In a surprising move, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced six voter fraud indictments just weeks before election day in further evidence that voter fraud does happen despite the claims that Democrats have made to the contrary.
The Ohio Capital-Journal reported that on Tuesday, Attorney General Yost revealed that his office had issued six indictments for voter fraud. These charges were propelled into motion following referrals from Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose earlier in the year, drawing attention to the integrity and timing of such announcements close to a crucial presidential election.
The indictments, while based on historical voting anomalies ranging from 2008 to 2020, call into question less than 1% of over 600 such cases reviewed for potential illegal voting activities.
The allegations implicate individuals Ramesh Patel, Lorinda Miller, Nicholas Fontaine, Ahmed Aden, Van Thuy Cooper, and Maria Dearaujo, touching on issues primarily concerning minor infractions and non-citizen participation in votes.
Yost’s announcement underscores a reality in electoral processes—occasional errors and rare instances of intentional fraud.
The six people charged, Yost suggests, likely won’t face severe penalties due to the minor nature of their alleged crimes, which could lead to a maximum of 18 months in prison and five years probation under current statutes governing fourth-degree felonies.
Amidst the legal proceedings, Yost voiced concerns about the misuse of resources on outdated voter registration cases.
“I’m thinking that I don’t want to pull people off of officer-involved critical incident investigations, child rapists, murderers to be chasing voter registration cases for past elections,” Yost remarked, highlighting the need to prioritize more significant criminal threats.
Critics of the timing of these indictments question the impact on voter perceptions. With the national election merely weeks away, experts like David Becker express skepticism about the necessity of such announcements at this juncture, suggesting that it could unnecessarily stir public distrust.
“Why wouldn’t they wait until after the election to hold a press conference to announce an indictment?” Becker posited, reflecting a common concern about potential influences on voter sentiment.
The accused span different backgrounds, with the alleged offenses reflecting a broad spectrum of voter registration errors and mistaken voting attempts by non-citizens.
For example, Yost illustrated, “Think about a speeding ticket. You are stopped for going 52 miles an hour. You thought it was a 50-mile-an-hour zone. The cop tells you it’s 35. Doesn’t make any difference that you didn’t intend to speed, that you didn’t know that you were speeding, or even that you were reckless or negligent about it — you’re just liable, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Despite the potential fallout, Yost emphasizes the sacredness of voting rights and the thoroughness of their investigative procedures to preserve electoral integrity.
“I got these referrals in August, and here we are in mid-October, and we have indictments,” Yost said, noting the quick turnaround in addressing the referrals from LaRose. This rapid response underscores an effort to swiftly tackle allegations without allowing them to linger through election cycles.
However, Yost is contemplating a conversation with the Secretary of State to refine the focus of future investigations. “I need to have a sit down with the secretary of state about the value of those cases where there was no voting — I think that we ought to be focusing on the voting,” he explained, signaling a potential shift in how electoral misconduct is approached under his watch.
The Attorney General hopes these indictments serve as a deterrent to potential electoral misconduct. “I think this should enable everybody to take a deep breath and be more confident that our elections are, in fact, safe and secure, and the noncitizens are not going to vote,” Yost affirmed.
As the legal and political narratives unfold, the community’s reaction remains mixed. Some constituents feel reassured by the proactive measures, while others view the timing as a political strategy impacting voter sentiment. The unfolding legal processes will likely continue to shape public opinion as the nation approaches a significant electoral decision.