Nevada republican voter Roxanne Rubin was arrested on Friday after she allegedly tried to vote twice—becoming one of the first people to reportedly commit voter fraud in this historic election. It seems that all of those voter suppression laws on the GOP's side should reflect more on the activities of their own voter base—and not the disenfranchised Americans they are targeting.
Ruben was escorted out of the Riviera in cuffs on Friday, a couple of days after the reported incident where she had tried to vote twice in the same election for Mitt Romney. Taking advantage of early voting, the republican voter triggered an alert when her name showed up on the database when she attempted to vote twice in the same day at two different Las Vegas locations.
It's reported that there doesn't appear to be any conspiracy involved in this attempt, meaning it's an isolated incident. Though it's probably safe to say that Roxanne Rubin isn't the only republican voter taking drastic measures at the ballot boxes. After all, the conservatives appear to be the ones so desperately wanting Obama out of the White House, and in the case of this Nevada voter it seems that those drastic measures include committing felony crimes while drawing negative attention to the entire party.
The woman claims that the database is mistaken, but judging by the reaction of officials in this case, that just doesn't seem likely. The state of Nevada is cracking down on voter fraud, and it's refreshing to see that the people being caught for committing this crime are none other than those in support of suppression laws.
Photo: Las Vegas Sun
Crime analyst & profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on Huffington Post or Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case. You can follow her on Twitter @TheRealChelseaH or contact her via her personal blog. Fan the Facebook page for updates on missing persons cases, issues in civil rights and details on Chelsea's fiction works.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 61 ( 1 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
Thanks for the post.
how unsurprising
The Democrats raised the issue, & requested that she step down, presumably in an effort to clean up the ranks & send a message to others within the party that might try the same thing.
The Republicans, rather than to recognize the act for what it was, & use the opportunity to make a pledge to do the same within their party in a bi-partisan effort, decided to take advantage of it for their own gain, promoting anger, & fear.
Renee, it appears that you pointed at the incident for more or less the same reason--how is that right or helpful, as opposed to wrong & detrimental?
Wow, John, nice. Are there any words you don't feel comfortable using, no matter how offensive?
I think this is great, "Why do they always feel the need to respond with a your side is just as bad or worse when the action is indefensible?" I guess we all do that...... I feel like everytime I post, someone brings up George Bush. It is quite an interesting phenomenon ;-)
I don't think anyone was referring to you personally by asking why no one on the right was trying to defend the voter fraud; I don't know anyone that would think you would defend it; it is hard not to feel like resorting to pointing out the wrongs of the opposing side, but the timing was pretty funny--I'd think it's better to laugh about it :-)
There are certain members, on both sides, who will always respond by trying to point out that the other side is as bad or worse--refusing to engage in a reasonable conversation, but preferring to insult, demean, & make personal attacks. It's frustrating for everyone, & nice that you recognized it...maybe we can actually get somewhere if we can keep trying :-).
The smugness should be minimal.
Actually, libtard "quality" voters tend to stand on the street praising their Obamaphones. Yeah, nothing says "quality" like being a sponge on society.
(uh no)
If these people were arrested and charged (and they were) then they are already being prosecuted -- and not by Obama because he's not a prosecutor.
good grief....
I can tell you for certain though, that if you check the records of the names in the link shared above and you will find that many are still tied up in the court process. Depending on the states they're being prosecuted in, criminal records are public record.
I love tonight
Next?
So let's try again.
Do you think it is OK for Democrats to misbehave at the polls, but not Republicans?
I think it is wrong for both, but I am able to think objectively.
If the person is incapable of understanding the question the first time, or willfully deflecting, I am going to call them on it and rephrase the question in the way they may better understand it.
I will answer a question and defend by point of view now matter how the issue is brought up. The difference, of course, would be that I would be intellectually honest, unlike our friend Chelsea. I am not sure if her deficiency is the intellectual part or the honest part, but I suppose the effect is the same.
If "that" crowd can carry on a conversation without shedding tears about the meanies on the internet, I think I might fit in with them, whoever they are.
The bottom line is if you act like a fool I will treat you as such. Thanks for making it clear early who I am dealing with.
It has nothing to do with shedding tears, and everything to do with considering who you would or wouldn't like to converse with. When you sign up and start offering up ad hominem attacks straight out of the gate, you make that decision an easy one.
"The bottom line is if you act like a fool I will treat you as such."
Which outlines the responses to you in this thread.
1) Only a partisan lunatic would claim that my still-unanswered questions to Ms. Deficiency would be considered on the level of a screaming person on the subway. I didn't even use all caps.
2) You should not use terms like "ad hominem attack" until you understand them. An ad hominem attack is one which is unrelated to the argument. For example, if I said Deficiency misspelled a word or used improper grammar and therefore does not have the right to condemn a person who tries to vote twice. My assertion is that she is intellectually dishonest. I back this up with the fact that she seems to think misbehavior at the polls is OK for her group but not for others. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
3) It is a fortunate thing that since she ran away and hid, you stepped up to be her hero. Good for you.
It's like watching a sideshow in't it?
2) It would appear that it's actually you that doesn't understand what an ad hominem attack is....
...which is exactly what you've done here from the jump, and has nothing to do with being unrelated to the topic.
3) I do enjoy schooling internet trolls, so thanks for stepping up to the plate. Class dismissed. Oops, my bad - you never had any to begin with.
Indeed. And the performer needs a new act because this one's getting old.
So what you are saying is your intellectual dishonesty and your perception of right and wrong is irrelevant because of the results of a Presidential election? I pity you.