US Elections 2008: Voter Registration Fraud

Voter Registration Fraud

The 2008 US Elections have seen a number of allegations levied at ACORN, an organization that seeks to register voters mainly in low-income communities. The Republican Party has alleged many registrations could be fraudulent and if cast on election day, John McCain contends could end up "destroying the fabric of democracy."*

Democrats have rejected these claims, counter-claiming that the Republicans are attempting to suppress legitimate votes with Barack Obama commenting that the move is designed to "sow confusion and harass voters and complicate the process for millions of Americans."*

*Associated Free Press

As this issue has been a major debate topic, there’s no point in going into too much detail any more than I have. So some questions.

Questions

Do you consider the allegations of voter registration fraud on the scale described, legitimate or merely campaign tactics?
What systems are in place or should be in place to detect such fraudulent activity?
If this sort of thing is happening at every election, should the government regulate voter registration more tightly to ensure fairness and openness?
If the losing candidate of a battleground state is made aware of potential voter fraud or voting problems in general, should the process be taken to court, similar to the post Nov 4 - 2000 election?
Is it right for political or even non-political organizations to bus large numbers of potential voters to polling stations?
Do you agree in incentive-based registration, where a person may be rewarded for registering to vote?
During the 2008 Presidential & Congressional Elections, what incidents have emerged of voter registration fraud and how have the parties in question responded?
Are there cases where voter registration fraud has been more prevalent in battleground states than in states with a more certain outcome?
Do you believe that voter registration should be completed nationwide by a certain date irrespective of the political makeup of the state?
ACORN. Good or bad?

West Virginia voter machine "flipping" a vote for Obama to a vote for McCain caught on tape !!!

It's a calibration issue - if it's off - hitting democratic straight ticket toggles McCain. If you specifically vote Obama, it hits a third party candidate, if you vote specifically McCain, it gives you the write in screen !

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/west-virginia-vote-flippi_n_138729.html

West Virginia keeps a paper copy. ALWAYS check your ballot before you enter it. Any machine problems, call the poll inspector.

Questions:

1. Do you consider the allegations of voter registration fraud on the scale described, legitimate or merely campaign tactics?

I consider it to be a Republican political tactic used to suppress the number of voters participating in the system, particularly if said voters are likely to vote for Democratic candidates.


2. What systems are in place or should be in place to detect such fraudulent activity?

First of all, there is no problem with voter fraud. It is extremely rare; since President Bush announced his crackdown on voter fraud six years ago, only 26 cases of voter fraud have been successfully proved. Just one involved an individual who cast more than one vote.

Secondly, what the Republican Party calls "voter fraud" is actually a lesser animal correctly known as "voter registration fraud." Those 26 convictions stand as testament to how well the system works in weeding out those who are ineligible to vote for whatever reason.

Unfortunately each state has its own rules governing eligibility. There is no national standard, which is a disgrace. I would prefer a nationalized system for presidential elections in which anyone 18 years of age or older can register and vote, with a Social Security number and valid picture ID, and be assured he or she won't be molested by a political party.


3. If this sort of thing is happening at every election, should the government regulate voter registration more tightly to ensure fairness and openness?

It isn't happening. 26 convictions out of 70 million votes cast over the past six years. But, yes, I think it needs to be nationalized and both parties kept out of the actual contract of one person, one vote.


4. If the losing candidate of a battleground state is made aware of potential voter fraud or voting problems in general, should the process be taken to court, similar to the post Nov 4 - 2000 election?

There was clearly fraudulent activity going on in Florida in 2000, but it wasn't on the part of voters. Florida's secretary of state also served as state chair for the Bush-Cheney campaign. She used a bogus "convicted felon's list" that was put together by searching the online prison populations of other states and matching it against the registration roles in her state. The end result was a list that fraudulently disenfranchised 11,000 minority voters who had never been convicted of a crime. George Bush won by 537 votes. There were other problems with Florida's numbers that year, but this one is closest to my heart.

I think Al Gore within his rights to challenge the Florida vote. I didn't support the Supreme Court's decision to stop the recount. With Ohio in 2004 - aagh!
I still can't speak of it without spitting sparks. Kerry conceded and they told us there was no "smoking gun," but I beg to differ. The evidence is there in plain sight that something went very wrong in Ohio in 2004, clearly compiled in a report by Rep. John Conyers that documented enough smoking guns to outfit an army. Top of the list were the GOP's hijinks in disenfranchising Democrats, the most obvious of which was a "wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban areas." The report also cites " massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies" which were "caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio." I've included a bit more information below.


5. Is it right for political or even non-political organizations to bus large numbers of potential voters to polling stations?

I think so. The elderly need all the help they can get. So do the sick and infirm, and inner-city residents who don't own cars. And before someone says they can walk a few blocks to the polls, that's rather difficult to do with young kids in tow. The same is true in rural areas, particularly with the older voters who can't drive.


6. Do you agree in incentive-based registration, where a person may be rewarded for registering to vote?

No.


7. During the 2008 Presidential & Congressional Elections, what incidents have emerged of voter registration fraud and how have the parties in question responded?

No fraud here. Just 660,000 new voter registrations, 200,000 of which have minor mismatches against state databases. The Republican Party has fought tooth and nail to disqualify these registrations, or at least force registrants to cast provisional ballots which can later be challenged. It's so bad a young man name John Studemeyer, whose name was typed as "Studemyer" by a worker at the BMV, is still checking his registration daily. We worked out the problem and John has already voted, but he still checks to see if his status has somehow changed.


8. Are there cases where voter registration fraud has been more prevalent in battleground states than in states with a more certain outcome?

There are still those 26 convictions out of tens of millions of votes cast over the past six years, so, no, I don't think so. ACORN comes under fire in each election year. Part of it relates to the people they hire, who choose to fill out bogus forms rather than do the work they're hired to do. I assume that's how the Dallas Cowboys' offensive line ended up with forms in another state, but who is really being defrauded here? I submit that it is ACORN, not the voters. ACORN screens the forms their workers submit and flags any that don't tot up, regardless of reason. They are required by law to submit all the forms they handle - including the ones they themselves flagged as errors.

It is unconscionable that Republican operatives then sweep in and snatch up the errors ACORN itself has flagged, and then call a press conference to claim "voter fraud!" Unbelievable. Honestly, you'd have to see it to believe it.


9. Do you believe that voter registration should be completed nationwide by a certain date irrespective of the political makeup of the state?

I think the whole process of registering and voting should be nationalized.


10. ACORN. Good or bad?

ACORN registered 1.3 million black and Latino minorities this year. A few were definitely cases of registration fraud. ACORN can (and did) identify the perps and terminated their employment. I think they should be commended for their work in bringing more Americans into the voting process. Instead, we have this: Boehner Asks Bush To Block ACORN Funding (http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2008/10/23/boehner.html?sid=102).

************************************************** ******************************


Ohio is undergoing our biannual mugging by the Republican Party on the subject of what they call "voter fraud." From Columbus Dispatch (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/ANN27_ART_10-27-08_B1_EQBNB4J.html?sid=101) columnist Ann Fisher today:

"It's tough to be Ohio at election time.

[...]

The latest complaints by some: We're weak on residency requirements and voter identification.

In fact, we're comparably tough. Our 30-day residency rule and our voter-ID requirements put Ohio somewhere in the middle of the states.

Many have no residency requirement. We are among 19 states that do. And Ohio's 30-day rule is typical. In contrast, Kentucky requires people to live at least 28 days in the state to be eligible to vote; Minnesota, 20 days; and Wisconsin, just 10.

Registration deadlines fall along roughly the same lines. In North Dakota, registration is not even required, according to the National Voter Registration Act form.

Even if a registration is iffy, will it lead to voter fraud?

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has called voter ID fraud a rare ploy that is "very risky and promises little reward."

In a recent policy brief, Project Vote noted that a statewide survey in Ohio found just four instances in which ineligible people had voted or attempted to vote out of more than 9 million votes cast in 2002 and 2004.

9,000,000 Ohioans voted in 2002 and 2004. Of the four individual cases she mentions, only one actually cast a ballot and it was a provisional that wasn't counted upon review. The other three were turned away at the polling precincts. Yet we endure an onslaught every other year, largely because of the success of our voter registration programs.

Ohio registered 660,000 new voters in 2008 (http://www.ohio.com/news/ohiocentric/30627849.html). A huge percentage of them are for Democrats. We were subsequently deluged with Republican lawsuits, just as we were after a successful registration drive in 2004. Two excellent stories documenting the GOP's electioneering in Ohio are Was the 2004 Election Stolen? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/) and None dare call it stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press (http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696).

