Examining ACORN: Why the Justice Department should investigate more fully.

I have to admit that I'm late to following the ACORN story with a lot of detail - but as more stories emerge about their fraudulent voter practices, I'm bothered by it. To me, voter fraud and disenfranchisement are some of the most onerous affronts to democracy - it doesn't matter which side a group is on.

So a quick background. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was founded in 1970, and has been headed by Maude Hurd since 1990. It claims to be non-partisan - but the issues it advocates for (including improved housing and wages for the lower class, community development, and better education) generally fall on the Democratic side of the political spectrum. Voter registration is always a large part of these efforts around election time, as they view community involvement in the electoral process as one of the central ways to make progress on their relevant issues. Their opening mission statement is as follows:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority constituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.

ACORN also offers this video as an introduction to the organization. View it below.


The current controversy over ACORN relates to their extensive voter registration efforts, which has been a central part of the group's activities since 1970. In the current election, a rising number of voter registration fraud cases are emerging linked to ACORN organizers. Today's headline story on the Drudge Report details how the group registered Mickey Mouse in Florida, while other stories detail rampant fraud in Ohio. Other voter registration issues have cropped up Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri and Connecticut. UPDATE: a kind reader pointed out this article that ran in the Michigan Messenger regarding ACORN. From the article:

Gerald Hebert, a retired U.S. Department of Justice voting rights expert who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, says the kind of fraud that the GOP is charging ACORN with — deliberately registering fictitious people or registering the same person in two different precincts — is extremely rare. Hebert is now executive director of the Campaign Legal Center in Washington. The nonprofit organization was founded by Trevor Potter, who represents the McCain campaign in lawsuits over voter suppression.

The Michigan Messenger piece offers some great point counterpoint as related to ACORN, and illustrates how some of these voter fraud charges may be over exaggerated and picked piecemeal over years of registration efforts. Again, of note:

The charge that ACORN engages in “outright voter fraud” and “illegal voting” activity seems to be based on a handful of cases over many years. For example, three ACORN canvassers pleaded guilty to voter fraud in Seattle in 2007, and eight pleaded guilty to fraud in Missouri in 2004. By comparison, ACORN had thousands of canvassers across the country and more than 100 canvassers working in Michigan alone in these instances.

This answers some of the overall GOP accusations that ACORN is a radical group that is systematically trying to defraud the electorate. However, it doesn't speak to the current allegations in some of the battleground states.

The GOP has raised this as an issue against Barack Obama, putting together an admittedly creative website called Barack Obama's ACORN Tree. The Obama camp has responded in kind by adding the ACORN issue to their Fight The Smears website. Frankly, I avoid getting information from either of these sources as much as possible, as they tend to only give partial truths. So looking to other sources...

A Google search on Obama and ACORN reveals the first three links to be to prominent National Review columnists Stanley Kurtz and Michelle Malkin - which to me, is an immediate red flag that this is likely more of a partisan story than a real one.

To me, there is little doubt that ACORN is far more aligned with the Obama campaign than with the McCain camp. However, that in and of itself doesn't mean anything. In fact, non-partisan fact check group Politifact.com emphasizes that many conservatives emphasize ACORN's involvement with liberal groups while ignoring others. From the article:

And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

In any case, the Wall Street Journal ran an article this morning detailing some of the connections between Obama and ACORN. Two paragraphs are noteworthy:

Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

Now, Obama's camp claims that ACORN was not involved in Project Vote - though the current incarnation is tied to ACORN directly, this was not the case in 1992 when Obama was director of Project Vote. The Huffington Post reports on these connections, stating that the official association of the two groups happened in 1994, and that at the time, the only official involvement in Project Vote was a member of the 40-person advisory board. One of the direct connections that the Obama campaign admits is that Obama served as an attorney representing ACORN in lawsuit, alongside the Illinois Department of Justice, related to voter access.

