A primer on GOP voter suppression: voter caging
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Republican Party has for many years engaged in unlawful voter suppression. The case of DNC v. RNC resulted in a 1982 consent decree in which the RNC agreed not to engage in voter caging and intimidation activities or to target minority voters. Consent Decree (1982).
Despite the consent decree, the RNC began using similar tactics in Louisiana in 1986. Under the guise of fraud prevention, the RNC facilitated voter caging programs and other tactics. The DNC filed a contempt motion to reopen the case and enjoin the RNC from conducting the Louisiana programs. Once again, the RNC voluntarily agreed to a consent decree rather than fight the claims in court. The result was a 1986 decree [PDF] in which the RNC agreed not to do any ballot security programs anywhere in the country without prior court approval. See Consent Decree (1987).
Despite the consent decree, unlawful voter caging accelerated under the Bush-Cheney campaigns in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio), with several of the key RNC voter suppression operatives actually given jobs within the U.S. Department of Justice voting rights section. Voter Suppression (epluribusmedia.org); t r u t h o u t Exclusive | Emails Detail RNC Voter Supression in 5 States. The Brad Blog and Greg Palast, among many others, have documented the unlawful GOP voter caging in great detail.
After the 2008 election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the consent decree. The court agreed only to modify the consent decree. Debevoise Opinion (2009); Debevoise Order (2009). The consent decree remains in effect.
If you want to review additional pleadings, see DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice.
Now we learn this week of a GOP voter suppression effort in the state of Wisconsin, which may have implications for the state of Arizona.
This has been a Republican tactic for many years, and it's running rampant in Wisconsin. Voter Suppression in Wisconsin, Courtesy of the GOP and Americans for Prosperity | Crooks and Liars:
[T]he GOP and Americans for Prosperity are working behind the scenes on a voter suppression scam that is on a far wider scale, but no different than Republicans have used for years.
Here's how it works: A mailer is sent to registered voters. Any mailers returned by the post office are put in a database and those voters are submitted to be purged from voting rolls. Of course, the targets are never Republican voters. They're Democrats, and generally minority voters in particular. Here's a better explanation from the Brennan Center for Justice:
Voter caging is the practice of sending mail to addresses on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters registrations on the grounds that the voters on the list do not legally reside at their registered addresses. Supporters of voter caging defend the practice as a means of preventing votes cast by ineligible voters. Voter caging, however, is notoriously unreliable. If it is treated (unjustifiably) as the sole basis for determining that a voter is ineligible or does not live at the address at which he or she registered, it can lead to the unwarranted purge or challenge of eligible voters. …Moreover, the practice has often been targeted at minority voters, making the effects even more pernicious. [Brennan Center, “A Guide to Voter Caging,” 6/29/07]
The audio file above is a recording obtained by One Wisconsin Now of a meeting of Wisconsin Tea Party leaders. Here's the plot:
According to the statements made on the recordings, Dake lays out the plans, detailing contact between himself and Reince Preibus, the Republican Party of Wisconsin Chair and Mark Block, state director of Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin:
- The Republican Party of Wisconsin will use its “Voter Vault” state-wide voter file to compile a list of minority and student voters in targeted Wisconsin communities.
- Americans for Prosperity will use this list to send mail to these voters indicating the voter must call and confirm their registration information, and telling them if they do not call the number provided they could be removed from the voter lists.
- The Tea Party organizations will recruit and place individuals as official poll workers in selected municipalities in order to be able to make the challenges as official poll workers.
- On Election Day, these organizations will then “make use” of any postcards that are returned as undeliverable to challenge voters at the polls, utilizing law enforcement, as well as attorneys trained and provided by the RPW, to support their challenges.
In the case of students, this is particularly insidious, since a student may indeed be a registered voter in Wisconsin but not have the same address, given their tendency to move at the end of a semester. But you can see what's going on here -- it is a concerted effort, funded and pushed by Americans for Prosperity -- to suppress minority and young voters, and in so doing to win an election by strongarm rather than by votes.
