Luke Ford

Benford's Law.

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 11, 2020

According to Wikipedia: “Walter Richard Mebane, Jr. (born November 30, 1958) is a University of Michigan professor of political science and statistics and an expert on detecting electoral fraud. He has authored numerous articles on potentially fraudulent election results, including a series of notes on the results of the Iranian presidential election, 2009.[1] He authored a paper[2] disputing the Organization of American States’s claim of fraud in the 2019 Bolivian general election as well.[3] He also drafted a paper regarding the possibility of frauds on both of 2 major parties in the 2020 South Korean general election from a statistical point of view.”

Walter Mebane is the best known political scientist who has used Benford’s Law to try to detect voter fraud.

Professor Mebane writes November 10, 2020:

As vote counting is drawing to a close in the 2020 presidential election in the United States, some1 are claiming that application of Benford’s Law to the precinct vote counts from a few counties and cities give evidence of election fraud…

It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds. See for example the discussion in Carter Center (2005) and Pericchi and Torres (2011). The first digit is largely determined by the number of voters in each precinct, as usually—and especially in small jurisdictions such as individual cities and counties—the share of the votes received by parties or candidates does not vary all that greatly across precincts. Consider for example the densities in Figure 1 for votes from Chicago. The Biden/Harris ticket on average received a proportion of about .82 of the votes, and the Figure shows that the shape of the Biden/Harris vote count distribution pretty closely mirrors the shape of the distribution of votes cast. Trump/Pence received on average about .17 of the votes, but the Trump/Pence vote count distribution has a couple of hitches: for low counts the distribution reflects that in many precincts Trump/Pence vote counts are single digits.

Clearly the first digits of the Biden/Harris counts will most frequently be 3, 4 or 5. That non-Benford’s Law pattern simply relects the distribution of precinct sizes (presuming turnout did not vary that much across the city),2 given the strong support for Biden/Harris across the whole city. The first-digit distribution has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of election fraud…

To date I’ve not heard of any substantial irregularities having occurred anywhere, and the particular datasets examined in this paper give essentially no evidence that election frauds occurred.

Professor Richard Hasen writes in The Atlantic:

Despite the clear math showing that Joe Biden has won the election, President Donald Trump has refused to concede. He has directed his legal team to keep on fighting to try to overturn the results of the election, including in a new 105-page federal-court filing in Pennsylvania. These legal maneuvers are unlikely to pay off in the form of a second term for Trump; he would need the equivalent of three consecutive Hail Mary passes to stay in office.

But what Trump and his legal team are doing can nevertheless cause real harm to the country going forward, should millions of people believe Trump’s false statements that Biden won the election through fraud. It is this near certainty, and not the long-shot possibility of Trump staying in office, that is reason for grave concern.

The state of play can be described as follows: Biden appears very likely to win 306 Electoral College votes, 36 more than he needs for the presidency. This is a comfortable lead. Recounts in even the closest states, where the candidates are 10,000 to 20,000 votes apart, are extremely unlikely to change the election results; the most recent Wisconsin recount, in 2016, shifted the result by 571 votes. And nothing in those closest states indicates the kind of systemic failure that could lead to a more dramatic reversal.

The lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are highly unlikely to go anywhere. The most recent complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania amounts to virtually nothing. Its core idea, that the different procedures for voting by mail and voting in person constitute an equal-protection violation, is ludicrous.

First, the differences between mail-in and absentee voting were obvious for months and nothing prevented the Trump campaign from suing earlier over this; a late suit now is barred by a legal doctrine called laches, which says that you cannot simply wait until after an election you don’t win to sue over an election problem you could see beforehand.

Further, having different procedures for mail-in and in-person balloting does not create an equal-protection violation. If this claim succeeds, it would mean that voting was unconstitutional across the entire country. The claim is especially weak when voters had the choice to vote using either system. The other claims in the complaint are mostly retreads of issues that have been rejected legally, factually, or both in other lawsuits. There has been no proof of widespread fraud.

