Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThanks to rigorous work by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, it is clear that the US. Attorney scandal – as outrageous as it is on its own – is part of a much broader effort by the Bush Administration to use government institutions for partisan gain.
In their report – Using Justice to Suppress the Vote – the two pro-democracy, pro-civil rights organizations demonstrate that the Administration used federal agencies charged with protecting voters' rights to promote voter suppression, influence voting rules, and gain advantage in battleground states. This was achieved through a four-pronged strategy: dismantling the infrastructure at the Department of Justice; fomenting a fear of rampant voter fraud (which has subsequently been disproved – it actually occurs "statistically…about as often as death by lightning strike"); politically motivated prosecutions; and restricting registration and voting.
The actions of two Bush appointees who recently testified on the Hill – Hans von Spakovsky and Bradley Schlozman– are illustrative of the effort to restrict voter turnout in a manner that favors Republican candidates. In January 2006, von Spakovsky was given a recess appointment to the Federal Election Commission (the agency charged with enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act – he's now having one helluva time in his confirmation hearing). Prior to that, he worked for three years as the appointed Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at Justice.
In a letter to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, six former career attorneys – who worked under both Republican and Democratic Administrations spanning 36 years – wrote that von Spakovsky "played a major role in… inject[ing] partisan political factors into decision-making on enforcement matters and into the hiring process…. Moreover, he was the point person for undermining the Civil Rights Division's mandate to protect voting rights." The career attorneys say that von Spakovsky "assumed primary responsibility for the day to day operation of the Voting Section" and was handed "the authority to usurp many of the responsibilities of the career section chief…."
Von Spakovsky played a key role in fomenting a fear of voter fraud – even writing under the pseudonym "Publius" in June 2005 to "warn of its dangers" and support restrictive photo ID requirements. He asserted that there was "no evidence" that such laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters but there was indeed a widespread problem of ineligible voters influencing election outcomes.
At the same time – despite his article and having served on the Fulton County Board of Election – von Spakovsky saw no conflict of interest in taking the lead on reviewing Georgia's proposed photo ID requirement as the DOJ is required to do. He proceeded to approve the law, overruling the career staff's near unanimous decision that it violated the Voting Rights Act by weakening minority voting strength. Both the state and federal courts later ruled the law unconstitutional.
According to the letter from the six career attorneys the aftermath of the Georgia decision was "at least as disturbing as the decision-making process." The Deputy Chief who led the career team's review – a 28-year Civil Rights Division attorney with 20 years in the Voting Section – was involuntarily transferred without explanation. Three others left the Voting Section "after enduring criticism and retaliation." The single attorney who did not recommend against the Georgia ID law – a new attorney – "received a cash award." In all, over 55 percent of the attorneys have left the Voting Section since 2005.
Other stellar moments in the von Spakovsky tenure: overruling a unanimous recommendation from career attorneys against Tom DeLay's redistricting plan (the Supreme Court later ruled, "In essence the State took away the Latinos' opportunity because Latinos were about to exercise it."); overruling career staff who had sought more information regarding the impact of a new Arizona voter ID law on minorities (in the end, it blocked tens of thousands of voters from casting a ballot); pressuring a Republican commissioner, Paul DeGregorio, at the Election Assistance Commission to rescind a letter stating that Arizona had to accept federal voter registration forms that did not include proof of citizenship (DeGregorio e-mailed von Spakovsky asking if this was "an attempt by you to put pressure on me – and the EAC? If so, I do not appreciate it"; also, a proposed "deal" by von Spakovsky to have the Civil Rights Department reconsider its position on provisional ballots in exchange for cooperation on the new Arizona law garnered this response from DeGregorio, "I do not agree to ‘deals,' especially when it comes to interpretation of the law."); advocating for keeping eligible citizens off of the voter rolls if registration information can't be verified by a "computer match" (as inevitably will occur due to typos and other mistakes by election officials; when Washington State followed von Spakovsky's counsel the courts struck the law down); pushing voter purges in battleground states (the kind that contributed to the Florida 2000 debacle) before the 2006 election instead of enforcing federal requirements that states make voter registration more accessible; causing the DOJ to take the position that voters cannot go to court to enforce their rights under the Help America Vote Act (the first time the Voting Section took a position against voters' right to go to court) – this position was rejected by every federal court which considered it.
"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," said Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department Chief of the Voting Section.
Another key player in the politicization of the DOJ for partisan gain is Bradley Schlozman. His efforts to dismantle the political infrastructure at Justice were reported on the front page of the Washington Post this week. Schlozman was named Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 2003 and, in 2005, was appointed Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Schlozman oversaw the historic shift of the Civil Rights Division away from enforcing federal civil rights protections to ensuring a staff and an agenda that would further partisan goals. Career hiring and personnel decisions were removed from career managers and given to political appointees – negating a policy which had been implemented during the Eisenhower Administration in order to insulate civil servants from political gamesmanship. The mass exodus from the Voting Section occurred under Schlozman's watch, and seven career managers were removed from the Civil Rights Division. Career supervisors were ordered to alter performance evaluations – improving those for individuals who were supportive of Bush Administration positions, and weakening evaluations for others who failed to toe the line. Experienced civil rights attorneys were removed, transferred, or denied cases in favor of new hires who lacked experience but had the right conservative credentials.
In fact, one current lawyer speaking to the Post under condition of anonymity said of Schlozman's recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "When he said he didn't engage in political hiring, most of us thought that was just laughable. Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so."
Schlozman was involved in both the Texas redistricting and Georgia ID decisions to overrule career staff, and the personnel fallout that followed. But most disturbing was the use of a provision buried in the Patriot Act that allowed Schlozman to serve as an interim US Attorney in the Western District of Missouri without a Senate confirmation hearing. Schlozman replaced Todd Graves who had resisted a purge of voters from the rolls as Schlozman had urged. Once he was installed, Schlozman also brought four high-profile indictments against individuals working in low-income and minority communities for voter registration fraud just one week prior to the tight Senate contest between Republican incumbent Jim Talent and then-Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill. The result was bad press for McCaskill and other Democrats. Schlozman's decision was contrary to a longstanding, written Department of Justice Guidance stating: "Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period or while the election is underway." (Schlozman recently had to change his initial testimony in which he claimed "that he ‘acted at the direction of the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section' in filing the indictments. This initial testimony "infuriated public integrity attorneys who… pride themselves on staying out of political disputes.")
