Voter Suppression ((Supreme Court Just . . .))

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Salon


A whiff of Koch-backed foul play in Wisconsin recalls


Something is rotten in the state of Wisconsin -- and the Koch-backed advocacy group Americans for Prosperity is behind it.

The second round of state Senate recall elections is scheduled for Aug. 9 -- when six Republicans will face Democratic challengers -- and voters have been sent absentee ballot applications. The problem is, Democratic voters in a number of districts received mailers advising that they return absentee ballots by Aug. 11 (two days too late to be counted). The misleading notices came from AFP.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party, Politico reports, is now filing a formal complaint against the conservative group for "falsely representing the time frame" of the recall elections.

"[AFP] has displayed a continued pattern of tampering with the electoral process in Wisconsin with elaborate, illegal and fraudulent schemes designed to suppress Democratic votes," Margaret Brick of the WDP told Politico.

The mailers specifically targeted Democratic voters in two districts where Republican incumbents face recall on Aug. 9. In response to accusations that it intentionally deceived voters, AFP claims that the wrong election date on the applications was a "printing mistake" -- a mistake the group says it is addressing by putting calls in to every person on the mailing list to remind them of the correct election date.

AFP claims that the mailers were only sent to its members, despite the fact that those targeted with the ballot notices were nearly all self-identifying Democrats. However, AFP-Wisconsin's director, Matt Seaholm, is not taking seriously the allegations : "I'm sure the liberals will try to make a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to distract voters' attention from the issues."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Rolling Stone


The GOP War on Voting

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year

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."

To hear Republicans tell it, they are waging a virtuous campaign to crack down on rampant voter fraud – a curious position for a party that managed to seize control of the White House in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote. After taking power, the Bush administration declared war on voter fraud, making it a "top priority" for federal prosecutors. In 2006, the Justice Department fired two U.S. attorneys who refused to pursue trumped-up cases of voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, and Karl Rove called illegal voting "an enormous and growing problem." In parts of America, he told the Republican National Lawyers Association, "we are beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are colonels in mirrored sunglasses." According to the GOP, community organizers like ACORN were actively recruiting armies of fake voters to misrepresent themselves at the polls and cast illegal ballots for the Democrats.

Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

GOP outcries over the phantom menace of voter fraud escalated after 2008, when Obama's candidacy attracted historic numbers of first-time voters. In the 29 states that record party affiliation, roughly two-thirds of new voters registered as Democrats in 2007 and 2008 – and Obama won nearly 70 percent of their votes. In Florida alone, Democrats added more than 600,000 new voters in the run-up to the 2008 election, and those who went to the polls favored Obama over John McCain by 19 points. "This latest flood of attacks on voting rights is a direct shot at the communities that came out in historic numbers for the first time in 2008 and put Obama over the top," says Tova Wang, an elections-reform expert at Demos, a progressive think tank.

No one has done more to stir up fears about the manufactured threat of voter fraud than Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a top adviser in the Bush Justice Department who has become a rising star in the GOP. "We need a Kris Kobach in every state," declared Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit. This year, Kobach successfully fought for a law requiring every Kansan to show proof of citizenship in order to vote – even though the state prosecuted only one case of voter fraud in the past five years. The new restriction fused anti-immigrant hysteria with voter-fraud paranoia. "In Kansas, the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive," Kobach claimed, offering no substantiating evidence.

Kobach also asserted that dead people were casting ballots, singling out a deceased Kansan named Alfred K. Brewer as one such zombie voter. There was only one problem: Brewer was still very much alive. The Wichita Eagle found him working in his front yard. "I don't think this is heaven," Brewer told the paper. "Not when I'm raking leaves."

Kobach might be the gop's most outspoken crusader working to prevent citizens from voting, but he's far from the only one. "Voting rights are under attack in America," Rep. John Lewis, who was brutally beaten in Alabama while marching during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, observed during an impassioned speech on the House floor in July. "There's a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process."

The Republican effort, coordinated and funded at the national level, has focused on disenfranchising voters in four key areas:

Barriers to Registration Since January, six states have introduced legislation to impose new restrictions on voter registration drives run by groups like Rock the Vote and the League of Women Voters. In May, the GOP-controlled legislature in Florida passed a law requiring anyone who signs up new voters to hand in registration forms to the state board of elections within 48 hours of collecting them, and to comply with a barrage of onerous, bureaucratic requirements. Those found to have submitted late forms would face a $1,000 fine, as well as possible felony prosecution.

As a result, the law threatens to turn civic-minded volunteers into inadvertent criminals. Denouncing the legislation as "good old-fashioned voter suppression," the League of Women Voters announced that it was ending its registration efforts in Florida, where it has been signing up new voters for the past 70 years. Rock the Vote, which helped 2.5 million voters to register in 2008, could soon follow suit. "We're hoping not to shut down," says Heather Smith, president of Rock the Vote, "but I can't say with any certainty that we'll be able to continue the work we're doing."

The registration law took effect one day after it passed, under an emergency statute designed for "an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare." In reality, though, there's no evidence that registering fake voters is a significant problem in the state. Over the past three years, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has received just 31 cases of suspected voter fraud, resulting in only three arrests statewide. "No one could give me an example of all this fraud they speak about," said Mike Fasano, a Republican state senator who bucked his party and voted against the registration law. What's more, the law serves no useful purpose: Under the Help America Vote Act passed by Congress in 2002, all new voters must show identity before registering to vote.

Cuts to Early Voting After the recount debacle in Florida in 2000, allowing voters to cast their ballots early emerged as a popular bipartisan reform. Early voting not only meant shorter lines on Election Day, it has helped boost turnout in a number of states – the true measure of a successful democracy. "I think it's great," Jeb Bush said in 2004. "It's another reform we added that has helped provide access to the polls and provide a convenience. And we're going to have a high voter turnout here, and I think that's wonderful."

But Republican support for early voting vanished after Obama utilized it as a key part of his strategy in 2008. Nearly 30 percent of the electorate voted early that year, and they favored Obama over McCain by 10 points. The strategy proved especially effective in Florida, where blacks outnumbered whites by two to one among early voters, and in Ohio, where Obama received fewer votes than McCain on Election Day but ended up winning by 263,000 ballots, thanks to his advantage among early voters in urban areas like Cleveland and Columbus.

That may explain why both Florida and Ohio – which now have conservative Republican governors – have dramatically curtailed early voting for 2012. Next year, early voting will be cut from 14 to eight days in Florida and from 35 to 11 days in Ohio, with limited hours on weekends. In addition, both states banned voting on the Sunday before the election – a day when black churches historically mobilize their constituents. Once again, there appears to be nothing to justify the changes other than pure politics. "There is no evidence that any form of convenience voting has led to higher levels of fraud," reports the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College.