Even if some of the claims were to have merit, a strong argument exists that federal courts should not get involved. The Electoral Count Act, passed after the disputed 1876 presidential election, conceives of a state role, not a federal role, for resolving fights over the election, and federal courts will likely want to let states decide. A federal ruling could endanger the ability of a state to submit its Electoral College votes by the December 8 safe-harbor deadline; Congress cannot challenge Electoral College slates submitted by that date.

More important, this quixotic lawsuit presents no path to an ultimate Trump victory. The Trump campaign has not provided a good reason for a federal court to step in and delay certification. Nor has it provided any evidence showing that there were tens of thousands of ballots cast illegally for Biden or of legal ballots not counted for Trump. That kind of showing should be necessary to get any relief, and likely from a state rather than a federal court. Biden is currently ahead by about 45,000 votes in Pennsylvania, and may well be ahead by 100,000 when all the votes are counted.

And even if Trump somehow overturned the results in Pennsylvania, that would not be enough to flip the results in the Electoral College. In Arizona, where Biden now leads by about 15,000 votes, the Trump campaign has filed a lawsuit that could call at most 200 votes into question. And even overturning Pennsylvania and Arizona is not enough to make up for Biden being 36 votes beyond the Electoral College threshhold.

According to Wikipedia:

According to the New Yorker, von Spakovsky has promoted “the myth that Democratic voter fraud is common, and that it helps Democrats win elections”.[5]

Von Spakovsky has supported his claims about the extent of voter fraud by citing a 2000 investigation by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which purported to find 5400 instances of deceased people in Georgia voting in the last two decades.[5] The Journal-Constitution later revised its findings, noting that it had no evidence of a single deceased person voting and that the vast majority of the instances were due to clerical errors.[5]

In an interview with the New Yorker, von Spakovsky cited two scholars who he said could substantiate that voter-impersonation fraud was a significant threat: Robert Pastor of American University and Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.[5] Von Spakovsky said that Pastor had personally experienced voter impersonation, but Pastor refuted von Spakovsky’s claim, saying, “I think they just mistakenly checked my name when my son voted—it was just a mistake. I don’t think that voter-impersonation fraud is a serious problem.”[5] Both Pastor and Sabato said that they would only support voter ID laws if voter IDs were made free and easily available to all, which is not what Republicans have tried.[5] Sabato, the author of “Dirty Little Secrets,” also described voter impersonation as “relatively rare today.”[5] In a 2011 article published by the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky again referred to Sabato as an authority to establish the existence of common voter fraud, along with “Stealing Elections,” a book by John Fund, whose claims of voter fraud have been extensively debunked,[32][33] and whom he neglects to identify as the co-author of a book they jointly wrote. He describes the efforts of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, his colleague both at the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity and Heritage, to expose the alleged existence of extensive voter fraud, as “carefully described research,” although Kobach’s claims have also been shown to be vastly overstated.[34]

In a court decision, Fish v. Kobach, US District Court Judge Julie A. Robinson ruled that von Spakovsky’s claims of widespread voter fraud were not in fact found to be backed up with provable researched cases. Judge Robinson wrote that she gave his testimony little weight because it was “premised on several misleading and unsupported examples of non-citizen voter registration, mostly outside the State of Kansas.” She also noted that during the proceedings, Mr. von Spakovsky “could not identify any expert on the subject of non-citizen voter registration.” When he tried to use a list of 30 people provided by a Kansas election official as proof of voter fraud in one county, Judge Robinson wrote in her decision: “He later admitted during cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge as to whether or not any of these individuals had in fact falsely asserted U.S. citizenship when they became registered to vote and he did not examine the facts of these individual cases.”[35] Judge Robinson found witnesses for the defense were often found to be not credible, finding: “Defendant’s expert Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, ‘a think tank whose mission [is to] formulate and promote conservative public policies’.” Von Spakovsky “…cited a U.S. GAO study for the proposition that the GAO ‘found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration roles over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens’.” However, on cross-examination, he admitted that the GAO study contained information on a total of eight district courts; half reported that not one non-citizen had been called for jury duty. The three remaining district courts reported that less than 1% of those called for jury duty from voter rolls were noncitizens. Therefore, his report misleadingly described the single district court with the highest percentage of people reporting that they were noncitizens, while omitting mention of the seven other courts described in the GAO report, including four that had zero incidents of noncitizens on voting rolls.[36] Robinson said, “While von Spakovsky’s lack of academic background is not fatal to his credibility …., his clear agenda and misleading statements … render his opinions unpersuasive.”

