Lieberman Hired Known Voter Fraud Perpetrator for GOTV

It's starting to come out in a piece by Courant journalists Daniel Goren and Mark Pazniokas.

A Hartford Democrat who was fined and barred from involvement in absentee ballot activities last year is working for a company hired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's campaign to do voter outreach in the city - including the distribution of absentee ballot applications.

Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 in July 2005 and ordered not to distribute absentee ballot applications or to assist voters with the ballots for two years, after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found that she had forged a voter's signature in the 2004 election.

Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.

"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."

But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont.

Other sources at the building said she called back a week later to try to "sweet talk" her way into the facility.

Sherry Brown, manager of the Lieberman campaign, said she was unaware of any inappropriate handling of absentee ballot applications.

"If there is any evidence of wrongdoing by individuals working for our campaign either directly or indirectly, then [that] should be brought to us and the proper authorities," she said. "I have no knowledge of anything like that happening."

Brown said Urban Voters was hired to help with voter contacts in Hartford, including the distribution of absentee ballot applications.

She said she was under the impression that the company was run by Holloway's daughter, city Councilwoman rJo Winch.

Brown knew Holloway had an elections enforcement issue, but she believed it had been settled. She said the Lieberman campaign did not, however, do any background checks on any company hired to do campaign work.

Political machines are impressive, but at their core they involve people doing illegal things for small amounts of money and candidates looking the other way so they can benefit.  Campaign manager Sherry Brown and Senator Lieberman knew exactly what they were getting by hiring this firm, and they did it for the same reason that they put a $387,000 slush fund on the street without disclosing where it went.

This was the Lieberman GOTV operation, in the primary.  And now it appears that it's the GOTV operation in the general as well.



Display:


Why no new polls on this race? (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/31/974 9/9726

It's awfully strange.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:17:35 AM EST

Re: Why no new polls on this race? (none / 0)

Here's one from Rasmussen:

"In the Senate race, Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont 48% to 40% (see crosstabs). Early this month, Lieberman led 50% to 40%."


by tremayne on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very experience urban political operative (none / 0)

Prenzina has LOTS of experience with absentee voter fraud. The legally provable piece is only the tip of the iceberg.


by councilman on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:25:36 AM EST

Hire more legal help (none / 0)

Joan Andrews, director of legal affairs and enforcement for the commission, said her agency has not received an official complaint about Holloway this election season.

Maybe Lamont should put some money into getting the best legal help he can. Also a PR guy who can nag Chris Matthews and others into airing these.


by Pravin on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:13:57 AM EST

Re: Hire more legal help (none / 0)

Maybe any one of us should log a complaint.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:47:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lieberman Hired Known Crook (none / 0)

The CT Party would have this going for them if it weren't for Lieberman pretending to be a Democrat. In Daily Kos, by Bill in Portland Maine "CHEERS to the New Castle News. The Pennsylvania newspaper's candidate-endorsement headline says it all: We urge you to vote for Democrats---period." "What do Casey and Altmire have going for them? In a word, they are Democrats. Usually, a party label is a minor factor when it comes to our candidate endorsements. But not this time around." Lieberman pulled that rug from CT Dems for the House. Now he's cheating with a slush fund and hiring vote fraud criminals. C'mon. When will the senate Dems be sickened by him? When is enough enough for senators in our party? It's past time to step on Joe and rally for Ned.
by mrobinsong on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:19:53 AM EST

Absentee ballots--the new Diebold (none / 0)

Republicans everywhere including MD are encouraging absentee ballots.  

That is where Dems would lose.


by jasmine on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:52:24 AM EST

Re: Absentee ballots--the new Diebold (none / 0)

Dems are as well though...


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems a dollar short and a day late (none / 0)

Dems have been losing via absentee ballots forever.

Absentee ballot campaigns are legal and important to victory, just as voter registration. This is part of the GOP's 72 day campaign; they get started early, plan, print and mail absentee ballot applications and support them with phones and in the streets.

They are beating us in early voting--not, as has been suggested as some kind of Diebold conspiracy, since most early voting is done with paper ballots--but simply by out hustling us in the field.

In 1982, L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley lost the Calif. gubnatorial election to George Deukmejian, not in the polling places, where unions and Dem volunteers did a good job as usual, but in the absentee ballots, which went 70% GOP primarily because Bradley and the Dems spent millions on everything else by not a dime on absentee ballot campaigning.

And we had been getting waxed every two years in the absentee ballots for as long before that as I can remember.

Why in the hell do we have a September Fund instead of a July fund? And why, like the forlorn Brooklyn Dodgers, do we have to wait until next year?


by stevehigh on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:14:06 AM EST

News peg and a human face for the slush fund story (3.00 / 1)

Until now, the Lieberman slush fund story has been a bit legalistic and dry. Now there's a human face--Prenzina Holloway's--to put in front of a camera.


  1. Nixon paid for the Watergate break-in with secret cash.
  2. Campaigns can spend no more than $100 in cash per individual and are required to keep a log. Why won't Holy Joe show his log to, for example, the New York Times?
  3. The next step after forging a name to an absentee ballot application is forging a name to an absentee ballot itself.
  4. How many bottles of cheap white port can you buy with $22,000 a day? And how many votes?

Holy Joe has a hired a criminal to work on the absentee ballot drive even though she has been legally barred from doing so. She just now lied about what she is doing.

Does her moral turpitude extend to lying but not to vote stealing? A photo of a forged ballot would make great television, and that's why there are undoubtedly people working on this story right now.

The media has a grave responsibility, which ABC News exercised commendably in the Foley affair, to tell the voters what in the hell is going on out there. Jennifer Medina has already written about the Lieberman cash in the NYT and is likely to follow up.

There's little doubt that newspapers and tv stations will shine some more light on the Lieberman slush fund campaign and watch the roaches scuttle.

It's interesting to wonder who will lead on it. The Washington Post, to my knowledge, has only run a paragraph from the original AP story about the Lamont FEC complaint.

Prenzina Holloway gives the slush fund story a human face. The ghosts of Nixon and Tammany give a reason to cover it.


by stevehigh on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:37:59 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.