In a recent op-ed, Rich wrote, "For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement."
So how can dignity and nonpartisanship be restored and even strengthened?
The Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law suggest that von Spakovsky be rejected for an FEC position that – as Senator Barack Obama wrote – calls for a "record of nonpartisanship, fairness and judgment necessary to enforce election laws." Congress should also exhaustively investigate any government efforts to propagate fear of voter fraud, restrict voting rights, and suppress the vote. Finally, Congress should advance a truly nonpartisan fair elections agenda, including: the banning of inaccurate and partisan pre-election purges of the voter rolls; blocking discriminatory voter ID laws that could disenfranchise millions of voters; and enacting legislation that protects voters and electoral integrity such as the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act, Count Every Vote Act, and Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act .
Kudos to these two important civil rights organizations for recognizing the magnitude of this scandal and offering a plan to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I have a bipartisan compromise. When we get universal health care, and like Social Security cards, the "Health Security" card we get from the Fed....
must be presented before voting.
Seriously, Democrats lose, it's "voter suppression" (amongst a litany of excuses). Democrats win, and Republicans claim "voter fraud" (and blaming the MS Media). Hillary wins in 2008 and Dems retain Congress, a "non-partisan" Clinton-3 DOJ will drop all voter fraud cases and never look into any allegations of it. Voter suppression cases however will skyrocket...especially in toss-up states/districts where it might help Democrats.
This won't be called "partisanship" because it will be about "getting more people to vote"...and of course buidling up the base by claiming "They're going to steal your vote but we'll stop 'em!"...and if the GOP guy/gal wins, "Questions remain about the election of **** County".
Voter fraud and voter suppression go hand in hand, always have, always will. Neither is definitive...else we wouldn't have had any Democrats elected or any Republicans elected to majorities or the White House for the last 100 years.
"Democrats win when more people vote!" Sure. Lots of people voted in Chicago, the Cook County Democratic Organization and Old Man Daley made SURE of it.
BTW, this was an interesting use of statistics-
"fomenting a fear of rampant voter fraud (which has subsequently been disproved – it actually occurs "statistically…about as often as death by lightning strike")"
Given I read this today....
Lightning kills man beneath cloudless sky...and it was in DADE county of "Florida-2000" fame!
"A Dade landscaper died after being struck by an unusual type of lightning that's stronger, hotter, lasts longer and strikes from clear skies.
By TERE FIGUERAS NEGRETE AND LUISA YANEZ lyanez@MiamiHerald.com
With no rain or even clouds to warn him of the danger, death came literally out of the blue Thursday to a self-employed landscaper.
The killer was a powerful bolt of lightning that cracked through perfectly clear skies.
David Canales, 41, of West Miami-Dade, was on the job at a Pinecrest home when the bolt hit. It first seared a tree, then traveled and struck Canales, standing nearby.
Experts said Canales was killed by a weather phenomenon fittingly called a ''bolt from the blue'' or ''dry lightning'' because it falls from clear, blue skies. He was pronounced dead at South Miami Hospital.
Canales is the latest victim of one of Florida's least enviable honors: It's the country's lightning capital. Five of the 47 people killed by lightning across the country last year were in Florida.
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2007 @ 8:44pm
I have better solution - no interim appointments of US attorneys beyond 90 days without Senate Confirmation!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/24/2007 @ 9:46pm
If it were true that the general population were more conservative than liberal, the Republicans wouldn't have to try so hard to supress the vote. So next time you hear some wingnut tell you the population is majority conservative, ask them to explain the criminal desire to fix the vote on the part of Republican hacks.
Also, I guess this is what Rove meant by "his math" in that NPR interview days before the 2006 elections. It would be nice to see Rove serve time for this because there is little doubt all roads lead back to him.
Posted by BlueTexan at 06/24/2007 @ 11:11pm
KVH: ....voter fraud...[that]...actually occurs "statistically…about as often as death by lightning strike"...
----------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
Lightning as a Cause of Death
Lightning as a cause of death.....is comparable to floods as a storm-related cause of death in the US. In a given year the chance of being struck by lightning is about one in 700,000 and the chance of being killed by lightning is less than one in 6 million in the United States..........
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how many votes were cast nationwide this past November. However, I do recall something like 100 million votes were cast in the November 2004 General Election. IF voter fraud is "as often as death by lightning strike", one in 6 million, that means nationwide, there were LESS THAN 20 fraudulent votes cast when Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edward. Does anyone other than KVH believe this number?
In any large urban voting precinct, there probably were (and will always be) dozens of fraudulent votes, intentional or not!
Math skills & common sense, not strong suits of The Nation!
Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 12:00am
Send this letter to congressional leaders.
Copy and paste the text beginning from Hello and place it in an email.
Send this email to
john.boehner@mail.house.gov
and webmaster@rpc.senate.gov
the Republican senate policy committee.
Hello
Get your Republican party to end the war by Dec. 2007, and until you do we stop buying televisions, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, dishwashers, dvd players, stereo equipment, light bulbs from one of your party's major contributors and War contractors General Electric Corporation ( 203 373 2211 ) who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care into law by Dec. 2007 and repeal Medicare Part D and place the prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of medication with no extra premiums, deductibles no means tests, no coverage gaps, and until you do, we will not buy consumer products and prescription drugs from the biggest 3 pharmacy chains and GOP contributors in the country Eckerd, CVS, and Walgreens and we will not buy health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, the 2 biggest health insurance companies that give money to the GOP as well, who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to enact a $10 an hour minimum wage by Dec. 2007, and until you do, we will not go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to enact into law Universal vote by mail with paper ballots counted by civil servants with civil servants registering voters and keeping track of registrations by Dec. 2007, and until you do, we will not buy any GOP contributor Dell computers or monitors or go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
http://endthewar.dmocrats.org
http://wage.dmocrats.org
http://medicare.dmocrats.org
http://www.dmocrats.org
Posted by DMOCRATSoORG at 06/25/2007 @ 12:35am
If you can't produce an ID for the voting polls, as we do in my state, then don't vote. If voter suppresion is keeping illegals, felons and multi voters from voting(as seems to happen in many citys dems control, see Mask post above), then suppress like crazy. ALGORE didn't want to count military votes in Florida either, wasn't that suppression?