One Wisconsin Now has uncovered this plot with evidence, but don't assume this is limited to Wisconsin. I guarantee you it isn't. They are targeting as many states as they can, but particularly swing states. Expect Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona just to name a few to have the exact same operations afoot.
Think Progress has more details after the jump.
Documents and audio recordings released yesterday by One Wisconsin Now document an apparent plot by the Wisconsin Republican Party, Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (aka Fight Back Wisconsin), and various other tea party groups to suppress votes from minorities and students in this year’s elections using a well-documented — and illegal— practice known as “voter caging.” The alleged plot offers fresh evidence that long-discredited right-wing conspiracy theories about massive voter fraud supposedly perpetrated by minorities and others remain alive and well in both the official GOP establishment and its tea party base.
* * *
In the alleged conspiracy uncovered in Wisconsin, Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, whose Wisconsin state chair was previously banned from politics in Wisconsin for three years, would finance a test mailing and other costs associated with compiling the caging list and then coordinate with the Wisconsin Republican Party to undertake an elaborate process to remove voters from the rolls ahead of the election, if possible, or at the polls on Election Day. Tea party groups were to provide the volunteer labor and cover for the activity — with all participants signing an extensive non-disclosure agreement under which they agreed to publicly operate in the name of Wisconsin GrandSons for Liberty, who would also provide some funding for the plan. The Wisconsin GOP would also provide additional funds, trainers for the tea party volunteers and would have a team of lawyers “standing by” on Election Day to respond to tea party volunteers and “bring the police” if necessary. As is typically the case in voter caging operations, the plotters appeared intent on targeting minorities, students, and others from heavily-Democratic areas of the state.
Audio recordings of the tea party meeting where the alleged voter suppression plot was discussed include numerous references by presenters to supposed instances of minorities and college students voting illegally.
* * *
Presenters at the meeting also repeatedly blamed ‘quote unquote Republican’ and Democratic district attorneys, the media, and others for consistently failing to pursue purported instances of voter fraud — especially from the 2004 election in Milwaukee. However, a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney did in fact pursue such an investigation — which some deemed politically-motivated — of the 2004 election and eventually admitted that he couldn’t find any evidence of a “massive conspiracy.”
What’s more, an exhaustive five-year investigation concluded in 2007 by the Bush administration’s Department of Justice, which was quite keen to investigate such cases, “turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections.” Indeed, the biggest impact of the Department of Justice investigation seems to have been the subsequent politically-charged removal of several U.S. attorneys the Bush White House deemed to have been insufficiently aggressive in pursuing alleged cases of voter fraud.
The total lack of any clear evidence of voter fraud did not stop the right-wing from hysterically and repeatedly invoking the bogeyman of an ACORN-led plot to ‘steal the election for Obama’ in an effort to justify their numerous attempts to disenfranchise voters in 2008.
* * *
While ACORN is now defunct thanks to a discredited right-wing smear campaign led by a convicted criminal [and FAUX News], that has not stopped the right-wing from continuing to invoke it to stir fears over minority voter fraud.
The non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization Demos has just issued a new report examining game changing election laws in swing states, including Arizona. The report, Voting in 2010: Ten Swing States, examines election policies most likely to affect voters and potentially election outcomes in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio. These 10 states were chosen for this report because they are expected to have particularly close elections in at least eight Senate contests and 17 House races, and have each experienced recent problems with—or reforms to—the election process. A summary chart evaluates each state’s practices, and a set of recommendations is offered for improvement of these voting procedures.
The report reviews problematic areas that include: voter registration, identification issues—which can present burdens to those who don’t hold traditional identification such as a driver’s license, provisional ballots, voter suppression and deception tactics, caging and challenge laws, voting for overseas and military voters, and challenges for new citizens and ethnic minorities.
