November 12, 2011 06:40 PM UTC

When Gessler alleges election fraud, journalists should report whether he has evidence of it

• 0 Comments
• by: Jason Salzman

Ideally, if a reporter quotes someone who makes an allegation that’s not supported by facts or proof of some kind, the reporter would say so.

But, if you’ve ever been a reporter, you know that’s easier said than done.

In a quotation, sometimes the line between a fact and opinion is unclear, and sometimes it’s not possible to recognize and straighten out the fact from fiction from the opinion before deadline. Sometimes you have to go with what you have.

But if a quotation raises really serious issues, like whether the basic mechanics of our election system are functioning properly, then a reporter shouldn’t let a baseless claim stand without stating that it’s baseless.

Such was the case in an article in the Pueblo Chieftain Thurs., quoting Secretary of State Scott Gessler as saying, as he has in the past, that some mail-in ballots are fraudulent.

The Chieftain reported:

Verifying the validity of voters’ signatures on mail-in ballots also poses a challenge, according to Gessler.

“A fair number of ballots are rejected because signatures don’t match,” he said. “Signature verification is sort of a black art.”

“Signatures vary a lot, and sometimes people’s signatures don’t match what’s on file. Some are fraud, some are innocent mistakes.” [BigMedia emphasis]

You can argue about Gessler’s opinion of the black arts, but the Secretary of State either has data to back up his assertion of election fraud or he doesn’t, and it’s such a serious allegation, possibly bringing into question people’s basic trust in our representative government, that we need to know if Gessler has evidence of it.

I mean, if it’s not in the public interest for all of us, whatever your political ideologically, to know more about election fraud, when it’s alleged by the Secretary of State, I don’t know what is.

So I emailed the Chieftain’s Patrick Hamilton, who wrote the piece, and asked, “Did Gessler tell you how many instances of fraud he’s found and when and where he found them? Was he talking about Colorado? Pueblo?”

Hamilton responded:

I asked [Gessler] for greater detail of the purported fraud he mentioned and about his claim that a high number of ballots mailed to inactive voters are returned as undeliverable. He responded that his office is developing a report on the returned mail ballots and that fraud is hard for him to prove. In fact, the tenor of his quote that you mentioned in your email I viewed more in the context of saying that signatures that don’t match what’s on file can often be mistakes, and aren’t always necessarily fraud. The portion of his statement that I didn’t quote were some examples of why a signature might not match (such as a broken arm, writing with an off hand – which I can’t imagine is very prevalent, of course fraud probably isn’t either). On the topic of fraud, I took him to be speaking in general terms about the statewide picture and basing it solely on his suspicions. As testimony in last year’s mail-ballot bill and the voter-ID requirement bill showed, proof (at least as of then, and probably now) did not exist that fraud is rampant. [BigMedia emphasis]

One of the frustrations I encountered with this story is that I couldn’t get calls returned by Rep. Carole Murray, who offered the mail-in ballot bill last year and shelved it herself. She spoke to many of these issues at the time and seems committed to the concept still, but skeptical of whether it can pass…. Gessler said he would provide me the analysis of mail-in ballots to inactive voters as soon as his office is done with it, and I intend to follow this story as soon as that happens. Hopefully soon.

I emailed Hamilton:

I would argue that if Gessler tells a reporter that election fraud exists, and it’s based on his suspicions without proof, then a phrase like, “Gessler could provide no proof of election fraud in Colorado over the past xxxx years,” seems to be called for, simply because it’s such a serious accusation.

Hamilton replied:

You’re right. A qualifying sentence about the extent that fraud could be proven certainly was in order there.

I’m hoping that when Gessler asserts that election fraud exists, other journalists will also report, as a factual matter, whether Gessler could provide any evidence to support his own accusations.

The burden of proof is on Gessler to supply the proof of fraud, not on reporters to prove that his assertion of election fraud is not true. So reporters don’t need to do any research here. Just writing about the absence of facts is all that’s required.