Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Former President Donald Trump cited the doubtful outcomes of a ballot commissioned by a conservative group as the inspiration for his newest declare of rampant voter fraud amongst mail-in voters.
“An interview by Tucker Carlson of an election knowledgeable signifies that 20% of the Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania are fraudulent. Right here we go once more!” Trump posted on Reality Social on Sept. 8.
Right here we go once more, certainly. Trump has repeatedly made false claims about voter fraud, persevering with to say the 2020 election was “rigged,” even supposing his personal aides, together with his legal professional normal, told him his claims had been baseless.
We didn’t get a response from the Trump marketing campaign after we requested for backup, however it seems he was referring to an interview Carlson, a former Fox Information host, did in April with Justin Haskins of the conservative Heartland Institute. Haskins’ title there may be “director of the Socialism Analysis Middle,” and his bio on the Heartland web site describes him as a “broadly revealed author and political commentator.” In different phrases, not an “election knowledgeable,” as Trump described him.
Right here’s the related a part of Carlson’s interview with Haskins:
Carlson, April 26: Was there voter fraud? Nicely, we all know there was some, however was it widespread? That may be a laborious allegation to show, although, in fact, many individuals imagine there was widespread fraud. Nicely, now it seems we all know for a incontrovertible fact that there was, and in reality, it may be confirmed with a ballot. Simply ask individuals, “Did you personally commit voter fraud?” Nicely, that has simply been performed. The reply is, an enormous share of individuals requested within the ballot admitted, “Sure. I dedicated voter fraud.” It’s outstanding. …
Haskins: So it was fairly simple. We requested individuals a collection of questions. … One of many first questions was, “Did you vote within the 2020 election, and did you vote with an absentee poll?” And in the event that they answered sure to each of these questions, then we requested a bunch of questions associated to voter fraud. We didn’t inform them … that we had been asking, “Did you commit voter fraud?” We simply requested them about varied behaviors.
So, for instance, we requested individuals, “Did you vote in a state the place you’re not a authorized resident?” That’s a fairly simple query. In the event you’re not a everlasting resident of a state you may’t vote there. Seventeen p.c of individuals, almost 1 in 5, mentioned sure, they did try this. We requested individuals, “Did you fill out a poll for another person on their behalf?” That’s additionally unlawful. You’re not allowed to fill out another person’s poll. Twenty-one p.c of individuals mentioned sure to that query. We requested if individuals solid the signature of a buddy or member of the family on their behalf, with or with out their permission — we really put that within the ballot query — and 17% of individuals mentioned sure to that. So all advised it’s at the very least, and I say at the very least, 1 in 5 mail-in ballots concerned some type of fraudulent exercise.
In a post subsequent to the ballot, the Heartland Institute argued, primarily based on the “lately unearthed proof indicating widespread mail-in voter fraud” indicated by the ballot, that voter fraud swung the 2020 election from Trump to President Joe Biden.
For starters, the Nov. 30 to Dec. 6 ballot commissioned by Heartland and conducted by Rasmussen Reviews didn’t show “for a truth,” as Carlson put it, that there was widespread voter fraud within the 2020 election. Neither is it “proof” of fraud, because the Heartland Institute put it. It was a survey administered greater than three years after the election.
Haskins described the questions put to mail-in voters as “simple,” saying that “sure” solutions had been indicative of unlawful habits. However take the query, “Through the 2020 election, did you forged a mail-in poll in a state the place you had been not a everlasting resident?” Seventeen p.c mentioned “sure.” A cautious studying of the query would counsel those that responded sure admitted to voting within the improper state. However what number of of these individuals mistakenly answered sure as a result of that they had moved to a distinct state because the election, or mailed their poll from a state that was not their everlasting residence?
One other query requested, “Through the 2020 election, did a buddy or member of the family fill out your poll, partly or in full, in your behalf?” (19% mentioned sure) and one other requested whether or not respondents had helped a buddy or member of the family fill out a mail-in poll (21% mentioned sure). Haskins mentioned that type of habits is prohibited. However that’s not all the time true.