If you can't come up with the $10 to get an ID from the state( my 15 year old has one from the state) and that is a requirement to vote, maybe you are not qualified for much of anything, muchless vote. I wouldn't want people this imcompetent NEAR the polls.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 01:04am
Posted by DMOCRATSOORG 06/25/2007 @ 12:35am
Will you also work to keep REID's "undocumented Americans" (Used to be called illegals)from voting?
I didn't think so.
Frauds. The Dems are famous for election day shenigenans, they have got it down to a science...maybe you should clean out your out house before complaining about your neighbors...
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 01:08am
This is one of my hot button issues. It becomes too easy in a national election to figure out which are the safe red states and which are the safe blue states and add up the numbers. what's left are what are now called the "battleground" states, those states that might go either red or blue given the stupid Electoral College amendment we elect Presidents with.
By narrowing down to less than a handful of states it become a matter of reducing the number of voters that will vote for the other guy, or girl, and increasing the number of voters for your guy, or girl. Seems fair. Both sides will be doing it.
Where it gets ugly, or down right criminal, is where those in charge of overseeing a fair vote for their state are also the state champaign manager for one of the candidates. When this is allowed to happen, and it should never happen, the probability of a conflict of interest is overwhelming.
Look back to Florida in 2000, Kathrine Harris was Secretary of State and was charged with the running of a fair state election all the while she was Co-Chair for W's Election Committee.
Look, also, at the 2004 election where Kenneth Blackwell who was an "honorary" Co-chair of the Bush Re-election Committee for Ohio while Secretary of State. Blackwell issued a number of arbitrary rulings that had the effect of suppressing minority votes. The distribution of voting machines was questioned when it was found there was 1 machine per 1000 voters in Democratic districts and 1 machine per 100 voters in Republican districts. This voter machine distribution caused voters in Democratic districts to wait on line to vote for up to eight hours.
This is nothing more than treason in my mind. Preventing an American citizen from exercising their RIGHT to vote is the worst kind of treason. If people choose not to vote that is their privilege, but to prevent someone from voting is criminal, it is NOT a dirty trick, it is treason.
"The core of our American democracy, members, is the right to vote. And implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all that is being called into question the privacy of the vote, the security of the vote, and the accuracy of the vote. It troubles me, and it should trouble you." California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/25/2007 @ 01:11am
...there were LESS THAN 20 fraudulent votes cast when Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edward. Does anyone other than KVH believe this number?
Posted by HAPPY 06/25/2007 @ 12:00am
I'm sure there were more than 20 INCIDENTS of voter fraud in Ohio alone in 2004. There should be one INCIDENT of voter fraud for each voter that stood on line for hours in the rain and did not get to vote.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin 1879-1953
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/25/2007 @ 01:18am
You want me to believe a story based on the ruminations of the "living breathing Constitution" crowd?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/25/2007 @ 07:22am
"There should be one INCIDENT of voter fraud for each voter that stood on line for hours in the rain and did not get to vote.
Thats not fraud, thats incompetence, similar to the dem controled districts in Fl, who had sample ballots designed, mailed and printed in the paper, and still the voters couldn't put an X next to the person of their choice....yet can juggle six bingo cards or 4 slot machines at once. Again, incompetenents shouldn't vote at all.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 08:15am
Concerning KVH's claim that voter fraud occurs about as often as death by lightning, this is the actual quote from the article used to back up that claim:
"Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike." [emphasis added]
Now, I ask you, if the subject were, say, rape, rather than voter fraud, would KVH have proposed this sophistry? I doubt it. You gotta be careful with these political types, they are slippery indeed.
That said, I think that the GOP's voter fraud madness is just that, madness.
Posted by BlueSpark at 06/25/2007 @ 08:42am
Bush v. Gore: it is unfair for different places within a state to have differences in voting. Equal Protection clause cited.
Posted by conshame at 06/25/2007 @ 08:50am
Unconstitutional - Equal Protection clause cited. So of course long lines at the polls are unconstitutional, unless the long lines are equally long in every voting booth. Read Bush v. Gore, it's all written right there just as Per Curiam wrote it.
Posted by conshame at 06/25/2007 @ 08:52am
"Frauds. The Dems are famous for election day shenigenans, they have got it down to a science...maybe you should clean out your out house before complaining about your neighbors..."
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 01:08am
Even the gasbag Bill O'Reilly is fond of saying that bad behavior on someone else's part does not excuse one's own bad behavior. (Yes, I do listen to him on occasion.)
Show me the same kind of evidence that Democrats have been engaging in voter suppression, and I will consistently and vociferously call for the indictment and prosecution of all those responsible. I want the whole house to be clean. (After all, my family and I have to live in it.)
Until then, the implication of your statement is that since Democrats have been guilty of "shenigenans" in the past, voter suppression is OK as long as non-Democrats are doing it.
Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 09:00am
Conservatives: abandon Bush. You are either with America or you are with the Errorists.
Posted by conshame at 06/25/2007 @ 09:03am
Another prediction-
Democrats keep Congress next year and get the White House...
"voter suppression" stories will go the way of "homelessness crises" stories during the Clinton years. Watch (or actually DON'T watch) for it. They'll evaporate.
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 09:09am
Or maybe you mean that voter suppression by any party is OK, simply because another party may have been guilty of it.
Could it be that you don't see a problem with the perversion and politicization of the DOJ, as long as the issue doesn't impact you personally?
Or do you believe that what's been alleged has not really been happening?
The mounting evidence says it has.
Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 09:12am
Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 09:09am
I think I might know the answer to this, but gotta ask anyway.
Do you think the stories of voter suppression will go away because the Democrats' victories will make the issue an unnecessary political tool, or because
a Democratic administration will shit-can all the Bush appointees, and their replacements won't be guilty of the same "shenigenans"? (New word courtesy of JM.)
Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 09:22am
Posted by DRHAMMER 06/25/2007 @ 09:22am
Both.
One because it's not in the interest of the party in power (i.e. Dems have Congress and the Oval Office) to throw around stories of "voter suppression"....after THEY've won.
Two because "President Hillary's" Dept. of Justice will shift focus from voter fraud to civil rights, discrimination, access to abortion clinics, etc. Things that are in line with Democratic Party thoughts on how the DOJ should operate.
Does one compliment the other?...sure. And if the occasional "lightning strike" occurs in a toss-up district...the HRC DOJ will have "other priorities".
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 10:31am
In any large urban voting precinct, there probably were (and will always be) dozens of fraudulent votes, intentional or not!
Posted by HAPPY 06/25/2007 @ 12:00am | ignore this person
Having lived in large, urban voting precincts my entire life, I would love to know the basis of this statement. Not to say politics aren't a dirty game - we had a guy trying to forge registration form signatures prosecuted recently - but the days of the great urban political machines really are over. You're living in the past if you think this stuff is widespread.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2007 @ 10:45am
You want me to believe a story based on the ruminations of the "living breathing Constitution" crowd?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 06/25/2007 @ 07:22am
CHIPEROO,
So, you're with Scalia then when he thunders, "There is no right to vote in the constitution" ???
That outburst came after the 2000 ballotting. Perhaps he meant that the whole enterprise of voting was a charade (despite the near 1 billion USD cost of the campaigns) -- and particularly when the elcetorate came up with the wrong answer to suit the committed rightwing igor. Ergo, "Plan B": "There is no right to vote in the constitution".
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 10:45am
You're living in the past if you think this stuff is widespread.
Posted by CKA2ND 06/25/2007 @ 10:45am
You purposely ignored my "intentional or not" ending! IF I unintentionally killed you, are you dead?
Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 10:50am
If you can't come up with the $10 to get an ID from the state( my 15 year old has one from the state) and that is a requirement to vote, maybe you are not qualified for much of anything, muchless vote. I wouldn't want people this imcompetent NEAR the polls.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 01:04am
10 bucks? Why not 1,000? Or 10,000? Hell, about 100,000 which is somewhere around a Cheerleader "pioneer" donation level.
And JOHN since you have now made it clear that you have no problem in principle with restrictions arbitrarly made with respect to who can vote, I have one to propose that you will surely adopt as equally fair as your own scheme:
Namely, somebody with a Body Mass Index of 30+ (obese) SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote -- and the voting booths should be designed to specifcially prevent this kind of scandel from occurring. No fat people permitted in the booths, BY DESIGN.
Any fat fucking slob with disgusitng flab flapping off his or her arms is too shit-for-brains stupid to manage his or her body should, thus, her or she have no role in the slecting the managers of the State. Period.
Fair is Fair. Right, JOHN?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 10:53am
Above should read:
Any fat fucking slob with disgusitng flab flapping off his or her arms is too shit-for-brains stupid to manage his or her body, thus, he or she should have no role in the selection of the managers of the State. Period.
Fair is Fair. Right, JOHN?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 10:56am
Mask, you love handing out homework assignments, so here's one for you. Do a little research on press mentions of "voter suppression." My guess, and it is a guess, is that you will find two things:
1. Historically speaking, blacks, hispanics and other people of color have had their votes suppressed legally and illegally, the former especially by Democrats in the South and the latter most famously by Republicans in the Southwest (the late Justice Rehnquist was implicated in such a case in his days as a young attorney). Such stories receeded as the 70's, 80's and 90's wore on, though you would occasionally hear about a new one, even in New York City (e.g., "Cops intimidate miniority voters on behalf of Guiliani"). 2. The story picked up considerably as computerized voting machines started becoming common, and as other tactics such as voter roll purges were adapted. However, I think the computerized machines are key to this story. They make fraud so much easier, as we have seen in other countries, and as I think we may one day see here in a scandal that will make Watergate look very small indeed.
This is not just a partisan issue. I couldn't give two farts for the Dems, but the denial of voting rights has been a real problem in this country for the better part of its existence.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2007 @ 11:03am
You're living in the past if you think this stuff is widespread.
Posted by CKA2ND 06/25/2007 @ 10:45am
You purposely ignored my "intentional or not" ending! IF I unintentionally killed you, are you dead?
Posted by HAPPY 06/25/2007 @ 10:50am | ignore this person
My apologies, but I'll bite on this too. I know election workers - often volunteers - get a bad rap, but for the most part, I think they do a pretty darn good job. Absent some study or studies confirming your assertion, I would therefore dispute the idea that "dozens" of cases of voter fraud take place in every election in any large, urban voting precinct, even unintenionally.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2007 @ 11:10am
My apologies, but I'll bite on this too. I know election workers - often volunteers - get a bad rap, but for the most part, I think they do a pretty darn good job.
Posted by CKA2ND 06/25/2007 @ 11:10am
Done deal!
Now, about a year ago, my neighbor who is involved in manning voting booths, got me to go get trained on them fancy voting machines called eSlate....I think it was a full afternoon or morning's worth of training.
In any event, I am very glad NOT to have been called upon to assist folks when Election Day came! The potential to screw up UNintentionally, seems fairly large.
Anyone with similar training or actually manned voting booths (helping voters) are welcome to shed your thoughts!
Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 11:36am
Glen, you are an idiot, but that is well know here..
I will try to simplify this for you...I knew you were a little dense, but Jsus, but do you have to imintate lead?..