Photo IDs By far the biggest change in election rules for 2012 is the number of states requiring a government-issued photo ID, the most important tactic in the Republican war on voting. In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a photo-ID law in Indiana, even though state GOP officials couldn't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop. Emboldened by the ruling, Republicans launched a nationwide effort to implement similar barriers to voting in dozens of states.

The campaign was coordinated by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which provided GOP legislators with draft legislation based on Indiana's ID requirement. In five states that passed such laws in the past year – Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – the measures were sponsored by legislators who are members of ALEC. "We're seeing the same legislation being proposed state by state by state," says Smith of Rock the Vote. "And they're not being shy in any of these places about clearly and blatantly targeting specific demographic groups, including students."

In Texas, under "emergency" legislation passed by the GOP-dominated legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, a concealed-weapon permit is considered an acceptable ID but a student ID is not. Republicans in Wisconsin, meanwhile, mandated that students can only vote if their IDs include a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date – requirements that no college or university ID in the state currently meets. As a result, 242,000 students in Wisconsin may lack the documentation required to vote next year. "It's like creating a second class of citizens in terms of who gets to vote," says Analiese Eicher, a Dane County board supervisor.


The barriers erected in Texas and Wisconsin go beyond what the Supreme Court upheld in Indiana, where 99 percent of state voters possess the requisite IDs and can turn to full-time DMVs in every county to obtain the proper documentation. By contrast, roughly half of all black and Hispanic residents in Wisconsin do not have a driver's license, and the state staffs barely half as many DMVs as Indiana – a quarter of which are open less than one day a month. To make matters worse, Gov. Scott Walker tried to shut down 16 more DMVs – many of them located in Democratic-leaning areas. In one case, Walker planned to close a DMV in Fort Atkinson, a liberal stronghold, while opening a new office 30 minutes away in the conservative district of Watertown.

Although new ID laws have been approved in seven states, the battle over such barriers to voting has been far more widespread. Since January, Democratic governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina have all vetoed ID laws. Voters in Mississippi and Missouri are slated to consider ballot initiatives requiring voter IDs, and legislation is currently pending in Pennsylvania.

One of the most restrictive laws requiring voter IDs was passed in South Carolina. To obtain the free state ID now required to vote, the 178,000 South Carolinians who currently lack one must pay for a passport or a birth certificate. "It's the stepsister of the poll tax," says Browne-Dianis of the Advancement Project. Under the new law, many elderly black residents – who were born at home in the segregated South and never had a birth certificate – must now go to family court to prove their identity. Given that obtaining fake birth certificates is one of the country's biggest sources of fraud, the new law may actually prompt some voters to illegally procure a birth certificate in order to legally vote – all in the name of combating voter fraud.

For those voters who manage to get a legitimate birth certificate, obtaining a voter ID from the DMV is likely to be hellishly time-consuming. A reporter for the Tri-State Defender in Memphis, Tennessee – another state now mandating voter IDs – recently waited for four hours on a sweltering July day just to see a DMV clerk. The paper found that the longest lines occur in urban precincts, a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from erecting hurdles to voting in minority jurisdictions.

Disenfranchising Ex-Felons The most sweeping tactic in the GOP campaign against voting is simply to make it illegal for certain voters to cast ballots in any election. As the Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist restored the voting rights of 154,000 former prisoners who had been convicted of nonviolent crimes. But in March, after only 30 minutes of public debate, Gov. Rick Scott overturned his predecessor's decision, instantly disenfranchising 97,491 ex-felons and prohibiting another 1.1 million prisoners from being allowed to vote after serving their time.

"Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" Bill Clinton asked during his speech in July. "Because most of them in Florida were African-Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats – that's why."

A similar reversal by a Republican governor recently took place in Iowa, where Gov. Terry Branstad overturned his predecessor's decision to restore voting rights to 100,000 ex-felons. The move threatens to return Iowa to the recent past, when more than five percent of all residents were denied the right to vote – including a third of the state's black residents. In addition, Florida and Iowa join Kentucky and Virginia as the only states that require all former felons to apply for the right to vote after finishing their prison sentences.

In response to the GOP campaign, voting-rights advocates are scrambling to blunt the impact of the new barriers to voting. The ACLU and other groups are challenging the new laws in court, and congressional Democrats have asked the Justice Department to use its authority to block or modify any of the measures that discriminate against minority voters. "The Justice Department should be much more aggressive in areas covered by the Voting Rights Act," says Rep. Lewis.

But beyond waging battles at the state and federal level, voting-rights advocates must figure out how to reframe the broader debate. The real problem in American elections is not the myth of voter fraud, but how few people actually participate. Even in 2008, which saw the highest voter turnout in four decades, fewer than two-thirds of eligible voters went to the polls. And according to a study by MIT, 9 million voters were denied an opportunity to cast ballots that year because of problems with their voter registration (13 percent), long lines at the polls (11 percent), uncertainty about the location of their polling place (nine percent) or lack of proper ID (seven percent).

Come Election Day 2012, such problems will only be exacerbated by the flood of new laws implemented by Republicans. Instead of a single fiasco in Florida, experts warn, there could be chaos in a dozen states as voters find themselves barred from the polls. "Our democracy is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people," says Browne-Dianis. "It doesn't matter how much money you have, what race you are or where you live in the country – we all get to have the same amount of power by going into the voting booth on Election Day. But those who passed these laws believe that only some people should participate. The restrictions undermine democracy by cutting off the voices of the people."

This story is from the September 15, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone.
<SCRIPT> $(document).ready(function() { $('.socialActionsBottom .pageActions .email-content').hover( function() { $('.socialActionsBottom .bubble.email').show(); }, function() { $('.socialActionsBottom .bubble.email').hide(); } &nbsp;); $('.socialActionsBottom .pageActions .print-page').hover( function() { $('.socialActionsBottom .bubble.print').show(); }, function() { $('.socialActionsBottom .bubble.print').hide(); } &nbsp;); }); </SCRIPT>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Think Progress

voterid2.jpg

Wisconsin Dept. Of Transportation Memo Tells Staff Not To Mention Free Voter ID Cards Unless People Ask For It

The recent voter identification law passed by Wisconsin Republicans and signed into law by Republican Gov. Scott Walker contained a stipulation that residents without valid identification could get a free voter-only ID at any Department of Motor Vehicles location. To obtain the free version of the ID, voters must check a box saying that they are asking for a product “available for free issuance.” Otherwise, they would be issued an ID at its regular cost of $28.

The form, it seems, makes no specific reference to a free voter ID, and applicants are expected to know that the vote-only IDs are offered free of charge. And according to a memo, obtained by the Madison Capital Times, circulated by a top official at the state’s Department of Transportation, DMV staff has been instructed not to mention the free vote-only IDs to patrons unless they specifically ask for one:
Interviews conducted about the memo suggest the state is more interested in continuing to charge the fee, which is required for a photo ID used for non-voting purposes, than it is in removing all barriers and providing easy access to a free, photo ID.