Preserving Democracy describes three phases of Republican chicanery: the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up. The wrongs exposed are not mere dirty tricks (though Bush/Cheney also went in heavily for those) but specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act. Although Conyers trod carefully when the report came out, insisting that the crimes did not affect the outcome of the race (a point he had to make, he told me, “just to get a hearing”), his report does “raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said that the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone Federal requirements and constitutional standards.” The report cites “massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies” throughout the state—wrongs, moreover, that were hardly random accidents. “In many cases,” the report says, “these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.”

The first phase of malfeasance entailed, among many other actions, several months of bureaucratic hijinks aimed at disenfranchising Democrats, the most spectacular result of which was “a wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban areas.” Such unequal placement had the predictable effect of slowing the voting process to a crawl at Democratic polls, while making matters quick and easy in Bush country: a clever way to cancel out the Democrats' immense success at registering new voters in Ohio. (We cannot know the precise number of new voters registered in Ohio by either party because many states, including Ohio, do not register voters by party affiliation. The New York Times reported in September, however, that new registration rose 25 percent in Ohio's predominantly Republican precincts and 250 percent in Ohio's predominantly Democratic precincts.)

Anyhoo, that's probably enough to give you an idea of the dynamics here. Ken Blackwell ran for governor in 2006 and lost in a Democratic landslide. We have a Democratic governor and Secretary of State.

This year, the Republican lawsuits were not decided in the GOP's favor in state (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmJpgsrR27lwSUQ24_WSSrU0W-JwD93HBGS80) and federal (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmJpgsrR27lwSUQ24_WSSrU0W-JwD93HBGS80) courts. One went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/237546,supreme-court-denies-republican-request-in-ohio-voting-dispute.html). At that point, upon the request of Rep. John Boehner (http://www.truthout.org/102608Z) (R-OH), President Bush has ordered (http://wordpress.com/tag/doj/) an FBI investigation. Senator Obama has called for a special prosecutor to be assigned to review the case, rather than an investigation run out of the politicized Bush Justice Department. In an editorial today, the Columbus Dispatch joined with the other state newspapers in saying this move would only further politicize (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/10/28/messy.ART_ART_10-28-08_A8_U7BMOC5.html?sid=101) an environment in which the public's trust is already battered.

I cannot view Bush's intervention as anything other than abuse of power.

I'm afraid all this junk the GOP is injecting into the mix may, in fact, depress turnout here in Ohio. I guess that's the whole point (http://washingtonindependent.com/13671/voter-fraud-the-political-football-toss-continues), of course, but it is maddening.

Going to the polls is a fun happy experience !!! Let's all go vote !

I'm afraid all this junk the GOP is injecting into the mix may, in fact, depress turnout here in Ohio. That's the whole point, of course, but it is maddening.

O.K., show me the source that verifies that depressing voter turn out is a GOP goal in Ohio or anywhere else, please. These smearing assertions are insulting. I love the irony of it all, truly. Democrats want to minimize massive voter registration violations, say that it doesn't lead to voter fraud and think there is no way actual fraudulent votes can't posibly get through? We have to operate under the assumption that they actually believe that, despite suspicions to the contrary and obvious motives, aren't we? Yet when Republicans attempt to failsafe the process, just in case the Democrats aren't right in believing no fraudulent votes will be cast, they are attempting to depress turnout?

Voter fraud is almost imposible to prove, even if a ballot is identified as fraudulent. That is why prosecuting the offense is so difficult, but as registration fraud is criminal, how many citations have been handed out yet? I mean there are tens of thousands of identified fraudulent registration forms and many are directly traced back to people paid for collecting them, are they getting prosecuted for that?

Democrats want to minimize massive voter registration violations, say that it doesn't lead to voter fraud and think there is no way actual fraudulent votes can't posibly get through? We have to operate under the assumption that they actually believe that, despite suspicions to the contrary and obvious motives, aren't we? Yet when Republicans attempt to failsafe the process, just in case the Democrats aren't right in believing no fraudulent votes will be cast, they are attempting to depress turnout?

I don't believe there is a problem with voter fraud. Ohio has been under siege by the GOP since 2002 and, in all that time, they're uncovered a grand total of four people who attempted to cast a ineligible ballot. On a national level, Bush's crackdown uncovered 26 individuals. We're talking hundreds of millions of voters here and all they could come up with was 26?

Voter fraud is almost imposible to prove, even if a ballot is identified as fraudulent. That is why prosecuting the offense is so difficult, but as registration fraud is criminal, how many citations have been handed out yet? I mean there are tens of thousands of identified fraudulent registration forms and many are directly traced back to people paid for collecting them, are they getting prosecuted for that?

Those "tens of thousands" of identified registration forms were flagged by ACORN (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851717,00.html). They screen the registration forms themselves and flag those that are problematic. They are required by law to turn them in, however, along with the good forms. The GOP is using those forms ACORN self-identified as being fraudulent to make their case. That is despicable.

From the Washington Independent:

Earlier this month, Republicans in Ohio lost their lawsuit challenging a state rule that allows voters to register and vote early on the same day. But the state party had no intention of conceding the point. GOP officials demanded records from all 88 county boards of election identifying every person who took advantage of same-day registration and voting. In one county, the Republican district attorney even opened a grand jury investigation.

“He’s investigating people who the law says are allowed to vote,” said Ohio ACLU lawyer Carrie Davis. After it was revealed that the district attorney was also the local chairman of the McCain campaign, he was forced to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the case.

There’s no indication that any of these voters did anything illegal. But the attempt to investigate voters who took advantage of a state rule designed to encourage voter participation exemplifies the kinds of attacks on new voters that are going on across the country.

Even when the challenges fail, Republican officials persist in their claims of voter fraud in what appears to be an effort to lay the groundwork for challenging the outcome of Election Day. In about a dozen interviews, legal scholars and voting experts say this broad-based attack could lead to serious and continuing challenges to the legitimacy of the next president.

[...]

Voting-rights experts tend to agree with the Democrats. A study by the Brennan Center for Justice, for example, found that, “It’s more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Another study, by Barnard College political scientist Lori Minnite, similarly concluded that voter fraud is “extremely rare.” The Brennan Center also showed that the sort of strict rules advocated by Republicans in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere would disenfranchise thousands of people -– usually the poor, elderly and minorities.

The Myth of Voter Fraud: In Pursuit of an Unlikely Crime (http://washingtonindependent.com/15217/voter-fraud)

I've been there, Lupe. I've seen the handling of new registration forms at every level. I've seen with my own eyes the penny ante mismatches that led to the 200,000 forms the GOP is disputing in Ohio. I've even documented a few here on the forums.

To illustrate the politics of what's going on here, I offer these two headlines:

Misspelling stands out in GOP lawsuit over mismatches (http://blog.dispatch.com/politics/2008/10/misspelling_stands_out_in_gop_1.shtml)

200,000 phony registrations by ACORN waved thrugh by SCOTUS in Ohio (http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/200000-phony-registrations-by-acorn-waved-thrugh-by-scotus-in-ohio/)

That really says it all, doesn't it? The first is from a blogger with the right-leaning Columbus Dispatch. The second is from a way out in right-field blogger.

Before I'm willing to say that ACORN is having a wide-ranging conspiracy to commit voter fraud, I want to see evidence in the form of memos, emails, etc from the upper-levels of ACORN directing those on the ground to commit these allegations of fraud. In the absence of a smoking gun, I'm forced to conclude that it's local-level problems which are flagged themselves. I do, however, have a concern with ACORN's quota system, where they ask those rounding up new voters to have a minimum number of new voters. This really does open up the door to abuse, as an employee who is short on his or her quota therefore has an incentive to go register Andre Gurode and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup, for example.

On the flip side, I want to believe that the intentions of those investigating the allegations are honorable. However, it does look suspicious when those who are investigating the fraud have a direct stake in the outcome of the election. Again, I'm asking for a high standard of proof. In the instance of allegations regarding GOP voter suppresion, I want again to see memos...emails...phone calls...aka, another "smoking gun".

The allegations being thrown around by both sides are pretty strong; which is why I expect more of both sides than "they're being meannnnn" or "they're cheatinggggggg".

I don't think you're going to get that kind of smoking gun on either side, Chris. ACORN has never told their employees to cheat; yet a very few have done so. ACORN has flagged and segregated the registration forms that failed their screening tests. They are required by law to turn in everything - even the bad ones - which renders the group a sitting duck for politicians with, as you say, a stake in the outcome of the election. I mean, there is no question those 200,000 forms with minor mismatches require intervention rather than prosecution. I always come back to John Studemeyer, who still calls me three or four times a day.

OAkRj6w-07Y

Let's look at my own registration for example. I don't typically use my middle initial. But it does show up on my voter's registration. However my social security number doesn't have it. And my driver's license has my full middle name. My address sometimes has my apartment number with the letter for the individual building preceding it and sometimes it just has the apartment number alone. Sometimes my apartment is designated Apt., sometimes designated #, and sometimes with no designator.

This has even caused online credit card purchases to be rejected due to mismatches with my address. I try to consistently use the same exact method for apartment number (with the letter for my building), but not all systems have recorded it that way.

If they want to review their database for possible duplicates or questionable entries at some later date fine, but to do it right before election it only throws a monkey wrench into the system. That's the difference between wanting an accurate system and wanting to disenfranchise voters. To do this review properly will require a lot of hands-on investigating to ensure that silly minor mismatches are properly corrected. A basic computer run to identify mismatches will simply misidentify valid voters.

Talking Points Memo is doing a lot of interesting stuff this election season. One I am particularly happy to see is their Republican Voter Suppression: A Guide (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/republican_voter_suppression_a.php). It provides up-to-the-moment information about what the GOP is doing to thwart voters - under the guise of investigating "voter fraud" - in Ohio, New Mexico, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Montana (:wow:), Florida, Wisconsin, and Colorado. All of these states have had highly successful campaigns to register new voters this year.

Methinks this is an excellent resource.

According to House Minority Leader John Boehner, Bush's Justice Department is biased ... against Republicans (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/boehner_doj_politicized_in_fav.php).

That takes some nerve.

I was surprised that the Justice Department actually made the right call. IMO, anything else would have been an ugly abuse of power so close to the election.

I was surprised that the Justice Department actually made the right call. IMO, anything else would have been an ugly abuse of power so close to the election.

Yeah, it would have been. Boehner will be reelected, but he's in danger of losing his post as House Minority Leader in the wake of so many lost seats.

For all the shrieking on the right about voter fraud, not much has come of it. The courts have ruled against the GOP at almost every turn. The left has fought back rather than assuming voters are smart enough to see through the GOP hysteria, and, as a result, made sure voters had an alternative narrative to ponder. Certainly they're aware of the difference between voter fraud and registration fraud. Best of all, quite a large number of people now realize mismatches don't equate to wholesale fraud.

This is a victory for American voters.

Some timely advice from the Obama campaign:

jP7FdBEpVBo

An interesting read from the AP:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/

Onslaught of dirty tricks as election day nears
In the final hours of the campaign, bogus fliers, e-mails and calls increase

In the hours before Election Day, as inevitable as winter, comes an onslaught of dirty tricks — confusing e-mails, disturbing phone calls and insinuating fliers left on doorsteps during the night.

The intent, almost always, is to keep folks from voting or to confuse them, usually through intimidation or misinformation. But in this presidential race, in which a black man leads most polls, some of the deceit has a decidedly racist bent.

Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.

Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.


Full article:


In the final hours of the campaign, bogus fliers, e-mails and calls increase
The Associated Press
updated 12:04 a.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 3, 2008

In the hours before Election Day, as inevitable as winter, comes an onslaught of dirty tricks — confusing e-mails, disturbing phone calls and insinuating fliers left on doorsteps during the night.

The intent, almost always, is to keep folks from voting or to confuse them, usually through intimidation or misinformation. But in this presidential race, in which a black man leads most polls, some of the deceit has a decidedly racist bent.

Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.

Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.

In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.

"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."

In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."

Voter suppression efforts
Laughlin McDonald, who leads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said he has never seen "an election where there was more interest and more voter turnout, and more efforts to suppress registration and turnout. And that has a real impact on minorities."

The Obama campaign and civil rights advocacy groups have signed up millions of new voters for this presidential race. In Ohio alone, some 600,000 have submitted new voter registration cards.

Across the country, many of these first-time voters are young and strong Obama supporters. Many are also black and Hispanic.

Activist groups say it is this fresh crop of ballot-minded citizens that makes some Republicans very nervous. And they say they expect the dirty tricks to get dirtier in final hours before Tuesday.

"Oh, there's plenty of time for things to get ugly," said Zachary Stalberg, president of The Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphia-based government watchdog group that is nonpartisan.

Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.

In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.

"It shows up between the screen door and the front door in the middle of the night," Stalberg said. "Why couldn't someone knock on the door and hand that to me in the middle of the day? In a sense, it's very smartly done. The message gets through. It's done carefully enough that people might read it."

Such tactics are common, and are often impossible to trace. Robo-calls, in which automated, bogus phone messages are sent over and over, are very hard to trace to their source, say voting advocates. E-mails fall into the same category.

In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.

The calls were reported to Election Protection, a nonprofit advocacy group that runs a hot line for election troubles. The organization does not know who orchestrated them.

"The Voting Rights Act makes it a crime to misled and intimidate voters," said McDonald. "If you can find out who's doing it, those people should be prosecuted. But sometimes it's just difficult to know who's doing what. Some of it's just anonymous."


Trying to mislead voters is nothing new.
"We see this every year," said Jonah Goldman of the advocacy group Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "It all happens around this time when there's too much other stuff going on in the campaigns, and it doesn't get investigated."


In 2006, automated phone calls in the final days leading to the federal election wrongly warned voters they would not be allowed to vote without a photo ID. In Colorado and Virginia, people reported receiving calls that told them their registrations had expired and they would be arrested if they showed up to vote.

The White House contest of 2004 was marked by similar deceptions. In Milwaukee, fliers went up advising people "if you've already voted in any election this year, you can't vote in the presidential election." In Pennsylvania, a letter bearing what appeared to be the McCandless Township seal falsely proclaimed that in order to cut long voting lines, Republicans would cast ballots on Nov. 2 and Democrats would vote on Nov. 3.

E-mail assaults have become increasingly popular this year, keeping pace with the proliferation of blogging and Obama's massive online campaign efforts, according to voting activists.

"It is newer and more furious than it ever has been before," Goldman said.
And Republicans are not exempt. "Part of it is that election campaigns are more online than ever before," said Goldman. "During the primaries, a lot of Web sites went up that seemed to be for (GOP candidate Rudy) Giuliani, but actually were attack sites."

New York City's former mayor and his high-profile colleagues Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney were also targeted in fake Internet sites that featured "quotes" from the candidates espousing support for extreme positions they never endorsed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/

An interesting read from the AP:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/

Onslaught of dirty tricks as election day nears
In the final hours of the campaign, bogus fliers, e-mails and calls increase
It occurred to me once that this might actually be the form that the anarchist vote takes. I suppose it's possible that various low-level partisans are responsible, but there are those out there in the world who just like to disrupt things.

That plus an unhealthy dose of racism. Look at the groups being targeted: blacks, Latinos, and Jews.

Does voter registration fraud increase the risk of voter fraud? Seems likely.

From Palestra.net come the stories of these three individuals who appear to be registered in states they don't live in or in multiple states at the same time:

We found a former California delegate to the Democratic National Convention, Shayne Adamski, registered to vote in Albuquerque. New Mexico’s Secretary of State, Mary Herrera (D), said she would turn Adamski’s information over to the FBI to investigate.

Meet Farah Minwalla. She registered to vote in Mecklenburg County, NC on October 4. According to county auditor reports, the address Minwalla used belongs to a Wanda Nabors. But oddly – Minwalla is also registered to vote in New York AND Nevada. All three registrations are listed as active. So, is she a resident of North Carolina, Nevada or New York? Technically, it appears she could vote in all three.

Minwalla's online bio for NextGenNow says she is currently pursuing a degree in English and Journalism in New York City. As recently as July, Minwalla wrote a review for a band in Brooklyn, but now she's registered to vote in swing state North Carolina. North Carolina election law says you must be a permanent resident to vote.

In September, Julietta Appleton took a leave of absence from work. On a blog posting Appleton writes, "I knew Florida was a swing state…and I am fluent in Spanish. So I left my job (unpaid) for 6 weeks." She moved to Miami to get out the vote. Now, she's out of money and requesting help to get back to New York. Appleton’s post continues, "The next four days I will be working 24/7, then celebrating victory, then resting for a day, and then flying home to NY." Appleton included a picture of herself voting in Miami. Florida election laws only allow permanent residents to vote.

http://www.palestra.net/blogs/read/18083

I wonder if I'm still registered in Wisconsin or Massachusetts? I moved from both states years ago but I don't know if they automatically purge the rolls. I certainly didn't go back and ask them to cancel my registration...

I'm noting this in part because, while the cases you outlined do seem to be a bit...questionable...the act of being registered in two states at once may be a totally innocent measure which may have been completely accidental on the part of the voter. And, they do seem to be individual cases, unless there's a coordinated effort linking all three of them.

