Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 12, 12 at 13:04

This time it's Texas. The Obama administration believes at least a million Texans are too stupid to acquire a driver's license or any other form of official ID for voting.

Elections where EVERYBODY shows ID aren't fair. In fact, they're a sinister plot!

The only fair elections are the ones the DOJ can rig to favor Democrats.
Had enough yet, America?

Here is a link that might be useful: Vote Early! Vote Often!


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Oh good grief. A solution looking for a problem. Don't you see, it is Texans telling pollworkers they are too stupid to recognize their neighbors without a state sponsored ID. Besides, if it was such a grand idea why didn't the Republican Party insist these rules apply in the presidential primaries? The id rules the Republicans used were actually less stringent than the rules that apply now in the general election. Would you also abolish absentee ballots which have no ID check?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The only fair elections are the ones the DOJ can rig to favor Democrats.

Interesting assertion.

Partisan talking point, no?

From the article:

The department on Monday said Texas did not meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and failed to show that the law will not discriminate against minority voters.

According to the state's data, a Hispanic registered voter is much more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack the required identification, according to the Justice Department.

Now let's rephrase Nik's comment - The only fair elections are the ones the DOJ Texas legislature can rig to favor exclude Democrats. If Latino Democrats are excluded, so much the better.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 12, 12 at 13:19

....why didn't the Republican Party insist these rules apply in the presidential primaries?

LOL .. beat me to the keyboard :)


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

I understand the discourse that some like to see with this but before we say people are "too stupid to acquire a driver's license" You have to realize there are other factors.

-Do you think it is OK if a senior on a fixed income no longer can drive should have to pay for a license to vote?
-There is a way of getting a photo ID if you do not drive but the Senior that does not have transportation "because they do not drive" have to find a way of getting birth certificate which they have to pay for with the little money they do not have.
-They will accept a guns license but will not accept a College Student ID. Really?

There are so many other issues....But I ask...Are the Republicans so weak that they cannot win without trying to cut people from voting. Maybe they should find better candidates.

Wake up it will not work. There are more informed, educated people that vote than the small pockets that only listen to Faux News Parrots.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

From Fox News, (yes, FOX NEWS) quoting ruling:

The department's head of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, wrote a a six-page letter to Texas' director of elections saying that Texas has not "sustained its burden" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11 percent of Hispanic voters reportedly lack state-issued identification.

What the DOJ is saying is that Hispanics are too stupid to figure out how to get identification or they should be a special group getting special treatment.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

What I find so amazing is this obsession by Republicans on voter ID's while ignoring the obvious ID problem in absentee ballots which are just mailed in without ANY check of id's. In fact most of the few documented instances of voter fraud are from absentee voting. Of course, Republicans tend to get more votes from absentee ballots than Democrats so I guess they don't want to suppress their own voter base even though this omission exposes them for their cynical agenda.

Here is a link that might be useful: Absentee voter fraud


 o
doj and historic discrimination

What the DOJ is saying is that Hispanics are too stupid to figure out how to get identification or they should be a special group getting special treatment.

Odd interpretation, and one that be made only if federal law under the Voting Rights Act is ignored.

From the linked article:

The law appears to most heavily impact voters in 20 of Texas' majority Hispanic counties. In nine of those counties, 40 percent or more of registered voters did not perfectly match 2012 DPS data - such as Hidalgo County, home to 170,000 voters, including many Mexican-Americans and retirees who spill into South Texas' Mission and McAllen every winter.

The secretary of state conducted the comparisons at the Justice Department's request. Because of historic discrimination, Texas and other Southern states face special scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act, which requires those states to win approval from the Justice Department or a Washington, D.C.-based federal court before making election changes. A DOJ decision is expected Monday.


 o
Covered Jurisdictions

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Sections 2 and 5

Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.

Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions

Alabama as of Nov. 1, 1964
Alaska as of Nov. 1, 1972
Arizona as of Nov. 1, 1972
Georgia as of Nov. 1, 1964
Louisiana as of Nov. 1, 1964
Mississippi as of Nov. 1, 1964
South Carolina as of Nov. 1, 1964
Texas as of Nov. 1, 1972
Virginia as of Nov. 1, 1964

Specific counties from states not designated as 'covered jurisdictions' - such as North Carolina - were called out as 'covered counties.' Four counties in California were added 1968 and 1972. Since all four are agricultural counties, their addition represents protection of Latino voting rights.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Desperate parties require desperate postings, I needed 2 Id's to pick up a check. The state photo I'd was no longer good enough. The country @ these termites are becoming more & more sickening


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

I could add that only recently has the DOJ been labled as an arm of the current administration having historically been non-partisan. That change in our attitude towards our DOJ happened during the Bush II administration with the partisian firing of DOJ employees. In this case would they not be remiss if they werent following the letter of the law and doing their job?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The republicans are going after the voters' rights on several fronts, another being redistricting.

Here is a link that might be useful: Democracy Now


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Re the potential fraud of absentee ballots. There was a while in there where, if you were an over-seas resident, you had to have your ballot notarized at the Embassy.

Which for me meant a days drive in and a days drive back. I think they finally did away with that.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

As has been said, many times:

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"What the DOJ is saying is that Hispanics are too stupid to figure out how to get identification or they should be a special group getting special treatment."

Yep. These people are so impaired, so defective, so NEEDY, that getting a piece of ID from the State of Texas is simply beyond their limited capacity.

If it were true, it would be really sad. But it's not true. Democrats just THINK it is.

Which makes their narrative so funny. They actually believe a significant number of their voters are too dysfunctional to solve a simple problem like getting a photo ID. For confirmation, just pay attention to how they describe those voters.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Or it could be interpreted that the Texas lawmakers are so stupid that they think this blatant attempt to disenfranchise a high number of minority voters will fly with the Department of Justice.

Theres a reason these places are on the watch list, you know.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

My understanding of this statement by the DOJ is that Texas has not provided the information they must according to long established law and until they do the law cannot be passed.

So it would seem that as long as Texas provides the information, as required by law, then they can enact this voter ID law.

Sorta like the tort/abortion thing.....we see the facts as we wish to but that doesn't mean it's the real facts.

Oh, and before you go blasting me.....I support voter ID requirements as long as they are not onerous and provide several alternatives. We have them here in Ontario and it's not an issue.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nik, your statement about Hispanics that you are trying to project onto Democrats is transparently a cynical attack on the "smarts" of Hispanics to discern what is going on here and their ability to see through yet another vote suppression tactic by Republicans where there is no evidence of a voter fraud problem. Hispanics are NOT clamoring to meet special ID requirements set by Republicans to earn the approval of Republicans and to show you how smart they are at navigating the system and jumping through hoops. The only reason for this tactic is to suppress voter turnout otherwise we would see Republicans employing strict voter ID's in their primaries.


 o
oh, look

Here's a current case of voter fraud, ballot stuffing with absentee votes. Note that showing an ID isn't part of the equation.

begin quote: "As the sheriff of Lincoln County, W.Va., Jerry Bowman is sworn to uphold the law. But the 58-year-old law enforcement veteran stood in a federal courtroom in Charleston on Wednesday and pleaded guilty in a shocking voter fraud case that has stripped him of his job and could send him to prison for a decade.

Prosecutors say Bowman and former Lincoln County Clerk Donald Whitten, 62, were part of a scheme to steal the May 2010 Democratic primary by stuffing ballot boxes with illegal absentee ballots.

Bowman admitted to falsifying more than 100 of the absentee ballot applications and even voting with some of the ballots himself, while Whitten, who also pleaded guilty Wednesday, acknowledged lying to investigators about the plan to try to throw the election.

