Obama Chief Stunned By Ballot Related Criminal Convictions
Election meddling is often discussed as though it is either a modern phenomenon or something that only happens under very specific circumstances. But an old case out of Indiana shows that election-related misconduct can take several forms, including petition fraud involving candidates trying to qualify for the ballot. That case came up during a Tuesday […]
Election meddling is often discussed as though it is either a modern phenomenon or something that only happens under very specific circumstances. But an old case out of Indiana shows that election-related misconduct can take several forms, including petition fraud involving candidates trying to qualify for the ballot.
That case came up during a Tuesday appearance on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” when former Obama adviser David Axelrod was confronted with the story by political commentator Pete Seat, an Indiana native.
Seat pointed to fraudulent petition signatures submitted during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. According to Seat, the misconduct affected petitions connected to Barack Obama’s effort to qualify for Indiana’s primary ballot.
“The gentleman you previously worked for, David Axelrod, Barack Obama got on the ballot because Democrats in that county submitted fraudulent ballot petition signatures,” Seat said.
He added that people involved in the scheme, including a local Democratic Party chairman, were eventually convicted.
Axelrod appeared unfamiliar with the case and asked how the matter had been established. Seat responded that the fraud was uncovered after the election and eventually worked its way through the courts.
The case involved officials and workers connected to the St. Joseph County Democratic Party and the county’s voter registration operation. Those charged included then-St. Joseph County Democratic Party Chairman Butch Morgan, Democratic voter registration board member Pam Brunette, voter registration employee Beverly Shelton and former board worker Dustin Blythe.
Investigators alleged that fraudulent signatures were added to petitions connected with Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
Under Indiana law at the time, presidential candidates needed 500 valid signatures from registered voters in each congressional district to qualify for the statewide primary ballot. St. Joseph County was part of Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District, where Obama was credited with 534 qualifying signatures and Clinton with 704.
The relatively narrow margin above the 500-signature requirement became part of the controversy surrounding the case. Fraudulent names included, according to reports about the investigation, the name of former Indiana Gov. Joe Kernan.
The defendants received different sentences. Morgan was sentenced to prison and community corrections, while Blythe received community corrections and probation. Brunette and Shelton received probation. Fines and court costs were also imposed.
There is an important distinction in describing what happened. The judge and prosecutors reportedly did not classify the conduct as “voter fraud,” because the case did not involve fraudulent ballots being cast. It was petition fraud, meaning the misconduct concerned the process used to place candidates on the ballot.
That distinction matters. The case demonstrates that wrongdoing can occur at different points in an election system without necessarily involving fraudulent voting itself.
The misconduct was uncovered and prosecuted years after the 2008 election had taken place. By then, the primary and general election were long over.
Cases like this are worth remembering because election safeguards depend heavily on detecting misconduct before it can affect a process that cannot easily be undone. They also show why debates about election security should be grounded in specific evidence rather than broad assumptions about either party.
Supporters of measures such as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act argue that stronger verification requirements could make election systems more secure. Critics dispute whether such proposals address the most significant risks and warn that added requirements can create barriers for eligible voters.