“We’ve got seen a rise in makes an attempt to border helping an individual with a incapacity to vote as some kind of nefarious exercise,” Michelle Bishop, supervisor for voter entry and engagement for the Nationwide Incapacity Rights Community, advised us by way of e mail. “It’s certainly completely authorized in each state to assist a disabled particular person to fill out a mail-in poll. It’s really protected by federal legislation.”
In line with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, “Any voter who requires help to vote by cause of blindness, incapacity, or incapacity to learn or write could also be given help by an individual of the voter’s alternative, aside from the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”
The U.S. Division of Justice gives additional guidance: “Voters with disabilities might obtain help in all points of the voting course of, together with in requesting, finishing, and returning a poll, whether or not in particular person, absentee, or by mail-in poll. For instance, if a voter with a incapacity requires help to mark a poll, the voter should be allowed to obtain help from the particular person of their selecting and isn’t restricted to help from an election employee.” That features “certified voters with a incapacity who reside in congregate settings similar to nursing houses.”
However consultants advised us there are different causes to be skeptical of the ballot’s findings. The Rasmussen Reviews poll was a nationwide survey of 1,085 “seemingly voters.” Pennsylvania is shaping up as one of the necessary swing states of the 2024 election, which is probably going why Trump singled out alleged voter fraud there. However a polling knowledgeable advised us that “nothing will be mentioned about Pennsylvania” from the Heartland ballot as a result of it was a nationwide ballot.
In line with Jon Krosnick, director of the Political Psychology Analysis Group at Stanford College, Rasmussen “is thought to provide very biased outcomes, usually pro-Republican.”
Rasmussen Reviews didn’t reply to our queries, however an FAQ web page on its web site states, “Rasmussen Reviews is an unbiased polling agency with a bi-partisan employees. We don’t endorse any political philosophies, events or particular curiosity teams.”
In line with its methodology page, Rasmussen Reviews’ “survey questions are digitally recorded” and “[c]alls are positioned to randomly chosen” landline phone numbers. It dietary supplements these responses with surveys from an internet panel maintained by Rasmussen.
In 2023, ABC Information despatched a letter to Rasmussen Reviews warning that the information group’s polling web site FiveThirtyEight was “contemplating formally banning Rasmussen Reviews from its protection.” The ABC Information letter requested Rasmussen Reviews to “clarify the character of its relationship with a number of right-leaning blogs and on-line media retailers, which have given us cause to doubt the moral operation of the polling agency” and requested quite a few questions on its methodology. In March, the Washington Post reported that FiveThirtyEight “dropped the right-wing polling agency Rasmussen Reviews from inclusion in its polling averages and forecasts.”
A part of the issue with Rasmussen Reviews’ polls, Krosnick advised us, is that it makes use of a digitally recorded voice to survey houses with landlines, and solely about a quarter of People nonetheless have landlines. It’s unlawful to name cell telephones with automated messages, Krosnick mentioned, and so “individuals doubtlessly reached by Rasmussen’s automated calls isn’t fairly one quarter of American adults.”
Rasmussen Reviews notes that, “[l]ike many different pollsters, we now additionally draw a large share of our each day pattern survey outcomes from particular demographically balanced Web Panels to seize the rising quantity of people that not have landline telephones.”
However Krosnick, a winner of the American Affiliation for Public Opinion Analysis’s Lifetime Achievement Award for excellent analysis, warns to not put a lot inventory in that.
“[T]he overwhelming majority of Rasmussen information come from an strange opt-in on-line panel” by which members actively search to hitch somewhat than being randomly chosen, “which AAPOR tells you can not have a margin of error, as a result of there is no such thing as a systematic sampling concerned,” Krosnick mentioned. “The Rasmussen declare about ‘randomly chosen’ means random choice from amongst a non-random subset of the American inhabitants. That doesn’t make the end result a random pattern of the nationwide inhabitants.”
The ballot purports to have a “Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 share factors with a 95% degree of confidence,” however solely 30% of these surveyed responded that they voted in 2020 by way of absentee or mail-in poll. So those that mentioned they voted by mail-in ballots symbolize a subset of the bigger polling group. (The Election Help Fee reported that about 43% of the voters voted by mail in 2020. A Pew Analysis Middle survey discovered that 65% of mail or absentee voters voted for Biden, whereas solely 33% voted for Trump.)
