Someone, somewhere, had the brilliant idea that a good strategy for victory in elections is to limit those who can vote -- to, in effect, choose their own electors. It worked quite well in Florida in 2000 with the purged "felon" rolls. And the goal was not just to limit voters, but to whip up public fears about those who might vote illegally (coming from the group of usual suspects: minority voters, the poor, non-English speakers, undocumented workers) and thereby grease the slides for legislation that would supposedly catch transgressors but also net other "less desirable" voters -- at least less desirable to those trying to manipulate the system.

So, evidently, U.S. attorneys were pressured to come up with cases of voter fraud to bolster the case for the disenfranchising legislation. Trouble is, there's just not that much incidence of voter fraud. As a number of reports (see ProjectVote's new report, "The Politics of Voter Fraud") have concluded, intentional voter fraud doesn't have an impact on our elections.

Does this sound familiar? You tell a lie for political purposes, and then find yourself committing illegal or unethical acts in an attempt to bolster the lie. Then there's a cover-up, and then... sometimes... there are convictions.

(See also Tova Wang's excellent blog on this subject: http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=TN& sort=date)