"It makes you mad," said Charles Brumfield, who ran against Bowman for Lincoln County circuit clerk, about having the election stolen from him. "It was hurtful. You just didn't think that would happen in today's society."
Brumfield told Fox News that on election night, he was ahead by about 235 votes. That is, until additional batches of absentee ballots started mysteriously appearing, repeatedly, throughout the evening.

"We knew something was wrong, because the post office closes at 4:30 ... you don't go to the post office at 9 o'clock at night and find ballots."
But for several hours on election night, "They kept coming out and saying 'we found some more ballots' ... and they did this about three times from 7 to 11 p.m., and when the final tally was taken, we lost," Brumfield said.

Brumfield was suspicious leading up to election night because he says he heard that more then 800 absentee ballot applications had been requested for the race, nearly six times more than normal number. He took the case to court, and after a judge threw out more than 300 ballots, he was declared the winner and was sworn in as the Lincoln County circuit clerk.

"An absentee ballot is a good thing, if it's used correctly, the way it's supposed to. And it wasn't used that way," Brumfield said.

The voter fraud allegations were investigated by U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin in West Virginia and West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant. An FBI agent and an investigator from Tennant's office even allegedly had a gun pulled on them by one absentee ballot voter who is charged with making threats to kill them.

"We won't tolerate elections violations," Tennant told Fox News. "It makes me angry that someone would take our process, which is a good process, and attempt to manipulate it for their own good. ... It is disappointing."

"Voter fraud in southern West Virginia goes far and wide. It's been bad my whole life," the Lincoln County Republican Party Chairwoman Lisa Ramey said. She is now running for sheriff, and told Fox News that she once "saw someone buy a vote and get a bottle," meaning whiskey.

"I'm appalled, disgusted," she says. "We have good citizens in Lincoln County and we would like to have one, decent, fair election in our county, but I'm not sure that will be able to occur unless the federal government takes over the election process."

She calls this voter fraud case, "the tip of the iceberg."
But Tennant says the case shows that voter fraud violations will be pursued. She says that people who engage in voter fraud "attempt to chip away at our democracy," and she has a message for anyone who might consider committing fraud: "If you attempt to chip away at our democracy, and if you manipulate the system, then you will face the punishment ... It's the voters, the honest voters who we work to protect."

Tennant also says, "Every vote and every election is important, because it represents our democracy, it represents our freedom, it represents our ability to choose in a fair and open manner." She vows to vigilantly protect the process. " snip end quote

Thank you, Department of Justice, for keeping our elections honest!!!

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

What is truly strange. The same people that DOJ claims would be disenfranchised in Texas, are required to have a government ID in Mexico in order to vote. Wonder if they are trying to keep their elections honest?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Shame Nik keeps doing her best to play kick me & no one will oblige.


 o
alec

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 12, 12 at 19:02

"The non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice reports:

"Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs, because the underlying documentation like birth certificates (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult or expensive to come by. At the same time, voter ID policies are far more costly to implement than many assume."

Here is a link that might be useful: Another ALEC Law Bites the Dust


 o
Meanwhile in former Wisconsin

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 12, 12 at 19:34

"A major blow against Voter ID in Wisconsin - and maybe other similar laws passed all across the country.

"Today Judge Richard Niess issued a strongly-worded decision, saying that a government that undermines the right to vote "sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution.""

Here is a link that might be useful: Source


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

What is truly strange. The same people that DOJ claims would be disenfranchised in Texas, are required to have a government ID in Mexico in order to vote. Wonder if they are trying to keep their elections honest?

Unbelievable! Do you actually think every hispanic in Texas is a recent illegal from Mexico? That pretty well encapsulates Republican bigotry in one ignorant post. You might read up on southwestern history. There were hispanics in Texas BEFORE it became part of the US.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Ohhh kt, so it's not immigrants that they are trying to "disenfranchise" huh. Well you need to make that clear to your own side of the aisle. Just who is it do YOU think they are trying to disenfranchise?

And who said anything about illegals other than you? And for Hispanics who have been there since before Texas became a part of the US, would never have voted in Mexico anyway geesh.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Unbelievable! You actually think that the bill just targets illegal hispanics? I guess the voter suppression tactics in black voting precincts are to insure that illegals from Africa don't vote. Get a clue.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 12, 12 at 20:55

"Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan cited studies finding that there were more than 200,000 Wisconsin residents who lacked a state-issued photo ID but were otherwise eligible to vote."


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 12, 12 at 20:59

These people are so impaired, so defective, so NEEDY, that getting a piece of ID from the State of Texas is simply beyond their limited capacity.

....and the only people who post this "dribble" are not democrats.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

I never thought it targeted illegal anyone kt, that was your fantasy world. Immigrants certainly don't have to be illegal. And they could have immigrated from Mexico, voters, that were required to have an ID to vote.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Seems as if the Voting Rights Act was correct in naming Texas as a covered jurisdiction.

Nik, why do you hate federal civil rights legislation?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

What on earth does another countries voting laws have to do with the Laws in America?

Im confused.......as usual.


 o
La legge e' uguale per tutti

What on earth does another countries voting laws have to do with the Laws in America?

Nothing at all, chase. Nothing at all.

But ignoring civil rights legislation -- that's as American as apple pie.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

About as poisonous as apples seeds, you gotta be careful of these hate the US termites they'll eat the floorboards out from under us in their penchant for the extreme.
Nothing patriotic in their extremism "VER ARE YOU PAPERS"
right out of a cheesy episode of Hogans Hero's who ever thunk it would happen here. termites of the right corrosive invasive persistent in the downfall of freedom & liberty in the name of security.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Thirty one states already require ID in order to vote. Tempest in a teapot. Where has your righteous anger been all this time? And NOW it's to disenfranchise voters?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Most of these restrictions have come about recently - since the election of Obama. And we have debated them many times. Seems to be another thing you've forgotten.

Mrs, I'm curious about those voting restrictions in old France - isn't that where Cajuns came from?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Just want to add in response to the allegation that these ID laws are aimed at stopping undocumented workers from voting that it is preposterous from the POV of illegal immigrants. The idea that someone living here illegally trying to avoid detection would risk being caught just to alter the election 1 vote is just so silly. What we see here in my state are undocumented workers so paranoid about being found out by officials that they won't go to a regular doctor or dentist, won't enroll their kids in school, and won't even call the police to report crime against themselves. The idea that they would risk detection to vote is a notion so silly that only a determined Republican could believe it. And the statistics bear this out. Can anyone cite an instance of an illegal immigrant voting? Most of the time it is a legal voter who went to the wrong polling place, forgot to update change of address, or an election official screwing with results.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

umm kt, you were the one who brought up illegals. I can't imagine why. But immigrants to Texas are most likely to be immigrants from Mexico. Legal immigrants. The point being, if they were required to have ID in Mexico in order to vote, why would they feel disenfranchised to be required to have the same in the US?

This all came about with the Help America Vote Act from a democrat congress and senate in 2003. It was left up to the states regarding voter ID requirements. And 31 states required voter ID, but now all of a sudden the dems don't like it so much anymore huh? Wonder why?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Looking at the DOJ injunction, its up to the state of Texas to prove that they are not disenfranchising legal voters with this new requirement.

So go for it - if they can prove that they aren't stopping anyone from exercising their fundamental rights, then there isn't a problem.


 o
@@@@RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Of course there is a problem david...right up until election day. Let's see, we have class warfare, war on women, disenfranchising voters, gotta be a couple more. Haven't heard much about, I'm running on my record lol.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Setting up excuses already!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Let's see, we have class warfare, war on women, disenfranchising voters

And the shameful part is ... it's TRUE!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"My understanding of this statement by the DOJ is that Texas has not provided the information they must according to long established law and until they do the law cannot be passed."

