A primary election was held on August 3, 1940, and ballots used therein were destroyed about October 17, 1940, which is permitted by Kentucky law any time after 15 days following an election. The permanent registration system in Kentucky requires precinct clerks to make a current record, between annual elections, of all voters in the precinct. These records were examined by the investigator of the special committee. These records disclosed that in a number of Harlan County precincts there were more votes recorded than there were registered names or ballots issued for these precincts. The investigation by the committee is believed to have contributed materially to the elimination of vote buying, coercion, and "repeat voting" in counties in which committee investigators were active during the 1940 election, as shown by a comparison of results of this election and those of previous years. (3) West Virginia. COMPLAINT Complaints were received from several sources alleging that widespread vote buying and illegal marking of ballots would occur on primary election day in various sections of West Virginia. STATEMENT OF FACTS In view of the numerous complaints, committee investigators were assigned to West Virginia to observe activities at polling places at several locations, principally Fairmont and Charleston and suburbs of these cities. Investigators observed that sample ballots were marked for voters, directing them how regular ballots should be marked, and upon completion of voting, payments were made by persons stationed near polling places. Affidavits from several individuals were obtained for committee files alleging that $1 was paid to them for voting in accordance with wishes of political workers. It was charged that such votes favored the candidacy of H. G. Kump and Carl Andrews, candidates for Senator and Governor, respectively, in the Democratic primaries. In addition to the evidence obtained regarding the buying of votes, committee investigators observed other irregular practices, including failure of election officials to enforce the law providing that no electioneering shall take place within a 60-foot distance from polling places. Detailed instructions contained in the State law as to procedure for counting ballots was not observed; there were indications of fraudulent practices in connection with the certification of total votes; polling places were found closed and election officials found to have left, although returns from such polling places were not received at official headquarters for a considerable time after closing of polling locations. Allegations of refusal by election officials to accept qualified voters were received but no specific evidence was presented. Affidavits were obtained by committee investigators indicating alleged alterations by election officials of ballots which had been previously deposited in ballot boxes. Provisions of the West Virginia law requiring officers of both parties to be present during the counting of ballots were found to be violated. In one precinct it was found that two sets of clerks had separated and had left the precinct polling place, contrary to State law, presumably to speed the counting of votes. Persons offering to file affidavits gave oral testimony to committee investigators alleging that envelopes in which ballots were delivered to the proper officials showed evidence of having had the seals broken and in some instances were resealed in a clumsy manner. Another instance was reported to committee investigators showing that ballot envelope seals had been broken prior to receipt by proper authorities and no effort had been made to repair broken seals. Information was also furnished investigators that in a precinct located at Glen Elk, near Clarksburg, ballots were taken outside the polling place and marked, that in the Chestnut Street polling place in Clarksburg voters exhibited their marked ballots to the Democratic clerk before filing and then received a card from the clerk entitling them to be paid for voting as instructed. CONCLUSION Observations of investigators indicated laxity on the part of election officials in performance of duties and in some instances apparent conspiracy to violate provisions of State election laws by certain election officials in permitting illegal marking of ballots and participation in the purchase of votes. 9. ELECTION CAMPAIGNS IN VARIOUS STATES (a) ABSENTEE VOTING IRREGULARITIES IN GENERAL ELECTION (1) Kansas. (See III, B, 5, c.) (2) West Virginia. (See III, B, 8, e, (3).) (3) Iowa. (See III, B, 9, a, (3).) (b) OTHER VOTING IRREGULARITIES IN GENERAL ELECTION (1) Iowa. COMPLAINT Complaint was received that there had been election frauds in Polk County, Iowa, in the election of November 5, 1940. STATEMENT OF FACTS Interviews with Democratic officials in Polk County, in which is located the city of Des Moines, indicated that properly registered voters were denied the right to vote in the election of November 5, 1940; it was also indicated that there was improper use of absentee ballots and interference with voters at the polls. It was charged that Republican officials on city and county pay rolls aided and abetted irregular practices in connection with the election. Interviews with numerous witnesses indicated that hundreds of properly registered voters were denied the right to vote in the general election when registration cards were missing from precinct binders, commonly known as poll books. These cards serve to identify eligible voters. According to statements made to investigators a preponderance of missing cards were those of registered Democrats. A former attorney general of Iowa had ruled that a voter of several years standing would be permitted to exercise the voting franchise even though his registration card was not in the official binder providing that he filed a sworn affidavit of his right to vote at a particular election. On November 5, 1940, election day, at the request of the Republican county auditor, the present attorney general of the State of Iowa rendered an opinion at about noontime, which held that the absence of a registration card in a poll book was prima facie evidence that voters whose cards were missing from the poll book were not entitled to vote, and that affidavits were not satisfactory proof of registration. In view of these two opinions, which were in conflict, considerable confusion existed at the polls on the recent election day. The Democrats took the position that the former attorney general's opinion should control and the Republicans asserted that the ruling of the present attorney general should apply. Evidence was obtained that in certain precincts voters were allowed to make affidavits and were permitted to vote. In other precincts voters were denied the right to file affidavits and denied the right to vote. Specific instances of interference by Republican election officials with electors in voting booths were furnished to committee investigators. Voters were said to have been interfered with by persons having no connection with the election board and who were without any legal right to be present in voting booths. In Polk County voting machine tabulations indicated that approximately 90,000 votes were cast on November 5. Five thousand absentee ballots were cast in the same election. These figures were compared with the tabulations of the city of St. Louis, Mo., where it was