According to Professor Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of California at Irvine, “there are a number of people who have been active in promoting false and exaggerated claims of voter fraud and using that as a pretext to argue for stricter voting and registration rules. And von Spakovsky’s at the top of the list.”[4] Hasen said that Spakovsky’s appointment to Donald Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity was a “a big middle finger” from Trump to people “serious about fixing problems with our elections.”

Henry Olsen writes in the Washington Post:

Mass voter fraud should be relatively easy to detect, even if it might be difficult to prove. Since we elect presidents through the electoral college, political operatives trying to nefariously produce a victory would focus on states critical to an electoral college majority. Thus, if fraud were behind President-elect Joe Biden’s win, we should expect to see significantly higher turnout increases in key states when compared to the nation as a whole. Furthermore, we should expect to see higher turnout increases within those states in Democratic areas than in Republican areas, since those regions are places where Democrats are more likely to be able to hide any stolen votes. Finally, we should expect to see significantly larger shifts in voter margins toward the Democrats from other, previous elections as the fraud alters the area’s normal voting patterns.

None of these early warning signs of fraud appear in the results. As the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman’s Popular Vote Tracker shows, voter turnout was up significantly almost everywhere compared with 2016. (The few states where that is not true are largely places that have not yet counted all of their mail ballots, such as California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Alaska). The huge turnout increases observed in battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida and Texas is partially explained by their rapid population growth compared with the rest of the country. Turnout also rose by 15 percent or more over 2016 levels in 10 non-battleground states where there was no chance the race was ever going to be close. Voter enthusiasm rather than fraud is the most obvious explanation for the large increases in votes cast in swing states.

The results within swing states also do not support allegations of fraud. Take Wisconsin, for example. The 2020 map looks almost identical to the 2016 outcome, with Biden flipping only two counties (Sauk and Door) that Trump had narrowly carried. Trump’s margins in rural and small metro area counties only narrowly changed from 2016, sometimes up a couple of points and sometimes down. Biden’s margins in the state’s Democratic strongholds were also not unusually high, nor was turnout noticeably higher there than in Trump regions. Trump’s vote share increased in Milwaukee, for example, and turnout in that deep blue county increased by less than 4 percent, compared with a 10-percent statewide increase. None of this is what one would expect to see if voter fraud drove the results.

The same factors exist in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Biden flipped only three Michigan counties, each of which Trump had carried by only three points or less in 2016. And he flipped only two Pennsylvania counties — Erie and Northampton — both of which are known as bellwethers that usually back the winner. Philadelphia is alleged to be the site of massive voter fraud, but as of this writing, it has reported fewer votes cast than in 2016 and is giving Biden a smaller vote lead than Hillary Clinton received. That’s a pretty incompetent performance if the fix is in.

All three states’ results indicate what was to blame for Trump’s defeat: suburban vote slippage. Trump’s margin in the three suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee dropped from 104,500 votes in 2016 to 96,750 in 2020, even as voter turnout increased from 369,000 to 417,700 votes. He would have won Wisconsin had he won these counties and similar suburbs of Madison and Minneapolis by the same percentage margins he did in 2016. The same is true in suburban Detroit, which Trump lost by 69,000 votes in 2020 after losing it by only 5,500 votes in 2016, and suburban Philadelphia, which he lost by 188,200 votes in 2016 and 283,800 votes this year. Trump would be ahead in Pennsylvania by roughly 50,000 votes if he had lost suburban Philly by his same margins in 2016.