If you need an ID to buy beer or enter a bar, than why not an ID to vote? Beer cost more than IDs, therefore if you can afford beer, you can vote..ergo, if you are stupid enough not to be able to afford beer..I DON'T WANT YOU ANYWHERE NEAR THE VOTING PROCESS DECIDING HOW MUCH OF SOMEBODYS ELSE'S MONEY HILLARY WILL SEND TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT ENABLING YOU TO EARN ENOUGH FOR BEER, AND THEREFORE VOTE.
Clear enough for you nimbnuts?
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 11:58am
And get the propellar out of your eyes...the whirling is distracting you, obviously.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 11:59am
"Any fat fucking slob with disgusitng flab flapping off his or her arms is too shit-for-brains stupid to manage his or her body, thus, he or she should have no role in the selection of the managers of the State. Period.
Fair is Fair. Right, JOHN?
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/25/2007 @ 10:56am "
?
Are you having some sort of anti McDonalds rant here for someone? What are you talking ab out? Is thios an example of myour intellectual prowness? Dumping on people you rthink are fat..and you arrrive at this from your deductive powers..on a blog?
Yeah, you're sharp....can't find a job, eh, Glen? You seem to be in a lot of company here who seem to have missed the greatest economic expansion of the history of mankind...typical loon, er, progressive.....
Glen, the train has already passed you by..give it up.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:03pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 11:58am
First, describe what documents need to be presented in order to get on the voting roll in the first place.
Second, as I expected, you are totally playing stupid about the implications of your own very stupid ideas -- and when you have to play dumb in order to make your ostensible "point", you may as well change your name to MASK. To wit, and consistent with the pompous, chest-beating blowhard that you are, you made it an issue of the money (something you obvsiously worship) for the ID. The 10 bucks.
So again: Why not 100 bucks? 10,000? 1000,000? Why? Why? Why?
And if we are to endorse any array of arbitrary characteristics as a necessity for voting, I propose Body Mass Index to match and rasie your obviously classist gibberish.
So here is the "bodyist" slogan that matches your indignant classist bloviating: CAN NOT HANDLE THE BODY ONE IS ENDOWED WITH = CAN NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE BODY POLITIC.
Period.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 12:12pm
To all the readers out there, I have to admit the joy I take in the ease with which one can get JOHN MAASCH all wound up. Pressing his buttons is E-Z. He comes in here, all pompous and indigant about people whom he claims don't have 10 bucks since he envisions himself as some kind of hybrid Thomas Edison and J.P. Morgan.
Turn the tables of his class prejudice on him, when he thinks he is somehow at the top of the ladder, and make it a question of whether it would be unfair to allocate votes according to body shape ... AND WATCH THE PUFFY RED-FACED INDIGNATION ERUPT!!! Belly laffs at his beer belly, in other words.
Almost too easy. But soooooo much fun!!! I highly recommend it!!!
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 12:16pm
"So again: Why not 100 bucks? 10,000? 1000,000? Why? Why? Why?"
Ok, the ID is free, like an SS card..OK
CONSHAME=GLEN=LOON..
Cheap enough for you? any other problems?
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:18pm
DON'T WANT YOU ANYWHERE NEAR THE VOTING PROCESS DECIDING HOW MUCH OF SOMEBODYS ELSE'S MONEY HILLARY WILL SEND TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT ENABLING YOU TO EARN ENOUGH FOR BEER, AND THEREFORE VOTE.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 11:58am
Hey JOHN, when I tell you to mow my lawn and sweep my walk, I do not want to hear any of your uppity speeches. There's the environmentally-friendly push mower, there's the broom: Get to work!
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 12:22pm
Glen,
You are too easy...your post do the work for me..
And my body looks great, if you are refering to me when discussing body fat..for some reason....I am able to afford certain things in life because I made it my business to be able to afford things by being able to pay for them myself, and not having to steal from others to cover what a man should cover by his own abilitys. And I certainly don't want to be near anything YOU think is a right for me and mine to have..under those conditions history shows us what one gets for "free"(govt), is usually worth exactly that..nothing...I'll pass or better yet, figure out a way to nullify the effects on me and mine....kinda like Hillary.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:25pm
IN CASE ANY ONE MISSED IT:
And my body looks great, ...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:25pm
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 12:30pm
"Hey JOHN, when I tell you to mow my lawn and sweep my walk, I do not want to hear any of your uppity speeches. There's the environmentally-friendly push mower, there's the broom: Get to work!
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/25/2007 @ 12:22pm "
No thanks, bud...I am nonj union..
I just finished my work out, with a 5 mile walk and I am off to the country clubs, where after 18 holes of golf we will discuuss and wonder what you are going to do today..
I used to pay my guys $ 35 a week including cleaning the fish pond...but I fired them and have my 15 year old do it...I am teaching him work is great, wealth building is key to Americas success, that he will always be surrounded by guys like you, how easy it is to get aroiund you, and how many of you are out there that are the biggest impediments to his success. And that guys like you will always be in the wagon you are pulling and I weill teach him how to through guys like you out...you are the easiest to defeat...
Gotta go, tee time and martinin lunches await...all deductable, of course...
bye Glen...have a nice day...you inspire me, keep it up...
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
IN CASE ANY ONE MISSED IT:
And my body looks great, ...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:25pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/25/2007 @ 12:30pm
I will say it twice...for those who missed it...I have been working on my hide and it looks great.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:36pm
GLEN=CONSHAME=CLOWNED AGAIN...................FORE!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:37pm
If you need an ID to buy beer or enter a bar, than why not an ID to vote? Beer cost more than IDs, therefore if you can afford beer, you can vote..ergo, if you are stupid enough not to be able to afford beer..I DON'T WANT YOU ANYWHERE NEAR THE VOTING PROCESS DECIDING HOW MUCH OF SOMEBODYS ELSE'S MONEY HILLARY WILL SEND TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT ENABLING YOU TO EARN ENOUGH FOR BEER, AND THEREFORE VOTE.
And I don't want anyone who reasons like Mr Maasch anywhere near the polls, but that's just the price of freedom I guess.
Let's unpack this: "If you need an ID to buy beer or enter a bar, than why not an ID to vote?" The implicit assumption here is that voting should be at least as hard as buying alcohol. I see no reason to accept that claim. I see no connection between alcohol and voting. As Rick on the Young Ones said of world peace and his own ass, "they're two completely different things!"