While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it,” Krieser writes to employees.

Krieser, who was recently promoted to executive assistant to the DOT secretary, instructs staff that customers should “self certify” their eligibility for the free ID. They can do that, he writes, if they meet the documentation requirements; if they are at least 17 years old; if they have checked the correct certification box on the new forms; and, most significantly, if they are “asking for a product that is available for free issuance.”
Steve Krieser, who wrote the memo, defended it when the Capital Times asked about it Tuesday. “If the person initiates that direction, then certainly, we will help them. We will not be coy,” Krieser told the Times. “But we still are not going to be selling it at the counter as a free ID.” According to Wisconsin officials, the state plans to launch a major education initiative later this year to let residents know about the free IDs, and in the meantime, Krieser said, the Dept. of Transportation will place signs letting people know about the IDs, though the signs have not yet been approved. More than 18,000 Wisconsinites have received new IDs since July 1, when DMV began offering the free version, and 59 percent of those were at no cost, though it unknown how many IDs were paid for that could have been obtained for free.

The problems with voter ID laws in Wisconsin and other states are already becoming apparent. In South Carolina, the U.S. Department of Justice has put a hold on the state’s new law until officials prove it isn’t discriminatory, and Gov. Nikki Haley (R) has promised to use state funds to drive any of the state’s 178,000 residents without an ID to DMV locations to get one. In Wisconsin, Walker planned to close 10 DMV offices, only to backtrack when he came under pressure.

To state Democrats and voting rights advocates, the memo is proof that the voter ID law was a clear Republican effort to disenfranchise Wisconsin voters (though not the first, as the GOP has admitted that its union-busting budget “fix” earlier this year was, at least in part, meant to curb unions’ electoral efforts). “It was clear to me from the beginning that people would be disenfranchised because of this law,” state Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D) told the Times. “Now we have the proof that people are not going to be getting these IDs unless the say the ‘magic words.’”
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
How much longer does this thread have to get before Gunner, AAA, Lamarr, Cruise and any of the more Right wing leaning posters come in and decry this blatant attack on people's voting rights? Isn't something this egregious something we can all agree is wrong?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
How much longer does this thread have to get before Gunner, AAA, Lamarr, Cruise and any of the more Right wing leaning posters come in and decry this blatant attack on people's voting rights? Isn't something this egregious something we can all agree is wrong?


Because in essence, they are racists
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Huffington Post

GOP-Led States Move To Change Voting Rules Ahead Of 2012

(AP) COLUMBUS, Ohio — After years of expanding when and how people can vote, state legislatures now under new Republican control are moving to trim early voting days, beef up identification requirements and put new restrictions on how voters are notified about absentee ballots.

Democrats claim their GOP counterparts are using midterm election wins to enforce changes favorable to Republicans ahead of the 2012 presidential election. They criticize such legislation, saying it could lead to longer lines in Democratic-leaning urban areas and discourage people from voting.

Supporters say bolstering ID rules helps prevent fraud. And at a time when counties face tough budgets, they contend local elections officials don't have the money to keep early voting locations staffed and opened.

The process of changing voting rules may be nonpartisan on the surface but it is seething with politics just below the surface.

"We've had nothing short of a rhetorical firefight for years between the folks who are worried about fraud and folks who are worried about disenfranchisement – a firefight which is pretty much neatly broken down between the two major parties," said Doug Chapin, an election expert at the University of Minnesota.

While states typically adjust voting rules ahead of presidential elections, this year provides an opportunity for new Republican governors and GOP majorities to legislate on election issues.

Put simply, Chapin said: "What's happening in 2011 is just as much about what happened in 2010."

New voting rules recently cleared state legislatures in what have traditionally been presidential battlegrounds, creating partisan rancor.

Plans to reduce the number of days to cast an early ballot cleared the Republican-controlled swing states of Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. Legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia also lopped off advanced-voting time. North Carolina has a pending proposal. And Maine has done away with a policy that allows people to register at the polls on Election Day before casting ballots.

Each party, when in control, seeks to rewrite the rules to its electoral advantage.

Although the reality may not be so cut and dried, both parties believe a looser voting regimen benefits Democrats because it increases opportunities for Hispanic, black, immigrant and poor people – harder to reach for an Election Day turnout – to vote.

Democratic voters held an edge in early voting during the 2010 elections, despite the unfavorable climate for the party nationally and the eventual Republican gains.

Voters in 32 states and the District of Columbia can cast a ballot in person before Election Day without having to give a reason.

Georgia and Ohio had some of the longest early voting time periods. Georgia had 45 days, while Ohio had 35. The new laws bring the two states closer to the typical timeframe, which is about two weeks before the election.

The move to shrink the early voting window in some states comes as others have pushed to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Five states – Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas – recently passed strict photo ID laws. At the beginning of the year, just two states – Georgia and Indiana – required that voters must show a photo ID in order to have their vote counted.

Other legislatures are rewriting their state's election laws in other ways.

Florida rolled back its early voting time to one week from two in an overhaul that also makes it more difficult for groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Boy Scouts of America to conduct voter registration drives.

Ohio's top elections chief, a Republican, acknowledged that changes to voting rules have invited an overreaction from each party.

"Both sides of the political spectrum have found it advantageous from a fundraising point of view, from a motivating their base point of view, to call into question the confidence in the election system," Secretary of State Jon Husted said in an interview.

While Ohio's overhaul bans local boards of elections from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot requests to voters, Husted has agreed to have the state send the requests to voters in all counties in 2012.

Ohio's law is not yet in effect, and opponents are working to get a proposed repeal question on the fall 2012 ballot. The legislation ignited debate early this summer on the floors of the state's GOP-controlled General Assembly.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
What is Eric Holder, the national Democratic Party, or the "white House" doing about this???? This is blatant "in-your-face", I'm going to STOP democratic voters from voting, by any means necessary!! Where is the response?? Are they that stupid? They certainly know about this. Where is Valerie Jarrett senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs?? Where is Democratic Party Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz?? Do any of these people know what a fight is?? Have any of the men Holder & Obama ever been in a fist fight?? Where is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, a former State attorney??

j4Ih6SRHcoLjX.png

j4MUDD8KB2VWh.jpg

jrrPO0ncAOLzN.jpg

jPscfkl349Sym.jpg
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
What is Eric Holder, the national Democratic Party, or the "white House" doing about this???? This is blatant "in-your-face", I'm going to STOP democratic voters from voting, by any means necessary!! Where is the response?? Are they that stupid? They certainly know about this. Where is Valerie Jarrett senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs?? Where is Democratic Party Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz?? Do any of these people know what a fight is?? Have any of the men Holder & Obama ever been in a fist fight?? Where is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, a former State attorney??

j4Ih6SRHcoLjX.png

j4MUDD8KB2VWh.jpg

jrrPO0ncAOLzN.jpg

jPscfkl349Sym.jpg


They can speak about it but this is all within the rights of the states and is not a federal issue.