I wonder if I'm still registered in Wisconsin or Massachusetts? I moved from both states years ago but I don't know if they automatically purge the rolls. I certainly didn't go back and ask them to cancel my registration...

I'm noting this in part because, while the cases you outlined do seem to be a bit...questionable...the act of being registered in two states at once may be a totally innocent measure which may have been completely accidental on the part of the voter. And, they do seem to be individual cases, unless there's a coordinated effort linking all three of them.

Kind of hard to understand how someone who worked for a few weeks in one state but never had any intention of living there ended up registered to vote in that state....

I don't see the problem. 90,000,000 Americans voted in 2004; the odds are high that that number will be surpassed tomorrow. Three individuals registered in two states does not a rampant problem make.

I'm pretty sure this is nothing more than those kids we discussed a few weeks ago, the ones who volunteered with the Obama campaign over the summer and then left the country to attend school abroad. This business of "intent" is a ridiculous premise in my opinion. Kids go where the jobs are when they leave school. That makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is to tell them they can't vote unless they intend to return to the location in which they registered. I don't think I even want to know who thought that one up.

You don't see the problem? These people basically took trips to swing states so they could participate in meaningful elections. There's a reason many states don't allow you to register to vote after a certain date (in SC and NC that date is in October).

You could really rig the election this way. Find out which states will be the big swing states and bus in enough people to vote for your candidate. Viola, there you go, you win the election.

It's October for Ohio, too. None of these people are accused of trying to register after the approved date. What they didn't know is where they would be living on November 4.

Notice none of them are accused of voting twice.

Voter fraud isn't just about voting twice. It's about using a temporary location to vote so you can make a difference in a swing state.

So are these people flying around the country trying to vote in multiple states? Or even flying in to the swing state to vote?

I never cancelled my registration in Florida when I moved to New Jersey. I never cancelled my registration in Alabama when I moved to California.

I never cancelled my registration in NC when I moved to SC. I could just drive 2 hours to Charlotte tomorrow to see if I can vote. But, I won't, because that's dishonest.

Voter fraud isn't just about voting twice. It's about using a temporary location to vote so you can make a difference in a swing state.

They worked in those states. This business about intent is just silly, let alone unenforceable on a wide scale. It seems to be fairly consistent in red states where Republicans have long held a majority, though, so I assume it's yet another suppression tactic.

Going forward, I'd like to see a national standard for eligibility. There should not be tens of thousands of rules governing who can vote where. American citizens with a social security number and a valid piece of identification - perhaps a national ID card - should be able to vote unmolested by either of the parties. That is certainly not the case now.

They worked in those states. This business about intent is just silly, let alone unenforceable on a wide scale. It seems to be fairly consistent in red states where Republicans have long held a majority, though, so I assume it's yet another suppression tactic.

Going forward, I'd like to see a national standard for eligibility. There should not be tens of thousands of rules governing who can vote where. American citizens with a social security number and a valid piece of identification - perhaps a national ID card - should be able to vote unmolested by either of the parties. That is certainly not the case now.

So I should be allowed to vote in Ohio, since I spent two weeks there in May? Or maybe PA since I was up there for a month? I wouldn't just be voting for President, but local officials, state representatives and ballot initiatives, right? There is a reason we don't allow people to just vote anywhere and it isn't suppression or discrimination, it is practicality. We need people to vote only where they actually reside for a plethera of reasons. I certainly wouldn't want people who have only spent ten days in Delaware selecting my Gov., Senator and local representaives for me and in Ohio and PA that seems to be a likely outcome with this type of loose registration policies.

They worked in those states. This business about intent is just silly, let alone unenforceable on a wide scale. It seems to be fairly consistent in red states where Republicans have long held a majority, though, so I assume it's yet another suppression tactic.

Going forward, I'd like to see a national standard for eligibility. There should not be tens of thousands of rules governing who can vote where. American citizens with a social security number and a valid piece of identification - perhaps a national ID card - should be able to vote unmolested by either of the parties. That is certainly not the case now.

I know a woman who spends her summers in NC and her winters in FL. Oh my, those are both battleground states! She has two homes, should she be able to register in two different states and vote in both states? She can vote absentee ballot in FL. She's been living in both states for years, so this isn't something she's doing temporarily or anything.

Isn't that the same thing as what you're saying?

She's hardly in the the situation of a student. We're a two-home family, as well, one in Ohio and one in Massachusetts. We're registered to vote only in Ohio. When our kids were in school their registrations were spread all over the place. There were no guarantees, in those days, that they would return to Ohio to live.

She's hardly in the the situation of a student.

Neither is Julietta Appleton, the person referenced in the third story in Mom's post from New York spending a few weeks in Florida.

In response:

I'm noting this in part because, while the cases you outlined do seem to be a bit...questionable...the act of being registered in two states at once may be a totally innocent measure which may have been completely accidental on the part of the voter. And, they do seem to be individual cases, unless there's a coordinated effort linking all three of them.

There is no proof of the existence of a coordinated plan to commit voter fraud. On the subject of voter suppression or voter intimidation, we have rather a lot to go on.

It's not about being registered in two places, though. It's about being registered in a place she's only in for a very short amount of time. So, are you saying I could have rented an apartment in a swing or battleground state before the deadline to register to vote passed and then once the elections are over go back home?

I worked up in San Francisco for three months (400 miles from LA) and registered to vote up there. If a person lives away from home, they are still entitled to vote. They can either get an absentee ballot or register to vote in the new location, as long as they meet the residency requirements.

It's not fraud and people aren't moving to swing states to vote there. I don't even know why this is considered an issue. Aren't we just talking about a very few people?

It's not about being registered in two places, though. It's about being registered in a place she's only in for a very short amount of time. So, are you saying I could have rented an apartment in a swing or battleground state before the deadline to register to vote passed and then once the elections are over go back home?
I don't know across the board, but I think the standard is generally the intent to live permanently in a particular place to the exclusion of others. I'm not sure how the courts would interpret this--you could argue it both ways. I think what might matter is not that you move back, but why you move back. If you intended all along to stay, but were then somehow unable to, that would have to count. But if you just moved there to vote and then go back, then I would imagine you should be barred from voting.

I would also draw a distinction between casting an invalid vote and commiting fraud, because we can't prove intent.

They worked in those states. This business about intent is just silly, let alone unenforceable on a wide scale. It seems to be fairly consistent in red states where Republicans have long held a majority, though, so I assume it's yet another suppression tactic.

Going forward, I'd like to see a national standard for eligibility. There should not be tens of thousands of rules governing who can vote where. American citizens with a social security number and a valid piece of identification - perhaps a national ID card - should be able to vote unmolested by either of the parties. That is certainly not the case now.

But they weren't residents of the state. I worked in lots of different states and countries for extended periods of time when I was working as a consultant but never registered to vote anywhere except where I lived. I even rented apartment and paid taxes in other states because I worked there for more than year. But I never registered to vote there because I lived in Virginia.

Fraud would be registereing to vote and voting in multiple locations in the same election or willingly registering to vote in a state you don't reside in.

If you live in NY, you vote in NY.

But they weren't residents of the state. I worked in lots of different states when I was working as a consultant but never registered to vote anywhere except where I lived. If you live in NY, you vote in NY.
I can only hope state governments are equipped to handle these kinds of problems, and don't just ignore them and blame the voters.

I can only hope state governments are equipped to handle these kinds of problems, and don't just ignore them and blame the voters.

Voter registration is dependent on the honesty of those registering to vote. In many jursidictions all you need to register to vote in a locality is your word that you are a resident of the locality and intend to live there. In Viriginia a judge rules that cross referencing new registrations with old addresses and old voter registrations was unacceptable.

This may all be true, Mom, but there is no way to legislate intent on the part of a voter. This is particularly true when you're dealing with out-of-state college students or those who attend college outside of the United States.

I really have to fall back on what I said earlier: widescale voter fraud is a Republican myth trotted out every two years, like clockwork, in a transparent attempt to suppress voters who happen to be predominantly Democratic. These are my own opinions, but there is a preponderance of evidence (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/146/story/17532.html) to support my position.

The state of Georgia is disenfranchising voters (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/after_citizenship_challenges_b.php) who cannot prove they are American citizens. The actions of Georgia's Republican secretary of state hit black voters hardest because there are tens of thousands of black residents whose births were not recorded. Why? Because Jim Crow segregation denied hospital births to their mothers. That began to change in the mid-sixties, after the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) were passed into law.

This is so frustrating.

