Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Only in the best families

It's a story they'd rather not discuss:


Barbara Nyhammer's decision to sign her daughter's name to an absentee ballot in 2008 became a cause célèbre in the raging Photo ID debate at the Capitol on Tuesday.

Nyhammer, a Christian mental health therapist from Andover who said she has never had "so much as a parking ticket," was originally charged with three counts of felony voting fraud. She eventually convinced a judge the vote was a mistaken attempt to help her daughter, not a crime. Two charges were dismissed outright, and the judge dismissed the third after Nyhammer paid $200 in court costs.

"I am a woman of faith and also a patriot," Nyhammer, 52, told the judge when her case was resolved last August. "I believe voting is a privilege that men and women fought and died for."


A hilarious synopsis from a highly sympathetic Jim Ragsdale in the Strib. Later we learn what actually happened:


With her daughter, Alexandra Lyons, away at her first year of college in Mankato, Nyhammer told the judge, an absentee ballot arrived in the daughter's name before the 2008 election. "Just fill it in for me, Mom," Alexandra told Nyhammer via telephone. The two of them went through every race over the phone and Nyhammer filled in her daughter's choices.

"I told my daughter that the ballot required her signature," Nyhammer said. "She said, 'Go ahead and sign it for me, Mom.'"

Uh, no. You don't get to do that. But the punchline came later.


After mailing in Alexandra's ballot, Nyhammer voted in person in Andover on Nov. 4. And the daughter, alas, did the same in Mankato.

Nyhammer said her daughter forgot she had already voted via the absentee ballot. "It was her first time," Nyhammer said Tuesday. "She said, 'Mom, I totally blocked it, I totally forgot.'"


A few thoughts:


  • It's evident that Jim Ragsdale would rather not tell this story. "Alas?" Nyhammer is a "Christian mental health therapist from Andover?" So sorry to bring up something so unpleasant.
  • If you sign a document and misrepresent yourself in doing so, in any other context, it's fraud. So is this. It doesn't matter whether you're a "Christian," either.
  • It's ridiculous to imagine that the daughter didn't know what had happened, either. If she is a first-year student, it is quite likely this was the first time she'd voted in an election. You don't get to vote twice.
Meanwhile, I imagine that most defendants wished they could have a judge as sympathetic as the one Nyhammer faced:

"There's no doubt in my mind, none, that neither you nor your daughter would intentionally vote twice in an election, no doubt," Jasper said at the hearing "There's also no doubt that it happened, and that's unfortunate." The judge declined to accept the plea, ordered Nyhammer to pay $200 in costs and eventually all three counts were dismissed.
Yeah, subverting the election process is pretty unfortunate, all right.


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

So how did this crime come to light, anyway? There was no way for our election system to detect the fraudulent signature, and to my knowledge no effort is ever made in that regard. And the daughter's double voting is completely legal, according to our state's wickedly incompetent election laws! So what happened, guilty conscience?

J. Ewing

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Would it be wrong for me to assume which party got penciled in? Well, that's just cynical. And it doesn't matter anyway.

As for this judge, you know, I'm not opposed to them having a bit of latitude. After all, there are certainly cases where iron-bound law applied to the letter is an injustice.

The continuing injustice is that the media makes excuses for one side and tries mightily to crucify the other. As Glen Reynolds has taken to saying, "Tar and Feathers."

Mr. D said...

So how did this crime come to light, anyway?

That's a really good question, JE. May have to research that one a little further.

As for this judge, you know, I'm not opposed to them having a bit of latitude. After all, there are certainly cases where iron-bound law applied to the letter is an injustice.

In most cases, I'd agree with that, WBP. But not in this case. It sends a very bad message if vote fraud ultimately nets you a lesser penalty than what you might get charged for a speeding ticket. One way to stop this sort of thing is to make it clear that if you get caught, you're going to pay a severe penalty. At a minimum, I'd add a zero to the fine.

Anonymous said...

The bet here is that the crime came to light because the Daughter was going to get prosecuted for voting twice in the same election. In effort to save her behind, the daughter & mom probably provided their story to attempt to get out of an obvious felony.

Gino said...

i dont think the daughter knew about the absentee ballot until she was told about it after. she made up her part of the story to cover for her mom.

Brian said...

Um, yeah. I imagine that quite a few defendants in quite a few cases would love to be able to have "whoops! My bad" work so effectively as a defense.

I mean, I don't think this is the sort of thing anyone should do time over, but it is kind of a big deal. (Fraud on a scale that could actually tip the outcome of an election, someone should probably go to prison.)

I don't believe that they had a conversation about her ballot, and then it slipped the daughter's mind to the extent that she voted locally, too. If she's conscientious enough to bother voting locally (and wouldn't that have required her to register again?) then surely she knew better that to tell her mom to just sign her name to an absentee ballot and then send it in.

One of them knowingly voted twice. And the other one is covering for her. But it would be damn near impossible to determine which one, if they stick to their story.

Mr. D said...

I mean, I don't think this is the sort of thing anyone should do time over, but it is kind of a big deal. (Fraud on a scale that could actually tip the outcome of an election, someone should probably go to prison.)

In a state where a Senate election turned on 300 votes, this is a very big deal. This is only one problem with voting in Minnesota, though. The vouching issue is a lot more problematic.

I know there were similar questions in Washington between Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire, but that might have happened before you got up there.

Brian said...

OK, that's a good point. I'll amend to include a clear intent to defraud, regardless of scale.

Rossi/Gregoire was before my time. The next governor's race is shaping up to be very, very close as well, though.

Our mail-in-only system probably obviates what happened in this case. Of course, it probably opens the door to other types of fraud. Pick your poison, I guess.

Anonymous said...

You still haven't addressed the question of how the error was caught, since the SOS doesn't look at duplicate names voting, and state law specifically ENCOURAGES exactly the sort of double voting the daughter did.

J. Ewing

Mr. D said...

You still haven't addressed the question of how the error was caught.

Right, I know. I suppose we could ask Anoka County. Do you know?