But as usual people sat home during the midterms of 2010 and now that they are getting fucked with no Vaseline they are screaming for the federal government.

While we may know the motive behind what they are doing it is still legal under the states rights. If you can't prove a federal law has been broken then what would you like them to do ?


So you asking has Holder or Obama been in a fistfight is an invalid question. Have the democratic voters who thought they were making a statement by not holding on to their states ever been in a fist fight.

This is a definite call for the local voters to start a grassroots movement to make sure anybody that needs an ID has a way to get there. If they are old and don't have cars then drive them there.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
What is Eric Holder, the national Democratic Party, or the "white House" doing about this???? This is blatant "in-your-face", I'm going to STOP democratic voters from voting, by any means necessary!! Where is the response?? Are they that stupid? They certainly know about this. Where is Valerie Jarrett senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs?? Where is Democratic Party Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz?? Do any of these people know what a fight is?? Have any of the men Holder & Obama ever been in a fist fight?? Where is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, a former State attorney??

j4Ih6SRHcoLjX.png

j4MUDD8KB2VWh.jpg

jrrPO0ncAOLzN.jpg

jPscfkl349Sym.jpg

just like this below
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/doj-texas-voting-maps-meet-federal-law-14558632

DOJ: 2 Texas Voting Maps Don't Meet Federal Law

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a court filing Monday that Texas' new voting maps for Congress and for the Texas House do not meet federal anti-discrimination requirements, setting up a legal battle that will decide the landscape of future elections in the state.

The case, which involves the election districts drawn by the Republican-led Texas Legislature, will likely be decided by a federal court in Washington, D.C.

District boundaries are redrawn every 10 years to reflect changes in census data. Any changes to Texas' voting practices must be cleared by a federal court or the Justice Department to ensure changes do not discriminate based on race or color.

The Justice Department took issue with the maps for Congress and the Texas House, but it agreed with the state attorney general that maps for the Texas Senate and State Board of Education met requirements under the federal Voting Rights Act. But the Justice Department reiterated that the court would have to make its own determination on the education board and Senate maps.




The agency denied that the congressional and House plans maintain or increase the ability of minority voters to elect their candidate of choice, as required by federal law. The Voting Rights Act requires map drawers to give special protection to districts that contain mostly minorities.

"The D.C. court will have to hear these issues fully and we will have a chance to put in our evidence supporting why we think that the plan should not be pre-cleared," said Nina Perales, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal and Defense Fund, which has joined the case.

"Now, it's going to have to be decided by the court."

A separate trial combining lawsuits filed against the plans wrapped up last week in San Antonio. During the trial, minority groups argued the new voting districts don't reflect the statewide Hispanic population boom over the past decade in Texas.

Texas received four new congressional seats following the last census, more than any other state. The new congressional map was drawn with the goal of protecting and possibly expanding the 23-9 majority enjoyed by Republicans in Texas' delegation in Washington.

Hispanics have accounted for two-thirds of the state's growth since 2000. Yet during the two-week federal trial, opponents argued that GOP mapmakers went out of their way to stifle those gains and deny Hispanics greater voting power.

Democrats argued that the map passed by the Texas Legislature this summer simply packed Hispanics and blacks into the same districts.


Now this is something that looked like a violation and they are investigating.

So what were you saying about Mr Holder ?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Political Wire

Pennsylvania GOP Proposes New Electoral Vote Allocation

Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to change how the state awards its electoral votes -- from winner take all (like most states) to by congressional district (like Maine and Nebraska), the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

"An analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state's 21 votes."

First Read: "Interestingly, Nebraska Republicans had considered changing the state's system back to winner take all -- after Obama won one of Nebraska's electoral votes in 2008. But that effort stalled."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Typicsl again...

I don't have to read this thread to know what it's about. If Obama loses, people on here already has an excuse to lay out.

If our community wants another term of Obama, trust, they will hop over a lava pit to a voting booth.

The true question is this. Does our community care enough to vote Obama back in? Perhaps Obama's policies hasn't produce the promises most of our community hoped for?

You can't have "voter suppression" when there's 9% unemployment.


artworks-000009237957-0z30d3-original.gif
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
You can't have "voter suppression" when there's 9% unemployment.


So why all of the attempts by the GOP to change voting requirements ? Why the attempts to change how electoral college votes are dispersed ?

If 9% unemployment was enough to change the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave why would they being doing so many things to disenfranchise so much of the voting population?

The actions of the GOP do not substantiate the quoted statement.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=43447870&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc65e22c" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=43447870&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

A Fraudulent Case​


The ugly parallels between Jim Crow
and modern vote-suppression laws



111020_JURIS_voters_al.jpg.CROP.rectangle2-mediumsmall.jpg

African-Americans line up to vote in the
2008 presidential election Photograph by
Mario Tama/Getty Images.



Slate
By Risa L. Goluboff
and Dahlia Lithwick
Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011


An elderly black woman in Tennessee can’t vote because she can’t produce her marriage certificate. Threatening letters blanket black neighborhoods warning that creditors and police officers will check would-be voters at the polls, or that elections are taking place on the wrong day. Thirty-eight states have instituted new rules prohibiting same-day registration and early voting on Sundays. All of this is happening as part of an effort to eradicate a problem that is statistically rarer than heavy-metal bands with exploding drummers: vote fraud.

Many commentators have remarked on the unavoidable historical memories these images provoke: They are so clearly reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. So why shouldn’t the proponents of draconian new voting laws have to answer for their ugly history?


Proponents of reforming the voting process seem blind to the fact that all of these seemingly neutral reforms hit poor and minority voters out of all proportion. (The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that while about 12 per*cent of Amer*i*cans don’t have a government-issued photo ID, the figure for African-Americans is closer to 25 percent, and in some Southern states perhaps higher.) The reason minorities are so much harder hit by these seemingly benign laws has its roots in the tragic legacy of race in this country. They still work because that old black man, born into Jim Crow in 1940, may have had no birth certificate because he was not born in a hospital because of poverty or discrimination. Names may have been misspelled on African-American birth certificates because illiterate midwives sometimes gave erroneous names.

It’s true that the most egregious methods of minority vote suppression from the 19th century—the poll tax, the literacy test, the white primary—have disappeared. And we know (and can take some solace in the knowledge) that the worst of these indignities have not been recycled in the 21st century, in part because of the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But a look at the history of voting rights in this country shows that the current state efforts to suppress minority voting—from erecting barriers to registration and early voting to voter ID laws—look an awful lot like methods pioneered by the white supremacists from another era that achieved the similar results.

One device that was particularly effective was to require voters to register periodically and to make the registration process more elaborate than might seem necessary. (These rules were then often relaxed for white voters.) Residency requirements, both within and outside the South, had the same, intended, effect of simply keeping people off the rolls. Under one law passed in Indiana in 1917, for example, the applicant had to specify the material his house was made of, his nearest neighbor’s full name, and other proofs of residency. And of course then, as now, misinformation about registration and voting requirements, directed to some constituents and not to others, was a popular device for selective disfranchisement.

At first glance, it’s hard to argue with the goal of reducing corruption and fraud in the election process. Even those who oppose the new provisions would agree that voter fraud is a bad thing. But as Ari Berman recently reminded us (again), there is no evidence for widespread vote fraud, despite Bush administration efforts to find some:

After taking power, the Bush administration declared war on voter fraud, making it a “top priority” for federal prosecutors. In 2006, the Justice Department fired two U.S. attorneys who refused to pursue trumped-up cases of voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, and Karl Rove called illegal voting “an enormous and growing problem. …[Yet] a major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. … A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud.

In short, if we want to fight imaginary problems, we’d be better off going after the scourge of exploding drummers.

Even more remarkable than the similarities of the techniques being used to suppress minority voting today is that the reasons for introducing all of these new rules echo the pretextual rationales of the Jim Crow era. These are the very same justifications white southerners offered for their disfranchisement efforts more than a century ago. As historian C. Vann Woodward put it in Origins of the New South, “Repugnance for corrupt elections was put forward everywhere as the primary reason for disfranchisement.” The call for the Australian ballot—the secret ballot that would effectively disfranchise the more than half of African-American men who could not read in 1900 (not to mention the 20 percent of whites who would lose the vote if the tests were fairly administered)—was a call for a fair ballot, one free of the influence and corruption that it was thought would inevitably follow from allowing the uneducated to vote. Reformers concerned with fraud instituted the secret ballot in 38 states in the final 12 years of the 19th century—with northern whites as worried about immigrant “hordes” and the "inferior" races of new possessions in the Caribbean and Pacific as southern whites were about African-Americans.

Of course, back then such claims were deeply bound up with white supremacy and the corrupt practices of white politicians jockeying for black or immigrant votes. And the anti-fraud rationale went hand-in-hand with explicit and open calls for white supremacy. No longer is it politically palatable to declare, as a Virginian who did at the turn of the 20th century, that one intends “to disfranchise every negro that [one can] … and as few white people as possible.” Now we simply have conservatives like Paul Weyrich elliptically telling evangelicals in 1980: “I don't want everybody to vote.”

Not only are the stated “anti-fraud” justifications for this new crop of voter restrictions the same as they were in 1890, but the underlying goal of these restrictions is also unchanged: to shape an electorate that will vote for particular kinds of politicians. In a country with hugely shifting demographics, that problem is as urgent as it was a century ago for so-called “reformers.” In the Jim Crow era, the impulse for disenfranchisement came from the Democratic Party, which used new restrictions on black voters to become the Solid South. Today, it is the Republican Party capitalizing on the remnants of Jim Crow to restrict the votes of the poor and minority communities most likely to vote for Democrats. It is the same impulse we see when Rick Santorum says that if Republicans could only eliminate single mothers, more Republicans will be elected. It’s a way of saying some voters simply count more than others. The Constitution is quite clear, at least where race is concerned, that the opposite is true.

Voting is a right, and when the state erects barriers to the exercise of fundamental rights, the means should match the stated ends. In the case of vote fraud we are attempting to eradicate a problem that doesn’t exist with horribly expensive measures that will not fix it. In the process we are enshrining a revived Jim Crow.







http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...should_have_to_answer_for_the_ugl.single.html




 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SWMTv9-v-nQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
. . . I don't have a lot of confidence in this group . . .



Congressional Black Caucus
targets state voter laws as hostile


14web_ELE-Black.major_story_img.prod_affiliate.91.jpg




McClatchy Newspapers
By William Douglas
and David Lightman




WASHINGTON — Minority voters have long had problems simply exercising their right to vote in certain parts of the country — and minority lawmakers fear the situation will become worse in 2012.

Their worries are heightened by new laws in 13 states that they say will restrict access to the ballot box. Some of the changes would require voters to show government-approved identification, restrict voter registration drives by third-party groups, curtail early voting, do away with same-day registration, and reverse rules allowing convicted felons who've served their time the right to vote.

In addition to the states that have passed such laws, 24 other states are weighing similar measures, according to New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

Proponents of the measures say they are needed to protect the integrity of the vote, prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots, and clamp down on voter fraud, although several studies indicate that voter fraud is negligible.

Civil rights groups, voting experts and some lawmakers say the new laws have echoes of poll taxes and literacy tests — devices that for generations blocked black voters from easily going to the polls.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters last week that the new voting laws are "perverse policies" designed to "subvert Americans' basic right to vote."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said asking voters to produce identification isn't unreasonable.

"And when it comes to voting, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say you have to prove that you are who you say you are, and we'll find accommodating ways to get there," Graham said at the hearing. "So I think sanctifying the voting process in a way that makes sense, to make sure that we're electing people based on registered voters, is a goal that we should all be concerned about, want to achieve."

Fearing that the new laws are thinly veiled efforts to intimidate voters from their core constituencies, Democratic lawmakers are ramping up efforts to combat them. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are expected to express their concerns to Attorney General Eric Holder at a meeting Wednesday.

A study by the Brennan Center earlier this month said the new laws "may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election" by restricting voting access to 5 million people — most of them minority, elderly, young or low-income earners.

The study found that more than 21 million Americans don't possess government-issued photo identification. More than 3.2 million people alone in South Carolina, Texas, Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin don't have state-issued identification that's now required to vote in those states.

Some 25 percent of African-Americans nationwide do not have the proper documentation to meet ID requirements, according to Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau.

States that have adopted new voting laws account for 171 electoral votes in 2012 — or 63 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, the Brennan Center report said.



"'Voter ID is making it harder to get registered," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. "You can't get a birth certificate in the South in many instances. ... This is a way of making it difficult to vote."



Some analysts believe that President Barack Obama's opponents are enacting laws designed to make it more difficult for his voters to reach the polls. Obama's winning coalition in 2008 included enthusiastic turnout by young and minority voters who may be less likely to have drivers' licenses or other photo ID, and who take advantage of early voting or same-day registration.

"I'm pretty sure this is linked," said Blair Kelley, associate professor of history at North Carolina State University.

But Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argued in an interview that the "whole idea they have in their mind this will depress the turnout of Democratic voters has been proven to be untrue in the courtroom and the polling place."