The Swing State review shows mixed results. Arizona tops the list of greatest concern for voting rights and democracy advocates. The climate of fear and ill-will created by the passage of the anti-immigrant bill has many worried that voters of color may be reluctant to cast a ballot, and that Arizona may experience a surge in vote suppression tactics. Making matters worse, Arizona has an onerous proof of citizenship requirement to vote, as well as a history of inconsistently implementing language assistance requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
The "lame stream" media in Arizona, as Sister Sarah would say, devoted hours and hours of coverage to the bogus ACORN "scandal" last year following the lead of FAUX News. It turned out to be a hoax. Have you seen or heard anything in the "lame stream" media in Arizona about the GOP voter suppression documented above? No? You should contact your local news directors, editors and reporters and demand that they report on actual election fraud -- voter suppression efforts by the GOP. Maybe they will be more inclined following the recent GOP Green Scheme Siphon Scandal in Arizona.
The GOP War on Voting
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I have explained several times over the years that the Republican Party has for decades engaged in unlawful voter suppression for which it remains under the supervision of the federal courts under a series of consent decrees. For example, A primer on GOP voter suppression: voter caging:
The Republican Party has for many years engaged in unlawful voter suppression. The case of DNC v. RNC resulted in a 1982 consent decree in which the RNC agreed not to engage in voter caging and intimidation activities or to target minority voters. Consent Decree (1982).
Despite the consent decree, the RNC began using similar tactics in Louisiana in 1986. Under the guise of fraud prevention, the RNC facilitated voter caging programs and other tactics. The DNC filed a contempt motion to reopen the case and enjoin the RNC from conducting the Louisiana programs. Once again, the RNC voluntarily agreed to a consent decree rather than fight the claims in court. The result was a 1986 decree [PDF] in which the RNC agreed not to do any ballot security programs anywhere in the country without prior court approval. See Consent Decree (1987).
* * *
After the 2008 election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the consent decree. The court agreed only to modify the consent decree. Debevoise Opinion (2009); Debevoise Order (2009). The consent decree remains in effect.
If you want to review additional pleadings, see DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice.
This week I told you about the efforts of the Republican Party to disenfranchise millions of Americans of their right to vote through voter I.D. laws. GOP Voter Suppression: Photo I.D. requirements:
Forty-seven states have enacted 285 election-related laws this year, and 60 percent were in states with Republican governors, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
As you might expect, the usual suspects are behind this undemocratic and un-American effort to disenfranchise American citizens of their right to vote: the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the billionaire bastard Koch brothers, among others.
Rolling Stone magazine takes an in-depth look at The GOP War on Voting this month in a must-read report:
As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. "What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century," says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C.
Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." But since the 2010 election, thanks to a conservative advocacy group founded by Weyrich, the GOP's effort to disrupt voting rights has been more widespread and effective than ever. In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states introduced legislation this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.
All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.
Taken together, such measures could significantly dampen the Democratic turnout next year – perhaps enough to shift the outcome in favor of the GOP. "One of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time," Bill Clinton told a group of student activists in July. "Why is all of this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate" – a reference to the dominance of the Tea Party last year, compared to the millions of students and minorities who turned out for Obama. "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today."
Continue reading The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone.
Keep this report in mind when you hear Attorney General Tom Horne say that Arizona no longer should be subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act -- and that he would like to do away with the most significant piece of legislation of the 20th Century, extending the right to vote to all Americans. And beware of tools who write on behalf of right-wing think tanks like the Goldwater Institute (In 2007, the Goldwater Institute urged then secretary of state Jan Brewer to challenge preclearance in court as well), i.e., Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic in this opinion today. Arizona may win historic rule challenge.
Voter Suppression in Wisconsin, Courtesy of the GOP and Americans for Prosperity
Voters to get ID lessons
Educational efforts to focus on ballot law
NASHVILLE — State election officials are planning an intensive effort to educate voters about a new law mandating they have a proper photo identification card to cast ballots in next year's elections.
So is the Tennessee Democratic Party, hoping to counter what state Chairman Chip Forrester says is an effort by the Republican-controlled state Legislature to suppress Democratic turnout in the elections of 2012 and beyond.
The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, was enacted earlier this year with proponents declaring it is needed to prevent voter fraud. It declares some types of photo IDs valid and some invalid.
But state Election Coordinator Mark Goins says the photo ID requirement also has multiple exemptions, both within the new law and in older laws.
Those exceptions, combined with the voter education campaign, should mitigate the number of people showing up at the polls next year with a voter registration card but without the further identification now required to vote, he said.
