I've recreated my response to a feature in the Racine Journal Times sent today.  If you read the articles linked within, you'll get a sense for the problems we have.  All we get here are J school drop-outs.

Debatable?

Well, in order to have a debate one must first have facts.  The absence of which is the hallmark of Golub’s article.  He builds the question using ONE, I repeat one element of the election process.  The same day registration post card mailings!  An element, by the way, that Racine has never bothered completing before.

First, from your own article on Thursday there were 313 cards returned on the date the reporter talked with the City Clerk.  Some 207 were “resolved” leaving 106 that were “probably referred to the District Attorney’s Office”.  That’s the end, right?  All is well.  Maybe, maybe not!

Let me propose a few questions a “REAL” investigative reporter might have asked to find out just a little more about the mechanics used in the City Clerk’s Office to “resolve” the returns.

1.      Were the errors, transposition of addresses?

2.      If so, were new cards prepared and sent to verify that the individual in question was, in fact, a resident at the corrected address?

3.      What date(s) were the cards mailed?

a.      Original

b.      Follow-up (If any)

4.      In the case of large apartment complexes (Jacato Drive for example), was personal contact attempted to ensure that cards delivered to the general address were not just destroyed by the recipient at a general mail drop-off?

5.      How many returned postcards are still being received each day?  Obviously, some are still coming.  Just compare your 106 “potentially referred to the DA” with the 111 used in the Sunday article.

Second, let me propose a little remedial math related to your first article.

1.      The number of same day registrants in Racine on November 2, 2004 was 5,629.

2.      The number of returned post cards was 313 as of the 2/18/05 RJT article.

3.      The number of returned cards sent to the DA was 106 on 2/18.  Today it is 111, a change of 5 in three days.

4.      Comparison of “Same Day Registration” (SDR) to the total vote is bogus.

5.      5,629 SDR votes were cast.  The proper comparison of potentially fraudulent votes should be 5,629 to 313.

6.      Nowhere in the article dated 2/18/05 was there a verifiable explanation of the difference between 313 and 106.  Assumptions galore, no facts!

7.      The percent of potentially fraudulent SDR’s is 5.6% (313 divided by 5,629)

8.      The percent of “probable” fraudulent SDR’s is 1.9% on the 18^th and 2.0% on Sunday (106 or 111 divided by 5,629).

Third, let’s not forget the “FACT” that trials have been scheduled for two New Voter Project employees for Election Fraud and Forgery.

Fourth, The impact of the entire absentee ballot issue has yet to be analyzed.  The third point should have initiated this immediately.  All I hear is the sound of crickets chirping away in the still of the night.

Fifth, I for one refuse to allow my vote to be stolen again.

When you are serious about the debate let me know, I might join in.  For some remedial investigative reporter training at the RJT, I suggest you refer those assigned to this issue to Greg Borowski of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  This is how reporting is really done.  Go back and “proof” Golub and let me know how many lines you delete for repetition and lack of fact supporting the conclusions.

Ron

And I almost forgot, we haven’t identified the felons and deceased voters yet.