Here's some interesting ballot news out of Alaska. It sounds like a bit of a mess and will probably bear watching to see how they handle this debaucle.
Blogged by Brad Friedman on 11/10/2008 4:27PM
Alaska Update: Thousands of Ballots 'Found', One-Third Remain Uncounted in the State's Still-Fishy '08 Election

This just in from Alaska, where thousands of new ballots continue to be found each day, since it was first reported that turnout in 2008 was 11% lower than in 2004. Thousands of ballots, nearly a third of them, remain uncounted nearly a week after the election. Their numbers could explain the strange results so far in races --- such as those of the felonious Sen. Ted Stevens (R) and the under-investigation Rep. Don Young (R) --- for which pollsters had predicted decisive losses for the Republicans.

Even with the newly acknowledged ballots and even with Alaska's once-popular Gov. Sarah Palin and popular Sen. Barack Obama both on the Presidential ballot this year, turnout numbers still remain slightly below those from 2004. The Anchorage Daily News, with numbers somewhat out of date from those now posted below, called it all "puzzling" over the weekend, and pointed out much of what we've detailed here in previous posts.

The following updated numbers come from the DNC's Alaska Communications Director, Kay Brown late this afternoon [emphasis in the original]...


New totals for ballots were posted today at:
http://www.elections.ala...rly_question_numbers.pdf

The Division of Elections reports there are now 90,635 ballots remaining to be counted. This means nearly 29 percent (28.8%) of the total vote has not been counted yet.

With these new numbers the total vote is at 314,268, with turnout at 63.3% (registered voters = 495,731).

The new ballots posted today include about 4,000 additional Questioned ballots about 5,600 additional Absentees.

The Division of Elections (DOE) plans to count the majority of early vote and absentee ballots that were verified by Election Day on Wednesday. The DOE Plans to count the remaining ballots on Friday (but this is all obviously subject to change). However, there could be enough ballots left after Wednesdays count for the race to still go either way.

All overseas ballots have to be received by Wednesday, November 19th and the DOE plans to certify the election on Tuesday, November 25. A recount, should one be necessary, would occur after that. An automatic recount is only implemented if the final votes are within 0.5 percent.

Total turnout in 2004 was 314,502 with these new ballots posted today we are still slightly under the number who voted in 2004. Turnout in the 2004 General was 66.6%, with 314,502 voting and 472,160 registered voters statewide.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6654
Whether there turns out to be verifiable fraud, or just a huge Snafu, time will tell.

The state of Georgia is disenfranchising voters (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/after_citizenship_challenges_b.php) who cannot prove they are American citizens.

Technically you have to be a citizen to vote. And the requirement, based on the article you linked, is that new registrants must be able to demonstrate citizenship to have their votes counted. The article said there were about 5000 new registrants whose information could not be verified in other state databases and whose citizenship was questioned. Again, according to the article, about half of those individuals failed to return to present evidence of citizenship and may have their votes tossed out.

The article said the votes that might be tossed were all newly registered voters. The article did not address how many of those newly registered voters were blacks who were unable to prove their citizenship because they were unable to register their births prior to the 1964 civil rights act. Any speculation that the policy of verifying citizenship is hitting blacks hardest is just that - speculation.

Georgia also happens to have one of the highest populations of illegal immigrants in the US. It is equally likely and equally speculative that those being disenfranchised are in fact illegal immigrants who unknowingly registered to vote and had their registrations challenged when their citizenship could not be verified.

The article said the votes that might be tossed were all newly registered voters. The article did not address how many of those newly registered voters were blacks who were unable to prove their citizenship because they were unable to register their births prior to the 1964 civil rights act. Any speculation that the policy of verifying citizenship is hitting blacks hardest is just that - speculation.

Actually, no, it isn't "just speculation." I've fielded quite a few calls on this mess. The plight of those older blacks in the south was the reason there has been so much litigation on what Georgia has been trying to do.

Federal Judge Rules Voter ID Card Law in Georgia Is Illegal (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/us/13voter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Remember: Georgia has such a damning history on voting rights for blacks that it is one of the states that requires approval from the Justice Department before voting laws can be changed. Civil Rights lawyers within the Justice Department recommended rejecting this requirement three years ago, but were overruled by political appointees of George Bush. Hence the lawsuit, which Georgia lost. Georgia tried to enact the law in a somewhat different manner and that ploy is still under litigation (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/after_citizenship_challenges_b.php).

Here's a story about a black resident of Georgia, American-born and a veteran who was flagged as a "non-citizen" under Georgia's purge.

Georgia Military Vet, American Born, Was Flagged As Non-Citizen (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/georgia_military_vet_american.php)

It might be hitting blacks hard, I don't know, but it isn't because they are black. It's because there is a law that you have to be a citizen to vote? Why? Because anyone who wants to have a say in our election could come over in time to vote and do so. Then the president may not be someone the Americans want. It could be someone the terrorists want or whatever. If you can't prove you are a citizen then unfortunately you don't get to vote. That's the law. It's not because of anyone's race.

It might be hitting blacks hard, I don't know, but it isn't because they are black. It's because there is a law that you have to be a citizen to vote? Why? Because anyone who wants to have a say in our election could come over in time to vote and do so. Then the president may not be someone the Americans want. It could be someone the terrorists want or whatever. If you can't prove you are a citizen then unfortunately you don't get to vote. That's the law. It's not because of anyone's race.

Nope. The reason those births were not recorded was solely the result of racial discrimination. You can't separate the cause from the effect.

Nope. The reason those births were not recorded was solely the result of racial discrimination. You can't separate the cause from the effect.

Do they have driver's licenses? If they're elderly, are they signed up for medicare? All of these programs are available to citizens and require registration to enroll. Registration in any of these programs, based on my reading of the articles on it issue, would have been sufficient to verify citizenship, especially for the elderly.

Leah is correct, in my opinion. You have to be a citizen to vote. How do we verify that a person is a citizen, who is who they say they are, and eligible to vote in that district?

The elderly and the poor don't drive much as a rule.

Nope. The reason those births were not recorded was solely the result of racial discrimination. You can't separate the cause from the effect.

[staff edit] This isn't because they are black! Not being able to register their birth was, but that was then. I'm talking about being able to register to vote. Please do not turn this into something it is not! Georgia is not racist and they aren't doing this to hurt black people. It just so happens that some black people are affected because they cannot prove their citizenship.

It might be hitting blacks hard, I don't know, but it isn't because they are black. It's because there is a law that you have to be a citizen to vote? Why? Because anyone who wants to have a say in our election could come over in time to vote and do so. Then the president may not be someone the Americans want. It could be someone the terrorists want or whatever. If you can't prove you are a citizen then unfortunately you don't get to vote. That's the law. It's not because of anyone's race.

I agree that citizens should be the only ones able to vote. However, I take issue with it not being their race. The reason why these unfortunate people aren't able to prove they're citizens absolutely had to do with race. Now, I don't blame election officials that throw out these votes, because they're only following the rules. And I even think we should use ID cards when we vote. However, in Georgia's case, this is different because of their past and seeming inability to rectify a relic of its past. The thing we should be worried about is not whether Georgia knowingly and maliciously disenfranchised these voters. The Georgia of today didn't. It's why haven't these people been given citizenship?

I think something should have been done a long time ago to add them to the rolls. As it stands, if you were black and born in Georgia before 1965, you're damned near invisible. I should add that Georgia isn't the only southern state with an invisible population of poor blacks. Georgia is just the most recent southern state to try getting away with something like this.

At the beginning of our "Vote for Change" registration project this year, there were an estimated 500,000 unregistered and eligible black voters in Georgia.

I think something should have been done a long time ago to add them to the rolls. As it stands, if you were black and born in Georgia before 1965, you're damned near invisible. I should add that Georgia isn't the only southern state with an invisible population of poor blacks. Georgia is just the most recent southern state to try getting away with something like this.

Why are they invisible? Do they pay taxes? Are they enrolled in Medicare or Welfare or Medicaid or SCHIP or food stamps? These program are supposed to be available to US Citizens or green card holders. How about school lunch programs for their children or grandchildren? Did they attend the public schools? Do they have bank accounts? Again, all valid information that could be used to confirm citizenship.

If we all agree that only citizens should vote then what process should be established to verify citizenship, identity, and residency?

I agree that citizens should be the only ones able to vote. However, I take issue with it not being their race. The reason why these unfortunate people aren't able to prove they're citizens absolutely had to do with race. Now, I don't blame election officials that throw out these votes, because they're only following the rules. And I even think we should use ID cards when we vote. However, in Georgia's case, this is different because of their past and seeming inability to rectify a relic of its past. The thing we should be worried about is not whether Georgia knowingly and maliciously disenfranchised these voters. The Georgia of today didn't. It's why haven't these people been given citizenship?