"No one can enter most federal buildings to exercise the First Amendment right to petition the government without a photo ID," von Spakovsky testified last month before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.


Civil rights activists and Democratic lawmakers have struggled to combat the changes. Shelton of the NAACP said the fight is more difficult because the battleground is in individual states as opposed to Washington.

"This is one of those issues that's spread out over the country," he said. "We're at a disadvantage because of the makeup of (Republican-controlled) state legislatures. We fight it with education."

In Washington, members of the black caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the House Democratic leadership recently began meetings to develop a strategy to address the issue.

The black caucus is weighing whether to embark on a state-by-state tour — similar to a jobs fair and town hall tour the group organized in August — to educate and help facilitate voter registration next year.





http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/25/128279/congressional-black-caucus-targets.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

NAACP Taking Complaints
About U.S. Voter Laws to United Nations



un_headquartersgraphic.jpg



FoxNews
By Judson Berger
December 06, 2011


The NAACP is calling on the United Nations to intervene as it claims state governments
are colluding to "block the vote" for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election --
a charge those governments vehemently deny.

The nation's biggest civil rights organization this week released a report that claimed a
raft of new voting laws at the state level would disenfranchise minority voters. The
report said 14 states passed 25 measures "designed to restrict or limit the ballot access
of voters of color."


FULL STORY




 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

Is It Too Late To Stop RepubliKlan Voter Suppression In 2012 ??

Did Eric Holder Drop The Ball??



<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc507cb"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=45704340&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc507cb" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=45704340&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a></p>
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
These republicans are ruthless.

Soulless. I have a thread about it.:D

. . . I don't have a lot of confidence in this group . . .



Congressional Black Caucus
targets state voter laws as hostile

I'm pleased to see them focus on the issue and they need to focus the entire party on it. It's not just about Obama but Republicans trying to steal elections down ballot and locally as well.








But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said asking voters to produce identification isn't unreasonable.

"And when it comes to voting, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say you have to prove that you are who you say you are, and we'll find accommodating ways to get there," Graham said at the hearing. "So I think sanctifying the voting process in a way that makes sense, to make sure that we're electing people based on registered voters, is a goal that we should all be concerned about, want to achieve."

A good interviewer needs to pull them off their talking points. Graham knows he's lying. With all the real problems in this country, the Republicans are eager to fix something that isn't broken.






But Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argued in an interview that the "whole idea they have in their mind this will depress the turnout of Democratic voters has been proven to be untrue in the courtroom and the polling place."

"No one can enter most federal buildings to exercise the First Amendment right to petition the government without a photo ID," von Spakovsky testified last month before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

What does that even mean? Heritage disgraces itself with crap like this (not that they have much integrity in the first place).






NAACP Taking Complaints
About U.S. Voter Laws to United Nations



un_headquartersgraphic.jpg



FoxNews
By Judson Berger
December 06, 2011


The NAACP is calling on the United Nations to intervene as it claims state governments
are colluding to "block the vote" for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election --
a charge those governments vehemently deny.

The nation's biggest civil rights organization this week released a report that claimed a
raft of new voting laws at the state level would disenfranchise minority voters. The
report said 14 states passed 25 measures "designed to restrict or limit the ballot access
of voters of color."


FULL STORY


While this could be mildly embarassing to the US, the UN isn't going to combat this. Interesting move by the NAACP though.



Is It Too Late To Stop RepubliKlan Voter Suppression In 2012 ??

Did Eric Holder Drop The Ball??



<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc507cb"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=45704340&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc507cb" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=45704340&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a></p>


Strange how Conservatives and Republicans talk about how partisan Holder is but he's been very restrained in wielding his power. Great ploy. By constantly trying to discredit him and the Justice Dept, they make him slow to stop them and their many attempts to disenfranchise voters. He has to make sure all his ducks are in a row before he can do anything.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
The Republicans amongst us never come into these threads. Why is that? They love freedom and the Constitution, come show the rest of us how patriotic your party is.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Good Post...

NAACP report on Voter Suppression
http://naacp.3cdn.net/67065c25be9ae43367_mlbrsy48b.pdf


http://www.naacp.org/pages/defending-democracy

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dwOTm3ShQh0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Voter ID laws are another form of poll taxes that creates a barrier to voting. An ID costs money, unpaid time off of work to wait in a long ass line. Especially in a city, where somebody might not own a car and use public transportation.

They should take Columbus Day and use that for the day we vote. A lot of countries take the day off to vote, it is a big decision. Another barrier that the plutocrats use to block voting from the poor.

Why haven't Republicans passed laws banning robocalls telling people the wrong day to vote? Isn't that a form of voter fraud?
 
Last edited:

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: BBC

The US attorney general has vowed to enforce civil rights protections for voters in next year's US elections.


Eric Holder's speech in Texas took aim at new voting laws passed in a number of US states that critics say are designed to suppress minority turnout.

Supporters of the Republican-backed measures say they will help combat voter fraud, but they are being scrutinised by the justice department.

Minorities turned out strongly to vote for Barack Obama in 2008.

Under the new rules passed in a number of states, voters are required to show state identification at the polls.

Critics, mostly Democrats, say the poor and elderly may struggle to secure that documentation.

Supporters of the new measures, mainly Republicans, say they will cut down voter fraud.

Speaking on Tuesday night at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Mr Holder urged politicians to "resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success".

He declared "we need election systems that are free from fraud, discrimination and partisan influence - and that are more, not less, accessible to the citizens of this country".

"Instead, encourage and work with the parties to achieve this success by appealing to more voters."

Mr Holder, the top US law enforcement official, vowed to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was passed to protect minority voters.

Under that law, jurisdictions in all, or parts of, 16 mostly southern US states - because of their history of discriminatory electoral practices - must have any voting changes approved by the federal government.

The US Department of Justice is currently reviewing new requirements in Texas and South Carolina requiring voters to produce a photo ID before casting ballots.

Redistricting row

It is also examining voting changes in Florida that eliminate Sunday as an early voting day, which critics say will hamper get-out-the-vote campaigns by African-American churches.

Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin have also enacted more stringent voter identification laws this year.

In his speech, Mr Holder criticised, too, a Texas redistricting plan that is now pending before the Supreme Court.

Minority groups have challenged four new congressional seats established in Texas, arguing that they do not reflect growth in the state's Hispanic and black populations.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Mr Holder said: "The most recent census data indicated that Texas has gained more than four million new residents - the vast majority of whom are Hispanic.

"However, this state has proposed adding zero additional seats in which Hispanics would have the electoral opportunity envisioned by the Voting Rights Act."</SPAN>

In September, the Department of Justice's civil rights division asked for details of the racial breakdown and counties of residence of more than 600,000 Texas voters who are currently without state-issued photo ID.