As for the Obama donations to an ACORN affliate, the Washington Times has the story. During the primary campaign, the Obama campaign did donate $832,598 to Citizens Services Inc, a fact verified by Federal Elections Commission reports. The Times details the connection between ACORN and Citizens Services:

Citizen Services is inextricably tied to ACORN. Along with nonprofit sister organization Project Vote, Citizens Services and ACORN share the same New Orleans address and the same executive staff while money flows freely between the three entities. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services.

The article goes on to examine the actual work that Citizens Services did - with a mixed verdict that probably isn't easily resolved:

Brian Mellor, legal counsel for ACORN and Project Vote, said the Citizens Services was not involved in the voter-registration drive. He said Project Vote provided the funding and ACORN provided the local ground operation and ran day-to-day activities.

But James Terry, the chief political advocate for the nonpartisan Consumer Rights League who tracks ACORN issues, said Citizen Services and ACORN are one in the same.

"There is no way it is not coordinated," he said. "It is a multimillion-dollar coordinated effort."

I think the truth is probably that the Obama campaign funded ACORN as a part of their voter registration drive in their attempts to best Hillary Clinton in the primary. The reality is that they're a big organization with offices in many of the areas filled with potential Obama voters, and I imagine the campaign's decision to work with them was based upon a cost-benefit analysis that indicated they'd be best able to register the votes they needed to win.

Does this make Obama complicit in voter fraud? No, not by itself. Until there is some evidence that the Obama campaign knew that ACORN was engaging in fraudulent activity, I consider them independent from ACORN's fradulent actions. Not even the Kurtz piece goes so far as to claim that Obama was complicit in voter fraud or knew of fradulent activities at any point in his activity with ACORN. But was it a mistake to have funded ACORN now that these fraud issues are coming out? Absolutely - ESPECIALLY given the amazing work that so many Obama volunteers are doing to register voters legitimately all over the country. Obama should take responsibility for that mistake and condemn ACORN's fraudulent registration practices publicly and forcefully.

UPDATE: In rereading, I'd like to clarify - I don't mean that Obama should condemn ACORN unilaterally - there would be no need for that unless it was found that there was systemic, planned fraud originating from the top down within the organization. But Obama should absolutely speak out against any illegal activity occuring within ACORN's ranks - it is possible to do that without speaking out against the organization as a whole. ACORN does work apart from voter registration that is important and relevant to countless people across the country, and it is important to remember that in this discussion.

I haven't been able to find any articles from organizations that don't have some kind of partisan reputation. The Times is known as a conservative paper, as is the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. Dear readers - anybody know of a rundown that originates from a centrist or fact-checking source?

UPDATE: This article from Pajamas Media has more details on the history of ACORN and its voter registration efforts; it is clearly written from a right-wing perspective, but it cites many cases and provides sourced materials.

UPDATE II: Talking Points Memo makes an outstanding point on this discussion - and points out a problem in referring to this as "voter fraud." From the article:

Let's be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they're not entitled to cast. It doesn't and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely.

The article is correct - false registrations really don't mean anything unless those false registrants try and vote. In all likelihood, many of these fake registrations are not being submitted to try and influence the election, but rather, to make individual volunteers look better to the organization. Get more voters registered, advance farther through ACORN, appear to be a better organizer, etc. etc.

But this is splitting hairs to a degree - the problem of fake registrations is that it makes creating accurate lists much more difficult, and could provide a screen for actual voter fraud to occur. If elections officials are too busy weeding out fake registrations, then they're distracted from the job they should actually be doing. It also forces purges of the voter registration lists, as these lists are used for more than just voting. For example, jury duty. Voter registration lists are used almost universally (along with DMV records) to summons people for jury service. If there are thousands of false registrants on the books, it yields enormous waste and problems with having inadequate numbers of jurors at the courthouse. I did a lot of work with list management when I was doing my jury administration work; creating accurate lists is horribly difficult.

Regardless, I agree with the closing paragraph of the Wall Street Journal's editorial:

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime.

Members of Congress have urged the same kind of investigation. Whether or not you trust the Justice Department (which is absolutely worth debating), this is an answer we all deserve. If it is found that ACORN is systematically and deliberately violating election law to register voters fraudulently, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.