This was not an isolated swing-state event, either. Trump’s suburban margins dropped in deep red non-swing states, such as Louisiana, Kentucky and Missouri, too. The president also did significantly worse in suburbs in deep-blue states such as Oregon and Washington. Trump’s plaintive cry toward the end of his campaign for suburban women to “please like me” is more indicative of why he lost than anything he says now about fraud.

Jane Mayer writes in the Oct. 22, 2012 New Yorker:

[Hans] Von Spakovsky, who frequently appears on Fox News, is the co-author, with the columnist John Fund, of the recent book “Who’s Counting?,” which argues that America is facing an electoral-security crisis. “Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter registrations, illegal absentee ballots, vote-buying, shady recounts, or old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States,” they write. The book connects these modern threats with sordid episodes from the American past: crooked inner-city machines, corrupt black bosses in the Deep South. Von Spakovsky and Fund conclude that electoral fraud is a “spreading” danger, and declare that True the Vote serves “an obvious need.”

Mainstream election experts say that Spakovsky has had an improbably large impact. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, and the author of a recent book, “The Voting Wars,” says, “Before 2000, there were some rumblings about Democratic voter fraud, but it really wasn’t part of the main discourse. But thanks to von Spakovsky and the flame-fanning of a few others, the myth that Democratic voter fraud is common, and that it helps Democrats win elections, has become part of the Republican orthodoxy.” In December, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, wrote, “Election fraud is a real and persistent threat to our electoral system.” He accused Democrats of “standing up for potential fraud—presumably because ending it would disenfranchise at least two of its core constituencies: the deceased and double-voters.” Hasen believes that Democrats, for their part, have made exaggerated claims about the number of voters who may be disenfranchised by Republican election-security measures. But he regards the conservative alarmists as more successful. “Their job is really done,” Hasen says. “It’s common now to assert that there is a need for voter I.D.s, even without any evidence.”…

Earlier this year, he noted, the Pew Center on the States found that more than 1.8 million people who had died were still registered to vote in America, and that 2.75 million people were registered to vote in multiple states. How many of these errors translate into fraudulent votes? “It is impossible to answer,” he said. “We don’t have the tools in place.” But he cited a 2000 investigation, by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, of voting records in Georgia over the previous two decades; the paper reported that it had turned up fifty-four hundred instances of dead people being recorded as having voted. “That seems pretty substantial to me,” he said.

He did not mention that the article’s findings were later revised. The Journal-Constitution ran a follow-up article after the Georgia Secretary of State’s office indicated that the vast majority of the cases appeared to reflect clerical errors. Upon closer inspection, the paper admitted, its only specific example of a deceased voter casting a ballot didn’t hold up. The ballot of a living voter had been attributed to a dead man whose name was nearly identical…

Nearly all scholars of America’s system of locally run elections acknowledge chronic problems, including administrative incompetence, sloppy registration rolls, unreliable machinery, vote buying, and absentee-ballot fraud. But Robert Brandon, the president of the Fair Elections Legal Network and a longtime reformer, says that the current debate, “which is about people impersonating another voter, is silly.” He adds, “You can’t steal an election one person at a time. You can by stuffing ballot boxes—but voter I.D.s won’t stop that.”

Von Spakovsky offered me the names of two experts who, he said, would confirm that voter-impersonation fraud posed a significant peril: Robert Pastor, the director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management, at American University, and Larry Sabato, a political-science professor at the University of Virginia. Pastor, von Spakovsky noted, had spoken to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about being a victim of election fraud: voting in Georgia, he discovered that someone else had already voted under his name.

When I reached Pastor, he clarified what had happened to him. “I think they just mistakenly checked my name when my son voted—it was just a mistake.” He added, “I don’t think that voter-impersonation fraud is a serious problem.” Pastor believes that, compared with other democracies, America is “somewhere near the bottom in election administration,” and thinks that voter I.D.s make sense—but only if they are free and easily available to all, which, he points out, is not what Republican legislatures have proposed. Sabato, who supports the use of voter I.D.s under the same basic conditions, says of the voter-impersonation question, “One fraudulent vote is one too many, but my sense is that it’s relatively rare today.”