Chase,

Texas passed the photo ID law, as did several other states. The DOJ simply overruled the citizens of Texas. Nothing the state could have done would have satisfied the DOJ. It does not want the state checking IDs. Period. That's the way top down governments work. Fortunately, this is not over, and Texas (along with other states) will see the DOJ in court.

To believe the DOJ fairy tale, one must believe that hundreds of thousands of adults who managed to get themselves registered to vote in Texas elections are far too impaired to get themselves a photo ID. One must also believe parties would stand by while legitimate voters for their candidates remained at home. It doesn't make sense because it's a crock.

Your support for voter ID in Canada has no more to do with "disenfranchising" voters there, than Americans' support for photo ID has here in the States. Restricting voting to those entitled to do so the only way to preserve the power of the people, whether they're Canadians or Americans. I am certain you would be alarmed if Canadian elections were run the way the DOJ wants to run ours...no ID checks, everybody is on the honor system. How long do you think Canadians stand for that?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nik, I have no argument with voter ID so am not getting into a debate with you about it.

My point is that the State, any Sate must prove that their ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. Seems that 31 States have managed to comply with that law so what gives Texas a pass?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The point being, if they were required to have ID in Mexico in order to vote, why would they feel disenfranchised to be required to have the same in the US?

NO, the point is enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

Texas was included as a covered jurisdiction for a reason, and unfortunately its legislature makes a case for continued inclusion on the list.

Are the elected officials in Texas too dumb to understand the Voting Rights Acts? After all, they have had more than a few decades to learn about that law and how it affects their state.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Mrskjun, YOU brought up Mexico and implied this voter ID bill was aimed at preventing hispanic IMMIGRANTS from voting. The DOJ did not make a distinction between immigrants, undocumented workers, or 20th generation hispanics that have lived in Texas since before statehood. In fact the rash of these voter suppression bills, like the rash of Arizona style "papers please" immigration bills ALL started AFTER Obama was elected.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

no ID checks, everybody is on the honor system.

That is, of course, totally bogus. There are, in effect for decades now, a whole host of ways of proving legitimate voting status. Rent receipts, utility receipts, phone bills etc that show you name and address. You need that to register to vote. Once you are registered, then you go in to the polls, tell them you name, they can use any one of those forms of ID to mark your name off the list, and you vote. Should anyone else come in and try to vote under that name, they can't.


 o
!!RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The DOJ simply overruled the citizens of Texas.

The citizens of Texas did not vote on this law. It was passed by the legislature. I'd be happier if they had put it up to a citizen vote.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Posted by kingturtle Zone 7 GA (My Page) on
Tue, Mar 13, 12 at 10:40

Mrskjun, YOU brought up Mexico and implied this voter ID bill was aimed at preventing hispanic IMMIGRANTS from voting. The DOJ did not make a distinction between immigrants, undocumented workers, or 20th generation hispanics that have lived in Texas since before statehood.

Oh really?

"WASHINGTON (AP) � A photo ID requirement for voters in Texas could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of registered Hispanics, the Justice Department declared Monday"

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

umm kt, you were the one who brought up illegals. I can't imagine why. But immigrants to Texas are most likely to be immigrants from Mexico. Legal immigrants. The point being, if they were required to have ID in Mexico in order to vote, why would they feel disenfranchised to be required to have the same in the US?

Ummm, mrsk, you have to be a citizen to vote. Immigrants can't vote.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

As forumers quibble over this issue, did anyone hear on another medium that your arguments are pointless? The courts ruled the Texas law on voter ID would be discriminatory and therefore cannot be enforced.

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Don't you see, it is Texans telling pollworkers they are too stupid to recognize their neighbors without a state sponsored ID.

Ever been to Houston, Dallas, or Austin? Most people in those three cities don't even know their own neighbor, much less someone on the other side of town, or even a couple of blocks away.

KT-- you know every single person in your town by sight?

And Kate, the fact that the court ruled as it did was just as political as how you see Texas proposing this law in the first place.


 o
Why are we arguing?

I wasn't arguing that it is or is not political--I was just informing posters that an official decision is in, so all the arguing here will change nothing.

Just information, bill. No need to pick fights where no one is fighting.

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Bill, I vote down the valley at a church where my close neighbors run the operation and have since I was 6 and yes, the pollworkers know everyone by name, who their parents are, whether they go to church regularly, whose kids plays on what school teams, and all sorts of things I'd just as soon they not know.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

I have ask MrsK this before and never got an answer so I suppose I wont agan but one more time...MrsK-you had no birth certificate. Your avenue to recognized citizenship was an affidavit from your mother. Now please answer me this-do you believe that if you were born Hispanic with no birth certificate and no access to the doctor who assisted your birth( yours had died I believe) do you believe that your mother's word would be sufficient to get you a birth certificate and therefore recognition as an American citizen with the right to vote?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Tempest in a teapot is an extreme case of voter fraud hysteria to demand something which may might could disenfranchise voters, Every cycle we have those packs at the polls challenging voters (who have they almost always been? what is their purpose?) Same purpose as this. Same as posting notices in Newark & Philadelphia that if you go vote & you have any outstanding warrants or parking tickets you will be arrested. Same crew that announces election day as the wrong day. Voter suppression/Fraud/Shennaigans generally is a product of? Anyone Anyone Nik K Anyone?

Tiny bit o His tory!

1994 - Republican Karl Rove helps George W. Bush in his Governors race against incumbent Democrat Ann Richards. Rove starts a whisper campaign that Richards is gay and runs push polling phone calls asking voters "would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians."

Ohhh Doity doity tricks K I'm outraged aren't you?

2000 - Republican Karl Rove is at the heart of George Bush's vicious smear campaign against fellow Republican John McCain in the South Carolina primary, claiming McCain was a stoolie while a P.O.W. in Vietnam and now emotionally unstable. Rove is also credited with a coordinated stealth campaign of push polling which asks South Carolina voters: "If you knew John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child would you be more or less likely to vote for him?" This was followed up with direct mail and church parking lot flyers to convince voters McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually his illegitimate daughter and that his wife was a drug addict. A Bush operative also stole McCain's email lists and directly emails McCain's closest supporters with scandal and lies. Ironically Karl Rove's mentor Lee Atwater, was the political strategist for Strom Thurman, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who actually did have an illegitimate African American daughter.
200,000 Voters were challenged or barred from Voting in Ohio Kerry lost that state by 119,000 votes. The Challengers at the polls were

Nov 4, 2008 Another tactic is removing American citizens from the voter registries for dubious reasons. Here in Colorado, for example, as reported by the New York Times, more than 37,000 names were purged from the registration database by the Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman, who critics contend should have resigned his post from the conflict-of-interest when he won the Republican nomination to run for congress. The Colorado court of appeals on October 30 ordered these voter registrations restored, fortunately.