"If we do our jobs right, we believe it (the new law) will have limited impact," said Goins in an interview.
Goins' office has already conducted telephone conference calls with county election administrators in all 95 counties for an initial briefing on the new law, providing information the administrators will pass on to all election workers.
Coordinated follow-up efforts will aim more directly at voters, including work with citizen and civic organizations such as AARP and the League of Women Voters, public service announcements, and perhaps even direct mailing to targeted groups. An example of the latter would be Tennesseans who have no photo on their driver's license, as allowed under current law for anyone older than 60.
A driver's license with no photo will not be accepted for voting under the new law. But another new law allows citizens to get a free photo identification card at driver's license stations for voting.
Some other legal provisions that come into play, according to Goins, include:
n Any photo driver's license — even if it has expired or comes from another state — will be considered valid for voting purposes for a registered voter.
n People who are indigent and cannot afford a photo ID can sign an affidavit so stating and be able to vote. Even homeless people can legally vote by following the rules, Goins said.
Critics of the new law have noted that there are indirect costs for obtaining a free identification card, notably transportation to a driver's license station, which in some rural areas may be 30 or 40 miles away.
n While some types of government-issued identification are invalid for voting, including college ID cards and county-issued cards, many others are valid. For example, Goins said the identification issued to all workers for private contractors at Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge will be considered valid.
n People can still vote by absentee ballot without a government-issued ID. Absentee voting is allowed for all people older than 65 and some others as well, specifically including residents of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.
Shelley Courington of the AARP said the organization, which has 648,000 members in Tennessee, plans to partner with state election officials later this fall to provide information on the topic, including a teleconference following alerts by mail and Internet to all members.
Goins said the March presidential preference primary will provide an effective test run for the new requirements, allowing further education before the primary and general elections in August and November.
"I think it's wonderful that they are planning to educate the public to all the exceptions, exemptions and nuances," said House Democratic Leader Craig Fitzhugh, who opposed the law in the Legislature. "(But) I still believe it's going to be a detriment to people voting."
Forrester said Democrats are already working on their own voter education materials to be distributed by county organizations and "affiliate Democratic groups" that will "explain in simple, straightforward language what steps you can take to get to vote."
The first pamphlet has already been produced, he said, and was distributed at a Democratic rally last weekend in Northeast Tennessee.
Tennessee is one of six states with Republican-controlled legislatures to pass a photo ID law this year, bringing to 23 the number of states with such a requirement in place.
"The first and overarching concern we have is why was it necessary to create this confused mess of a situation to begin with when they (Republicans) know full well that voter fraud is of almost no magnitude at all in Tennessee?" Forrester said.
The reason, he said, is to suppress turnout among groups prone to support Democrats — the elderly and those "not as well off financially" being examples — as "part of a national agenda that Republicans are attempting to implement all across the country."
The Tennessee legislation was sponsored by the chairs of the House and Senate Republican Caucuses, Rep. Debra Maggart of Hendersonville and Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, who have repeatedly denied that suppression of voter turnout was a motive. The only objective, they said, was to ensure that people appearing at the polls are who they purport to be and entitled to vote.
Fitzhugh said that, if a photo ID is desirable, pictures should be made when a voter registers after furnishing all the appropriate identification necessary for registration. Such a system could be phased in with relatively little expense or inconvenience, he said.
Rick Scott is sued for the fifth time in almost six months, this time for signing a law that civil libertarians say violates the Voting Rights Act.
By Marc Caputo
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- A pair of liberal-leaning groups sued Gov. Rick Scott on Friday to block an elections law that they say amounts to “voter suppression.”
The ACLU of Florida and Project Vote filed the suit in the hopes that it would stop Miami-Dade County from shortening the number of early-voting days before its June 28 mayoral elections.
The new law shortens the early voting days – but not necessarily the number of total hours – from 14 to eight days. It also requires an out-of-county voter who tries to change his voting precinct on Election Day to cast a provisional ballot, which can be more easily challenged. Also, the law cracks down on third-party registration groups.