Hasen says that, while researching “The Voting Wars,” he “tried to find a single case” since 1980 when “an election outcome could plausibly have turned on voter-impersonation fraud.” He couldn’t find one. News21, an investigative-journalism group, has reported that voter impersonation at the polls is a “virtually non-existent” problem. After conducting an exhaustive analysis of election-crime prosecutions since 2000, it identified only seven convictions for impersonation fraud. None of those cases involved conspiracy.

Lorraine Minnite, a public-policy professor at Rutgers, collated decades of electoral data for her 2010 book, “The Myth of Voter Fraud,” and came up with some striking statistics. In 2005, for example, the federal government charged many more Americans with violating migratory-bird statutes than with perpetrating election fraud, which has long been a felony. She told me, “It makes no sense for individual voters to impersonate someone. It’s like committing a felony at the police station, with virtually no chance of affecting the election outcome.” A report by the Times in 2007 also found election fraud to be rare. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department initiated a five-year crackdown on voter fraud, but only eighty-six people were convicted of any kind of election crime.

Hasen, who calls von Spakovsky a leading member of “the Fraudulent Fraud Squad,” told me that he respects many other conservative advocates in his area of expertise, but dismisses scholars who allege widespread voter-impersonation fraud. “I see them as foot soldiers in the Republican army,” he says. “It’s just a way to excite the base. They are hucksters. They’re providing fake scholarly support. They’re not playing fairly with the facts. And I think they know it.”

…In the spring of 2008, as Obama was clinching the Democratic nomination for President, von Spakovsky issued a lengthy report on electoral fraud, titled “Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes.” In an op-ed piece on the Fox News Web site, he argued that “one doesn’t have to look far to find instances of fraudulent ballots cast in actual elections by ‘voters’ who were the figments of active imaginations.” Yet the most recent evidence he cited in his report was decades old: a grand-jury report documenting criminal collusion, from 1968 to 1982, among Brooklyn election officials and local machine politicians.

Richard Hasen asked to see the grand-jury report, but von Spakovsky did not respond. (“What am I—his research assistant?” he asked me.) Hasen has another explanation for von Spakovsky’s refusal to produce the document: “He must have known it was weak.” Hasen eventually hunted down his own copy. On his blog, he observed, “Most of this fraud took place forty years ago,” adding, “When election officials collude with those committing fraud, a voter-I.D. requirement would not help in the slightest.”

…Von Spakovsky said, “The idea that there’s some deep conspiracy is just laughable.” His own work, however, has suggested that liberals engage in conspiracies. “Who’s Counting?” opens with an insinuating account of how Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat, was elected to the Senate in 2008. According to the book, there is “compelling” evidence, compiled by a citizens’ watchdog group, that “1,099 ineligible felons voted illegally” in the contest—“more than three times” Franken’s victory margin. The subhead of the chapter is “Would Obamacare have passed without voter fraud?”

Fox News and other conservative media outlets have promoted this argument. However, Mike Freeman, the Hennepin County Attorney, who oversees Minneapolis, told me, “Those numbers are fraudulent. We investigated, and at the end of the day, out of over four hundred allegations in the county, we charged thirty-eight people. Their research was bad, sloppy, incredible. They are just liars.” Some of the targeted voters weren’t actually felons; others were on probation and hadn’t realized that they remained ineligible to vote. To be convicted of voter fraud, a suspect needs to have criminal intent…

Von Spakovsky has also presented a more recent case as a scandal. Last year, in an op-ed piece that was nationally syndicated, he wrote, “A 2010 election in Missouri that ended in a one-vote margin of victory included 50 votes cast illegally by citizens of Somalia.” He told me that these voters “could only speak Somali, even though to become a U.S. citizen you must learn English.” Once again, when the case was examined by a judge, no fraud was found. Although the judge’s ruling had been issued before the column appeared, von Spakovsky didn’t mention it. He told me that the omission was justified, because the judge hadn’t investigated “the citizenship issue.” Yet the voters’ citizenship was never in doubt.