hall of Shame
Freddy Thompson, 47, Republican Clay County Clerk, Chairman of the Board of Elections, 150 months (12 1/2 years): "As chairman of the board of elections, Thompson helped the Clay County elections board control the outcomes of the primary and general elections for the years 2002, 2004 and 2006. ... He also instructed the officers how they could use the voting machines to steal votes. ... As part of the scheme, Thompson and others switched the votes of county residents. ... On more than one occasion, after the elections had ended Thompson helped prepare false election reports to be sent to Frankfort that intentionally contained inaccurate voting totals."
Cletus Maricle, 67, Clay County Circuit Court Judge, 320 months (26 1/2+ years): "Described as the leader of a long running criminal enterprise that made millions of dollars and controlled politics in the county ... Maricle helped create a culture of lawlessness in the county that existed for three decades. ... Maricle led a scheme that used $400,000 to bribe 8,000 voters during the course of the conspiracy. ... Maricle headed up the Clay County board of elections that controlled the outcomes of the primary and general elections for the years 2002, 2004 and 2006. ... Maricle promised one female election officer a job and to help with her brother's case, who was a defendant in Maricle's court, if she promised to participate in the criminal enterprise by stealing votes as an election officer. ... Maricle served as circuit court judge from 1991 until 2007."
Douglas C. Adams, 59, Clay County School Superintendent, 293 months (Almost 24 1/2 years): "[O]ne of the most powerful individuals in Clay County ... Adams recruited other members from the school board to join the conspiracies and used his power to bribe others to get prominent jobs in the county for individuals who cooperated with the conspiracies. ... Prosecutors described Adams as a political boss and a conspiracy leader in the county who used his influence over others to corrupt the election process in the county. ... As a result, the enterprise gained power and authority over the county's politics. ... Smith said Adams solicited bribe money from candidates for city and county offices. He told the candidates that they had to contribute money to the enterprise in order to get elected. ... Testimony proved that he also bribed other county residents to join the criminal scheme. In one instance, he promised an individual that drug charges against him would be dropped if he joined the enterprise."
Stanley Bowling, 60, former Magistrate, 180 months (15 years): "Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Parman described Bowling as a 'crucial cog' in the conspiracy to fix elections. ... [U.S. District Judge Danny] Reeves recommended that Bowling, who suffers from multiple medical conditions, serve his time at a federal medical facility near his home."
Paul Bishop, 61, Republican Precinct Judge 36 months (3 years) after pleading guilty and cooperating with prosecutors: "Reeves credited Bishop...for his cooperation with the government and reduced his potential sentence because of his age, poor health and other factors. ... Bishop admitted he allowed Adams to use his garage for a meeting where vote-buying was discussed. ... At that meeting before the May 2002 primary election, candidates pooled at least $150,000 to be used to buy votes. ... Bishop also said he served as an election officer in the early, absentee voting in May 2002, working inside the polling place to make sure people who had sold their votes cast ballots for the people they'd been paid to support. ... [Also] Bishop said that in 2004, Clay County school Superintendent Douglas C. Adams gave him $2,000 to bribe voters. Bishop said he paid around 100 voters about $20 each to vote for a slate of candidates that included state Rep. Tim Couch. ... Couch, a Hyden Republican, had defeated Rep. Barbara White Colter in the 2002 GOP primary and was running for re-election in 2004. ... Bishop said people involved in the scheme pooled $150,000 to $250,000 at a meeting in his garage days before the 2002 primary election."
William E. Stivers, 58, Board of Elections Officer, 292 months (24+ years): "As an election officer, Stivers helped control the Clay County board of elections ... Testimony at last year's trial proved that during the elections, Stivers helped ensure victories for the candidates the conspirators wanted in office by changing votes at the voting machines, paying voters, and recruiting others to transport voters to the polls for the purpose of vote buying among other illegal actions."
Charles Wayne Jones, 71, Board of Elections Commissioner (father-in-law of County Clerk and Board Chair Thompson), 240 months (20 years): "A former democratic election commissioner in Clay County ... Jones picked election officers who assisted in corrupting the voting process at Jones' direction. Jones also gave specific instructions to the officers on how to manipulate the voting machines to steal votes. This was done so that the enterprise could ensure victory for the slate of candidates they wanted in county offices. ... Jones also intentionally prepared false election reports to be sent to Frankfort that inaccurately reported voting totals to help conceal the conspiracy."
[NOTE: Though Jones is said to have been a "Democratic" official, most of the gamed elections were Republican primaries, as Clay County is one of the poorest and most Republican counties in the state. Generally, the winner of the Republican primary in many races would go on to run unopposed in the general, or otherwise win it handily. Moreover, during the course of the trial, as we reported last year, at least one witness testified that, after being asked to do so by Judge Maricle, she changed her party affiliation from Republican in order to serve as a "Democratic" official at the polling place in order to help pull off the conspiracy by changing voters' votes at the touch-screen machine after they thought their vote had been cast. As Jones was also the father-in-law of Republican County Clerk Freddy Thompson, Jones' party affiliation is likely to have been as much a matter of convenience in order to help pull off the years of criminal conspiracies to steal elections, rather than a true conviction to the Democratic Party. In any case, the conspiracies here seemed to be much more about money and power than about party ideology.]

William B. Morris, 52 and Debra L. Morris, 51, 240 months (20 years) and 120 months (10 years), respectively: "The couple bought votes for individuals running for city council because those council candidates controlled contracts related to their sanitation company to perform city work. The company was given millions of dollars worth of contracts as a result of the criminal enterprise. ... Both defendants distributed some of that money to absentee voters and to other conspirators to buy votes. They also transported voters to the courthouse where other co-defendants stole their votes."

gee I bet that crew had more ID than you could shake a stick at & now they have eve more ID a prison numbah!

An organized crew usually difficult to round up a whole crew like that whose vote were they suppressing, what party were they playing for wheres the outrrages (plural)?

I can go on ladies & gent's it don't get no prettier wail & weepy. are you permitted to walk around your state freely & un mo lested without an VALID ID. IN NYC they will take you in till someone comes & identifies you & they may lose you in the system. Stop & frisk got to love that 4th ammendment & the termites who want to erode it.
Life in the freaking police state & the supporters who are making it so hard to breath they just keep sitting on the faces of John & Jane Q public.
I'm sure nothing I have written will matter to the hysterical, civil crowd.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

patriciae, I would hope so. But have you considered this? In order to become a citizen you must have proper identification. So exactly how are legal immigrants being disenfranchised? In fact, in order to walk into DOJ, you must offer identification.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

So exactly how are legal immigrants being disenfranchised?

Maybe you could read the court's ruling and find out?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Mrsk-I am not talking about immigrants-I am talking about hispanic people who for what ever reason -like your mother-didn't go to a hospital to have their baby-The doctor/ midwife has moved to Angola or died or just plain moved and disappeared. How does that person establish their creds as an American- If you are stuck on thinking they are immigrants-legal or othrwise-imagine the focus of the person at the various desks where this person tries to establish that he/she is in fact an american citizen-you seem to think it is easy-no problem-it wasn't a problem for you. If your mother/father is alive and can prove their citizenship then all it will take is DNA testing-wonder what that costs-add years and dead parents and how on earth??? You seem to take your right to vote seriously but could even you establish your citizenship in these difficult times?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

patriciae, after really thinking about this issue, I'm not as sure as I once was about voter ID cards. I am getting tired of losing all of our privacy, of being tracked by the government from cradle to grave. But one thing I am sure of, and that is states rights. Our government was set up to have a weak federal government and strong state government, and we have moved so far away from that. Every time a state passes a law for that state, the federal government should not be able to step in and force their will on the state.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Every time a state passes a law for that state, the federal government should not be able to step in and force their will on the state.

No checks and balances for a state that passes something onerous? Like what if Virginia had passed the transvaginal ultrasound? What if states refused to allow interracial couples to marry?

Oh, well, I guess that should just go to the Supreme Court.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Exactly esh. The Supreme Court. It shouldn't be a political party that makes these decisions for the states, and any way you look at it, the DOJ represents a political party according to whoever is president.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Mrskjun, voting rights is considered by most to be a civil right and therefore an issue of national importance. Don't forget, it was the Feds who forced the states to permit non land owning citizens, women, and blacks to participate in voting. You may disagree with the current issue over ID's and whether it is good or bad (or maybe not) but it clearly is a Constitutional question that falls within the scope of the DOJ and not a state's rights issue that the states are allowed to impose without judicial review (state & federal). Even the states acknowledge that even as they complain about federal interference. They are not questioning the role of the DOJ - just the ruling.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court has already held that Voter ID requirements are constitutional and nondiscriminatory.

