FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Supreme Court blocks Republican voter intimidation tactic





handfleisch
http://www.truthout.org/101708R
Quote:


Justices Rule Against Ohio G.O.P. in Voting Case

Friday 17 October 2008

»

by: Adam Liptak and Ian Urbina, The New York Times

photo
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner attends a hearing in Columbus. (Photo: Kiichiro Sato/AP)

Washington - The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court's order requiring state officials in Ohio to supply information that would have made it easier to challenge prospective voters. The decision was a setback for Ohio Republicans, who had sued to force the Ohio secretary of state, a Democrat, to provide information about database mismatches to county officials.

The decision has the potential to affect as many as 200,000 of the 660,000 new voters who have been registered in Ohio since Jan. 1, according Social Security Administration and state election officials.

Those officials could use information to require voters to cast provisional ballots rather than regular ones. They could also allow partisan poll workers to challenge people on the lists. Given Democratic success in registering new voters this year, those actions would probably affect that party's supporters disproportionately.
{name here}
Well, they tried these tactics before (There was a documentary about it: Greg Palast's The Theft of 2008). It will be interesting how this will effect the outcome of the election if these tactics were indeed implemented.
ocalhoun
...Not sure how checking to make sure new voters are not fraudulent voters is 'intimidation'. If you're not a fraud, you have nothing to fear.
handfleisch
{name here} wrote:
Well, they tried these tactics before (There was a documentary about it: Greg Palast's The Theft of 2008). It will be interesting how this will effect the outcome of the election if these tactics were indeed implemented.


More in the news today: "a systematic purging procedure that's expressly prohibited by federal laws"

It's going to take an Obama landslide to overcome the Republican voter suppression rigging of this election, apparently.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/voter.suppression/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Quote:

Some voters 'purged' from voter rolls

* Story Highlights
* Kyla Berry got a letter saying to vote, she must prove she's a U.S. citizen
* She and others like her have been flagged for mismatched information
* Experts say lists of people with mismatches are being purged from voter rolls
* Cases like Berry's raise fears of potential vote suppression in crucial swing states
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
...Not sure how checking to make sure new voters are not fraudulent voters is 'intimidation'. If you're not a fraud, you have nothing to fear.


I agree. I think they were just trying to make sure that only those legally entitled to vote are the ones who indeed are voting. With all the apparent voter registration fraud perpetrated by organizations like ACORN, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.

I think the OP's title is just intended to sensationalize the issue.
handfleisch
I agree it's a sensation to see obvious, ham-fisted manipulation to inhibit voting by non-Republican constituencies. Like when 50,000 voters being purged from the voter rolls in a swing state. Or when Karl Rove proposes a voter ID check (which will predominately affect low income people) in a state that never had one and yet never has had a known case of voter fraud.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I agree it's a sensation to see obvious, ham-fisted manipulation to inhibit voting by non-Republican constituencies. Like when 50,000 voters being purged from the voter rolls in a swing state. Or when Karl Rove proposes a voter ID check (which will predominately affect low income people) in a state that never had one and yet never has had a known case of voter fraud.


Never a known case of voter fraud? I find that hard to believe. Many states have an ID requirement and I don't think it has been an unfair burden, so I don't see why it would be such a huge issue to normalize this to ensure a fair and democratic election.

Some areas/states are seeing pretty obvious signs of voter registration fraud, as below.

Quote:

Voter rolls stuffed with dead and absent registrants

JACKSON, MS (WLBT) - Mississippi's voter situation is hard to believe. Places like Madison County have over 123% more registered voters than people over the age of 18.

Sue Sautermeister, First District Election Commissioner in Madison County, tried to purge the rolls, but ran into trouble when it was discovered it takes a vote of three of the five election commissioners and the purge cannot take place within 90 days of a federal election.

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann is the first to admit the situation with voter registration in this state is terrible.

"It is terrible," he says. "Combined with the fact that we don't have voter ID in Mississippi, anybody can show up at any poll that happens to know the people who have left town or died -- and go vote for them."

"Whenever we have a third party determined by payment, for example, as they did in Benton County -- 'walking-around' money -- and they determine what that vote is going to be, they've taken your vote, whether they may have voted like you would have or not, they've still thwarted the process and they've still have taken your vote away from you," added Hosemann.

Sue Sautermeister is working hard in the First District of Madison County to start a purging of the voter rolls as soon after the election as possible. She has file drawers full of names of people who haven't voted in years and are known to be dead.

"We have people who registered in 1965 who have never voted," she says. "We have 486 people (registered who are) over 105."

Hosemann says 190,000 new voters have registered for this election and he believes the turnout will be historic.



Source = http://www.wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s=9248483
handfleisch
JM, you dissemble. And are wrong.

Voter registration "fraud" is not voter fraud. Registration irregularities do not translate into voter fraud.

The "no known cases" of voter fraud I mentioned was to a state where you don't need an ID to vote, Indiana it might have been, but I can't track it down. How about you track it down?

In the last election, 3 million votes were cast without being counted. There was a lack of voting machines, especially in low-income areas, that led to people waiting in long lines to vote. Those are the tactics I'm talking about.

Interesting you say you want "to normalize this to ensure a fair and democratic election". I thought conservatives were into state's rights? "Normalization" is a Stalinist term, and Neocons have always reminded me of Stalinists.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Voter registration "fraud" is not voter fraud. Registration irregularities do not translate into voter fraud.


So are you saying some types of fraud are ok, but other are not? It makes sense to me that if people are trying to fraudulently register non-existent "voters" the next logical step is that they then try to complete the crime by casting fraudulent votes. This can easily happen in states that do not require any type of ID. If not, what would be the logic behind registering non-existent and/or dead people?

handfleisch wrote:
The "no known cases" of voter fraud I mentioned was to a state where you don't need an ID to vote, Indiana it might have been, but I can't track it down. How about you track it down?


If you have a point you're trying to make, you should make it. I'm not going to waste my time searching for some wacko article that may or may not exist.

handfleisch wrote:
In the last election, 3 million votes were cast without being counted. There was a lack of voting machines, especially in low-income areas, that led to people waiting in long lines to vote. Those are the tactics I'm talking about.


You're mixing apples and oranges here. The "article" you cite in your opening focuses on Ohio's Supreme Court decision not provide database mismatches to local officials. This is exactly what I'm talking about: People who may have fraudulently registered to vote. I don't see why providing information about "newly registered voters" who may actually be dead, registered in a different address/county/state, etc. to local officials so they can verify that the new person is genuine and intended to register is what you claim to be a "voter intimidation tactic."

I don't know why or why not any vote may have not been counted as you claim. Maybe they were fraudulently registered? I really don't know. BTW...I don't think anyone is suing to make lines longer. How exactly could someone employ that "tactic?"

handfleisch wrote:
Interesting you say you want "to normalize this to ensure a fair and democratic election". I thought conservatives were into state's rights?


A federal election by definition is a federal issue, not a state issue. Therefore, it's appropriate for the federal government.


handfleisch wrote:
"Normalization" is a Stalinist term, and Neocons have always reminded me of Stalinists.


Stick and stones...
I rather not get into name calling.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:


So are you saying some types of fraud are ok, but other are not? It makes sense to me that if people are trying to fraudulently register non-existent "voters" the next logical step is that they then try to complete the crime by casting fraudulent votes. This can easily happen in states that do not require any type of ID. If not, what would be the logic behind registering non-existent and/or dead people?


I find it hard to believe you're being serious. Are you not aware that false voter registrations don't translate into voter fraud? i.e. in the currently famous example "Mickey Mouse" being registered doesn't mean Mickey Mouse is going to show up and vote.

Whereas actually purging voters from the rolls, as they are doing now just before the election, has a very real impact on the election.

I don't know why you put the word article in quotes when I cite the NYTimes and CNN, especially since you are citing local TV news in remote regions as your sources.

You're not serious, are you?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I find it hard to believe you're being serious. Are you not aware that false voter registrations don't translate into voter fraud? i.e. in the currently famous example "Mickey Mouse" being registered doesn't mean Mickey Mouse is going to show up and vote.


No, I'm not aware of that voter registration doesn't translate into voter fraud. My belief is that the two go hand. Do you have any kind of proof to validate your claim that voter registration fraud doesn't translate into voter fraud? It seems like you're trying to split hairs, but I'm willing to hear you out.


handfleisch wrote:
Whereas actually purging voters from the rolls, as they are doing now just before the election, has a very real impact on the election.


Exactly how does making sure that fraudulent, dead and non-existent "voters" aren't in the voter logs going to have an impact on an election? If there has never been a "known case voter fraud" as you claim, it shouldn't be an issue, should it?


handfleisch wrote:
I don't know why you put the word article in quotes when I cite the NYTimes and CNN, especially since you are citing local TV news in remote regions as your sources.


I don't know if you're aware of this, but Jackson (where the story is from) is actually the capital of Mississippi, so I wouldn't exactly call it a "remote region." And why do you think there's something wrong with local TV news? They're local and are better informed as to what's going on. Most people rely on local news for information.

If you're trying to claim that the NY Times is impartial, just pick up a copy some time. Or read the article you cite. You can tell from the language that it's a hack job.


handfleisch wrote:
You're not serious, are you?


Yes, I am.
handfleisch
Quote:
JM wrote: No, I'm not aware of that voter registration doesn't translate into voter fraud. My belief is that the two go hand. Do you have any kind of proof to validate your claim that voter registration fraud doesn't translate into voter fraud? It seems like you're trying to split hairs, but I'm willing to hear you out.

If you're trying to claim that the NY Times is impartial, just pick up a copy some time. Or read the article you cite. You can tell from the language that it's a hack job.


handfleisch wrote:
You're not serious, are you?


JM wrote: Yes, I am.


Thank you for you message. I dislike hairsplitting and do not engage in it. The issue is very basic: Voter registration irregularities does not mean there are fraudulent votes cast. If someone registers as Mickey Mouse, he cannot vote as Mickey Mouse. etc etc. I don't know how to explain it more clearly. I don't have a link because that basic info has been in many articles, and it seems to me that if you have read any articles about this subject, you would already know and understand that.

Are you aware that a (Republican Bush appointee) state attorney general named David Iglesias was pressured to prosecute voter fraud against ACORN in these kinds of cases, and when he declined (because there was no evidence) he was fired?

Please read this interview with him, he is an honorable man, and his testimony will teach you a lot about this issue. I excerpt some of it below but go to the link and read the whole thing. It shows a lot about the corruption that has swamped the current Republican administration, to the shame of anyone but the most deluded wingnut.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/david-iglesias.html

Quote:

NOW: In retrospect, do you believe they were rightly motivated or do you believe they were motivated by partisan politics?

DI: They were clearly partisan. I can't reach into their minds and tell you what they were thinking but I am very disturbed to read accounts of what appears to be "voter caging" in Arkansas and other parts of the country. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that there's voter suppression going on throughout the country. I'm not sure if that happened in New Mexico. All I know is there was an attempted pressure put on me by local Republicans to indict voter fraud cases. I resisted that. I thought I was going to be protected by the Bush Justice Department and I was wrong in that assumption.

NOW: Did any state Republicans complain to the White House about you?

DI: They did ... I believe they spoke to Karl Rove. I know that Senator Pete Domenici called and complained to President Bush about my alleged lack of zealousness in voter fraud issues. But I didn't know any of this until after I left office. The hearings have resulted in thousands of pages of documents and emails and what not. And I've been able to find out what was going on behind my back.

NOW: Why do you think you were fired from your position?

DI: I've maintained from day one for illicit, partisan political reasons. Specifically not coming up with voter fraud cases, number one. And number two not rushing forward indictments involving prominent Democrats during the election cycle. And thirdly, and this is a possible, since the evidence, it hasn't rolled out yet. But my reserve military duty being gone from the office a lot, I was called an absentee landlord. I believe it's a combination of those three reasons.

NOW: How would you characterize the act of enlisting a U.S. attorney in activities that will benefit a political party at the polls?

DI: It's reprehensible. It's unethical. It's unlawful. It very well may be criminal ... I know it's a marked departure from prior administrations, both Republican and Democrat, who understood that U.S. attorneys, as chief federal law enforcement officials, have to stay out of politics. And that's consistent with what Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told me in the summer of 2001. When he said, "Politics cannot enter into your decision making as a US attorney."
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
The issue is very basic: Voter registration irregularities does not mean there are fraudulent votes cast.

You've made this claim that voter registration fraud doesn't lead to voter fraud several times, yet still have not been able to back it up at all. So I have to assume this is just your opinion.
I have to disagree, however. It just don't "pass the smell test" as the saying goes. As I've said before, my opinion is that if someone is going to commit the crime of voter registration fraud, the next logical step is to complete the crime. In fact, I found an article on a liberal site that supports my argument for me. The story is from the UK and has to deal with a conservative who committed the crime, but the general idea is the same. I've highlighted the more relevant point, but the entire article is below.