The division also demanded to know how many of those voters have Spanish last names.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
logo.gif



Holder’s Legacy


ixEBgnq2Sx2HX.jpg



by Jeffrey Toobin

December 27, 2011


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/12/eric-holders-legacy.html

Two years ago, the Supreme Court decided a case that may, it now appears, save Barack Obama’s chances at reelection—and, more importantly, preserve a precious corner of American democracy.

For many years now, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been under assault. The law requires that any changes in voting rules in certain states, mostly in the South, be “pre-cleared” by the Justice Department, to make sure that they do not impinge on the voting rights of minorities. Many people in these states and elsewhere have argued that the law is now obsolete and that its pre-clearance provisions stigmatize and demean places that have long ago reformed from their racist pasts. In the 2009 case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, the Court had a chance to invalidate the law—and ducked. Instead, by a vote of 8-1, the Justices disposed of the case on procedural grounds and left the larger fight for another day. <span style="background-color:yellow"><b>(Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the Voting Rights Act is indeed obsolete and unconstitutional.)</b></span> The Voting Rights Act, and its pre-clearance provisions, remained intact.

The importance of the Northwest Austin case was apparent last week when the Justice Department rejected South Carolina’s new law to impose a photo-identification requirement for voters in 2012. “According to the state’s statistics, there are 81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack D.M.V.-issued identification,” Thomas E. Perez, the chief of the department’s civil-rights division, said in a letter to South Carolina officials. The only reason the Justice Department had the chance to rule on the South Carolina changes is because of the pre-clearance rules. (South Carolina may challenge the Justice Department decision in court, thus possibly setting up another test of the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court.)

The Justice Department action in South Carolina underlines the continuing necessity for the Voting Rights Act, nearly four decades after it was first passed. The South Carolina law is part of a wave of new rules, passed in the wake of the 2010 Republican landslide purportedly to stop vote fraud, that limit the right to the franchise. As many independent studies have found, “voter fraud” is a cure in search of a disease. There is no significant voter-fraud problem in the United States. Rather, these laws are transparent attempts by Republican majorities to stifle and suppress the number of minorities and poor people (mostly Democrats) who go to the polls. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department has the tools to stop this travesty—at least in states like South Carolina, which are still subject to “pre-clearance.”

But a recent speech by Eric Holder, the Attorney General, suggests that the Justice Department may be looking to attack these “voter fraud” laws in other states as well. Earlier this month in Austin, Holder delivered a ringing defense of the right to vote and quoted Congressman John Lewis, who said that voting rights are “under attack … [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.”

Notice the use of an important word: “deliberate.” Even in states that are not covered by the pre-clearance requirements, the Justice Department has the right to sue to stop intentional—deliberate—attempts to limit voting rights. Holder’s speech suggests that his Department might do just that in states like Wisconsin, Kansas, and Tennessee, which have new photo i.d. requirements.

This is a chance for Holder to define his legacy as Attorney General—as something more than the guy who tried, and failed, to have Guantánamo Bay detainees tried in federal court in New York. There is a purity, a simplicity, about the voting-rights fight that is sadly absent from many modern civil-rights battles. This is not about special privileges, or quotas, or even complex mathematical formulae. It’s about a basic right of American citizenship, which is being taken from large numbers of people for the most cynical of reasons. The laws are, quite literally, indefensible—so Holder ought to make the states that have them try to defend them. That would be a legacy that would make any Attorney General, and any American, proud.



voter-suppression.gif
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator



Newt & Santorum say
Obama seeks to steal
elections with ID ruling




McClatchy Newspapers
By William Douglas
December 31, 2011


INDIANOLA, Iowa — Republican presidential hopefuls spent Saturday crisscrossing Iowa Saturday ahead of Tuesday's caucuses, but some candidates had one eye towards South Carolina's Jan. 21 primary and an issue that might help them gain traction in the Palmetto State.

Former House Speaker <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., used a stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa, to accuse the Obama administration of trying to "steal elections" in the wake of the Justice Department's rejection of South Carolina's voter identification law.</span>

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division determined that the state's law requiring voters to show photo ID at polling places was discriminatory against minorities. "...You have to ask, why is it that they are so desperate to retain the ability to steal elections and I think that what it comes down to," Gingrich said.

On Thursday, former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., also blasted the Justice Department ruling, accusing the administration of pursuing "common-sense anti-fraud measures that states have put in place all because they believe it's a partisan advantage for them to get people who probably shouldn't be voting to help them and their political cause."

South Carolina is one of more than a dozen mostly Republican-controlled states that have approved new voting laws that include requiring government-approved photo ID to register or vote; shortening early voting periods and curtailing voter registration efforts by third-party groups like the League of Women Voters or NAACP.

Supporters of the new laws say they are needed to protect against voter fraud, though several studies indicate that voter fraud in the United States is negligible.

Opponents say the new laws are a thinly veiled attempt to suppress the votes of minorities, the elderly and the young — key voting blocs for the Democratic Party.

FULL ARTICLE





 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Need anymore proof?

source: Think Progress

93-Year-Old Tennessee Woman Who Cleaned State Capitol For 30 Years Denied Voter ID


A 93-year-old Tennessee woman who cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years, including the governor’s office, says she won’t be able to vote for the first time in decades after being told this week that her old state ID failed to meet new voter ID regulations.


Thelma Mitchell was even accused of being an undocumented immigrant because she couldn’t produce a birth certificate:
Mitchell, who was delivered by a midwife in Alabama in 1918, has never had a birth certificate. But when she told that to a drivers’ license clerk, he suggested she might be an illegal immigrant.

Thelma Mitchell told WSMV-TV that she went to a state drivers’ license center last week after being told that her old state ID from her cleaning job would not meet new regulations for voter identification.
A spokesman for the House Republican Caucus insisted that Mitchell was given bad information and should’ve been allowed to vote, even with an expired state ID. But even if that’s the case, her ordeal illustrates the inevitable disenfranchisements that result when confusing voting laws enable state officials to apply the law inconsistently.

The incident is the just latest in a series of reports of senior citizens being denied their constitutional right to vote under restrictive new voter ID laws pushed by Republican governors and legislatures. These laws are a transparent attempt to target Democrat constituencies who are less likely to have photo ID’s, and disproportionately affect seniors, college students, the poor and minorities.

As ThinkProgress reported, one 96-year-old Tennessee woman was denied a voter ID because she didn’t have her marriage license. Another senior citizen in Tennessee, 91-year-old Virginia Lasater, couldn’t get the ID she needed to vote because she wasn’t able to stand in a long line at the DMV. A Tennessee agency even told a 86-year-old World War II veteran that he had to pay an unconstitutional poll tax if he wanted to obtain an ID.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Damn Clarence, really?:smh:


They're not even consistent on this issue

http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/republicans-require-no-ph_b_1173283.html


For all of their years of claims that massive voter fraud is going on at the polling place, such that photo ID restrictions are required to ensure the integrity of the vote, you'd think that when Republicans have a chance to run their own elections, they'd be sure to want it to be as "fraud"-free as possible.