The state is required to prove that it is nondiscriminatory to a federal judge. As it stands the case is before a three judge panel waiting for that ruling now. So why is the DOJ, clearly partisan, involved before the ruling has been issued.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Mrskjun, your opinion is that the DOJ is partisan but the real question is whether the performance of their duties adheres to the law - the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and the scope of their Civil Rights Office. If you look at the history of voting rights protection, it includes a prominent role by the DOJ in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. You do understand that enforcement is NOT the role of the Supreme Court right?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

You must have missed this part kt.

The state is required to prove that it is nondiscriminatory to a federal judge. As it stands the case is before a three judge panel waiting for that ruling now.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nothing gets by me Mrskjun. You however must have missed the part where the DOJ is tasked with enforcement of voting rights. Remember why the Civil Rights Act was passed? Here's the blurb from their website:

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.

Since its establishment, the Division has grown dramatically in both size and scope, and has played a role in many of the nation's pivotal civil rights battles. Division attorneys prosecuted the defendants accused of murdering three civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964, and were involved in the investigations of the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Medgar Evers. The Division enforces a wide array of laws that protect the civil rights of all individuals.

Here is a link that might be useful: DOJ & Civil Rights Enforcement


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

MrsK-you believe theat our country was set up with a weak federal government and strong state governments-this is not in fact true. The Federalist party who believed in a strong federal government ruled supreme for the first decade or so and they left their mark on our federal system. Southern states would like to think otherwise but remember when they contested the point they lost. Southern states continue to protest the point. I dont exactly understand the concept of strength in a fractured system. When I was in the 4th grade it seemed to me a good thing that the south had lost the war but I had lived in many states already and could see the strength in unity. Now with communications so swift and the whole world to compete with I dont see the value in a Blakanized country-but you have your opinion and I have mine. I dont actually have a problem with ID per-say-I think a national drivers license or some such thing would be a good Idea. I dont have a problem with 'the government' knowing where I live. I object to ID's that are plainly intended to keep people from voting-a much more problematic thing than voter fraud in my estimation.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 14, 12 at 21:06

Nikoleta - I recently spent about 8 hours and close to $50 getting 'proper photo identification' for my 16 year old son. Please note, that DOES NOT mean he had documents in 8 hours. That means it took 8 hours of MY TIME and $50 on a credit card during normal business hours to get the proper paperwork processed get the documents processed for mailing 3-4 weeks later. Fortunately, I have a major credit card, can afford $50 and have the employment flexibility to be able to carve out 8 hours to get the job done. And know also that this was with plenty of 'almost good enough' documentation readily available. Imagine how much worse it would have been had I not had 8 hours or lots of 'almost good enough' paperwork? What if we had experienced a house fire?

To everyone with a driver's license, showing a driver's license is NO BIG DEAL. But to folks who don't have one, actually getting one is a PITA.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

It's all about perspective, Sweeby.

Here's mine:

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died so that future generations of Americans could live in a free nation, with their politicians accountable to them via the ballot box.

I am grateful to all of them. Those who died gave up decades of their lives for my freedom. Today we STILL have men and women giving up their lives, and giving up literally YEARS away from their families through repeated deployments.

So when I see Democrats and the DOJ wetting their pants all over the country over a minor inconvenience that has no impact on the vast majority of voters, I can spot the con just as quickly as the next guy.

It's nonsense, and we all know it. Heaven forbid that any American state might have the audacity to expect their electorate to be made up of competent adults. It's time to call in the DOJ!

As you have illustrated for us, it can take HOURS to get documentation issues straightened out. And yet, in the face of the REAL and ongoing sacrifice by our fellow Americans that we all know is taking place, this administration would have us believe it is asking too much of some fraction of grown up Americans to take the time and responsibility for resolving their problems with the bureaucracy. That just won't fly.

I look forward to reading the transcripts when the DOJ tries to convince the SCOTUS that clean elections aren't worth the "sacrifice" in "lost hours" to that vast population of adult men and women "at risk" of being "disenfranchised" because they sat on their butts when they should have been getting their documentation in order like everybody else.


 o
I've got mine, sod you

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 15, 12 at 15:44

a minor inconvenience that has no impact on the vast majority of voters

Never mind the 220,000 Wisconsin citizens that cannot vote:

23 percent of Wisconsinites over the age of 65
17 percent of white men and women
55 percent of African American males and 49 percent of African American women
46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women
78 percent of African American males age 18-24
66 percent of African American women age 18-24


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

So what?

Those statistics do not tell us anything about disenfranchisement, they tell us about the limitations or lack of interest from African Americans and Hispanics.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Fortunately, in this country where our soldiers have fought and died for our liberty, the groups doing the vote suppression DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS A MINOR OR MAJOR INCONVENIENCE TO THE PEOPLE BEING SUPPRESSED.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Lots of cyber-love for KT today coming from California.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

No one is suppressed, KT.

Most old white people manage to obtain identification.

They're not smarter and more able than Hispanics or African Americans, are they?

Perhaps they are just more motivated to bother with doing what it takes to exercise the privilege to vote.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Demi, I refer you to my last post.

Thanks Nancy. Likewise.


 o
Ruthelle Frank, age 84

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 15, 12 at 16:34

BROKAW -- Ruthelle Frank was born on Aug. 21, 1927, in her home in Brokaw [Wisconsin]. It was a hard birth; there were complications. A doctor had to come up from Wausau to see that she and her mother made it through.

Frank ended up paralyzed on the left side of her body. To this day, she walks with a shuffle and doesn't have much use of one arm.

Her mother recorded her birth in the family Bible. Frank still has it. A few months later, when Ruthelle was baptized, her mother got a notarized certificate of baptism. She still has that document, too.

What she never had -- and in 84 years, never needed -- was a birth certificate.


 o
Sam Bulmer, 63, US Air Force Veteran

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 15, 12 at 16:40

Sam spent 13 of his 63 years in the U.S. Air Force, serving some of that time with the Air Force Training Command. In Iceland, he served as an instructor during preparations for the Iran hostage crisis mission. Sam has no accepted photo ID card for voting in Wisconsin, but he has his VA ID card hanging around his neck. And he can't get a state ID card for free? Actually, no. The Division of Motor Vehicles won't believe Sam is a U.S. citizen until he shows them a certified copy of his birth certificate from Kansas, a document he can't obtain because Kansas wants him to show ID to get it.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Maybe you want to send this to Sam lenam.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
one more RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Oh, btw, in Wisconsin, you can tell Ruthelle a certificate of baptism will do for a photo ID.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

a certificate of baptism will do for a photo ID

Not according to WI DMV site. (And what baptismal certificate has a photo ID?)

WI accepts a certificate of baptism as proof of name and date of birth, but not as proof of identity.


 o
The Story Continues

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 15, 12 at 17:20

Though Frank never had a birth certificate, the state Register of Deeds in Madison has a record of her birth. It can generate a birth certificate for her -- for a fee. Normally, the cost is $20.

"I look at that like paying a fee to vote," Frank said.

And for Frank, that might not be the end of it. The attending physician at Frank's birth misspelled her maiden name, which was Wedepohl. To get a birth certificate that has correct information, she will have to petition a court to amend the document -- a weekslong process that could cost $200 or more.

She's heard different things from different sources, but one email from the State Vital Records Division advised her to pay the $20 for an incorrect birth certificate, then go to the DMV and see if that office is willing to accept it. Roll the dice, in other words.


Are you sure you want to recommend VitaChek?

Health Dept. warns of vital records scam
Fort Morgan Times staff
Posted: 08/09/2011 03:06:14 PM MDT

The vital records office at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is warning the public about online birth certificate services that are charging more than five times the $17.75 cost of getting certificates through the state or local vital records offices.

Colorado residents have reported paying up to $120 for an online service that assists people in completing the birth certificate application online and then submitting it to the state.


 o
Point being...