Let me say this for the third time. I said in my previous post that back then when it happened it was about race, but it's not about that today. It's just so happens that what happened back then is affecting them today. But many blacks have birth certificates stating they were born in the USA and if they aren't over 18 yet when they are 18 they will be citizens allowing them to register to vote. Georgia isn't doing this to hurt the black people. I will say that again. Georgia is not doing this to hurt the black people. They are doing this because it is the law. We can't have illegal immigrants voting. That would be wrong. That's one reason for this law. If anyone was allowed to register to vote, then countries could ship people over here to affect our elections. We don't want other countries doing that. Therefore, we have this law stating only citizens can vote. Like Mom said, maybe they need to change how they determine if you're a citizen or not, but they shouldn't change the law, because it is a good law.

I thought I'd answered these questions, but guess not. Here it goes.

Do you consider the allegations of voter registration fraud on the scale described, legitimate or merely campaign tactics?

I don't know what to truly make of it. Just like every election, there's always the claim of voter registration fraud. It could be a combination of both. Maybe there is the registration fraud, but the amount is just being exaggerated. I have no proof or anything, this is just my opinion.

That aside, I just don't see voter registration all that big a deal since I couldn't see those "fake voters" actually being able to vote. I doubt Mickey Mouse and Captain Planet are going to be at the polls. Now fraudulent voting, I have a problem with, and even then, that seems to be very rare. I've never heard anything with that.
****
What systems are in place or should be in place to detect such fraudulent activity?

Well, I think that they should check the person's background, such as social and address and identification, but this is what they do when you actually vote in my area.
****
If this sort of thing is happening at every election, should the government regulate voter registration more tightly to ensure fairness and openness?

Probably.
****
If the losing candidate of a battleground state is made aware of potential voter fraud or voting problems in general, should the process be taken to court, similar to the post Nov 4 - 2000 election?

Yeah, I feel that it should, but, seems that we only get registration frauds, not actual fraudulent voters.
****
Is it right for political or even non-political organizations to bus large numbers of potential voters to polling stations?

No, it isn't. I have no problem with this in the least. Some people just can't get there on their own.
****
Do you agree in incentive-based registration, where a person may be rewarded for registering to vote?

No, I don't. You should register because you feel it's your patriotic duty to, you shouldn't be bribed into doing anything.
****
During the 2008 Presidential & Congressional Elections, what incidents have emerged of voter registration fraud and how have the parties in question responded?

Seems the Republicans have been more vocal about it (ACCORN), and was going out of the way of trying to say Obama was responsible for it.
****
Are there cases where voter registration fraud has been more prevalent in battleground states than in states with a more certain outcome?

To be honest, I have no idea. I really don't have much knowledge on voter registration fraud since it hasn't been this prevalent before. I always heard a little about it (last two elections), but it wasn't as "out there" as it was this time.
****
Do you believe that voter registration should be completed nationwide by a certain date irrespective of the political makeup of the state?

It'd probably make things easier if it did.
****
ACORN. Good or bad?

I feel that ACCORN is good to try and encourage people to register. There's no harm in that. Just because a few are bad, just like with anything, shouldn't be a reflection on the entire group. That's like my saying that just because some whites are racist towards blacks, that all whites are, which isn't true.

Let me ask a quick and very relevant question. In the specific context of Georgia, what are the requirements to get a social security card, a driver's license (or, if one cannot drive, an ID card), etc? For these other documents, are there requirements that, if you trace them back, require a birth certificate? I'm asking so that we can clarify whether the proposed solutions are viable.

Then, also in the context of Georgia, what's the exact wording of the law? What are the acceptable documents to prove you're a citizen?

The answer to these questions may help shed some light on whether the law, accidentally or on purpose, ends up disenfranchising older blacks who were victims of the birth certificate stuff.

Let me ask a quick and very relevant question. In the specific context of Georgia, what are the requirements to get a social security card, a driver's license (or, if one cannot drive, an ID card), etc? For these other documents, are there requirements that, if you trace them back, require a birth certificate? I'm asking so that we can clarify whether the proposed solutions are viable.

Then, also in the context of Georgia, what's the exact wording of the law? What are the acceptable documents to prove you're a citizen?

The answer to these questions may help shed some light on whether the law, accidentally or on purpose, ends up disenfranchising older blacks who were victims of the birth certificate stuff.Well, according to the www.socialsecurity.gov, which I just went to a while ago for my aunt to replace her Social Security card, seems, for an original card, all you need to do is to fill out a form to get one, but one of the requirements on the PDF says that you need at least two documents to prove age, identity, US Citizenship, or current, lawful work-authorized immigration status. I'll just upload the file here for all to see.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.html (The link to the actual Social Security form is on this part of the site)

And here's driver's license information.

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata.aspx?con=1744173714&ty=dl

Seems that with both, a birth certificate is needed.

Edit: Oh, I came across this too. It's for people that just want a Voter's Card.

http://www.dds.ga.gov/docs/forms/DDS-579.pdf

Let me ask a quick and very relevant question. In the specific context of Georgia, what are the requirements to get a social security card, a driver's license (or, if one cannot drive, an ID card), etc? For these other documents, are there requirements that, if you trace them back, require a birth certificate? I'm asking so that we can clarify whether the proposed solutions are viable.

Then, also in the context of Georgia, what's the exact wording of the law? What are the acceptable documents to prove you're a citizen?

The answer to these questions may help shed some light on whether the law, accidentally or on purpose, ends up disenfranchising older blacks who were victims of the birth certificate stuff.

July 20, 2005

Georgia's Undemocratic Voter Law

Georgia has passed a disturbing new law that bars people from voting without government-issued photo identification and seems primarily focused on putting up obstacles for black and poor voters. The Justice Department is now weighing whether the law violates the Voting Rights Act. Clearly it does, and it should be blocked from taking effect.

The new law's supporters claim that it is an attempt to reduce voter fraud, but Secretary of State Cathy Cox has said she cannot recall a single case during her tenure when anyone impersonated a voter.

In the same period, she says, there have been numerous allegations of fraud involving absentee ballots. But the Georgia Legislature has passed a law that focuses on voter identification while actually making absentee ballots more prone to misuse.

The new law will make it harder for elderly Georgians to vote as well. It has been estimated that more than 150,000 older Georgians who voted in the 2004 presidential election do not have driver's licenses, and are unlikely to have other acceptable forms of identification. According to census data, black Georgians are far less likely to have access to a car than white Georgians, so they are at a distinct disadvantage when driver's licenses have an important role in proving people's eligibility to vote.

Under the Voting Rights Act, Georgia's law must be cleared by the Justice Department before it can take effect. There can be little doubt that the law would have "the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race," and it therefore must be rejected. But in the current Justice Department, there is a real danger that this decision will be based on politics rather than law.

Georgia's new identification requirement is part of a nationwide drive to erect barriers at the polls. Indiana also recently passed a new photo-identification requirement, and several other states, including Ohio, are considering the addition of such requirements.

There are many steps states can take to reduce election fraud. But laws that condition voting on having a particular piece of identification that many eligible voters do not possess have no place in a democracy.

Here's another link that speaks to the current situation in Georgia:

Panel scolds Georgia in voter-eligibility review (http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/33428199.html)

The Associated Press

Published on Tuesday, Oct 28, 2008

ATLANTA: Georgia should have sought U.S. Justice Department approval before implementing a new process of using Social Security numbers and driver's license data to check voters' immigration status, a three-judge federal panel ruled Monday.

The 27-page ruling ordered Georgia election officials to make ''diligent and immediate'' efforts to notify voters flagged as ineligible because of the checks that they can still cast paper ballots next Tuesday. The paper ballots can later be challenged by state officials if a voter is believed to be ineligible. The state also is not allowed to remove names from lists unless voters say in writing that they are ineligible.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act) lists Georgia among the nine states which, based on their historically abysmal record on voting rights, are required to have "pre-clearance" from the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division before making any change to their voting laws.

The states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Eight counties and three cities in Virginia are excluded from the provision.

Additionally, there are counties spread across the country that fall under the preclearance policy:

Counties

California: Kings, Merced, Monterey, Yuba
Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough
New Hampshire: Grafton County
New York: Bronx, Kings, New York
North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland, Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
South Dakota: Shannon, Todd.

Towns

Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista Township
New Hampshire: Rindge, Millsfield, Pinkham's Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Grafton County, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, Unity

Let me ask a quick and very relevant question. In the specific context of Georgia, what are the requirements to get a social security card, a driver's license (or, if one cannot drive, an ID card), etc? For these other documents, are there requirements that, if you trace them back, require a birth certificate? I'm asking so that we can clarify whether the proposed solutions are viable.

