Loudoun Registrar Approaches Voter Roll Purge With Caution - Leesburg Today Online—Daily News Coverage of Loudoun County, Leesburg, Ashburn: News

January 27, 2015
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Loudoun Registrar Approaches Voter Roll Purge With Caution

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:28 pm

A cross-check of voter registration rolls has indicated 2,176 voters registered in Loudoun County also are registered to cast ballots in other states.

A new state law requires the State Board of Elections to cross check registration records as part of a multi-state effort to combat voter fraud. Virginia and 21 other states have signed on to the database.

The Loudoun County Registrar’s Office will wait until after Election Day Nov. 5 to investigate the status of each of the voters flagged as duplicates. Loudoun General Registrar Judy Brown said she doesn’t want to move too quickly and strike legitimate voters from the rolls.

“The state board cross checks the voter registration and sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don’t,” she said. “We want to do our due diligence and our research to verify we’re not removing someone for no reason.”

Before the end of the year, the registrar’s office will send a letter to voters who may be registered in another state. The letter will request that, if the voter has moved from Virginia, that he or she “sign something asking us to remove them from our rolls,” Brown said. “And if we believe they need to be removed, the law allows us to remove them.”

Most of the 21 states that joined voter database are Republican-led states that have focused on voter and election laws in recent years. Supporters say the steps are needed to protect the integrity of the voting process, but many Democratic leaders say there is little evidence of voter fraud and such measures are a burden on elderly, poor and minority voters.

Evan Macbeth, chairman of the Loudoun County Democratic Committee, said he has received calls from voters who are concerned names will be wrongly pulled from the rolls. After contacting Brown, Macbeth said he has no doubt the local registrar’s office is “doing everything by the book.”

“They’re going to handle it extremely well, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are people who could get thrown off the rolls because they’re not responding to mail appropriately, at no fault to the registrar’s office,” Macbeth said, noting that he’s heard several stories of people wrongly kicked off the rolls in counties outside of Loudoun. “A voter who has the right to vote could be removed from the rolls—all to deal with a problem that does not exist.”

Aside from the multi-state database, the Loudoun registrar’s office constantly updates its roster. Voters who are inactive for two federal elections—mail repeatedly returned to the registrar’s office indicates an “inactive voter”—are purged from the rolls, according to Brown. As of Sept. 3, 19,207 of the county’s 209,780 registered voters—or 9.1 percent—are considered inactive.

Brown said the multi-state database is a beneficial tool to help keep the rolls up-to-date as her office plans for elections. But, she stressed, no legitimate voters should be pulled from the list. If anyone is removed in error, the registar’s office will quickly correct it, she said.

“This is just another tool that we can use to make sure there’s no voter fraud,” Brown added. “But because it’s the first time we’re using it, we need to get it perfected so we can be 100 percent sure when we remove somebody that they’re supposed to be removed.”

Virginia voters can check their registration status online at http://sbe.virginia.gov.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Barbara Munsey posted at 6:36 am on Mon, Sep 30, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    This is what brands you a noob--the proper superior dismissive retort is traditionally "blah blah blah".

    Or has the talking point lexicon changed again, as with "verify" = "purge"?

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 11:35 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Babble on, Barbara, babble on.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 9:52 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Nice non-answer (as with everything on this thread).

    So, does that mean you talked to 89 households, or just sanctioned the killing of a lot of trees by leaving lit paid for with ten tons of out-of-state money?

    Oh, but global warming! The IPCC is now 95% (down from settled science) sure that if we continue to pump billions into progressive cronies' pockets and continue to violate the establishment clause with faith-based laws based on nonexistent warming, the world will be a half of a degree of a better place in the next millenium. And I hear that now the heat that hasn't materialized for 15 years is surely hiding in the deep ocean, under that 34 degree layer. Consequently, they'll be changing the computer models accordingly to account for that. lolol

    We put a sign on our door to thank people for volunteering their time, and urge them to save the lit for undecided households, since we form our own opinions. Saves a lot of extraneous paper/cardstock, and gives the dogs a lot less heart attacks.