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 15, 12 at 17:28

THERE IS NO voter fraud problem.

THERE IS a voter SUPPRESSION program.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

How many times have we asked on this forum for EVIDENCE that VOTER IMPERSONATION FRAUD is occurring, much less in any significant numbers?

There is no evidence that there is a problem with voter impersonation occuring--that is why no one ever supplies the "evidence" that it is occurring.

There is no problem--therefore we don't need your "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

And it has nothing to do with how many Americans sacrificed their lives for this country. What's with that pitch? That proves there if a problem with voter impersonation in our country? That makes no sense at all!

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

What were you expecting, Kate... sense? ;-)


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

It exists Kate. Since I've been on this forum there has been numerous posts regarding lawsuits for voter fraud. But you know what? When you have no record to run on, when after three years the economy is still in the tank and thirteen million people are out of work. When gas is 4.00 a gallon. The best you can do is promote class warfare, war on women, and voter disenfranchisement. It makes for a great smokescreen.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Hoot!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 15, 12 at 20:01

When you have no record to run on

Hoot ^ 10

Here is a link that might be useful: Obama Administration's Achievements (Thus Far)


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

It exists? Present some cases that are not (1) registration fraud by temp ACORN workers that ACORN staff themselves identified to election officials or(2) fraud by election workers that will not be fixed with voter ID. And finally, if voter ID is the panacea you claim it is, please someone explain why the Republicans did not include the voter ID rules they are trying to impose on everyone else in their own primaries to demonstrate to us what a small issue it really is? Can you say hypocrite?

Mrskjun, you are sounding pretty desperate trying to talk down an improving economy.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Most arrest for voter fraud have been like the ones I posted above all them good folks from Kentucky.
Usually politicians poll workers not voters but wail on.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Evidently kt, you haven't been buying groceries or gas. The price of food jumped 13% between Jan and Nov in 2011, and went up 3.9% in Feb. of this year alone. Gas prices have gone up over 100% since Obama took office. Most people who have jobs have not seen a raise in three years. Sure, the economy is just perking along.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Mrskjun, you bring up a good point about raises. Statistics show that 93% of income rise has since the economic crash has gone to the upper 1%. Can I interest you in a petition to Congress to urge Republicans to raise taxes on the rich to help fund a jobs bill for those you feel so sorry for or does your concern for the plight of those struggling in this economy stop short of actually doing anything short of blaming Obama for what has been a 20-30 year trend?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nope kt, I'll just blame Obama for the last three years.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

If there is evidence of voter impersonation fraud -- and I'm talking about more than a handful throughout the country -- why don't you start a new thread and present that evidence?

Notice, I am not talking about corrupt election officials or people taking bribes -- not even about voter registration fraud. I am talking about the only kind of voter fraud that the new mandated voter IDs would affect: voter impersonation fraud--showing up at the elections and trying to pass oneself off as someone else so you can vote fraudulently as that other person.

This is a challenge. You people keep saying pictures are needed to stop voters passing themselves off as someone else: voter impersonation fraud. How often does it happen? Give us the stats so we understand what a serious problem--the corruption of the American way--will be solved by the newly mandated voter IDs.

(Bet you can't prove the problem exists!)

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nope kt, I'll just blame Obama for the last three years.

So those who have suffered through this economy are useful political arguments but you won't lift a finger to help them. Thanks for your honesty.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

huh? I won't lift a finger to help who kt. My dh hasn't gotten a raise in three years, and we still pay our taxes and give. Something else you think I should do?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The ACLU found "Sam-the-Veteran" in a homeless shelter. The website below clearly states that voter ID is free for anyone who wants it in order to vote. If Sam does not qualify for FREE photo ID, some other problem has been omitted from the story. Perhaps he has no permanent address. What we know for certain is that Sam is all cleaned up, and his picture makes a compelling propaganda photo for the minds toward which this propaganda is aimed.

"Fortunately, in this country where our soldiers have fought and died for our liberty, the groups doing the vote suppression DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS A MINOR OR MAJOR INCONVENIENCE TO THE PEOPLE BEING SUPPRESSED."

Yep. We've seen what a "major inconvenience" looks like to those who reach adulthood without gratitude for the sacrifice of others. They are outraged over giving up a few hours.

For those adults, the "loss" to the 19 year soldier old who lies in his grave forever is of equal magnitude to their "loss" of a few hours spent working with the bureaucracy.

As KT says, these folks get to decide what constitutes a "minor inconvenience, and they've shared that information with us. What we know now is that grownup people who want to vote in this country feel put-upon when asked to give back a few hours of their time in return getting the ID necessary for clean elections. A lost lifetime for a soldier, vs the few hours they may have to spend running around town are equal "sacrifices."

Here is a link that might be useful: Free ID for Sam-the-homeless-vet


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 16, 12 at 12:43

Perhaps he has no permanent address.

So homeless people cannot vote?

Perhaps we should limit voting to landowners.



Applying for an original (first time) ID card

When applying for an original ID card you must visit a DMV service center, complete form MV3004 PDF (405 KB) - Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) Application and provide:

- Proof of name and date of birth, for example, a certified U.S. birth certificate, valid passport or certificate of naturalization.

- Proof of identity (usually a document with a signature or photo).

- Proof of Wisconsin residency.

- Proof of U.S. citizenship, legal permanent resident status, legal conditional resident status or legal temporary visitor status.

-Your social security number.


For a "voting fraud" problem that does not exist.

Here is a link that might be useful: Obtaining an identification (ID) card [Wisconsin]


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Mrskjun, the more I hear about your family - a mother suffering with medical problems, possible inherited risk factors in your family that would benefit from preventive care, and a dh who hasn't gotten a raise in 3 years, the more I wonder why in the world you are voting for more Republican policies that put us in this predicament to start with and promise more of the same if elected. If you want to do more for those suffering in this economy, stop parroting wingnut websites about the economy and healthcare reform and take an honest look at the policies that will help those in need including your own family. Do you even know how you would be impacted by the Ryan Budget? Seriously, stop wasting your time playing silly one-up games on this forum that really don't cast you or your party in a very positive light anyway and find out the facts.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

kt, the facts are that the last two years of the Bush presidency, when the economy tanked, democrats controlled both congress and the senate. Remember congress and spending bills? The first two years of Obama's presidency, were with democrats controlling congress and the senate. Remember congress and spending bills? I'm hoping for a sea change in Washington.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

mrsk--the first two years of Obama's presidency the Republicans held up almost everything by filibustering and thus requiring a 60% majority--don't you remember? I personally have reminded you of it several times and I remember several other posters reminding you of it several times--at least!

Why can't you remember that 60% majority vote required by the Republican filibusters? How can you possibly think the Democrats are responsible for very little getting done when everyone (except you) knows it was the Republican filibusters that stopped just about everything the Democrats would have like to do?

Please quit repeating things that you know are not true.

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Is that anything like almost every bill sent from congress, other than those authored by democrats, since the republicans have been the majority are still sitting on Harry Reids desk because he won't let them come up in the senate for a vote Kate?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

So you think the economy tanked BECAUSE the Democrats controlled Congress the last 2 years?!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"So homeless people cannot vote?"

According to the link below, homeless people can vote.

So I'm back to wondering what is standing between Sam and his free ID. His state offers free ID and free birth certificates to voters. Yet according to your post, poor Sam doesn't qualify for free ID. Why not? What's the rest of the story?

Here is a link that might be useful: State laws for homeless voters


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nik is worried that our veterans will commit voter fraud?! After they fought so unselfishly for the freedoms she enjoys every day. It was bad enough when Republicans voted to deny veterans the care and benefits they were promised, when they booed a veteran at a debate, now they want to throw additional obstacles in the way of THEIR voting and make them jump through some ridiculous hoop to prevent a nonexistent crime! What a disgusting way to treat our heroes.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nik didn't imply that veterans would commit fraud--quite the contrary. And why do you believe Republicans are the bad guys? There's enough of those people on both sides of the aisle. Surely no one actually believes that either side is always right or always wrong.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Has anyone read about the NAACP taking the voter ID requirement for Texas before the UN Human Rights Commission?
Seriously? The UN? The Human Rights Commission? Cuba, China, Libya, are going to take up voting rights in the US? Bush stop funding this crew, and Obama has reinstated the funding. This would be hilarious if it weren't so weird.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Actual voter fraud has been proven to be so non existent that the few actual cases don't amount to a 65 cent bag of m&m's... but the stories persist. That's what I've gotten out of the numerous times this has been brought up, debunked, and brought up again.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 17, 12 at 9:20

Notice how the response from Conservative-world is not:

"Good heavens, our Veterans are homeless???"

but is instead:

"Homeless Veterans only have a few hoops to jump through before they can vote."


Voter suppression is a REPUBLICAN agenda item:

Since Republicans won control of many statehouses in the November 2010 elections, more than a dozen states have passed laws requiring voters to show photo identification at polls, cutting back early voting periods or imposing new restrictions on voter registration drives.

Here is a link that might be useful: Source


 o
Re: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 17, 12 at 9:24

Seriously? The UN? The Human Rights Commission? Cuba, China, Libya, are going to take up voting rights in the US? ... This would be hilarious if it weren't so weird.


Somebody is trying to tell you something.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"Nik is worried that our veterans will commit voter fraud?!"

Elvis...that was supposed to distract you! :)

Good morning, KT. I don't worry about veterans committing voter fraud. I worry about veterans. Especially exploited veterans, living in shelters where they become handy props for leftist propaganda.

Sam has a history he can document. What is the mysterious barrier standing between Sam and the free state voter ID?


 o
RE: Doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 17, 12 at 9:56

Sam has a history he can document. What is the mysterious barrier standing between Sam and the free state voter ID?


The mysterious barrier standing between Sam and his right to vote is spelled

R E P U B L I C A N S.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Lenam, it's not just Republicans; we had Governor Doyle in WI and he was a total loser (Democrat, right?). Now we have Walker (Republican, for those who don't know); and he's even worse. It's not necessarily the party, it's the person. And of course, the legislature at any given time.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 17, 12 at 22:29

There is no comparison between Doyle and Walker.

To limit this to the topic currently being discussed Doyle never pushed to suppress voting rights in Wisconsin.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"Sam has a history he can document. What is the mysterious barrier standing between Sam and the free state voter ID?"

"The mysterious barrier standing between Sam and his right to vote is spelled R E P U B L I C A N S.

No, it's spelled Propaganda 101.

Veterans organizations across the country are sitting on their hands, the ACLU with an army of lawyers can't figure out how to cut through to bureaucracy to get Sam his free photo ID and neither can the DOJ. Right, Lena?

Democrats chose to exploit a homeless vet by putting him on stage and using him as a prop. Just wondering if he got his photo ID yet. I'm guessing not. He's more useful to Democrats as a "helpless" victim.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Voter ID laws effect everyone even veterans and pointless exercises to get pointless ID's effects veterans as well. It seems to me that Republicans believe that voter fraud only happens in Democratic constituencies (which is counter to the facts) - that's obviously why THEY DIDN'T IMPLEMENT THEIR ID LAWS FOR REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. They also seem pretty confident that veterans are all Republicans too - or at least the ones they can assume have no problem navigating the system to get an ID are Republicans. I find your willingness to inconvenience our heroes simply to game the system for a better vote margin cynical, undemocratic, and unAmerican.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

I repeat: Where is the evidence of significant voter impersonation fraud?

That is the only kind of voter fraud that photo IDs could affect. So give us the stats on impersonation at the voting booths. We aren't aware of any--you must be aware of stats on impersonation at the voting booths, or what in the world do you think the photo IDS will fix?

If there is no evidence of voter impersonation fraud at the voting booths, why are you trying to fix a non-existent problem?

Anybody notice how nik repeatedly ignores those questions?

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"I repeat: Where is the evidence of significant voter impersonation fraud?"

All voter fraud is significant.


"That is the only kind of voter fraud that photo IDs could affect.

Voter impersonation fraud is not the "only" voter fraud photo ID would discourage, but thank you for your admission.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nik, what do you think should be done about potential absentee-ballot voter fraud? With the ability to request absentee ballots via the internet or mail, wouldn't this type of voting offer more opportunity for fraud? The absentee ballot can be returned by mail - no verification of identity. No legislation has been introduced to thwart this type of fraud. Why do you think that is?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Oh good grief.

Ditto.

-Ron-


 o
No there there

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 21, 12 at 13:37

Where is the evidence of significant voter impersonation fraud?

Point and match.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"Nik, what do you think should be done about potential absentee-ballot voter fraud?"

It should be stopped, don't you think? How does one get a ballot? Are the rules universal, or do they vary from state to state? What, if any safeguards are in place to verify the person is a legitimate voter? Seems to me getting a ballot should involve more than asking for one, whether you're at the polls or not. What can you tell us about the current loopholes?

Lena, All voter fraud is significant. Myriad cases are posted here. Look 'em up.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nik, I see that you think that the GOP-controlled state legislatures have been negligent in not addressing absentee ballots. Can we count on you to contact your state representatives to complain about this lapse?

As for your questions, why are you asking if the rules are universal? It seems as if you have been participating in the thread without any knowledge of how voter registration and voting is legislated. No wonder you give the answers that you do!


 o
RE: Voter ID & Absentee Ballots

In Wisconsin you must have photo ID to obtain an absentee ballot (with exceptions, of course).

Can only speak for my own state.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

So in Wisconsin you have to appear in person to request an absentee ballot?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"As for your questions, why are you asking if the rules are universal?"

Because when I don't know the answer to a question, I ask for help. It's always nice to have somebody you're chatting with share their expertise, don't you think? And I had no idea how deep that expertise goes until you told me.

"It seems as if you have been participating in the thread without any knowledge of how voter registration and voting is legislated."

Lots of things I don't know. I come here with enough humility and confidence to admit it. But since you've singled me out for "participating" without knowing all the absentee voting rules of all the states, I'm delighted to know that you DO!!!

Honestly, knowing all those laws for EVERY state sounds like an extraordinary feat. Especially with so many changes popping up. Did you get a certificate or something?

Here are those questions again.

Are the rules universal, or do they vary from state to state?

What, if any safeguards are in place to verify the person is a legitimate voter?

Seems to me getting a ballot should involve more than asking for one, whether you're at the polls or not. What can you tell us about the current loopholes?

Thanks for your help!
------------------------------------------------------

"In Wisconsin you must have photo ID to obtain an absentee ballot (with exceptions, of course)."

Thanks, elvis.

Given the nationwide patchwork of rules with regard to in-person voting, where getting a ballot involves anything from simply asking for one, to showing photo ID, I would expect the same patchwork of rules to hold true with absentee voting. But like you, I don't know all the absentee voting laws for all 50 states like Nancy does.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Are the rules universal, or do they vary from state to state?

Nik, we are discussing basic civics.

I repeat: if you are asking this question, you have absolutely no understanding of how voter registration and actual voting happens.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Holy smokes, nik--why didn't I think of that? (slaps forehead)

Nancy said: "The absentee ballot can be returned by mail - no verification of identity" So don't hold out on us, Nancy, where's the link to that list you've committed to memory?


 o
Still no there there

  • Posted by lenam Fitzwalkerstan (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 22, 12 at 15:52

How many times have we asked on this forum for
EVIDENCE that VOTER IMPERSONATION FRAUD is occurring,
much less in any significant numbers?