Then, also in the context of Georgia, what's the exact wording of the law? What are the acceptable documents to prove you're a citizen?

The answer to these questions may help shed some light on whether the law, accidentally or on purpose, ends up disenfranchising older blacks who were victims of the birth certificate stuff.

I'm trying to remember. I used to live in Georgia and while I was under sixteen, my brother did get a drivers license in Georgia. I never heard of any group not being able to acquire licenses because they didn't have birth certificates due to not being allowed to have one when they were born.

Georgia Department of Driver Services (http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata.aspx?con=1741541737&ty=dl)
The site says to apply for a driver's license you need some form of identification that includes full name; month, day, and year of birth. It can be one of the following: Original Birth Certificate, Certified Copy of Birth Certificate, Certificate of Birth Registration, Certified Naturalization Document, Immigration I.D. Card, Valid Passport, Military ID Card issued by US Armed Forces.
I don't want to go through the list to see if they require a birth certificate, but so far a birth certificate is not required, but it can be used to show identification.

To prove citizenship, you need to provide one of the following:
Original Birth Certificate issued by a US jurisdiction, Certified Copy of Birth Certificate issued by US jurisdiction, Valid US Passport, Original Certificate of Citizenship, Certified Copy of Certificate of Citizenship, Original Certificate of Naturalization, Certified Copy of Certificate of Naturalization
A birth certificate is not required, but it can be used. I think the only thing that would ask for a US birth certificate would be the passport.

My opinion is that this law was not put in place to intentionally hurt black people who were victims of the birth certificate stuff. That just happens to be an unintended side effect. That happens all the time where innocent people get hurt due to necessary laws.

Under the Voting Rights Act, Georgia is a section 5 (http://localcontext.berkeley.edu/TeachingMaterials/Sections_4and5.doc) state which means Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, [p*343] or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

I think the only thing that would ask for a US birth certificate would be the passport.

The Social Security Administration would require one.

leah49: It'd be easier to have a Birth Certificate though, it shows proof of birth and with both of those, you need "proof of birth". The easiest way to prove this is with a Birth Certificate, but if these people born before 1965 don't have one, what makes you think they'll have the other forms as proof of birth? You also need it to get a Social Security Card/Number, and one can't register if one doesn't have one.

That's the whole point. They don't have it.

That's the whole point. They don't have it.I type too slow. My post was in response to leah49's post. ^^

The Social Security Administration would require one.

Yes, but from ANY country, not just the US, which why I specified US birth certificate.

leah49: It'd be easier to have a Birth Certificate though, it shows proof of birth and with both of those, you need "proof of birth". The easiest way to prove this is with a Birth Certificate, but if these people born before 1965 don't have one, what makes you think they'll have the other forms as proof of birth? You also need it to get a Social Security Card/Number, and one can't register if one doesn't have one.

I know it's easier, I'm just saying it's not required.

I did live in Georgia and I did know black people born before 1965 and they were driving with valid driver's licenses. It is possible.

I don't think that anyone really has suggested that people should be allowed to vote without proof for being a citizen.

The point here as I understand it is, that these elderly people without birth certificates should be given a chance to prove their citizenship. And preferably before next election. :)

What became of the old fashioned neighbour's testimony?

Yes, they need to find a way to prove their citizenship. I'm not sure how they can do that, though. The only thing I can think of is to have them go through the process of becoming a citizen, but that's not really fair.

I know they aren't doing this to hurt them, it's just they got kicked out of the system because they didn't have this proof of citizenship. It's really unfortunate and it needs to be fixed. These people deserve to vote. They are natural born citizens of the US. We need to find a way to prove it. Too bad we don't have pensieves. Then we could find the memories of their births and visit them.

The whole point here is that there wasn't a problem with their citizenship, however colloquially it was proved after passage of the Voting Rights Act, until these new laws were enacted. Does the new law create a hardship for minorities? You bet it does.

Purple, do you have the exact law on hand? I know the law could not have been created to intentionally hurt the minorities that are citizens that just happens to be an unfortunate side-effect that needs to be fixed by figuring how to prove these citizens are citizens.

Well, surely, it is the STATE's job to find a *realistic* way for these people to prove their citizenship. And witout having to get a driver's licence when they don't actually need one because they don't have a car.

That way of proving citizenship has to be cheap and it has to be POSSIBLE for people who don't have a lot of money, who don't have a passport or driver's licence, and who don't have a birth certificate.


I mean, there are people who are obviously US citizens (their ancestors lost enough and worked hard enough for that!!) and who at the moment for no fault of their own just can't prove that they are citizens.

This obviously shouldn't be mixed up with the voter issue. it's crucial that votes are given only to citizens.


But for crying out loud, the fact that there are so many people who can't prove their citizenship because of discimination in the past is a BLOODY OUTRAGE!

Just saying. This isn't just about voting - that's just one part of it. But citizenship matters in so many ways, and people who aren't even given a chance to prove theirs are essentially deprived of their citizenship. Gosh - I am so appalled by this.


Obviously, such an issue can't be sorted out in a few weeks before the elections. They should start now to come up with a way of proving citizenship. Some form of testimony system looks like a good option. One thing is clear - since this is obviously still making up for an old injustce which the State committed the state should definitely pay for it. Obviously, some fair rules have to be introduced to exclude people who'd try to acquire citizenship fraudulently.

I really, honestly can't BELIEVE this!!!

*Agrees with Kilo*

I didn't even know of this until stepping into this thread. I didn't know it was that bad. I feel sorry for those people who really are citizens, but don't have a means of proving it. As leah mentioned, it'd be unfair to make them take the route of becoming citizens like immigrants since they're already citizens since they were born here. Seriously, what can be done to help those people?

Too bad one can't use Bibles as "proof of birth". I know some people, like in the south, would write in everyone's births and such on the first (or last) page of the Bible. My grandmother (father's mother) did that for the most part. She was originally from South Carolina, just as my grandfather was, but lived in New York. I think she only went back as far as her grandparents, but no actual date of birth for them (they were slaves) and went as far as my father since she died way before my father ever married (she died a year before my father met my mother and they didn't marry and have me until six years later).

Anywho, seems that in the past, that could work, but such a simplistic method now probably wouldn't be allowed.

Some voters 'purged' from voter rolls (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/voter.suppression/)
According to this article stuff like this happens in other states, too. It's because of mismatched voter information in the system.
The actual problem with Georgia is this:
One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit says Georgia is violating a federal law that prohibits widespread voter purges within 90 days of the election, arguing that the letters were sent out too close to the election date.

Well, here in the UK they use a kind of 'reference' system for some things (like the people who have to veridy that your picture shows you when you apply for citizenship or your first passport - two things I have just done).

They specify that these have to be 'people of professional standing' - medical doctors, clergy, teachers lawyers and so forth. I am pretty sure that one could come up with a good list of acceptable witnesses who could help with this. For example, I would assume that most African-Americans born before 1965 are members of a church community. One would hope that most of them went to school and so forth.

Obviously, the choice of types of witnesses would have to be a good compromise between some sort of trustworthiness ('just anyone' is obviously not satisfactory) and fairness (you can't make the list too narrow - e.g. not every person in the disenfranchised group woyld know a lawyer, one would assume).

But surely, this should be possible?

Something needs to be done, whether it's a uniform ID card issued to every American citizen - even those who have to prove their citizenship with entries from the Family Tree page of old Bibles - or something that's not yet on the table.

We're missing the other half of the problem here in our discussion: laws like the one in Georgia and Indiana are designed to suppress the minority vote. They exist only in Republican-controlled states as a rule. Ohio would have surely had the same problem if the GOP hadn't been voted out of office in 2006. Even so, the GOP filed a lawsuit and took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a failed attempt to disqualify about one-third of those 660,000 new voter registrations we achieved in Ohio.

The GOP's ploy in Ohio didn't work because our secretary of state, a Democrat, fought back. Georgia is a different story altogether.

Can you prove that these laws are designed to supress the minority vote? Can you prove they exist only in Republican controlled states as a rule? Can you prove any of what you said? These are accusations that are just not true. Georgia has a high population of illegal immigrants, you know. These votes are not enough to turn Georgia's electorate college votes to Obama. Is that what you're upset about?

Leah - it doesn't matter whether the law is made with this purpose in mind, or whether it is made in good faith.

The fact (as far as I can establish it from the stuff that's been linked here) is that some people who are clearly natural born citizens have been deprived of any chance to prove that they are, in fact, citizens. You simply can't introduce such a voter registration law if you don't at the same time make sure that everyone who has a right to vote also gets a fair chance to assert that right.