Quote:

Conservative councillor convicted of voting fraud, plus minor exclusive

Written by Mark Pack on 18th March 2008 – 5:57 pm

A special election court ruled earlier today that Eshaq Khan and his supporters carried out “corrupt and illegal practices” to secure his election in Slough. A by-election will now be held, and Eshaq Khan has been expelled from the Conservative Party:
He and his electoral team were found to have created hundreds of false names in the weeks running up to the 3 May election and entered them on the electoral register for the ward, the court heard.
They then made applications for postal votes for these “ghost voters” and used the ballots to vote for Khan.
It was only when Labour party activists, surprised by the Conservative victory in an election which had otherwise been a success for Labour, pressed for an investigation that the fraud was discovered, the hearing was told. (BBC)
Followers of election law cases will not be surprised to know that Richard Mawrey’s judgement is, shall we say, lively. He’s the man who also presided over the huge Birmingham postal vote fraud case where he likened the British postal voting system to that you would expect to find in a “banana republic”. This time round, fruits are out and racing is in. And then there’s paragraph 127:
The system of registering voters in Great Britain may fairly be described as shambolic. As will be seen later, it causes perplexity and concern on the part of our European neighbours, many of whom regard the United Kingdom as a beacon of democracy, which kept the flame of democracy alive while continental Europe descended into totalitarian night. They are saddened to observe the authorities of the United Kingdom apparently indifferent to the debauching of democracy by widespread and persistent fraud.
You can (exclusively it would seem, as I’ve not found the document elsewhere) read the summary and full judgement courtesy of Liberal Democrat Voice.
The Conservatives end the day with no change in their number of councillors though, because earlier today a Liberal Democrat in Westmorland switched to them.

Source = http://www.libdemvoice.org/conservative-councillor-convicted-of-voting-fraud-2377.html



Quote:
If someone registers as Mickey Mouse, he cannot vote as Mickey Mouse. etc etc.

Criminal are stupid. What can I say? If they were all as stupid, it would be easy. But they are using the names of the dead and people who don’t live in the jurisdiction. The article you cite in your original post has to do with trying to keep fraudulent registered "voters" who aren't as obvious/stupid as the Mickey Mouse anecdote you're referring to from being included in the rolls. If there truly is no chance of this happening as you have claimed, I ask again, what is the issue?


Quote:
I don't know how to explain it more clearly. I don't have a link because that basic info has been in many articles, and it seems to me that if you have read any articles about this subject, you would already know and understand that.

I don’t need you to explain anything. I understand your argument. I don’t believe you’re trying to be dishonest, so I’ll just chalk it up to naïveté. I've seen (and provided) the opposite argument. If this "basic info has been in many articles" then it should be so difficult for you to find. Your inability to do so just reinforces my point.


Quote:
Are you aware that a ....

I see you're trying to change the subject.
handfleisch
No, you don't get it. The reason I cited the David Iglesias case was not to change the subject but to try to explain to you what the real issue around this voter fraud is. That the places where the Bush gov't wanted desperately to conjure up some voter fraud -- which is exactly where you are trying to find some, too -- there was no evidence of voter fraud. And the Bush gov went so far as to pressure and fire their own Republican attorney generals who refused to go along with this corruption. They successfully fired this man, and are now still trumpeting non-existent voter fraud cases all at the same time they are attempting real voter suppression tactics (the real point of this thread, and you were the one to change the subject with this voter registration red-herring).
furtasacra
An elderly white poll worker tried to give me a hard time this morning when I went to vote; she scrutinized my ID and voter registration at length, asked if I was SURE that was my correct address (even though the address on my driver's license matches the address on my voter registration card). She then asked for another ID, and looked disappointed when I whipped out my social security card, my library card, and half a dozen credit cards, all with the same name on them.

After I turned in my ballot, I watched her for a few minutes, and she was barely glancing at the identification of the WHITE people who came to vote, after questioning me and my eligibility to vote for nearly five minutes.

SHE WAS LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO STOP ME FROM VOTING, PEOPLE, and there was no possible reason for aside from the fact that I'm non-white, relatively young, and therefore fairly likely to vote Democrat.

That, my friends, is called voter SUPPRESSION, which is FAR more prevalent than voter fraud, and I'm fairly sure it's done almost entirely by Republicans. I've been encouraging everybody I know to vote, even if I know they're going to vote for the wrong guy. Laughing
ocalhoun
furtasacra wrote:
I'm fairly sure it's done almost entirely by Republicans.

Do you have any shred of evidence at all for this, or do we see your own prejudice coming into play here?
Related topics
US Supreme Court rules against file swapping
microsoft
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
U.S. Supreme Court depicts Muhammad
The Supreme court rules
Things only a Republican could believe
Kagan confirmed as Supreme Court justice
Republican to send squads to black areas to monitor voting
Israel Supreme Court: Occupation? What occupation?
Voter Suppression
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.