And this one: "BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT ENABLING YOU TO EARN ENOUGH FOR BEER, AND THEREFORE VOTE." Um, yeah. A lot of people are on unemployment simply because they lost a job through no fault of their own. And most states won't allow you to buy beer with food stamps. Are you saying that such people should not be allowed to vote?
WHERE do you come up with these rules? And when you are in that place, when you look out do you see feet?
Posted by BlueSpark at 06/25/2007 @ 12:38pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
used to pay my guys $ 35 a week including cleaning the fish pond...but I fired them and have my 15 year old do it...I am teaching him work is great,
Hey JOHN, maybe on your next trip the PRC to dicker over the useless junk that comprises your existence, you can buy a few coolies to house in a shed to do the labour.
bye Glen...have a nice day...you inspire me, keep it up...
With the notable exception of my girlfriend's phone messages, I was having an otherwise dull day until you came along. You have no way to fathom the convulsive, from-the-gut laughs I have been having at your ponderous accounts of your "great" body and stellar life with the kids as unfortunate captives to your "message". I have been laughing so hard that my eyes are watering.
There are professional comics out there who, if life itself was at stake, can not dive-bomb onto the funny bone like you can -- that is, when you are at your most white-knuckle serious about your "great" body, et cetera. All I can say is keep it up, amusement like this cannot be obtained thru the usual channels ...
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/25/2007 @ 12:44pm
Posted by CKA2ND 06/25/2007 @ 11:03am |
Sorry, CKA...it IS a partisan issue.
Again, Dem in the White House, Dems hold Congress in '08....GENERAL voter suppression stories (even here at "The Nation") disappear. You MIGHT get a specific one here or there, where it was a "Purple" district and the Repub one...but that's it.
All the stories of "paperless ballots", "Diebold machines", "massive check-points at strongly Dem areas", etc.....poof!
Just like all the stories about the "problem" of "one party rule" (so horrific, so terrible for our democracy, etc.)....will vanish....once the "one party" is the Democratic Party.
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 12:46pm
"And that guys like you will always be in the wagon you are pulling..."
"Gotta go, tee time and martinin lunches await...all deductable, of course..."
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
(Pssst....You're in our wagon, Captain Bootstrap.)
Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 2:04pm
Well, Mask, feel free to speculate. We all do. But I know you are actually capable of forming an opinion on a subject (Iraq, abortion) that is not based on a pure reading a political tea leaves.
So, in your heart of hearts, based on what you know of on the subject, is voter suppression - in any form you'd like to pick, e.g., voter role purges but not checkpoints - a "real" issue that should be dealt with in a non-partisan (or bi-, or multi-) way?
Or is it a complete non-issue - the machines, the ID's, everything - that has been blown out of proportion for partisan gain?
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2007 @ 2:36pm
And that guys like you will always be in the wagon you are pulling..."
"Gotta go, tee time and martinin lunches await...all deductable, of course..."
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
(Pssst....You're in our wagon, Captain Bootstrap.)
Posted by DRHAMMER 06/25/2007 @ 2:04pm |
I bought the wagon, lock stock and barrel...you are nowhere near the wagon...gotta go, I'm up...
The watering in Glens eyes comes from his own breath, poor sod...
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 2:38pm
"The implicit assumption here is that voting should be at least as hard as buying alcohol."
The gate opens and down you go...out at the start...
Assuming is for pros...you do not qualify..
But try this...an ID for voting to show you are eliegble for voting...I know its complicated and the left can't win a the polls without graveyards, prisons and now "Undocumented Americans"...but to link voting with alchol in the above post is only something one can find here in your..ass, ah, sumtions...brilliant.
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 2:43pm
Math skills & common sense, not strong suits of HAPPY!
Posted by HAPPY 06/25/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/25/2007 @ 2:47pm
You seem to be in a lot of company here who seem to have missed the greatest economic expansion of the history of mankind...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:03pm
Yep, those Clinton Years were mighty good! If only bushco could come close to those years.....
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/25/2007 @ 2:53pm
Posted by CKA2ND 06/25/2007 @ 2:36pm
Sure it's a "real issue", but realpolitik is involved as well.
For instance, the constant "problem" with Voter ID cards is the cost and how it "hurts the poor who can't afford them"....okay, make them free. Not much cost and a Federal grant would cover most state's costs. And it guts the GOP complaints about fraud.
But I think if you bring up that idea, you'll find a lot of Democrats DON'T want that....why?
They want same-day registration and voting...something that is EASILY turned into fraud. And they want fewer checks or random checks on registration rolls on Election Day.
All of which point to a party that thinks it can gain SOME political advantage by having more people vote...even under dubious circumstances.
Now we know the reason the GOP might want to suppress the vote...especially in Dem areas. But why no curiosity about why Dems want to BOOST the vote, with means that might or even ARE vunerable to fraud?
I want ever eligible voter to vote and vote easily and the vote to be counted and counted correctly. I do NOT place blind trust in POLITICAL PARTIES of either stripe to do that without a lot of prodding (usually from the other side).
Somebody a while back wanted to go back in history and look at voter suppression...fine. As long as we can go back in history and look at the "political machines" (many of whom were Democrats!).
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 3:57pm
The gate opens and down you go...out at the start...
John, your whole response is a word salad.
Assuming is for pros...you do not qualify..
Actually, John, "the pros" do less assuming than the amateurs, but everyone makes assumptions. And yours were false.
But try this...an ID for voting to show you are eliegble [sic] for voting...I know its complicated and the left can't win a [sic] the polls without graveyards, prisons and now "Undocumented Americans"...but to link voting with alchol [sic] in the above post is only something one can find here in your..ass, ah, sumtions...brilliant.
How eloquent. I am not even sure if that last bit is a sentence, but either way the joke is lost on me.
As far as the ID question goes, why require an ID if there is not a voter fraud problem???
