Last week, in response to a Star Tribune editorial suggesting that the resignation of former U.S. Attorney Thomas Heffelfinger stemmed from his refusal to investigate "voter fraud" allegations, Heffelfinger and former Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer teamed up to throw some dust in the air.
Heffelfinger and Kiffmeyer are quoted in a Star Tribune report by Dan Browning, Heffelfinger had no reason to think he'd be ousted, he says. It is tempting to describe Heffelfinger's comments in this article as a non-denial denial, but they do not even rise to that standard. In actuality, Heffelfinger admits to a "dispute" with Kiffmeyer over her allegations of "unlawful and discriminatory" registration practices in two Minnesota counties.
Browning chooses to bury Heffelfinger's admission, and further, allows Kiffmeyer to mischaracterize the nature of her "voter fraud" complaints.
Below the fold: Heffelfinger and Kiffmeyer contradict each other, and Dan Browning earns the praise of Power Line for allowing himself to be spun by the pair of Minnesota purge protectors.
Power Line's Scott Johnson is hot on the case. He explains, quite erroneously, that Dan Browning's report "investigated and rejected the cockamamie fantasies" of the Star Tribune's editorial board. Scotty is referencing the following questions posed by the Tribune's editorial board, the only portion of the editorial addressed by Browning's report:
Here's the question that many in Minnesota want answered: Former Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer famously cried "wolf" over voter fraud that did not exist. Did Heffelfinger's low ranking in Washington, his decision to resign and Paulose's appointment flow from Kiffmeyer's inability to get her claims of fraud taken seriously by the Minnesota U.S. attorney's office?
Dan Browning writes that:
On Saturday, a Star Tribune editorial raised the question of whether Heffelfinger and former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer -- both Republicans -- had locked horns over voter fraud allegations.
But Heffelfinger and Kiffmeyer each said Monday that they had no such problems.
Really? Is that what they said? Because that's not what Browning's own reporting goes on to reveal:
"Your editorial was off base on this one," Heffelfinger said.
He could recall only one time when Kiffmeyer brought any serious concerns about voting improprieties to his attention. In a letter dated March 15, 2004, Kiffmeyer said she had "a great concern" with what she called the "unlawful and discriminatory" way Hennepin and Ramsey counties were registering voters.
Kiffmeyer said the concerns were raised by ACORN, a neighborhood activist organization. At the time, the two counties required photocopies of identification, which she called a violation of the Help America Vote Act. She asked Heffelfinger to investigate the matter.
Heffelfinger said that he followed protocol and turned the matter over to the civil rights division of the Department of Justice that same day. The division investigated and found no violations of voting laws or any other federal law, according to a letter dated June 14, 2004. Kiffmeyer said the two counties had already changed their practices by the time the department investigated.
"That's the only thing that I would even call a dispute that occurred between Kiffmeyer's office and mine," Heffelfinger said. "We had a pretty good working relationship."
Kiffmeyer agreed. "I had no problems with Mr. Heffelfinger pursuing anything whatsoever," she said Monday.
What is Dan Browning thinking? Despite his attempt to downplay it, Heffelfinger clearly states that there was a "dispute that occurred between Kiffmeyer's office and mine." How could Kiffmeyer be agreeing when she says that she "had no problems with Mr. Heffelfinger pursuing anything whatsoever"? This is either incredibly sloppy journalism or it is simply dishonest. No wonder Browning is popular with the Power Line boys.
It is also worth noting the Mary Kiffmeyer's characterization of her own "voter fraud" allegations is misleading, and Dan Browning fails to put her comments in a proper context. To begin with, Kiffmeyer seemed to be accusing the mostly Democratic Hennepin and Ramsey counties of election fraud, not voter fraud. But her claims appear to have been aimed at discouraging voter registration rather than going after discrimination. In fact, it was Kiffmeyer's own allegations that reeked of election fraud, not the registration practices of the two Democratic strongholds. Talk about accusing your opponent of the very offense you are committing. Kiffmeyer seems to have been schooled well in this common Republican tactic.
For background on Mary Kiffmeyer's allegations against the Hennepin and Ramsey county election offices, the specific allegations that Thomas Heffelfinger refused to investigate, check out this article from October 2004 in the Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages. I think it is worth quoting from at length:
Back in March [2004], Kiffmeyer, citing guidelines in HAVA, notified election officials from the two counties that they were in "blatant violation" of election laws. Her charges involved which voter-registration form should be used. Kiffmeyer's objection, it seems, was that the counties were distributing a form that required a photocopy of a state ID card. (The idea here is to match the exact name on the ID with the information on the registration roll--which should ensure compliance with HAVA.) The secretary of state's office had designed its own form that the counties were ignoring.
By March 15, Madam Secretary had filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, demanding an investigation. County officials argued that Kiffmeyer's proposed sheet was harder to read, and noted that it contained more boxes to fill in. There was a concern that if an error were made on the more complex form, the registration would be invalid. Conversely, if a voter had registered with the county-approved forms, it was unclear whether those would be accepted.
In her letter to the DOJ, Kiffmeyer raised some more puzzling questions, which would have cast a cloud over the urban counties' registration process. Kiffmeyer, for instance, wondered if the definition of "Driver's License Number" included the use of any letters on a state ID, as Minnesota's does.
[...]
Had Kiffmeyer prevailed, Gray and Opat argue, thousands of county-approved forms could have been thrown out, and people would have been forced to reregister when they turned up at busy polling stations. (Minnesota's same-day registration policy already can lead to long lines during presidential elections.) Further, Kiffmeyer's challenge to the counties "does not help immigrants, first-time voters, or felons who are trying to become eligible to vote," says Gray. "It was all about things that are counterproductive to that."
Ultimately, the spat has transcended mere partisan sniping between state and local officials. Randy Johnson, an old-school Republican who chairs the Hennepin County Board, was left miffed, as well. "It's still not clear to us what she wanted from us," Johnson says, adding that he took offense at Kiffmeyer's assertion that Hennepin County was violating the law. "We weren't. She's the only one that thinks so."
The article also notes that prior to the 2004 election, Kiffmeyer sent out "a weird terrorism-alert poster (beware of men wearing perfume and muttering to themselves) that many said would scare people away from the polls."
Also, there does not seem to be any evidence to support Kiffmeyer's current claim, in Dan Browning's piece, that these "voter fraud" allegations were originally raised by ACORN, a legitimate voting-rights organization. In fact, in 2004, Kiffmeyer said that "the problem had been brought to her attention by the Minneapolis Urban League and the local League of Women Voters."
Finally, we are left with this crucial question:
Why do Thomas Heffelfinger and Mary Kiffmeyer find it necessary to deny, in a blatantly misleading manner, their dispute over Kiffmeyer's bogus "voter fraud" claims?
And, also, how was Dan Browning so easily spun?