Nonetheless, despite onerous polling place photo ID requirements now passed into law in about a dozen states where the GOP controls both the legislative and executive branches, voters will be able to cast their ballot in next Tuesday's "First-in-the-Nation" Republican Iowa caucuses without bothering to show a photo ID -- even though the Republican Party itself sets their own rules for voting there.

Unlike most primary elections where an official state election board or agency sets the rules and runs the registration and balloting processes, the Iowa Republican Party runs its own state caucuses, determines the rules, tabulates all the votes and announces the results to the public and media themselves. They have complete control over the entire process, and yet they don't bother to ask their own voters to show a state-issued photo ID before casting their ballot.

I wonder why that would be?


Actually, I don't. I know exactly why that's the case. Polling place photo ID laws, passed in states where Republicans took control in the wave election of 2010, are instituted for one purpose and one purpose only: to suppress the votes of voters such as the elderly, minorities and students, all of whom have a dastardly tendency to vote for Democratic candidates rather than Republicans. Since only Republicans are on the IA Republican caucus ballot, unlike general elections, the GOP has no interest in disenfranchising their own voters.
While the GOP likes to claim they're attempting to institute these laws to curb "voter fraud," they're unable to show evidence of virtually any polling place impersonation that would supposedly be prevented by such laws. For example, in rejecting the South Carolina GOP's new Photo ID restriction last Friday, finding that that the state's own statistics showed the law would be racially discriminatory, the U.S. Dept. of Justice noted [PDF] that the state failed to point to "any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state's existing voter identification requirement and that arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls."

That, even as independent study after study has documented how hundreds of thousands of perfectly legal voters are likely to be disenfranchised by such laws.

Of course, if "voter fraud" was truly a concern of the Republican Party, surely they would require that Iowa caucus goers present a photo ID before casting their vote. But, because such laws have never been about "voter fraud," once again this year, the Party will not bother to require Iowa Republicans to present any such ID before voting in the all-important caucuses next week.

According to their own "Bullet-Point Guide to the 2012 Republican Party of Iowa Caucuses," as posted at the state party's website last week, only new registrants, those registering to sign up with the Republican Party and vote on the same day at the caucus, will be asked -- but not actually required -- to show photo ID:

Do you have to be registered Republican to participate in the Republican caucus? Yes. In order to participate in the Republican caucus, one must be a registered Republican in the state of Iowa. You do have the opportunity to register as a Republican at the caucus, provided that you have a valid photo ID with your current address on it (such as your Iowa driver's license) or a photo ID and a document that proves your residence (such as a utility bill). For more information, visit: http://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/edr.html.


As the information at the above-linked website of Iowa Secretary of State and Commissioner of Elections Matt Schultz (R) details, a photo ID isn't actually even necessary to register and vote on Election Day either! Any Iowa citizen 18 or over can register as a Republican and then vote in the Republican IA caucus without a Photo ID being required of any of them.

The IA Sec. of State's website notes (and as I confirmed with them yesterday):

If you cannot prove who you are and where you live with the documents [ed note: such as photo ID] listed above, a registered voter from your precinct may attest for you. Both you and the attester will be required to sign an oath swearing the statements being made are true.

Falsely attesting or being attested for is registration fraud. It is a class "D" felony and is punishable by a fine of up to $7,500 and up to 5 years in prison.


Cheryl Allen at the Sec. of State's office confirmed to me Tuesday that while showing photo ID is the "easiest way" to register to vote there, it is by no means a requirement. Folks without photo ID are allowed to sign a simple oath, along with one attester, in order to verify that they are who they say they are.
So not only is it possible to register and vote on the same day in Iowa -- something that Republicans have fought against allowing for most citizens in most other states -- one doesn't even need a photo ID to do it, in an election where the Republicans themselves set all of the rules.
It's almost as if they realize that risking disenfranchisement of any of their own voters in their own caucus would be monumentally stupid -- not to mention potentially illegal and/or unconstitutional to boot, though that has yet to stop them from doing the same in general elections where Democrats may be on the ballot.

Go figure.

Too bad 96-year old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year old Thelma Mitchell from TN and 84-year old Ruthelle Frank from WI, just to name a very few, aren't residents of Iowa. They'd actually be allowed to vote in the much-ballyhooed First-in-the-Nation Republican Iowa caucus without a problem -- just as they have been doing in their own states for decades... until Republicans in those states decided to change the rules this year and make it much more difficult, and/or potentially expensive, to exercise their once-free right to vote.

I attempted to reach out to the Iowa GOP's Communication Director for comment on all of this yesterday, via both phone and email, but those messages have yet to be returned.

One last point for now... since it's repeated so often in defense of indefensible photo ID laws, and so few respond to the misleading claims with the truth. Next time you hear a supporter of one of these voter suppression laws claim, as they do in their usual talking points, that photo ID is required to fly on a plane or to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes, so why not for voting? Please let them know that, no, photo ID is not required to fly on a plane, as the commercial airlines are not about to keep millions of Americans who don't have such IDs from flying. Furthermore, while I've purchased cigarettes and beer many times over the last several decades, I can't recall the last time anybody ever required me to show a photo ID before doing so.

Nonetheless, even if photo ID were required for each of the transactions mentioned above (and it isn't) each of those transactions are privileges in this country, as opposed to Constitutional rights, which cannot be infringed upon. Apparently the Republicans, in Iowa at least, are smart enough to appreciate that -- at least when it comes to running their very own elections.

* * *

UPDATE: As Eric W. Dolan at RAW STORY points out, in picking up on our story, earlier this year, Iowa state Republicans in their statehouse passed a Photo ID restriction law, as sponsored by Republican Sec. of State Matt Schultz. The measure, thankfully, died in a Senate committee. And yet, when state Republicans had the chance to set any rules they wanted for voting in their own caucuses for President next week, they declined to require Photo ID of their voters. So what does that tell ya?
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
jbiMVhXRd4FUxO.JPG



<embed src="http://www-tc.pbs.org/s3/pbs.videoportal-prod.cdn/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" width="680" height="462" flashvars="video=2188860767&player=viral&"></embed>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
"Gingrich won in South Carolina, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">where evangelical Christians are a powerful voting bloc, despite a past that includes three marriages, admitted infidelities and an ethics reprimand when he was House speaker in the late 1990s.</SPAN>"

The belief in Family values; and

The practice of gross infidelity and ethical lapse.

Hypocrisy to the point of absurdity.


 
Top