One of the plaintiffs, Tampa Sen. Arthenia Joyner, said the bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature is an example of a “rank partisan agenda” that disproportionately hurts minorities.
“It is un-American to make it a burden to vote. Too many people fought and died for this right,” Joyner, a Democrat said. “This is an abomination. And it’s unconscionable.”
But the sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala, said the state needs to ensure there’s no fraud.
The lawsuit is the fifth one to name Scott as a defendant in his role as governor. The other suits relate to drug-testing state workers, high-speed rail, constitutional amendments over redistricting and an executive order that froze state rules.
The suit names Scott’s secretary of state, Kurt Browning, who has defended the need for the law – despite praising Florida’s election system in 2008 and 2010.
The suit doesn’t specifically target the substance of the law, but instead revolves around a technicality in the state’s elections map.
Five counties have a special designation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires Department of Justice approval for voting changes. As a result, the supervisors in those counties –Monroe, Hillsborough, Collier, Glades and Hendry – told the state they couldn’t and wouldn’t implement the law until they received DOJ sign-off, known as “preclearance.” The supervisors and other elections experts say they never remember the state rushing ahead to implement a law without DOJ sign-off.
Browning told the five counties last week that they didn’t have to follow requirements of the new law.
But Howard Simon, executive director of Florida’s ACLU, said the state can’t enforce the law in some places and not others. So the ACLU sued. He said he believed the law more broadly violates the Voting Rights Act but that’s a “battle we will get into down the road.”
Simon said Miami-Dade’s upcoming elections was more of a pressing concern at the moment.
“Under which rules will this election take place? Will people who relocate have to cast a provisional ballot?” he asked. “The election should not take place under rules that have not been sanctioned.”
Department of Justice says ‘ hold up’ to new South Carolina Voter Suppression Law
1 Sep 2011 Author: rikyrahFrom ThinkProgress:
Justice Department Puts Hold On South Carolina Voter ID Law
By Travis Waldron on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:25 amAfter months of protest from minority groups, voting rights advocates, and Democratic U.S. senators, the Justice Department declined to pre-clear South Carolina’s new voter identification law Monday, putting it on hold until South Carolina can provide further information on the law, the Greenville News reported Tuesday:
South Carolina’s new voter ID law will be on hold until the state can provide more information to the federal Department of Justice, which says it needs more specifics to ensure that the new law doesn’t disenfranchise voters. [...]
In a letter to the attorney general, the voting rights chief asked questions including how many registered voters don’t have a state driver’s license or ID and how they will be notified of the new law’s requirements, what types of evidence will be accepted to prove a voter’s identity and how those who can’t reasonably secure an ID will still be allowed to vote.
Under Section Five of Voting Rights Act (VRA), southern states like South Carolina must have election laws pre-cleared, meaning the laws cannot take effect until the Justice Department approves them on grounds that they will not discriminate against minority voters. By putting it on hold, Justice is asking South Carolina for further proof that its law will not disenfranchise the 178,000 voters in the state who do not have valid IDs — a disproportionate share of whom are racial minorities.
South Carolina’s Attorney General’s Office insists they have the answers to those questions, but as Ian Millhiser has noted, it’s unlikely that any of the voter ID laws taking effect in Republican-controlled states could survive the scrutiny of the VRA, which forbids both laws that specifically target minority voters and those that have a greater impact on minority voters than others.
I wrote a few weeks ago about this law, and how it was furthering punishing our elders who lived under Jim Crow.
And where is the CBC on this?
WHY aren’t they on tv shows ABOUT THIS?
Melissa Harris-Perry did a good segment on this. http://on.msnbc.com/pubGqY via @msnbc
GOP Official Tries to Suppress Student Voters—Despite No Evidence of Fraud
Posted Thursday, September 1, 2011 in Reporting by Brian StewartMaine college students are under attack by the chairman of the state’s Republican Party who recently “brandished a list of more than 200 college students he said likely engaged in voter fraud.”
The problem?
There’s no evidence that any of the 206 young people who voted in recent elections did anything wrong.
