MN Majority's Dan McGrath: "We have strong evidence that there are indicators of fraud"

Categories: Voter ID
Let's just say McGrath's argument isn't exactly ironclad.
Last month, Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath took lots of heat for blaming the not-really-that-close defeat of the voter ID amendment on voter fraud, despite not presenting any evidence fraud actually occurred.

SEE ALSO: Minnesota Majority wanted you to follow buses leaving polling places on election day

But McGrath is undeterred. In a WCCO report published last Friday, he offers up what one Minnesota political observer charitably calls a "weasely phrase" while again blaming the demise of voter ID on fraudulent activity of some mysterious sort.

From WCCO (emphasis mine):
"We have strong evidence that there are indicators of fraud," said Dan McGrath, a spokesman for a conservative election watchdog group Minnesota Majority.

He says his group is reviewing same day registration forms for possible fraud, and seeking election records from precincts in at least four counties.

"We had reports on Election Day...vouching fraud in progress, we had eyewitnesses saying we saw people vouching for each other -- people they didn't believe lived in the precinct -- and they're getting away with it," McGrath said.
Think McGrath could be bothered to cite one specific example of fraud anywhere in the report? Nah. He's content with just throwing out vague, unsubstantiated allegations.

In the 'CCO report, McGrath's allegations were politely but firmly dismissed by Sen. Katie Sieben, D-Cottage Grove. Sieben, the incoming head of the Senate Election Committee, said, "Actually, we have a very good election system with elected officials who are committed to carrying out elections in as fair a way as we possibly can."

Sieben said "There doesn't appear to be any sort of problems" related to voter fraud, and added that long lines at the polls will be the first problem her committee deals with during the 2013 session.

McGrath's allegations aside, Sieben's plan sounds like a good one to us. After all, we wouldn't want Rep. Phyllis Kahn to call for more executions of government officials next election cycle.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Since it is a known fact that so-called "disenfranchised" voters generally tend to vote Democrat, I wonder, hypothetically speaking, if the tides were somehow turned, and they were to generally vote Republican, I wonder how many of you liberals would have been screaming "WE NEED VOTER I.D. LAWS!"


It's truly a gift to believe in the make believe. 

green23 topcommenter

Does McGrath have 177k+ 'reports' of fraud? If not, then how can he even pretend that 'voter fraud' defeated the Amendment?

swmnguy topcommenter

If Dan McGrath or any of his cronies really witnessed any voting fraud in progress, they should have called the cops.  If they witnessed it and didn't call the cops, they're accessories to the crime.  They did not call the cops.  Therefore I believe they did not witness any voting fraud, and they're making stuff up.  As they have been the whole time.  It's fascinating what people will say when they are not under oath, as opposed to what they will say when they are.  In the course of the Coleman-Franken and Emmer-Dayton recounts, there was plenty of opportunity for Republicans to testify on the record about voting fraud.  They declined, every single time, to make any allegations where it could do any good, if they really believed such things had happened.  They refused, every time.  In fact, Tony Trimble specifically said he had no credible evidence of any voting fraud of any kind--while he was under oath.  

Now, why would that be?  Why would people appear to be so concerned about an issue that cuts to the very heart of the validity of our entire system, and then refuse to say something about it in the proper forum, when it counts?  The slightest application of Occam's Razor leads to the conclusion that they aren't really concerned; there is no real problem; and as Michael Brodkorb has said, it was just a gimmick to rile up their base to turn out to vote, and it's part of a nationwide campaign to disenfranchise potential Democratic voters and cast doubt on the legitimacy of one of the foundations our entire way of life for short-term electoral advantage.

MicheleBachmann topcommenter

The Republican habit of throwing out nonsense accusations without providing evidence needs to stop.  WCCO did a crap job failing to challenge this lying idiot with his baseless accusations.  This needs to be labeled as nonsense by the reporter and mocked.   Rupar isn't perfect but at least he has enough journalist balls to mock this pathetic liar.  Republicans, leaders like this are why you got your asses kicked and it will happen again.


These clowns actually think no one paid any attention to the states where voter ID was required. Those would be the states with the seven-hour lines to vote, the constant challenges leading to provisional ballots that the Republicans then get thrown out.

No one in their right mind wants what these assholes are selling.

swmnguy topcommenter

@keny1  That's a hard question to answer, keny1.  The trouble with this issue as that it's entirely hypothetical.  There's no question about whose side is being affected by voting fraud because nobody has ever presented any evidence that any voting fraud is happening at all.  

It's easy to see whose side would be affected by the proposed laws, which would have done nothing to address the real area of concern in Minnesota elections, which is absentee ballots.  That's very interesting, as absentee ballots tend to trend toward Republican candidates (I recall reading somewhere).  So the entire issue, as McGrath has pursued it, is a transparently partisan ploy.  

Now, if there were a real problem with voting fraud, and there had been any, and I mean even one, reported and confirmed case of it, then we might  have a conversation on our hands.  But we don't.  Not even one.  And when under oath, top Republican officials have stated that they are unaware of even one case of voting fraud.  What they say when not under oath is rather different, which is telling in and of itself.


@swmnguy I was just being sarcastic.  I personally don't believe that voter I.D. fraud exists on a large scale (certainly not enough to sway an election, especially the last one), but if you think about it, if someone can "vouch" for someone else without any proof (other than their own I.D.), they are allowed, by law, to vouch for up to 10 other people.  I think that is wrong.  Who are they vouching for?  Does the election judge require proof from the voucher that they know these people? No.  They just take their word. Instead of voter I.D., I think a better solution would be to have a thumbprint requirement.  Each voter would be required to submit to a thumbprint.  This way, it would eliminate any claims that people are voting multiple times.  It would be far cheaper than an I.D  requirement  Your thoughts?   

swmnguy topcommenter

@keny1 I've personally vouched for a voter.  She was an older immigrant lady whom I saw on my block every day for a year or more, but apparently wasn't registered and didn't have valid ID to register at the polls.  I told the election judge (whose name badge identified his as a Republican) that I didn't know the lady's name or anything about her, but I knew which house she lived in and I'd seen her daily for well over a year.  He said that was good enough and I signed on the line, putting myself up for a felony rap if she turned out to be hinky.

I gave it some serious thought before I went through with it.

I'd like to see some credible evidence that a problem exists before we go to great lengths to fix it.  But if it is a real concern, I wouldn't object to everyone having to, in effect, register at the polls, or verify their registration via ID.  I think Minnesota's registration process is pretty fair and accessible, so I don't see much harm in repeating the process at the polls.  It would take longer, so we'd need to have more personnel at the polling places, which would add costs.  But to show the same kinds of ID at the polls that one has to show to register to vote in the first place doesn't seem overly onerous to me.  If you're already registered, just bring the card they mail you and an ID.  Accept the student IDs, utility bills, and all the various forms of address verification that work for everything else in our mobile society.  And then sign the guestbook, putting yourself on record for a felony if something doesn't check out later.

Of course, that isn't what was proposed on the ballot Nov. 6, so I voted "no."

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault