A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
Loveland Reporter-Herald, May 28, on the use of databases to cut down on voter fraud:
When a report showed that thousands of registered voters in Florida were, in fact, dead, it played directly into the suspicions that some have about the prevalence of voter fraud.
You see, some people—on both sides of the political debate—believe the only way their opponents can win is through cheating.
The interesting supplemental fact, however, to the dead voter report is the fact that no cases of voter fraud have been documented directly from the revelation.
When Florida lawmakers authorized the expansion of database searches for voter registration purposes, they put into place a mechanism that would produce exactly this result: finding voters who had died in other states but whose passing was not previously noted by local elections officials. In Florida, that’s an all-too-common occurrence, because many older voters live in other states during the summer months but have Florida addresses come November, when Election Day arrives.
What the showing from Florida reveals is that increased linking of databases will help to clean up voter registration rolls much more efficiently for cases where people have multiple addresses or part-time residences. States such as Arizona and Texas also face many instances of split residencies.
The discovery that some people on a voter registration roll are no longer living or are newly naturalized citizens should not be taken as direct evidence of fraud; in fact, the discoveries should be celebrated for the fact that it means election officials are staying on top of their duties to ensure those who are eligible to vote may do so, and those who would be tempted to cheat have far fewer means to do so.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, May 26, on food stamp fraud:
More than 46 million Americans get federal food stamp benefits, a compelling indicator of the difficult economic times facing the nation.
The vast majority are legitimately needy, but a very small number are cheating—they sell their benefit cards for cash, which is illegal.
U.S. Department of Agriculture undersecretary Kevin Concannon last week unveiled a proposed new rule that would give states broader latitude to investigate those selling or trading their cards. The proposed changes could—if states take advantage of them—further reduce fraud in this important nutrition safety net program.
It comes on the heels of other efforts the USDA has undertaken to go after crooked groceries and convenience stores that engage in fraud.
These initiatives are important. Not only are we talking real money—fraud comprises an estimated $750 million a year out of a $75 billion food stamp program—but a healthy pursuit of those engaging in fraud will reassure taxpayers.
Concannon, the USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, visited with the Post editorial board earlier this week and spoke about the ways in which investigators can detect illegal activity.
Food stamps, issued through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are issued via electronic benefit cards.
The switch from paper coupons, Concannon told us, has helped to reduce misuse. That’s because debit cards leave a digital trail that investigators can examine for suspicious activity.
Numerous charges made in round numbers, for instance, could indicate someone is in cahoots with a crooked store, trading benefits for cash.
In the first quarter of 2012, the USDA sanctioned more than 225 stores and disqualified more than 350. Most of those are smaller stores, Concannon said.
The rule change announced Thursday would give states greater power to investigate people who ask for four or more replacement benefit cards in a year. Those who sell benefit cards for cash have to get new ones in order to continue getting benefits. The rule change would empower states to hold up cards for those who need frequent replacements until state authorities can talk to them.
In Colorado, Scott Barnette, manager of the benefits debit card program, said this issue has been on the state’s radar screen for several years. He said the state Department of Human Services welcomes the additional leverage and clarity in the new rule. The state plans a more consistent approach among counties in rooting out food stamp fraud.
The additional scrutiny in Colorado and across the nation is welcome. For more than four decades, the food stamp program has been a lifeline for people who need help putting food on the table. Rigorous and successful efforts to ensure the program is being used properly will only strengthen public resolve to support it.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, May 29, on the shooting death of Jason Kemp:
The decision to dismiss criminal charges against Colorado State Patrol Cpl. Kirk Firko, who was involved in the 2010 shooting death of Jason Kemp, is understandable even if it is troubling.
One can understand District Attorney Pete Hautzinger’s thinking on the Firko case. Just last month, a Mesa County jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the major charges against CSP Trooper Ivan “Gene” Lawyer, the man who actually shot Kemp. Hautzinger was undoubtedly correct when he said, “There’s virtually no likelihood another jury will convict the person who opened the door.”
But it is troubling, nonetheless. The fact remains that Kemp, an unarmed man who was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, was shot to death in his own home by police officers. And, according to expert testimony at Lawyer’s trial, those police officers didn’t have legitimate probable cause to attempt to force their way into Kemp’s home based on the crime for which they suspected him.
Although Firko will not face trial in state criminal court for Kemp’s death, other questions remain.
Hautzinger prompted some of them when he turned transcripts from the grand jury that indicted Lawyer and Firko over to federal authorities. Will the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice decide there was a criminal civil rights violation in Kemp’s death? And therefore, will they pursue federal prosecution of either Lawyer or Firko?
Regardless of what federal officials decide to do, what are Colorado State Patrol authorities doing with respect to training for their officers? Testimony during Lawyer’s trial, including statements by Lawyer himself, suggested CSP officers were given little training in the Fourth Amendment’s protections against illegal searches and seizures and the right of people to be secure in their homes. Lawyer even said he was criticized for being too easy on a previous DUI suspect. Is the CSP planning to change its training and operational procedures? To date, the organization has been silent on that question.
Additionally, we wonder if there should be better boundaries and less overlap between state and local law enforcement, especially when it comes to traffic incidents. The Kemp case, after all, took place entirely in a quiet residential neighborhood in unincorporated Mesa County on the Redlands. Was it really necessary to have state police officers in what they apparently deemed was hot pursuit of a DUI suspect trying to force the issue with someone who had simply gone into his house and closed his doors?
As we have argued before, officers with the Mesa County Sheriff’s Department and the Grand Junction Police Department have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to handle, with patience and avoidance of violence, incidents in which suspects are barricaded inside buildings. Shouldn’t CSP officers pull back in such cases, and allow others better trained in handling such incidents to deal with them?
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, May 29, on unemployment payments:
During the past legislative session, Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West, successfully sponsored a bill that will bring better accountability to unemployment benefit payments.
The system certainly needs better accountability. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has operated a slap-dash system of checks on those receiving benefits.
Recipients are required to call an automated phone service every other week to certify that they are searching for a job. And the department takes a sample of 300 names on the unemployment rolls and asks them for their work search records for a one- or two-week period.
Of those 300 claimants, 10 are randomly selected by the state to verify their work search contacts, contacting the employers listed to confirm that the claimant did a real work search with them. Two other names are pulled from a sample of claimants who have received a prior “warning letter” to determine if they are really trying.
While the department claims that most claimants from these small samples are meeting the requirements, those who do not are sent either a warning or a disallowance of benefits for the period audited.
But consider. As of January, 102,070 individuals received some type of weekly unemployment payment. But that sample of 300 is only about three-tenths of 1 percent of those getting checks—hardly enough to verify that most people are looking for jobs.
Then there’s the fact that many employers say that people who are “looking for work” come in with sloppy or dirty clothes, obviously going through the motions but not really wanting to work—at least until their benefits run out. Other employers report that laid-off workers don’t answer the phone to return to work while the unemployment benefits are rolling in.
We certainly don’t begrudge benefits from those who can’t find work. But it’s obvious that many don’t respond to our “Help Wanted” ads on Sundays when those jobs go begging.
So we are hoping that Rep. Swerdfeger’s legislation will help shore up the system. Taking “free” money when there are jobs available is nothing but freeloading.
Editorial:
