GOP Crying Wolf on Voter Fraud?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Despite conservative fear-mongering that illegitimate voters would steal the midterms, there’s been little, if any, evidence has surfaced to support these claims. But some GOPers won’t to give up the ghost. Dave Weigel points out that Ed Martin, Republican candidate in Missouri’s 3rd district, has refused to concede to his opponent Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan despite having lost by a significant 4,418 vote margin. Instead, Martin insists that electoral fraud messed with the results. From the St. Louis Beacon:

Among other things, Martin has alleged irregularities in the city’s votes and in the hiring of a security firm at the city Election Board headquarters to help out on Election Day. Martin particularly has raised questions about the final bloc of city votes that went heavily for Carnahan.

On Wednesday, a group of Martin allies picketed outside the downtown Election Board headquarters, shouting that vote fraud had been committed.

Local and state Republican officials have declined to back Martin’s claims of voter fraud, urging him to concede in the long-Democratic district. As the Beacon notes, even the St. Louis Tea Party admits “that there appears to be ‘no smoking gun’ that the group can immediately target as a culprit in Martin’s narrow loss.”

But given the hysteria surrounding voter fraud on the right—amped up by the tea parties and legitimized by the GOP—it’s not surprising that Republicans would use voter fraud as an excuse for a close loss. Given the degree of fear-mongering, I’m surprised that there haven’t been more allegations of fraud since Election Day. In Nevada, for instance, Sharron Angle had claimed that Harry Reid wanted “to steal this election” and accused him of buying off union votes in the final stretch of the race. But such accusations almost immediately evaporated after she lost to Reid, and even Fox News cancelled a segment about voter fraud in Nevada that it had originally planned to air.

If such dirty tricks had actually happened in Nevada or elsewhere, you’d expect that the tea party right would be up in arms about the results. But instead, the deafening silence suggests that there wasn’t much there in the first place. It’s not surprising, then, that Missouri Republicans want Martin to shut up and concede that he lost already. In the build up to the election, Republicans were deftly able to amplify voter fraud allegations to whip their base into a frenzy. But after the fact, when it’s clear that few such shenanigans actually took place, candidates like Martin make it appear that the right was just crying wolf in the first place.

*Update: Martin finally conceded the election to Carnahan on Monday morning but continues to allege there was “misconduct by the chair of the St. Louis City Board of Elections,” claiming that there were widespread “irregularities” and claiming the Board “refused to take responsibility for compelling local boards of election to purge voter rolls of ineligible registrants.” Martin promises that he “will continue to seek to highlight the importance of protecting our voting system and will ask you to assist me in this effort.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend