• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Candidate faces 109 felony counts of voter fraud

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A Carrollton mayoral candidate was in custody Thursday after being arrested on charges of mail ballot fraud, according to the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Zul Mirza Mohamed, 39, was taken into custody on Wednesday and he remained in the Denton County Jail on Thursday. A bond has not been set for the Carrollton resident. Carrollton is about 40 miles northeast of Fort Worth.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article246313825.html

His scheme relied on mail ballots.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Oregon was the first state to allow 100% mail voting and has around a dozen counts of mail fraud in that time (like 33 years).

And it would be foolish to ignore the risks of voting booths as it stands. Hacking a voting machine is getting easier

The reality is, voter fraud is only a Republican concern because mail voting makes it easier for inner city folk, with it's density to booths ratios and less transportation access. People who typically vote D. As well as active military which has been polling democrat more of late. Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I dont think voter fraud is exclusive to one party or another. Most astuite people will know voter fraud will be prevalent across party lines.

I'm sure more such things will crop up in the future.

The good news is whenever those people get caught, it will be one less to worry about in gumming up the works.

Personally I'd rather see a physical paper trail like mail in as opposed to electronic voting all the same.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oregon was the first state to allow 100% mail voting and has around a dozen counts of mail fraud in that time (like 33 years).

And it would be foolish to ignore the risks of voting booths as it stands. Hacking a voting machine is getting easier

The reality is, voter fraud is only a Republican concern because mail voting makes it easier for inner city folk, with it's density to booths ratios and less transportation access. People who typically vote D. As well as active military which has been polling democrat more of late. Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden
I share that concern. Hacking is a major concern givin how prevalent compromised systems tend to pop up in the news almost all the time.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Over this one instance yes. Now I might start caring more about small instances of voter fraud after gerrymandering and the massive wealth inequality gets addressed. To name a few more pressing issues.
Without secure election results none of the things you want addressed could happen.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Without secure election results none of the things you want addressed could happen.

Due to the wealth gap, your voice isn't being heard anyways, whether you're casting a vote or not. Lobbyists and big market interests are all that govern politics. And until that is addressed and or removed, no one's voice is being heard, vote or not.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Personally I'd rather see a physical paper trail like mail in as opposed to electronic voting all the same.
I do agree with this. Personally I'd rather see hemp-based ballots that are kept for "long enough" for verification purposes and should the need for recount arise and then recycled to be reused.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I do agree with this. Personally I'd rather see hemp-based ballots that are kept for "long enough" for verification purposes and should the need for recount arise and then recycled to be reused.

All of our paper products should be hemp based, as opposed to wood based. But that's waaaaay off topic.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
A Carrollton mayoral candidate was in custody Thursday after being arrested on charges of mail ballot fraud, according to the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Zul Mirza Mohamed, 39, was taken into custody on Wednesday and he remained in the Denton County Jail on Thursday. A bond has not been set for the Carrollton resident. Carrollton is about 40 miles northeast of Fort Worth.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article246313825.html

His scheme relied on mail ballots.
Forget it. Trump is now barking mad and on his way out.

"California is gonna have to ration water. You wanna know why? Because they send millions of gallons of water out to sea, out to the Pacific. Because they want to take care of certain little tiny fish, that aren't doing very well without water." -- Trump

:confused:
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Yay! One case! We can finally prove it's happening Nationwide, in massive numbers.... Finally.
YAAAY! It is only ONE CASE! So it isn't happening in other places! YAAAY!

What does a few votes matter anyway?

The initial vote count had Republican William Moss ahead of Democrat Jim Burch by 1 vote for the sixth at-large seat in what was then a six-member district. But then a three-judge circuit court ruled that one of the ballots was "defaced" because the names of two candidates were crossed out with the notation "Do not desire to vote for these two". They did this even though the person who cast this vote (which was known because it was a signed absentee ballot) testified that he intended to vote for Moss. Throwing out the ballot created a tied vote.[10] The names of the two candidates were placed in sealed envelopes, and a blindfolded Elections Board chairman plucked one from a silver loving cup. Moss won.[11] Two years later Moss would lose re-election by 0.03% of the vote.[12]

The initial vote count had incumbent Republican David Yancey ahead by 13 votes. After a canvas that included provisional ballots, Yancey's lead was cut to 10 votes.[14]Following a recount, Yancey trailed Democratic challenger Shelly Simmonds by one vote out of 23,215 cast.[15][16] After review by a three-judge panel appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court, a disputed ballot that had been excluded as an overvote was instead counted for Yancey and the race was certified as a tie with the candidates to draw lots to determine a winner.[17][15] The drawing of lots was later postponed after Simmonds asked a state court to reconsider the dispute ballot.[18] On January 4, 2018, the names of each candidate was placed inside a film canister, both canisters were placed in a bowl and one canister was drawn at random by State Board of Elections chairman James Alcorn. David Yancey won the draw and the seat, giving Republicans control of the House 51–49.[19] Had Simonds won instead, a 50–50 split would have prompted a power sharing arrangement between the two major parties.[20] In 2019, the two met in a rematch in a redrawn district and Simmonds won.

After Peter J. Durant was initially declared the winner by 1 vote, judge Richard T. Tucker ruled that one absentee ballot that was initially discarded was to be counted for Geraldo Alicea creating an exact tie.[21] Six months later, a special election was held where Durant beat Alicea by 56 votes.[22]

Four candidates Democrats John R. McIntyre and Dick Casey; and, Republicans Hal Wick and Judy Rost were contesting two seats. In the initial tally, they had respectively 4195 (24.73%), 3889 (22.93%), 4191 (24.71%), and 4687 (27.63%) votes (16,962 total votes). McIntyre was initially declared to have been elected by a four-vote margin. Wick petitioned for a recount in accordance with SDCL 12-21-12. The recount was conducted in the presence of representatives for both candidates. The results were certified on December 4, 1996, and showed that Wick had been elected by one vote: 4191 (24.71%), 3891 (22.94%), 4192 (24.71%), 4689 (27.64%) (16,963 total votes). The South Dakota Supreme Court examined several ballots and invalidated one vote for Wick. The House then voted, mostly along party lines, 46–20 to seat Wick.[27][28][29]Remarkably, two years later, McIntyre and Wick would again tie (at least on the initial count).

ETC. ETC. ETC.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
YAAAY! It is only ONE CASE! So it isn't happening in other places! YAAAY!

What does a few votes matter anyway?

The initial vote count had Republican William Moss ahead of Democrat Jim Burch by 1 vote for the sixth at-large seat in what was then a six-member district. But then a three-judge circuit court ruled that one of the ballots was "defaced" because the names of two candidates were crossed out with the notation "Do not desire to vote for these two". They did this even though the person who cast this vote (which was known because it was a signed absentee ballot) testified that he intended to vote for Moss. Throwing out the ballot created a tied vote.[10] The names of the two candidates were placed in sealed envelopes, and a blindfolded Elections Board chairman plucked one from a silver loving cup. Moss won.[11] Two years later Moss would lose re-election by 0.03% of the vote.[12]

The initial vote count had incumbent Republican David Yancey ahead by 13 votes. After a canvas that included provisional ballots, Yancey's lead was cut to 10 votes.[14]Following a recount, Yancey trailed Democratic challenger Shelly Simmonds by one vote out of 23,215 cast.[15][16] After review by a three-judge panel appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court, a disputed ballot that had been excluded as an overvote was instead counted for Yancey and the race was certified as a tie with the candidates to draw lots to determine a winner.[17][15] The drawing of lots was later postponed after Simmonds asked a state court to reconsider the dispute ballot.[18] On January 4, 2018, the names of each candidate was placed inside a film canister, both canisters were placed in a bowl and one canister was drawn at random by State Board of Elections chairman James Alcorn. David Yancey won the draw and the seat, giving Republicans control of the House 51–49.[19] Had Simonds won instead, a 50–50 split would have prompted a power sharing arrangement between the two major parties.[20] In 2019, the two met in a rematch in a redrawn district and Simmonds won.

After Peter J. Durant was initially declared the winner by 1 vote, judge Richard T. Tucker ruled that one absentee ballot that was initially discarded was to be counted for Geraldo Alicea creating an exact tie.[21] Six months later, a special election was held where Durant beat Alicea by 56 votes.[22]

Four candidates Democrats John R. McIntyre and Dick Casey; and, Republicans Hal Wick and Judy Rost were contesting two seats. In the initial tally, they had respectively 4195 (24.73%), 3889 (22.93%), 4191 (24.71%), and 4687 (27.63%) votes (16,962 total votes). McIntyre was initially declared to have been elected by a four-vote margin. Wick petitioned for a recount in accordance with SDCL 12-21-12. The recount was conducted in the presence of representatives for both candidates. The results were certified on December 4, 1996, and showed that Wick had been elected by one vote: 4191 (24.71%), 3891 (22.94%), 4192 (24.71%), 4689 (27.64%) (16,963 total votes). The South Dakota Supreme Court examined several ballots and invalidated one vote for Wick. The House then voted, mostly along party lines, 46–20 to seat Wick.[27][28][29]Remarkably, two years later, McIntyre and Wick would again tie (at least on the initial count).

ETC. ETC. ETC.
The incidence of mail voting fraud has been gone over at great length, by the Federal Electoral Commission. It is adamant that it is not a significant problem. Catching one crook does not alter that, however comically people wave it about in indignation.

Risk of US mail-in voter fraud is minuscule

Forget it. Trump is now barking mad and on his way out.

"California is gonna have to ration water. You wanna know why? Because they send millions of gallons of water out to sea, out to the Pacific. Because they want to take care of certain little tiny fish, that aren't doing very well without water." -- Trump
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I dont think voter fraud is exclusive to one party or another. Most astuite people will know voter fraud will be prevalent across party lines.

I'm sure more such things will crop up in the future.

The good news is whenever those people get caught, it will be one less to worry about in gumming up the works.

Personally I'd rather see a physical paper trail like mail in as opposed to electronic voting all the same.
One word...
Chicago, Illinois
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The incidence of mail voting fraud has been gone over at great length, by the Federal Electoral Commission. It is adamant that it is not a significant problem. Catching one crook does not alter that, however comically people wave it about in indignation.

Risk of US mail-in voter fraud is minuscule

Forget it. Trump is now barking mad and on his way out.

"California is gonna have to ration water. You wanna know why? Because they send millions of gallons of water out to sea, out to the Pacific. Because they want to take care of certain little tiny fish, that aren't doing very well without water." -- Trump
We are talking about opening a "new" and "expanded" method. So we can't establish a cause/effect in such short notice.

EDITED:

The fact that it has been done once means we should be more vigilant. One caught is only a tip of an iceberg.
 
Top