Republican Party chair Charlie Webster is attempting to challenge students’ right to register and vote where they attend school, indicating some had registered in their home state and then re-registered on campus, according to a report this week from the Bangor Daily News.
Earlier this week, Webster offered flawed reasoning for the move:
I get tired of talking about this because the law is clear. If I want to vote, I need to establish residency. I need to register my car and pay taxes in that community. You can’t just become a student and vote wherever you want.
But there’s a clear problem with Webster’s arguments—that’s not the law.
In fact, under Maine law, students are entitled to register to vote where they attend school, permitted they can establish citizenship, age, and residency—the latter of which can be with something as simple as a piece of mail or an oath.
And several precedents indicate Webster’s allegations are unfounded. A 1979 Supreme Court ruling said students can list their dormitory as a residence and, in 2008, former Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe said a proposed bill to bar on-campus students from registering there was unconstitutional.
Some—including Ben Grant, chair of the Democratic Party—say Webster’s list is an attempt to suppress young voters, who often vote Democratic. Grant says:
He doesn’t want students to vote in Maine. Everything else he’s said has been a smokescreen. The key issue is people voting in more than one place and that hasn’t happened.
Voter Suppression: Campus Progress Coverage
Webster’s main issue, though, is students registering in more than one place—something that isn’t illegal and that an official told the Bangor Daily News is “actually fairly common and not just with college students.”
Some of the students Webster alleged committed fraud registered in two states, but have never cast more than one vote in an election.
Christopher Knoblock registered in his Massachusetts hometown when he turned 18 and voted there in February 2008 primary. As a student, he cast his general election vote on campus and again the following year on a same-sex marriage referendum.
Two years later in 2010, he was back home in Belmont, Mass., and voted there. He told the newspaper:
I’m surprised to be on this list and I’m surprised that it’s an issue that I voted in Maine at all. We were encouraged to vote when we were on campus, and we were told that voting on campus was legal. I think this unfairly targets out-of-state students, as it’s much harder for those of us who are out of state to vote via absentee.
Voters have no legal obligation to unregister in one place when they move and re-register in another.
And then there are students like Justin Lynch—also on Webster’s list—who never registered in more than one place. Lynch has only cast votes in Maine and never in his home state of New York. The third-year student called Webster’s tactic “a shocking example of government intimidating young people.”
The Bangor Daily Times asked Webster why he included young people like Lynch, who couldn’t have voted in more than one place if they’d only ever registered in one. He laughed and replied:
“I have no idea whether they obeyed the law,” Webster said. “So I can’t accuse them.”
Only he did accuse them. He explicitly said his cursory research was evidence of “deliberate voter fraud.”
And regarding Webster’s claim that students should "pay taxes in that community” if they want to vote?
Perhaps he is forgetting that many students do pay income taxes—for jobs on campus or in the community—and virtually every student pays sales tax on discretionary spending. At the University of Maine, where many of the students on Webster’s list are enrolled, students and campus visitors contribute upwards of $170 million annually to the local economy. [PDF]
Unfortunately, Webster’s list is one of several unjust efforts to disenfranchise or frighten young college students and other Americans from exercising their right to vote.
Brian Stewart is a journalism network associate at Campus Progress.
Voter suppression bills MIRACULOUSLY appear in 34 states, tea party DEMOCRACY?
Posted in the Columbus Forum
Voter suppression laws SPONTANEOUSLY (?!!!) appear in 34 states now.(This article has some examples but frankly, no one is covering this horrendous story.):
http://prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-s...
Tell us this is a coincidence... tell us this IS NOT coordinated... tell us how these voter suppression laws are MIRACULOUSLY appearing allllllllllllllllllllllllllll over ma nation.
Oh look... IT IS COORDINATED by some secretive group known as ALEC who is paying for all this training, organizing and coordination. Who is funding this group that claims to only care about limited government, free markets and Federalism and how does voter suppression protect their idea of "limited government"? So only the rich have the control and all the other chattel are limited, I guess.
What is ALEC? American Legislative Exchange Council. Are they evil and controlled by the same people who have been funding the tea party movement?
Explain why this organization is supporting new voter suppression laws all across the country?