found there were 400,000 regular votes and approximately 400 absentee ballots accepted. Information was received by committee investigators that notaries public had solicited votes of indigents and of persons who expected to be absent from Polk County on election day. One instance was cited wherein a notary public approached a candidate for the United States House of Representatives and offered to deliver approximately 400 votes on absentee ballots for that candidate provided a certain consideration would be offered. In one precinct there was a total voting machine tabulation of 1,116 votes and 74 additional absentee ballots tabulated. Of this number 48 were straight Republican, 7 straight Democratic, and 19 split ballots. The regular vote in this precinct showed that a large majority of votes were Democratic. Specific instances were furnished to investigators wherein straight Democratic ballots were mailed to the county auditor, but were never received or tabulated in precincts from which the absentee voters were registered. Evidence was also obtained by investigators showing that in 1 precinct election officials had certified that a total of 996 persons had voted. In that precinct the total vote for President was 245, the total vote for county clerk, 149, and the total for recorder, 161. The reason for failure to tabulate the remaining votes was not explained. In another precinct it was found that 591 straight Democratic votes and 324 straight Republican votes were not included in returns from that precinct. This would have materially affected the official count in that precinct. Similar situations were found in other precincts. A canvass was made by an official board on November 12, 1940, and certain errors in vote tabulations were brought to the attention of the board by Democratic officials. The board ruled that tabulations made by election judges, although apparently in error, could not be changed by the canvassing board as it had no authority to alter totals presented and sworn to by election judges. It was stated that corrections in such tabulations could be made only through institution of an official election contest. (2) West Virginia. COMPLAINT Complaint was made during the preelection campaign of 1940 involving the right of residents of Washington, D. C., to cast their votes in West Virginia as absentee voters. It was claimed that in certain counties of West Virginia the registration lists for voting purposes exceeded the total adult population as reflected in advance figures of the 1940 United States census. Ancillary complaints were disclosed during an investigation of the above matter to the effect that names of Republican voters in Charleston improperly had been stricken from the registration rolls. Mine operators near Charleston threatened to discharge some of their employees who were Democratic election officials and because of their support of Democratic candidates. STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of a considerable number of names of persons claiming to have the right of absentee voting was received by the special committee from the complainant. The investigation of the complaint revealed the existence in Washington, D. C., of The Ballot Bureau or West Virginia Democratic Club which had two offices in the city. This club acted as an agency to help Washington residents with a right to vote in that State to register as West Virginia voters. A complete list of absentee voters in Washington is maintained by The Ballot Bureau. No absentee ballots were secured or distributed by The Ballot Bureau, applications for which were made directly by the absentee voter to the appropriate county clerk in West Virginia. The ballots were to be sent to the voters who would execute and return them to the county clerk. A portion of the list of absentee voters was checked as to Washington address and these persons were interviewed by an investigator of the special committee. The entire list of names was not checked, the investigation being terminated after this sampling process indicated the status of the absentee voters in Washington. The charge as to excessive registration was based on a comparison between the advance figures of the United States Census for 1940 and 1940 registration lists. Deductions from Census lists were made to cover an estimated number of persons up to 20 years of age. Com plainant had no other evidence in support of his contention that there was excessive registration in West Virginia. With respect to the charge of threatened dismissal of mine workers acting as Democratic election officials, in a few instances there were disclosed general statements by employers warning their workers against political activities. No disturbances were noted by investitors on election day nor were there reprisals against any Democratic election officials. On the day before the general election it was discovered that a limited number of Republican voters in one precinct in Charleston improperly had been stricken from registration rolls. Immediate court action followed with the result that election officials were ordered to allow such persons to vote irrespective of deletion of their names from registration rolls. CONCLUSIONS (1) No absentee voters living in Washington, D. C., were disclosed improperly to have registered or voted in West Virginia in 1940; (2) Charges of registration in excess of adult population of West Virginia counties was sustained only by estimates of the number of persons under 21 years of age; (3) A few mine employers warned their Democratic election official employees against political activities; (4) State court orders were obtained the day before election permitting the voting franchise to a few Republicans improperly stricken from the registration rolls in Charleston. 10. ABUSE OF CONGRESSIONAL FRANKING PRIVILEGE There was called to the attention of members of the special commitTM tee informally the matter of alleged improper exercise of the congres sional franking privilege. This privilege is enjoyed by members of both the United States Senate and of the United States House of Representatives. It was intended to enable these elected officials to keep their constituents abreast of the course of public business. Under the Federal laws governing the use of the congressional frank a Member of either the House of Representatives or the Senate is allowed to send through the United States mails without postage copies of the Congressional Record or of any portion thereof as well as departmental or official correspondence. According to informal reports to the committee legitimate material for such free transmission was prepared and placed in official envelopes of a Member of Congress and envelopes were left unsealed. The loose envelopes together with their legitimate contents subsequently were said to have been turned over to persons engaged in the conduct of 1940 political campaigns. The latter persons were said to have inserted in these envelopes additional material which was of a purely political nature and not entitled to free transmission through the mails. Thereafter the loose envelopes were said to have been sealed and mailed under the congressional frank. Neither the details of this alleged practice nor accurate information as to the perpetrators thereof was furnished to the committee. In every instance bearers of this information were encouraged to secure |