Posted by BlueSpark at 06/25/2007 @ 4:53pm
DR,
"Yep, those Clinton Years were mighty good! If only bushco could come close to those years.....
Posted by DR DECIBELS 06/25/2007 @ 2:53pm
Yup, from Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush...greatest expansion ever...I will give credit where and to whom credit is due...the American people...
Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 5:54pm
Photo idea should be mandatory in every state. Anything else is an invitation for voter fraud. A simple picture ID is within the grasp of every CITIZEN who wants to vote. The only reason the democrats are against it is because of the voting advantage they receive from illegals and those wanted by the police. If it was the republicans who were getting the majority of those votes they would be all for Voter ID laws.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/25/2007 @ 8:10pm
New voter literacy test: Must get all six right before voting---user may take the test only once before voting screen pops up. If they get less than all six right their vote only counts one half of a person who gets all six right.
1. What two houses make up the U.S. Congress? A. House of Representatives and Senate B. White and Black C. Big and Little D. Wood and Brick
2. What are the three branches of the Federal Government? A. elm, maple, and oak B. local, state, and federal C. Executive, legislative, Judicial D. Branches???? We don't need no stinking branches.
3. Which of these freedoms/rights is not mentioned in the First Amendment. A. right to be taken care of by the government from cradle to grave. B. freedom of speech C. freedom of the press D. freedom of religion
4. Which of the following rights/freedoms is not mentioned in the 5th and 6th Amendments? A. freedom from double jeopardy B. freedom from self incrimination C. the right to question a witness testifying against you in open court. D. the right to sneak into the U.S. breaking the law and then stay here with no penalty.
5. Which branch of government has the basic function of making law? A. Judicial B. Executive C. Legislative D. Any of the three as long as it is a law that I like
6. Which of the following groups pay the most in federal income taxes? A. those making between $10,000 and $20,000 B. those making between $20,000 and $40,000 C. those making between $40,000 and $60,000 D. those making $100,000 and upward
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/25/2007 @ 8:37pm
1. What two houses make up the U.S. Congress?
Write-in Answer: The `House of Blues' and the `House of Worship'
2. What are the three branches of the Federal Government?
Write-in Answer: The `Rotting' (aka Congress), the `Partial-Birth' (aka Judicial) and the `Decider' (aka Chimpy) branch.
5. Which branch of government has the basic function of making law?
Write-in Answer: The K-Street branch
6. Which of the following groups pay the most in federal income taxes?
Write-in Answer: None! Everybody knows that taxes grow on all them branches of our Fed. Gov't.
Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 10:39pm
3. Which of these freedoms/rights is not mentioned in the First Amendment. A. right to be taken care of by the government from cradle to grave. B. freedom of speech C. freedom of the press D. freedom of religion
4. Which of the following rights/freedoms is not mentioned in the 5th and 6th Amendments? A. freedom from double jeopardy B. freedom from self incrimination C. the right to question a witness testifying against you in open court. D. the right to sneak into the U.S. breaking the law and then stay here with no penalty.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/25/2007 @ 8:37pm
3) A., B. is mentioned, but not allowed at Republican conventions and Bush campaign rallies. C. is also mentioned, but is not to be seen in the electronic media and rarely in print. D. also mentioned , but only applies to Born-again Christians.
4) D., but A, B, and C are only available IF you are allowed to see a lawyer and IF you are allowed to see a Judge and IF you are brought to trial.
Disclaimer: The rights quoted in the Bill of Rights are your past rights and is no guarantee of future rights. Current rights may be lower or higher depending on the whim of the administration and your donations to the republican party.
"Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win." - Robert Heinlein
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/25/2007 @ 11:39pm
Current rights may be lower or higher depending on the whim of the administration and your donations to the republican party.
Wrote another rather large check today---felt good
A., B (freedom of speech). is mentioned, but not allowed at Republican conventions
Last democrat convention those who were pro life were prohibited from speaking-----you seem to have a very selective memory. Also if you have been reading along, wasn't the rather liberal Take back America group that refused to play a movie because it made fun of liberals.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/26/2007 @ 12:11am
Here's your basic 'free speech' liberal in action. There's not enough 'correct' reporting, so the liberals need a 'legislative fix.' Can't compete in the market of ideas? Pass a law to promote 'correct' thinking. That's what liberals stand for.
Published: June 24, 2007 at 8:25 PM E-mail Story | Print Preview | License Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is "looking at" the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.
Feinstein, speaking on "Fox News Sunday" with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate.
U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.
"This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."
Feinstein said the measure before the Senate "fixes those flaws" but that doesn't get presented on talk radio, which she said "pushes people to ... extreme views without a lot of information."
Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was "looking at it."
"I remember when there was a fairness doctrine," she said, "and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."
Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2007 @ 07:21am
Note how Feinstein comes at this from the immigration angle? Pretty crafty. What she wants, of course, is to force people to listing to crap like 'Air America' whether they like it or not. I've said it before and I'll say it again, liberals are the biggest phonies going.
Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2007 @ 07:23am
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." Plato,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 08:28am
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 06/25/2007 @ 11:39pm
COPRO quoting Heinlein???...okay, here's one my favorate RAH, RAH, R.A.H.s!
"I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him."
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 10:20am
Posted by MASK 06/26/2007 @ 10:20am
Well done, as usual.... I can see COprog sittin around his dinning room table, books open all over the place trying to find someone else's words in order to make himself sound...edjakated...and hammer home some brilliant and poignant point he thinks he just made!!!
In bold ptint, yet!!!
Hillarious..when he starts to quote Mel Blanc I will start to read the bold print, but I rarely read his quotes as it is..
Posted by john maasch at 06/26/2007 @ 10:55am
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." Plato,
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/26/2007 @ 08:28am
"I am gonna take those profits and give them to.." HILLARY,
Posted by john maasch at 06/26/2007 @ 10:57am
Ah, I remember the days when conservatives led the charge against a national ID card as a potential harbinger of Big Brother Government. There are still some who oppose them, but the majority of righties just see the card as a way of making sure that only "the right" people vote or work, never mind any of the other possible uses it might be put to ("Let me see your papers.", the policeman in the old movie - or is it near future America? - demands).