ALEC watch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Here is a voter suppression draft legislation created by ALEC:
http://images2.americanprogress.org/campus/we...
Ohio state "Chairman" of ALEC is John Adams:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/22/...
In New England, Attempt to Suppress the Youth Vote Backfires
Voter suppression is a nasty virus that is sweeping the nation. Those who are aggressively pushing this agenda want desperately to stop students from voting. The rumblings are beginning to be heard in Maine. From Talking Points Memo:
The Chairman of Maine’s Republican party has doubled down on his crusade against the apparently widespread problem of voter fraud-committing college students, declaring this week that if students want to vote they should be paying taxes.
“I get tired of talking about this because the law is clear,” Charles Webster said. “If I want to vote, I need to establish residency. I need to register my car and pay taxes in that community. You can’t just become a student and vote wherever you want.”
Back in July, Webster made a list of 200 college students whom he claimed are committing voter fraud because they pay out-of-state tuition rates but are registered to vote in the state.
A list? Where would he even get that kind of information? TPM wrote about it in July:
At a press conference at the Maine State House, Webster gave the media a list of over 200 students — their names redacted — who paid out-of-state tuition rates but were registered to vote in the state.
But
One problem. The University of Maine only allows individuals who previously lived in Maine — those who aren’t just living into the state to attend school — to pay a discounted in-state tuition rate.
And Webster provided absolutely zero evidence that the students — the vast majority of whom were born in the late 80s and early 90s, based on Webster’s list — voted both in their home state and in Maine.
So, the Maine GOP Chairman has made a list, with apparently actual proof, of students who are allegedly voting in both their home state and in Maine.
So far the only case of this happening seems to be this one. From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
The son of House Speaker William O’Brien voted in Maine elections and ran for state office in Maine while a student at Bates College in Lewiston, according to a report in a Maine newspaper.
Yes, that’s the son of Speaker of the NH House, William O’Brien. The same O’Brien who had this to say:
‘Foolish’ college kids ‘just vote their feelings,’ New Hampshire speaker says, “Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their feelings.”
Back to the Union Leader story:
According to election results on maine.gov, Brendan O’Brien was nominated by the Republican Party in June 2010 to run for a state representative seat in a district that represents Lewiston, where he was attending Bates College. He withdrew his nomination in July 2010.
Then, in November 2010, he returned to New Hampshire to vote in his hometown, Mont Vernon, the Sun Journal reported. He ended up with dual registration when New Hampshire elections officials didn’t notify Maine officials that he’d voted in another state, the report said.
Another little piece of this puzzle can be found here, in the Mont Vernon town website, listing the names of the Supervisors of the Checklist. Brendan O’Brien’s mother is a supervisor of the checklist in Mont Vernon. The supervisors of the checklist are responsible for updating and maintaining the voter lists.
What we know so far is that Charles Webster, Chairman of Maine’s Republican Party is accusing Maine students of voter fraud, in the hopes that he can prevent college students from voting. He made a list, that appears no actual proof behind it. The only case of a student voting in two states that can be proven is that of Brendan O’Brien, the son of the New Hampshire Speaker of the House, who also wanted to keep college students from voting.
Irony sticks her head in the oven once again.
Maine GOP Chair: Students Should Pay Taxes If They Want To Vote
The Chairman of Maine's Republican party has doubled down on his crusade against the apparently widespread problem of voter fraud-committing college students, declaring this week that if students want to vote they should be paying taxes.
"I get tired of talking about this because the law is clear," Charles Webster said. "If I want to vote, I need to establish residency. I need to register my car and pay taxes in that community. You can't just become a student and vote wherever you want."
Back in July, Webster made a list of 200 college students whom he claimed are committing voter fraud because they pay out-of-state tuition rates but are registered to vote in the state.
According to Eric Russell of the Bangor Daily News, in order in vote in Maine someone has to be a U.S. citizen, be 17 years old to register and 18 to vote, and establish and maintain a residency in the municipality where they would register. In order to establish residency, according to the Daily News:
Students have the right to register in the municipality where they attend school as long as they have established residency. They are then subject to the same residency requirements but cannot be asked to meet additional requirements.Determining established residency is left to municipal clerks and they can consider the following factors in determining established residency: a direct statement or oath, a motor vehicle registration, an income tax return, a piece of mail listing a current address or any other objective facts.
