copies of the letter portions I described are below.

(Click on this link to see the letter)

# # # # # # # # #

Comment: Activists in Florida say they have determined that this mailer is outdated with incorrect instructions regarding permissible ID’s. (But) Also under some circumstances people over 65 are in fact exempt from needing to show an ID… we trying to figure out if that’s for mail-in ballots or at the polling place. The law seems ambiguous to us so were asking others.

I have sent this to the Brennan Center for Justice asking them for an investigation or clarification of the law. Millions of dollars are being spent on sending these confusing mailers out.

NC State Elections Office update on McCain Mailer Confusion

An email from the North Carolina State Board of Elections brings good news today regarding the McCain campaign/absentee ballot requests confusion.

Voters will not be disenfranchised as a result of the form leaving off some personal information. At issue – the SBoE asks voters to provide their birthday on requests for absentee ballots – but it turns out that this is not an absolute requirement. Furthermore, if for some reason the Board of Elections cannot verify that the request is coming from the correct voter, they will send a “request for a request” to that person. Other states, like Ohio, are not so fair to voters.

Background: McCain campaign mailers invoked outrage among suspicious democrats in North Carolina (and other states) who were recipients of the unsolicited absentee ballot requests from the republican candidate. Many expressed fear that this was an thinly veiled attempt at voter caging or that the requests would not be accepted by local boards of elections The voters were especially concerned because of reports that the McCain campaign had sent out mailers with incomplete or inaccurate information in at least 9 other states.

Greg Flynn of Wake County wrote about the mailers on Sept 11, 2008 in McCain Confusing NC Republican Voters:

……McCain is telling people to request a ballot on a postcard using their own handwriting with their name, residence, phone number and signature..The critically missing piece information is the date of birth…At first blush this looked like a voter caging exercise but upon review it just seems sloppy. The pre-sorted mailing rate does not allow for returns.

Don Wright, the General Counsel for the North Carolina State Board of Elections advises today in an email:

It is not required in North Carolina that the date of birth is included on the request for an absentee ballot. It is useful to a county board of elections if there is trouble determining who is actually requesting an absentee ballot (Parent/child with same name at same address, voters with the same name) See the statute below.

§ 163‑230.2. Method of requesting absentee ballots.

(a) Valid Types of Written Requests. – A written request for an absentee ballot as required by G.S. 163‑230.1 is valid only if it is written entirely by the requester personally, or is on a form generated by the county board of elections and signed by the requester. The county board of elections shall issue a request form only to the voter seeking to vote by absentee ballot or to a person authorized by G.S. 163‑230.1 to make a request for the voter. If a requester, due to disability or illiteracy, is unable to complete a written request, that requester may receive assistance in writing that request from an individual of that requester’s choice.

(b) Invalid Types of Written Requests. – A request is not valid if it does not comply with subsection (a) of this section. If a county board of elections receives a request for an absentee ballot that does not comply with subsection (a) of this section, the board shall not issue an application and ballot under G.S. 163‑230.1.

(c) Rules by State Board. – The State Board of Elections shall adopt rules for the enforcement of this section. (2002‑159, s. 57(a).)

If the request does not meet the above requirements we send the requesting person the standard request form used by the counties for the requestor to fill out and return. This has been our policy for years.

On September 10th and e-mail went out to the counties reminding them of the policy. That e-mail is set out below.

“We are aware that postcard requests for absentee ballots are being received by county boards of elections. Hopefully this will provide answers to most questions.

If the postcard contains sufficient wording for a reasonable person to know the applicant is requesting an absentee ballot it should be treated as a compliant request and a “simultaneous issuance” absentee ballot should be issued. Date of birth is not a statutory requirement to request an absentee ballot. It is an additional piece of information to assist CBEs in identifying the correct voter.

If the request card does not comply with GS 163-230.2, consider it a ‘request for a request’ as in previous years.

Johnnie F. McLean Deputy Director (919) 715-1790 “

NC Senator will introduce bill to ease indpendents ballot access in 2009

Over at Ballot Access News, Richard Winger reports:

North Carolina Senator Will Introduce Bill to Ease Independent
Candidate Ballot Access in 2009
September 16th, 2008

North Carolina State Senator Jim Jacumin (R-Connellys Springs) has told a constituent that he will introduce a bill to ease ballot access for independent candidates next year. North Carolina ballot access for independent candidates is so severe that no independent has ever qualified for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, or Governor, in the history of government-printed ballots in that state. Ross Perot in 1992 is the only person who ever qualified as an independent candidate. District independent candidates need a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters, which is as much as 20,000 signatures in some U.S. House districts. No independent candidate for U.S. House in U.S. history has ever overcome a petition hurdle as great as 14,000 signatures.

In North Carolina, it takes alot of support to get an independent on the ballot. Once on the ballot, this candidate has to overcome the impact of “straight ticket” voting, which favors one party or another. This option is often recommended by political parties, and often is relied upon by low information voters.

However, in spite of all of that, we see, as with Ross Perot, that independent candidates actually fare much better than third party candidates.

North Carolina Voters urged to use caution with mailed offers

Voters beware! Its election season, and the mischief and misfeasance abounds!

The Richmond County Daily Journal warns voters in North Carolina to be cautious in trusting election related mailings. Offers to help people register to vote or to get an absentee ballot may be legitimate, or they may be attempts at identity theft. Some mailers are honest efforts to help voters yet contain incorrect or incomplete information that may do more harm than good.

At a minimum, the mailers can cause confusion or suspicion, at worst case, the mailers may have errors that can disenfranchise the voter, and some mailers may be efforts at identity theft.

Voters urged to use caution with mailed offers
By David Wall/Richmond County Daily Journal Monday, September 15, 2008

Voters are being advised to read carefully any election data they get in the mail regarding absentee voting.

In addition to the question of whether absentee ballot requests are legitimate, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a warning to all U.S. residents, to be cautious of fraudulent voter registration drives used to commit identity theft.

According to the FTC, scammers are attempting to obtain individual Social Security numbers, supposedly to register a person to vote through the use of mass mailings, unsolicited telephone calls and e-mails. In fact it is merely another way for them to steal for unsuspecting people, the agency said.

As a rule, federal officials advise organizations conducting legitimate voter registration drives either contact you in person or give you a voter registration form to fill out yourself. They will never ask for your financial information.


Read everything carefully

“As with any relay of information, concerning a citizen exercising their right to vote, please verify all information on a request for an absentee ballot or a registration form is accurate and complete,” said Connie Kelly, Richmond County’s elections supervisor.“All voter registration changes or new registrations must be completed and received by the board of elections by Oct. 10. If there is an
issue or a problem that has arisen, there is plenty of time now to handle it and correct the situation.”

…Mail-in ballot requests must be received at the board of elections by Oct. 28, and the ballots must be returned by 5 p.m. Nov. 3.


Get more information on how to request an absentee ballot here at the State Board of Elections

Make sure you are registered to vote or that your registration is up to date and you know where to vote: see the State Board of Elections voter look up