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 4:42 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Bye. Barbara. 89 doors yesterday. Better things to do today.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 4:26 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Yes, I've no doubt it's how things have been for quite a while. I understand you're okay with that. Newsflash: it's not okay.

    It has become a "big deal" because any attempt to have any kind of voter ID process is uniformly met with howls from the left of bigotry, suppression, etc (much like every late term partial birth abortion--of which there is only one every 20 years--is the result of incestuous rape).

    How is verifying that a person's legal place of residence matches their registered voting jurisdiction a "suppression effort"?

    Seriously, in what Orwellian newspeak dictionary is the word "verify" listed as a synonym for "purge"?

    I still understand the need for caution in addressing this, and still believe it should be done before another election takes place.

    If it is not important to you, it isn't. Fen's law rules.

  • Glory posted at 3:33 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Glory Posts: 890


    for the “likes of me” there’s research, not taken lightly nor swallowed whole.
    for expanding my “circles” to include others who abhor suppression efforts.
    for “faux concerns” about disenfranchisement and implied illegitimacy of voters.
    for including me in comments about bigotry.
    for the labels again. Psychologist?

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 2:36 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    This is how things have been for quite a while - but suddenly one party is turning this into a big deal. Why? Because they are the sore losers of 2008 and 2012. Because they saw the President motivated people to vote like never before. And it worries them - so they have embarked on a nationwide strategy to curtail the vote in every possible way they can think of.

    Once again, Barbara, you say things that are not true:

    o I never "affirmed that knowing before the election is not an issue."

    o Once again you said, "if no one bothers to check." I will say again, the report demonstrably shows the registrar is checking - so yes, Barbara, "it really does matter what they're risking," but there is no evidence at all that even *one person* has been going to the trouble of voting in two jurisdictions, risking the heavy penalties of voter fraud. Use your head, Barbara. Think before you type.

    o No person in any comment has said anyone "has the right to [vote] in multiple places."

    o It's *not* a big deal. There is *no* evidence of fraud from registration in multiple places.

    This is the sore losers of 2008 and 2012 trying to make a mountain of a molehill.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 1:52 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Glad to see you affirm that knowing before the election is not an issue, Mr. McKeon. And we will not, apparently, but hey, no biggie. In fact, a GOOD thing, because whatever.

    aff, if no one bothers to check, it really doesn't matter what they're risking, does it? Again, because whatever. Got it, thanks.

    I fully affirm everyone's right to vote. The part you guys seem to be missing is that NO ONE has the right to do it in multiple places, and the fact that a couple thousand people are signed up here AND elsewhere potentially allows that very thing.

    It is a big deal, and should be sorted out before the election.

    You are not only dismissive of any concern, but attacking anyone who questions it.

    Superiority cred busted guys. We're touted as the tech capital of the nation, with an award winning county website. We can't verify voters who are demonstrated to possess multiple registrations? Nonsense. And in the case of the dismissive attack posters here, horse____.

  • AFF posted at 1:04 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    AFF Posts: 52

    Yup, working as a person who checks voter rolls certainly has nothing to do with making sure only eligible voters are casting ballots ..... said no one ever.

    I think the woman's obtuse, perhaps intentionally. No other way to explain her challenged mathematics post after post after post. I had no choice but to question every idea and recommendation that came from the so called Government Reform Committee because of her involvement. - the rest of the list wasn't too stellar but they really scraped the bottom of the barrel with a few of them. I wonder if the told anti-semitic jokes at the opener of the meeting, after the prayer of course.

    If a person is incorrectly on the voter rolls it doesn't mean they're going to in 2 places and risk going to jail for a serious Federal offense..... for one extra vote.


    Unless you live in la la land, which some clearly some do.

    Again, if a person were concerned about the integrity of the vote they could actually participate in the process of overseeing an election.

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 12:26 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    You said, "We will *never* know, since no one inters to even find out which registration is the valid one."

    "Never" and "BEFORE the election" are two different things, Barbara - even for you, Loudoun's, and the world's, most talented politico ever.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 12:07 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    More slanderous smack from a professionally tolerant professional poster; the response to Glory's little passive aggression about fraudulent votes refers to an ELECTION, of which we have one coming up, and yes they aren't going to do anything BEFORE the election, so turn in your "nuance" and "context" cards too, Mr. McKeon. It isn't a "lie" (something you disagree with is automatically untrue, and deliberately untrue at that--got it.) that they have no intention of doing anything about it before votes are cast, that DO matter.

    Yes, I think it is one of those inadvertently honest moments to put forth that the concern of prog Ds is that the dual registrants may vote D (in more than one place maybe, which is fine, because shut up you bigot. I think I've got it, thanks).

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 11:22 am on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    "No one intends to even find out which registration is the valid one" is a lie. Clearly from the report above the registrar *does* intend to find out and is taking steps.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 11:11 am on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Lol, Glory, good for you! You may be on to something there, given the foaming by the prog/D posters over any questioning of people's "right" to be registered in more than one place.

    How do you know they "will cast fraudulent votes"? (yes, passive aggressive rules, and in the right circles probably DOES pass for a reasoned and temperate outlook)You may be correct, if any vote in both places registered.

    But we'll never know, since no one intends to even find out which registration is the valid one.

    Mr. Reynolds, is your argument that since turnout is sometimes low, it's a GOOD thing to have people registered more than one place?

    Again, moral high ground for relentless preening purposes surrendered forever, when the progs on board will defend to the death the "right" of multiple registrations to remain unchallenged--to even QUESTION (while agreeing with the need for caution) is PROOF POSITIVE of nefarious partisan intent!

    Sorry folks, but you have no argument (apparent anyway from the first ad hominem). Have a nice day in Stuart Smalley's mirror.

  • Glory posted at 10:56 am on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Glory Posts: 890

    So is the main concern that these 2000 plus (who will cast fraudulent votes) might all be Democratic voters?

  • Frank Reynolds posted at 8:54 am on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    Frank Reynolds Posts: 591

    The stats don't lie. Low turnout is good for the GOP. Bob McDonnell won with 40% turnout statewide. 37% of Loudoun voters bothered to come out that year.

    Dick Black's 2011 win was the "roar" of 56% of the 29% of potential voters coming out for him. Or 16% of the total voting population voted for him. What a mandate.

    Randy Minchew: 56% of 27% of total voters. Or 15% of total voters. Loudoun clearly bleeds red.

    Last year, 70% show up and Loudoun is Obama/Kaine country.

    It makes sense that keeping potential voters off the rolls is part of their strategy. It is particularly important this year where their fringe candidates need turnout to be as low as possible to stand a chance.

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 9:27 pm on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Tell me when - ever - the Republican party has ever been in favor of measures to increase voter participation.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 3:23 pm on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Nice rant aff (as usual), but getting paid on election day has little to do with addressing the problem laid out in the article.

    Just more b*tching on your part to join in avoiding the issue of multiple registrations that won't be confirmed or sorted out before another election.

    "Trust based system" is not a lie, as you would know if you troubled to look up the comments of the UN observers. Which you and others will not do, because the important thing was then, as now, to b*tch about a conspiracy of bigoted disenfranchisement BEFORE the election, and get a lot of scary press coverage on the "need" for the UN to come in and make sure our elections are safe and fair.

    ______$#*!. They came, they saw, they were appalled that we have no coherent voter ID process.

    And that got near-zero coverage, because it isn't a fact anyone b*tching on the prog side wants addressed.

  • AFF posted at 2:22 pm on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    AFF Posts: 52

    If a person is worried whatsoever about the integrity of the vote in the county I'm sure Loudoun has Officer of the Election positions open. You'll get paid $150 for the day and you'll leave confident that no one is cooking the books in Virginia.

    Or a person could just blather lies like "trust based system" ... perhaps figure out some way to blame ACORN or the Piedmont Environment Council . That'd be much more fun eh?

    After becoming personally familiar with the local election process by working as an Officer of the Election I found the people bitching about voter fraud are either woefully misinformed, or trying to gin up the populace for their cause de jour, or both.

    I vote both.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 1:33 pm on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    So, in your hacktastic world, Glory is correct to agree with caution, and at one and the same time, I am a bigot to acknowledge the need for it in the very first comment. rotfl

    Again, the massive MSM coverage of the need for UN observers to monitor our elections in 2012, and the total lack of coverage once they uniformly expressed amazement that we have a completely trust-based system, points out that caution cuts both ways.

    For a trust-based system to work, everone must be trustworthy.

    Everyone is not, and shouting "bigot" while pointing at others is a great way to hide one's own potential untrustworthiness.

    It IS a serious issue, Mr. McKeon, and while there is a need for caution in verification, there is also a need for the process to have integrity. Your biased accusations indicate little of same on your part.

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 11:56 am on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    It is clear there is a nationwide campaign by the Republicans to find every way they can to try to knock people off the voting rolls or place ID requirements on voters to suppress the vote. Votiing is a *right* - not a privilege - and people should be loathe to impede the exercise of the right, absent a clear and compelling reason. My alarm is not imaginary. The feverishness is not in my mind but in the minds of the sore losers of the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, who cannot reconcile themselves to the truth that a majority of voters elected and re-elected the President. Instead they make up an excuse, blowing up insignificant amounts of voter fraud into a cause celebre in their minds. Fantastic claims of voter fraud unsupported by the facts - such as the claims of the governor of South Carolina that her own government refuted after research - are not a clear and compelling reason to impede the exercise of the right to vote.

    Glory is right to agree with the approach of caution of the registrar.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 11:39 am on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Again, SOUNDS good, Glory. Now, where in my first comment did I "zealously" urge any "hurried" "purge"? Why, nowhere--it's the product of the fevered narrative parroted by the likes of Mr. McKeon, and swallowed whole and continued by the ever-so-reasonable likes of you, and others.

    I agreed with a need for caution, and regret that possible fraud may occur in the upcoming election. Larsele's comment indicates that the current standard (and I use the term loosely), is to wait until a questionable (or even reported, apparently) name does NOT vote through two federal election cycles, THEN they are removed as "inactive", rather than flagged for duplicate registration, or God forbid multiple votes.

    For that I was the recipient of ad hominem attack sans anything but venom and the standard cries of "bigot" by a robotic partisan activist.

    Where is the history here (I mean in the last twenty years or so, not back to the day when a few of the current county Ds' ancestors owned minorities who could not vote) of voter suppression going into the thousands?

    Thousands of duplicate registrations (and the egregious incident Larsele recounts), in just one county out of the hundreds in VA, is serious. And every effort should be expended to verify these voters BEFORE another election goes by.

    SHOULD have been expended on an ongoing basis in this highly transient area.

    Apparently to some, potential voter fraud is just dandy if it might go their way.

    But there goes the "moral superiority" preening that allows the cries of "bigot" and "racist".

    Can't have it both ways there, either.

  • Glory posted at 9:13 pm on Fri, Sep 27, 2013.

    Glory Posts: 890

    The real worry is a zealous hurry to purge, with less than a month and a half before election. I'm a worrier myself, so not passive-aggressive as B. Munsey tries to insinuate (I learned long ago not to diagnose students before procedure is followed); however, my worry stems more to invalid suppression efforts.

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 10:30 am on Fri, Sep 27, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Yes, Leesburg NW, many of us realize that is the motivation behind the all these schemes - to deprive people you don't agree with of the *right* to vote, because you're the sore losers of the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 10:22 am on Fri, Sep 27, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Glory, on the face of it that sounds like a great idea (and good for you to be only mildly passive aggressive re "the worriers"--duplicate registration IS a worry, unless you subscribe to the notion that it's not a big deal to have integrity in the process. Funny, those UN observers called in to monitor US elections--to ensure against disenfranchisement of protected classes in the evil ole US--were pretty uniformly appalled that we have no coherent voter ID program. Even the ones from third world countries. Not much coverage of that though--too far outside the narratives, I guess.).

    Is this something that can or should be handled by volunteers? I would say probably not. There needs to be thorough accountability in something this serious, and as some in Loudoun are fond of bleating, accountability in Loudoun is a difficult thing at times.

    However, what those doing the bleating often choose to forget is that there is an unfortunate history in Loudoun of volunteers (for the "right" things too) overstepping--the most notorious being the fake Campaign For Loudoun's Future petition advocacy (whose "volunteers" were actually paid, at least at the senior level). One incident in particular you might be able to look up on old webcasts, of a petition against a specific land use application which was wrangled by paid volunteers...who filled in the info and signed for some landowners who weren't home, or didn't bother to drive out to their property in the first place. When that petition was presented, some commissioners and supervisors contacted a couple of the people who "signed", and said "hey, I thought you wrote/told me you thought THIS", and guess what? A couple of those people for whom fraudulent signatures were submitted into record showed up at the next public comment to say they had never signed it. Oops. Those wacky eager young "volunteers"! Nevermind!

    IOW, if some of the thousands of duplicate registrations truly ARE fraudulent, "volunteers" may be how it happened in the first place.

    But as I said, sounds good.

    On the face of it.

  • Leesburg NW posted at 9:27 pm on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Leesburg NW Posts: 69

    I wish they would purge these disgruntled dems from the rolls like McKewon and Glory and Frank Grimes and Evan McBoob

  • Glory posted at 12:27 pm on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Glory Posts: 890

    Maybe some of the worriers could offer their volunteer services to Judy Brown.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 11:45 am on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    only if you swallow them with a long frosty slurp of KoolAid or Brawndo, westLOUDouner.

    Now, anyone other than Larsele have an actual comment on the content of the article?

    Or any pointers on what was actually wrong with mine, other than that I made it?

    (again, not holding breath, to the continuing dismay of the professionally tolerant)

  • westLOUDOUNer posted at 11:17 am on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    westLOUDOUNer Posts: 639

    If I read a "rabid partisan posting", do I need to get a shot for that? Should I be worried?

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 11:01 am on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    yep, definitely not worth holding my breath.

    Thank you for the usual reasoned reply! rotfl

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 10:48 am on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Thank goodness for the sake of the public employees her "service" to the county is over. Who would want to face someone like that with their jobs at stake?

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 10:39 am on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Classic Barbara Munsey.

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 9:59 am on Thu, Sep 26, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    Mr. McKeon, if you haven't moved here yet (are you registered here? :D ) I can understand you not being familiar with or aware of the fact that the LCGRC, having finished its charged work, has been disbanded. Sorry you, as a rabid partisan poster no longer have that to divert with, but there it is. Or perhaps, in your rabid partisan posting, you know and don't care, since it is such a convenient phrase to repeat for the benefit of online activism directed at LIVs. Whatever.

    My opinion is my own, and can you be more specific as to what is wrong with expressing agreement that in a transient area, caution is needed, but also regret that it can't be settled before the election?

    not holding my breath or anything for a reasoned reply, just wondering if you have an actual opinion instead of the stock soundbyte slams.

  • LARSELE posted at 10:49 pm on Wed, Sep 25, 2013.

    LARSELE Posts: 25

    Two years ago I received political material addressed to registered voters at my address. I queried the campaign as to what data base they were using and learned it was the CURRENT voter rolls.

    I took the material to the polling place on Election Day to register a complaint. They took the information and promises to forward it to the Registrar.

    The following January I met with Judy Brown to follow up and discovered that even though I was there to swear these two individuals did NOT live at the address of record I was told these names needed to be 'inactive' for 2 Federal elections so the faux concerns about legitimate voters being disenfranchised in this article are totally bogus and could aid voter fraud.

    Recently a canvasses from the same campaign of two years ago knocked on my door to verify the voters at my address,,,the SAME two bogus names are still on current voter roles.

    The fact that Judy Brown doesn't want to "move too quickly" doesn't surprise me at all but Loudoun voter rolls are fraught with opportunities for fraud and this law is just a drop in the bucket of what should be done.

  • Cmckeonjr posted at 7:13 pm on Wed, Sep 25, 2013.

    Cmckeonjr Posts: 345

    Is that the official position of the Government Reform Commission or just Barbara Munsey going off on her own?

  • Barbara Munsey posted at 5:56 pm on Wed, Sep 25, 2013.

    Barbara Munsey Posts: 383

    I can appreciate the need for caution, with the number of people who move in and out of this area, but with over 2000 flagged as registered in more than one place, it's a shame they don't seem to have the resources to make sure until after this year's election.