None of these is required, however.
As TPM wrote in July, the University of Maine only allowed students who had previously lived in the state to get the discounted tuition rate -- and Webster didn't have any evidence that the named students voted in more than one state or didn't establish residency. When asked about the specifics, Webster said at the time: "I only dealt with what was the easiest thing to find."
Maine's Secretary of State said he would investigate the allegations.
"We'll let this play out," Webster said. "I'm willing to take the criticism I'm getting. What I find bizarre is that anyone would think I would bring up something that wasn't a problem."
"He doesn't want students to vote in Maine. Everything else he's said has been a smoke screen," Ben Grant, chair of the Maine Democratic Party, told the Daily News. "The key issue is people voting in more than one place and that hasn't happened."
Maine GOP Chair: Students Who Vote And Pay Out-Of-State Tuition Are Committing Voter Fraud
Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster is claiming that college students who pay out-of-state tuition rates and vote in state are committing voter fraud.
At a press conference at the Maine State House, Webster gave the media a list of over 200 students -- their names redacted -- who paid out-of-state tuition rates but were registered to vote in the state.
Webster said he came up with the list because of opposition from voter rights groups to a law passed by the Republican-led legislature in June which banned voter registration on Election Day. A coalition of groups have launched a petition drive to overturn the law.
One problem. The University of Maine only allows individuals who previously lived in Maine -- those who aren't just living into the state to attend school -- to pay a discounted in-state tuition rate.
And Webster provided absolutely zero evidence that the students -- the vast majority of whom were born in the late 80s and early 90s, based on Webster's list -- voted both in their home state and in Maine.
As the Sun Journal reported:
According to Maine state law, students are eligible to register to vote in the municipality in which they attend school, as long as they have established residency there. There is not a period of time required for a person to establish residency. The University of Maine System has different guidelines to establish student residency. A student may only be granted in-state tuition if he or she has proven that she has established residency for reasons other than academic, regardless of the length of time that he or she has lived in Maine.
The Bangor Daily News reported that Carney failed "to provide any further details such as: How many of the 206 students named actually voted twice? How many of them registered in Maine on Election Day? How many officially declared primary residency in Maine?"
Asked for those specifics, Webster said that he did not have the resources to get that data."I only dealt with what was the easiest thing to find," the GOP chairman said.
Webster, the newspaper reported, said he had personally witnessed "poll flooding" by special interest groups like MoveOn.org, ACORN and "the Democrat party."
He also wasn't clear on exactly how stopping people from registering on Election Day would specifically stop "voter fraud" rather than simply making it more difficult for everyone to vote.
The documents that Webster provided are available here and here.
Columnist: Registering Poor To Vote 'Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals'
Updated: September 2, 2011, 5:05 PM
Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum is just going to come right out and say it: registering the poor to vote is un-American and "like handing out burglary tools to criminals."
"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote," Vadum, the author of a book published by World Net Daily that attacks the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, writes in a column for the American Thinker.
"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor," Vadum writes. "It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."
Most conservative criticism of voter registration drives aimed at poor and minority communities has been under the guise of worries about voter fraud. Vadum's column is notable because he isn't just pretending to be worried about the nearly non-existent threat of in-person voter fraud -- he just doesn't think poor people should be voting.
Late Update: Responding to what he says are misrepresentations of his view, Vadum writes that of course he thinks poor people have the right to vote, he just doesn't want anybody to help them since their votes "could lead to the destruction of the republic."
Vadum clarifies that it is "destructive to register welfare recipients to vote so that they can vote themselves more government benefits. It is even worse that our tax dollars are used to register welfare recipients at welfare offices. It is a policy that would cause the Founding Fathers to roll over in their graves."
But, he adds: "Of course those who are legally qualified to vote should be allowed to vote but our tax dollars shouldn't be used to underwrite the destruction of the republic."
No comments:
Post a Comment