I have the feeling that the law about votes *per se* is probably perfectly OK.

The thing is - such a voter registration law is perfectly normal in many countries - but you can't have a normal voter registration law based on citizenship if you don't have a standard situation in respect of citizenship. And the situation in Georgia in respect of African Americans born before 1965 is clearly highly irregular.

As long as a country can't sort out problems like that it can't just 'innocently' introduce standard legislation that relies on a context that conforms with a normal western democracy. This citizenship situation clearly doesn't live up to the expected standards of a western democracy.



So, it's essentially TWO issues. But you can't just make the injustice go away by compartmentalising the two connected problems.

If the voter registration law was enforced in good faith then whoever did it was incredibly naive. And in my book that's only marginally better.

Thank you to those who looked up stuff - it provided a lot of good background that should help guide evaluating the law or attempted laws.

That being said, time to ease up on the tension - or, at the least, agree to disagree.

Can you prove that these laws are designed to supress the minority vote? Can you prove they exist only in Republican controlled states as a rule? Can you prove any of what you said? These are accusations that are just not true. Georgia has a high population of illegal immigrants, you know. These votes are not enough to turn Georgia's electorate college votes to Obama. Is that what you're upset about?

GOP wants to protect right to vote —- for right people (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/12/tucked.html)

Big Setbacks for GOP Voter Suppression Efforts in Swing States: Court ruling, decisions by secretaries of state in Wisconsin, Ohio and Nevada blunt GOP's anti-voter agenda. (http://www.alternet.org/democracy/104322/big_setbacks_for_gop_voter_suppression_efforts_in_ swing_states/)

GOP Voter Suppression: More Miss than Hit (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/gop_voter_suppression_more_mis.php)

ACORN Leads Fight Against GOP Voter Suppression (http://www.blacknews.com/news/acorn101.shtml)

The Republican War on Voting: Using the Department of Justice, friendly governors, and its usual propaganda outlets, the GOP has propagated the myth of voter fraud to purge the rolls of non-Republicans. (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_war_on_voting)

Stop GOP Voter Suppression (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/377217/stop_gop_vote_suppression)

Montana GOP's Voter Suppression (http://redmontana.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/montana-gops-voter-suppression/)

New Wiki Counters GOP Voter Suppression (http://washingtonindependent.com/7034/new-wiki-counters-gop-voter-suppression)

Behind the GOP's voter fraud hysteria (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/15/voter_suppression/print.html)

Block the Vote: Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president? (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote)

jP7FdBEpVBo

98qH1Rgh0Nw

Ya, that ..um...pretty much covers it.

I do hope we can rectifiy this issue, not only in Georgia but in every state, so that "all" Americans can go to the polls and vote their hearts at every election.

Like a choir, only having bass or Soprano gives a certain flavor--but the true magic lies in the symphonic harmonies of all the ranges of voices.

We will never be at our best unless we are all heard and counted.

Has anyone but me noticed how the shrieks of "voter fraud" died immediately after the election? Even in Missouri, where the presidential race is still undecided. The only bits I've heard have come from Republican Senators Norm Coleman (MN) and Saxby Chambliss (GA). Coleman is locked in a tight race with Democrat Al Franken. Chambliss faces a run-off election against Democrat Jim Martin. On November 4, election day, conservative publication NewsMax ran a story titled Georgia Voter Fraud Tops 100,000 (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/grorgia_voter_fraud/2008/11/04/147682.html), which is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Georgia, as we discussed before, is trying to require an absolute match between voter registration forms and its error-riddled drivers' database. I fully expect this law to be overturned at some point after President Elect Obama takes office and his attorney general brings Justice out of partisan politics and back to the rule of law.

Mike Connell, Karl Rove's IT boy, under investigation for voter fraud in Ohio, dies in plane crash.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/mike-connell-key-figure-i_b_152582.html

Oh goodness, this is the guy Ohio has been pursuing since the 2004 election. All those anomalies and the corruption and/or destruction of the database in Cuyahoga Country, which prevented a recount. This guy is like Forrest Gump, only smart, because no matter what scandal has to do with Republicans and missing data, his name always comes up. He has always been fingered at the scene.

The lifting of the stay comes on the heels of a troubling declaration filed with the court by Republican cyber-security expert and Connell colleague, Stephen Spoonamore who testified that he's concerned a classic "Man in the Middle" cyber hack may have occurred on Election Night in 2004 as Connell's Republican firm handled results reporting for Ohio's Presidential election.

He was also wanted on the White House missing email case (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mike_Connell) Congress is investigating.

Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's secretary of state, had asked that Connell be placed under protective custody (http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/node/2164)at the same time she filed for relief of the stay preventing his deposition in the Ohio vote-tampering case.

I'll have to search for better links - The Columbus Dispatch is no help whatsoever.

ETA:

Here's one on the Ohio case: King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php)

My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

Tom Edsall, of the Huffington Post, has a story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/25/the-intriguing-death-of-t_n_153518.html) today about the various conspiracy theories surrounding Connell's death.

The Telegraph also has a story:

He had worked on Mr Bush's two presidential campaigns, advised John McCain this year and was also linked to allegedly missing White House emails in the 2006 controversy over a string of firings of US attorneys.

The death of the married father of four immediately triggered conspiracy theories amid speculation that he had been about to reveal embarrassing details of the complicity of senior members of the Bush administration in fixing an election and destroying incriminating emails.

In a blog posting entitled "One of my sources died in a plane crash last night...", Larisa Alexandrovna of The Raw Story revealed that Mr Connell had been talking to her about the Ohio case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations.

"Mike was getting ready to talk. He was frightened... I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either. I am no expert on aviation and cannot provide an opinion on the matter. What I am saying, however, is that given the context, this event needs to be examined carefully." [...]

A lawyer bringing the voter fraud case described Mr Connell as "a high IQ Forrest Gump" because he had been at the scene of so many "crimes" involving Republicans and the Bush administration.

George Bush aide dies in plane crash: Mystery surrounds the death of a Republican pollster, recently compelled to give evidence about alleged election fraud in the 2004 election in Ohio, after he was killed in a plane crash. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3885913/George-Bush-aide-dies-in-plane-crash.html)

No conspiracy theories without solid proof, please!

Here's something to remember for 2012.

Last year, Joe Deters was the regional chairman of the McCain-Palin campaign, and was also a prosecutor in Hamilton County here in Ohio. Like a lot of Republican activists, he was convinced there was widespread voter fraud in Ohio.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he had allegations last fall of widespread voter fraud -- allegations a special prosecutor reported Tuesday were wrong, noting the only voter fraud found was from a Connecticut man who told on himself.

"Ultimately," Special Prosecutor Michael O'Neill wrote in a report, "the investigators discovered 'get-out-the-vote' practices, sponsored by community organizations, which took full advantage of this unique absentee-voting period, but no evidence these practices violated Ohio law."

"Told ya so," Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party as well as chairman of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said with glee of O'Neill's report. "Do I think (Deters) was playing politics? Damned right."

Deters had claimed concrete evidence of widespread wrongdoing. It apparently wasn't as concrete as he'd hoped.

And what about the one guy O'Neill found who committed an actual fraud? It seems a young man from Connecticut was in town to visit his sister, and went to the University of Cincinnati where he registered to vote and voted on the same day. A week later, the man felt guilty, called county elections officials, explained what he'd done, and asked that his vote not be counted. It wasn't.

For those who are curious, O'Neill, the special prosecutor who investigated the matter, is himself a Republican.

Only one voter fraud case found (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090127/NEWS01/301270059)

And still another phony voter fraud case meets its logical end:

Another nail in the coffin for those bogus GOP claims of voter fraud...

Remember how Todd Graves was fired as US Attorney for the western district of Missouri, after he wouldn't go along with a Bradley Schlozman-backed effort to sue Democratic state officials for failing to purge ineligible voters from the rolls, alleging that this failure could open the door to rampant voter fraud? The Bushies then moved Schlozman himself into Graves' position as US Attorney so that he could push the case personally.

Well, the case has quietly dragged on, after being dismissed by one court, then reinstated by another. But yesterday, lawyers for the Obama Justice Department asked a judge to drop the suit (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17504).

There wasn't much doubt by this point about the suit's bogusness, especially given what we've learned about Schlozman's politically motivated approach to his work (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/report_schlozman_broke_the_law_then_tried_to_hide. php) both at main DOJ and as US Attorney. But now it's more or less official.

Another Republican claim of voter fraud bites the dust.

Schloz-Backed Voter Fraud Lawsuit Bites The Dust (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/schloz-backed_voter_fraud_lawsuit_bites_the_dust.php)