This trial is going to go down in the history books. It is the first time the Fraudulent Fraud Squad’s spurious claims of massive voter fraud literally have been put to trial and cross examination. It is not going well for them.
(Redacted) transcript of Kobach deposition.
von Spakovsky examination and cross-examination. Some excerpts from Dale Ho cross examination:
Q. You have not published any peer-reviewed research as an historian. Correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, you would say that outside of this case you’ve written extensively about the issue of vote
Q. And some of that extensive writing you’ve doneaddresses the issue of non-citizen registration.
Q. And as an example of that, you would point to your 2012 book co-written with John Fund called “Who’s? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote At Risk.” Correct?
Q. That book was not published by a universitypress. Correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. It was published by a company called Encounter Books. Correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That book was not peer-reviewed. Correct?
Q. In fact, you have published no peer-reviewed research on voter fraud. Correct?
A. I’m not in academics so I don’t use the peer-review process.
Q. So my question was: You have published no peer-reviewed research on the issue of voter fraud.
A. Yeah, I’m not in academics so I don’t use the peer-review process….
Q. Okay. Not talking about your expert report. I just want to talk about that op-ed for a second. You wrote that op-ed claiming that 50 non-citizens from Somalia voted in an election in Missouri, despite the fact that a month earlier there had been an election challenge– there had been an election contest in that case and a state court in Missouri issued an opinion, Royster versus Rizzo, finding that no fraud had taken place in that election.
A. I don’t know when that opinion was issued. I wasn’t aware of that when I wrote the piece, which was based on other reports.
Q. You’re aware of that now, right, Mr. von Spakovsky?
A. I’m aware of that now.
Q. You never published a written retraction of your assertion about Somalia voters illegally participating in that election, right, Mr. von Spakovsky?
A. I don’t believe so, but I don’t recall when I discovered that.
I can shed some light on this last incident. I flagged his error THE DAY his oped was published:
Hans: “A 2010 election in Kansas that ended in a one-vote margin of victory included 50 votes cast illegally by citizens of Somalia.”
Reality (Missouri Court of Appeals, affirming the following findings of the trial court) (note that this happened in Missouri not Kansas, as Hans stated):Contestant Royster alleged that interpreters improperly assisted several Somali voters by handling the ballots, completing ballots, and providing instructions to the voters, at the Garfield Elementary School and the Kansas City Museum polling locations. Under the plain language of the statute, if Somali voters were unable to read or write, blind, or physically disabled, they were legally permitted to request assistance in voting. The only potential violations revealed in the evidence were that voters who needed assistance may not have been asked to make a declaration under oath, or that the interpreter helped more than one person to whom he/she was not related. There was testimony that at least one of the Somali men who was assisting persons was related to those persons. It would be proper for such assistance to be provided under the law. The evidence indicates that the election judges did not request an oath in these situations, and it was therefore a mistake of the election officials that no cards with proper oaths were obtained. There is no evidence that the failure of the election officials to obtain the cards interfered with the ability of the voters to cast the vote of their choice. Because [Section 115.445.3] does not automatically result in the invalidation of such a vote, the affect of these violations must be assessed. The key issue is whether the interpreter cast fraudulent ballots for voters or whether he voted as directed by qualified voters. . . . .Based on the totality of the evidence, including the Court‟s determination of the credibility and bias of the witnesses, the evidence demonstrated that, although one or more individuals may have engaged in suspicious conduct at the Ward 11, Precincts 3 and 4 polling place in the East hall of the Garfield Elementary School, and the election judges may have made mistakes in administering certain election requirements, such as not offering or administering an oath to persons requiring assistance . . . the evidence does not establish that the conduct was fraudulent, that any person who was not registered to vote voted, or that any registered voter was prevented from casting their ballot as they intended.