“[P]roperly computed margins of error get greater as pattern measurement will get smaller,” Krosnick mentioned. “So the margin of error on only a subset of respondents might be bigger than for the total pattern. However Rasmussen’s determine for the total pattern is predicated on assumptions which are completely not met.”
Justin Levitt, a legislation professor at Loyola Marymount College and an election legislation knowledgeable who served from 2021 to 2022 because the White Home’s first senior coverage advisor for democracy and voting rights, additional famous that “the ballot appears to have discovered an intriguing quantity of parity – nearly half of the responses purportedly indicating fraud had been Republicans.”
(Heartland argues that the alleged fraud benefited Democrats greater than Republicans as a result of a bigger share of Democrats voted by mail-in poll.)
Furthermore, Levitt mentioned, “the responses are sufficiently out of line with every thing else we all know that I discover them very laborious to belief in any respect.”
“[T]he outcomes are wildly out of line with actually all different incoming data, together with the speed of ballots flagged in any jurisdiction wherever within the nation for signature mismatches,” Levitt advised us by way of e mail. “It’s the equal of a nationwide ballot that has Trump – or Harris – up by 50%. Or a discovering that the homicide charge in a given space was 1 out of three adults. In the event you acquired outcomes like that, you’d be lots skeptical of the knowledge, even with out an apparent downside within the assortment.”
In an evaluation of the Rasmussen ballot when Trump touted it final December, the Washington Put up’s Philip Bump wrote that the findings of the ballot fail “the scent check.”
“A fifth of voters mentioned they voted in a state the place they not dwell? About 6 in 10 People have never moved out of the states by which they had been born,” Bump wrote. “Half of the remaining, we are supposed to imagine, dedicated an apparent type of election fraud three years in the past.”
Bump additional mocked the discovering that 8% of all voters answered “sure” to the query, “Through the 2020 election, did a buddy, member of the family, or group, similar to a political occasion, provide to pay or reward you for voting?”
“[P]rofessional and novice sleuths have additionally by some means not discovered proof displaying that 1 in 12 absentee voters — hundreds of thousands of individuals! — had been supplied money for his or her votes,” Bump famous. “This would appear prefer it would possibly depart a path.”
We reached out to the Pennsylvania Division of State, which oversees the state’s elections, about Trump’s declare that 20% of mail-in ballots could also be fraudulent.
“Voting by mail is secure and safe, and no proof exists of widespread mail voting fraud in Pennsylvania,” the division advised us in an emailed assertion.
“Mail poll fraud has been confirmed to be exceptionally uncommon,” the assertion continued. “Claims of systemic voter fraud are devoid of any supporting proof and have constantly been rejected by judges, authorities businesses, and election consultants throughout the political spectrum.”
An Related Press evaluation of potential voter fraud instances in six swing states discovered fewer than 475 instances of potential fraud – “a quantity that will have made no distinction within the 2020 presidential election.” Election knowledgeable Richard Hasen, a legislation professor at UCLA, wrote in a 2020 op-ed within the Washington Put up: “Whereas sure pockets of the nation have seen their share of absentee-ballot scandals, issues are extraordinarily uncommon within the five states that rely totally on vote-by-mail, together with the closely Republican state of Utah.”
A signature is required to vote in Pennsylvania, however the commonwealth does not require election officers to confirm signatures. Actually, dealing with lawsuits, state officers in 2020 told county officials they may not reject a poll solely on the idea {that a} signature on the poll doesn’t match the voter’s signature on file.
Nevertheless, the DOS assertion mentioned, “Mail voting in Pennsylvania has a number of layers of safety that contain registered voters having to supply acceptable ID earlier than their mail poll will be counted and that forestall any voter from casting a couple of poll in any given election. Pennsylvanians have been voting by mail because the Civil Conflict, and the method has a protracted historical past of being secure and safe.”
Editor’s notice: FactCheck.org doesn’t settle for promoting. We depend on grants and particular person donations from individuals such as you. Please contemplate a donation. Bank card donations could also be made by way of our “Donate” page. In the event you desire to present by test, ship to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Coverage Middle, 202 S. thirty sixth St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.