Posted by cka2nd at 06/26/2007 @ 12:14pm
Posted by CKA2ND 06/26/2007 @ 12:14pm
There are still some who oppose them, but the majority of righties just see the card as a way of making sure that only "the right" people vote or work
What, you mean like ACTUAL CITIZENS of the US? You find this objectionable?
Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2007 @ 12:20pm
"...the Administration used federal agencies charged with protecting voters' rights to promote voter suppression, influence voting rules, and gain advantage in battleground states."
GASP! N-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O....
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/26/2007 @ 12:35pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/26/2007 @ 12:35pm
Sounds pretty alarming, until you realize that in Mr. Nichols' world, making people identify themselves before voting is commonly referred to as 'suppressing the vote.' The only question is, what kind of vote is being suppressed; legal, or illegal, and which is Mr. Nichols more concerned about?
Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2007 @ 12:54pm
So now the ultimate Pelican Brief Court sits enthroned, acting out their role as corporate protectors, not defenders of The People or our Constitution.
They live not by The Rule of Law, but by the unwritten laws of the corporate-controlled DC political jungle; survival of the meanest, sneakiest, and most spiritually bereft.
And of the wealthiest... the perpetual dominance of politics by the non-partisan cocktail-weenie crowd is their one abiding, and most paramount concern.)
Posted by JEP at 06/26/2007 @ 1:26pm
Voter suppression is just one method used by the Republicans to rig elections. It's evident that a co-ordinated plan was launched to steal the 2004 election. Greg Palast has documented many of the methods employed to suppress and steal the elections in 2000 and in 2004 on his site and in his film [gregpalast.com].
One illuminating article I read is "Election 2004: The Urban Legend" [apj.us] -- "Everything you know about Bush's 2004 "victory" is wrong."
Skip this article if you have a fear of numbers, reading, a short attention span or do not use reason and logic but just know intuitively "in your gut".
Note: I couldn't get the article link to work here, but there is a search engine on the American Politics Journal site.
Posted by chantalle at 06/26/2007 @ 1:39pm
Ponti, it has been shown time and again, including in RECENT YEARS, that right-wingers happilly suppress the votes of citizens, in particular black citizens, latino citizens, senior citizens, poor citizens, working class citizens and college student citizens.
What has not been shown in RECENT YEARS is any evidence of widespread, intentional or not, fraudulent voting, e.g., multiple votes by one person, dead people voting, etc. Your issue is built on legitimate historical concerns, but your modern evidence is a house of cards. The voting rights case, on the other hand, is based on both honest historical grounds and numerous documented, modern-day cases, even cutting through the inevitable conspiracy theorizing over some of them.
I have no problem with enforcing laws against voter fraud, including registration fraud. But the main problem with voting in this country is that it is too hard to do, not too easy, and that our selection is too narrow, not too wide.
And why have most conservatives turned their backs on a former matter of principle? Why do they now support a National ID Card, that very symbol of the nascent totalitarian state? Methinks I smell opportunism!!
Posted by cka2nd at 06/26/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by CKA2ND 06/26/2007 @ 12:14pm
CKA, I came up with a compromise...
when we get universal health care, and the Fed distributes your "Health Security" card to be presented at your local clinic....
use the same card for voting.
Everybody happy?
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 3:09pm
Posted by CKA2ND 06/26/2007 @ 3:08pm
As far as I can tell, Mr. Nichols case against the Administration in this instance mainly has to do with an administrator who insisted that voters be validated and verified by photo id before voting. Some people had a problem with that, alleging (without a whole lot of solid evidence) that it had the 'effect of suppressing' the votes of the 'underclass.' Voter fraud has almost always involved phony votes that would be caught by proper validation, so you can excuse me if I find Mr. Nichols' case somewhat underwhelming.
Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2007 @ 4:49pm
Well done, as usual.... I can see COprog sittin around his dinning room table, books open all over the place trying to find someone else's words in order to make himself sound...edjakated...and hammer home some brilliant and poignant point he thinks he just made!!!
In bold ptint, yet!!!
Hillarious..when he starts to quote Mel Blanc I will start to read the bold print, but I rarely read his quotes as it is..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/26/2007 @ 10:55am
Maybe you could open a book, John... say, a dictionary?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 06/26/2007 @ 6:40pm
I can see COprog sittin around his dinning room table, books open all over the place trying to find someone else's words in order to make himself sound...edjakated...and hammer home some brilliant and poignant point he thinks he just made!!!
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/26/2007 @ 10:55am | ignore this person
John, first I eat dinner at the dinning room table, I try to straighten out the wrong minded individuals that wander into The Nation's blog from the desk in my home office.
As to being "edjakated", well I'm not as well educated (the correct spelling by the way) as some, but I do pretty well for a guy that went through the NYC schools system then put myself through college later in life. I wasn't born with a silver spoon up my nose like some, (hint, W) but I have no trouble matching wits with you as you're only half equipped.
There is a big difference with being well "edjakated", as you say, and being smart. One of the dumbest asses I've ever met was Valedictorian at NYU, but didn't have the common sense to get out of the rain. I'd rather have a little street smarts than what you display as your "edjakated" thinking.
And just for you John, tonight only....as only the great Mel Blanc could say, he must have been thinking of you.....
"I say, I say, that boy's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver." - Mel Blanc
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/27/2007 @ 12:41am
Thank you so much for an article that supports those of us out here who have known about voter suppression and election fraud engineering since 2000. It is very hard to get this message out to the American public when the Liberal media won't join in, especially esteemed publications such as The Nation. Evidence is overwhelming about the stolen elections; it is a no-brainer now. Consequences from these results have been devastating. Even now, it is obvious which way are country is headed as evidenced by the recent Supreme Court rulings. We are now in deep trouble regardless as to a Democratic victory in "08. From someone who has been tortured by the vote manipulations in Ohio for too long, I at least welcome this support of our cause, even though late in coming. Better late than never.
Posted by katjade at 06/27/2007 @ 10:23am