A study by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice found just seven cases of voter fraud out of three million votes cast in Wisconsin during the 2004 election, a fraud rate of 0.0002 percent.

All seven of these cases involved persons with felony convictions who weren't eligible to vote after being released from prison.

Here is a link that might be useful: Download PDF


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Someone upthread asked if anyone noticed that people are not answering the question directly asked of them. That is about evidence of voter fraud.

Yes, I've noticed.

Why is that? This thread is 10 days old. I've been watching and waiting for that answer. I would like to know the evidence and what the rates are.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Oh jill, Nik said that "any" voter fraud is significant enough. It doesn't matter if it was 2 people. All the money spent, all the time spent by our legislators ... all of that is worth it to perhaps catch those two people in Pennsylvania. Or wherever they are.

So you see, nothing needs to be proved. Because "any" fraud is significant.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

So 2 cases of voter fraud measured against hundreds(?) or thousands (?) of cases of suppression of legal voters who lack a voter ID. There is some election manipulation going on but the basic math by any calculation suggests the remedy is worse than the crime.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Oh jill, Nik said that "any" voter fraud is significant enough. It doesn't matter if it was 2 people

Oh, right, I have trouble following that FoxNews/right wing logic. Maybe because it's not logic?


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"Nancy said: "The absentee ballot can be returned by mail - no verification of identity" So don't hold out on us, Nancy, where's the link to that list you've committed to memory?"

Hoooooot! That's what I want to know, too!

"Nik, we are discussing basic civics."

WHAT? One learns every absentee voting law for fifty states in a BASIC CIVICS class??? I'm dying to see that syllabus!

"I repeat: if you are asking this question, you have absolutely no understanding of how voter registration and actual voting happens."

Repeat away! Which question? Never mind. Doesn't matter.

I've been a registered voter in multiple states over the years, and voted in all of them. If you actually believe your claim that I can't possibly know anything about "how voter registration and how actual voting happens" it's fine with me. Run with it! It's almost as funny as the notion that I cant "participate" because I haven't wasted my time committing every absentee voting law from every state to memory.

As if even ONE person here has done any such thing...LOL! Stop pulling my leg, Nancy!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Thank you, posters, for repeating my question to Nik in my absense, but I notice you got no more response to it than I did when I asked it earlier. Let's try again and see if Nik has a direct answer to my direct question yet.

NIK--Where is the EVIDENCE that VOTER IMPERSONATION FRAUD is occurring, much less in any significant numbers?

And no, you don't get by with some vague statement about lots of evidence has been mentioned somewhere or other. Because, in fact, NO EVIDENCE has been offered. The only evidence that has been offered is a handful of voter fraud cases which would NOT have been fixed by photo IDS.

If you want to be taken seriously, Nik, you must first establish that there is a problem with voter impersonation at the polls--voters passing themselves off as someone else and actually voting as someone else. If that is happening, perhaps photo IDS would be a solution to that particular problem--but photo IDS still would not solve other types of voter fraud problems.

Now, don't change the subject, Nik. We want EVIDENCE of VOTER FRAUD IMPERSONATION--or we will think you are making up phony stories.

Kate


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"If you want to be taken seriously, Nik, you must first establish that there is a problem with voter impersonation at the polls--voters passing themselves off as someone else and actually voting as someone else."

Kate, How funny! I have NO expectation nor desire to "be taken seriously" by liberals here!!! I used to be on the far left myself. Having escaped, I have no desire to return to that dreary place. There's a wonderful freedom in letting go of the notion that others are on this earth to satisfy the endless demands we, as liberals, cook up for them.

Like liberals everywhere, you make demands that nobody can ever satisfy. Nothing is ever enough, nor good enough. Your ongoing demand for yet MORE evidence of voter fraud is a perfect illustration of that mentality. No matter how many cases of voter fraud are documented and shared here, or how many MORE cases could be presented if one was willing to waste the time, it's never going to be enough for you.

But that's not my problem, or any one elses. Your insatiability is a personal problem that belongs to you alone.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Sounds like more deflection to me.

If there have been lots of cases presented here, please point me to them. Actual cases with evidence. Not just someone saying something about voter fraud. I would like to read them.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Well, see, it must be a problem because everybody keeps talking about it.

You know, that smoke and fire thing.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

The most high profile cases of absentee voter fraud I can think of were committed by Republicans and were dismissed as not all that big of a deal. Conservative Ann Coulter's used her parent's address in 2002 and 2004 for absentee voting and a Florida address even though she lives in NYC, John Huntsman voted from the Utah Governor's mansion address even though he resigned and moved out and lived in China, Mitt Romney voted in Massachusetts even though they live in California or is it New Hampshire. None of these cases were considered SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH to pursue through legal avenues or invalidate the election. So it seems that Nik's arguments to the contrary, the GOP doesn't seem to think voter fraud (at least by fellow Republicans) is that big of a deal. So we are left with all this hypothetical voter fraud by libruls and illegals that gets the right in a tizzy but rightwing voter fraud not - a big shrug - at least not important enough to implement the strict rules they impose on general elections in their primaries or make an example of these high profile Republican crimes to send a message.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Like liberals everywhere, you make demands that nobody can ever satisfy. Nothing is ever enough, nor good enough. Your ongoing demand for yet MORE evidence of voter fraud is a perfect illustration of that mentality. No matter how many cases of voter fraud are documented and shared here, or how many MORE cases could be presented if one was willing to waste the time, it's never going to be enough for you.

So basically what you are saying nik is you can't produce the goods. Just as we thought.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"If there have been lots of cases presented here, please point me to them. Actual cases with evidence. Not just someone saying something about voter fraud. I would like to read them."

Have at it. As a relative newby, you wouldn't be aware of our past discussions and links. You'll have to use the HT search function to find the ones that remain here. Enjoy!


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

and you won't find any.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

And that's because they don't exist.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

December 14, 2011 :
The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) in an attempt to discredit a NAACP report this week on the lack of voter fraud evidence has bolstered the view that there is no need for voter ID laws, imposed by many states. The RNLA produced data showing 46 states and various convictions for voter fraud. Presumably by their absence, 4 states and the District of Columbia had no convictions.

Viewing the data for the period 2000-2010, the report by its own account shows there is no link between voter fraud in states and the need for stricter voter ID laws. The data shows that during the entire 10 year period, 21 states had only 1 or 2 convictions for some form of voter irregularity. And some of these 21 states have the strictest form of voter ID laws based on a finding of 2 or less convictions in ten years. Five states had a total of three convictions over a ten year period. Rhode Island had 4 convictions for the same 10 years. Taking a close look at the RNLA data shows 30 states, including the District of Columbia had 3 or less voter fraud convictions for a 10 year period.

Their own study shows that the problem is almost non-existant.

The link goes to the actual republican site that decries all the voter fraud - and look for yourself - example, in Arizona, in ten years, there were 5 people.
California? 6. and so on.

so this isn't about fraud, its about messing with the Democrats

Here is a link that might be useful: link to the rnla site


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Nice try, nik. They don't exist. How do I know that? Because if they did exist you would be falling over yourself to link them. But, since you can't, telling me to "have at it" is all you have.

And, of course, you are ignoring the fact that lots of "non-newbies" asked the same question. You know, people that were here for those supposed conversations. Yet they don't know anything about them either. Why do you think that is? Hmmmm...oh, right...THEY DON'T EXIST.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

"They don't exist. How do I know that? Because if they did exist you would be falling over yourself to link them."

Naaah. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that I care what you think.


 o
RE: doj, another day, another state, another lawsuit

Wait a minute. I mentioned three well documented examples of voter fraud above all committed by high profile Republicans all excused as insignificant. So Nik, there is your evidence and there is the response from the establishment. They don't care.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here