James O’Keefe’s Voter-Fraud Sting Comes With Felony Charges

James O’Keefe’s investigation of Minnesota voting has produced a new document: felony charges against James O’Keefe. This is not the kind of exclusive most newsrooms put in the recruitment brochure.

Hennepin County prosecutors charged O’Keefe and Cam Higby with unlawful voting and identity theft on Wednesday, over their conduct during the August primary. The allegations concern using registered voters’ names without permission while approaching election workers for ballots. NBC News reported that neither man immediately responded to its requests for comment. Charges are not convictions. A prosecution still has to prove its case, even when the defendants helpfully brought cameras.

CBS News Minnesota reports that the activists said they were testing the state’s voter-vouching law. That law permits a registered voter to attest to another person’s residence. It does not authorize borrowing an existing voter’s identity for a content project. There is an important distinction between checking whether the door is locked and announcing that someone else’s name entitles you to the furniture.

The most important qualification is that the group did not go ahead and cast illegal votes. Nobody should convert these charges into evidence that fraudulent ballots were counted. The alleged identity misrepresentation is itself the issue. A story about election integrity ought to retain enough integrity to explain what happened.

The real William Pomeranz, whose name O’Keefe used, told CBS that he learned about the video after receiving odd messages. He said poll workers reported the incident and he was able to vote that evening. From his perspective, the process worked. That is an inconvenient supporting character for a film about how the process does not work.

Pomeranz had not volunteered to become an undercover investigator’s borrowed identity. He was a voter trying to exercise his own right, a role that apparently did not come with script approval.

There are legitimate ways to scrutinize election procedures. Ask how the rules operate. Examine records. Interview officials and voters. Test public claims against the law. The method becomes considerably less illuminating when the supposed demonstration depends on doing something the law already forbids.

Otherwise, almost any institution can be exposed through the same rigorous technique. Walk into a library, falsely claim another person’s card and announce that libraries have failed to prevent you from saying a name. At some point, the audience is entitled to ask whether the newly discovered vulnerability is simply the investigator.

The activists used disguises they described as Muslim costumes, CBS reports. The theatrical choice supplied a ready-made image for viewers inclined to suspect immigrants or Muslims. It did not supply evidence that either group was committing voter fraud. A costume is a production decision, not a demographic finding.

The case now belongs in court, where allegations can be tested and the accused can answer them. Social-media view counts are not an evidentiary standard. Neither is the dramatic music that usually accompanies the revelation that someone recorded himself doing something.

For a project intended to expose the voting system, the closing credits now include the prosecutor’s office. The audience should wait for the legal outcome. It can already notice who supplied the footage.