My election guide from La Raza - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

NCB · 10-27-2006, 12:37 PM

As many of you already know, I'm a first gen American of Latino decent. I usually get alot of interesting phone calls and mail that stems from that: you know, credit cards in Spanish, Latino book clubs, ect... So, I go to the mailbox today and find my election voting guide courtesy of La Raza, the militant Lation org that believes in the Republica del Norte.

Among the reminders:

1. You do not need an ID in many places to vote, so dont be intimidated to go.

2. If you need help reading or filling out the ballott, call this number for help (I liked this one

)

3. If your name does not appear on the voting rolls, request a provisional ballot and vote that way.

If you have any questions or problems, call 1-888-Ve-y-Vota. I'm thinking of calling them and requesting a list of candidates that they have endorsed.

What troubles me about all this is veiled encouragment to go to the polls anyways and give it a whirl. I know that many of you are concerned about election fraud (well, fraud that benefits the GOP that is) and wonder what you all think of this and what sort of election reform or guidelines we need to help clean up the system

dc_dux · 10-27-2006, 01:09 PM

Many churches do the same thing to encourage their congregrants to vote. They have voters guides (and/or sermons) that go as far as to explain candidates positions on particular issues (ie abortion).

It is within the law for non-profit organizations that have 501(c)(3) tax status to participate in this kind of election "education". What they cant do is endorse a particular candidate.

NCB · 10-27-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Many churches do the same thing to encourage their congregrants to vote. They have voters guides (and/or sermons) that go as far as to explain candidates positions on particular issues (ie abortion).

It is within the law for non-profit organizations that have 501(c)(3) tax status to participate in this kind of election "education". What they cant do is endorse a particular candidate.

Thats great, but it dodges the point. This voting guide seems to be encouraging people to at least try to vote even if they are not qualified

ratbastid · 10-27-2006, 01:16 PM

Yeah, well that's a problem. Rigorous, fair, legal elections are the bedrock of our governmental system, and they're under serious attack these days.

What happens on the day when election results are announced and the system is so hopelessly broken that nobody trusts that the winner has anything to do with the voting? Do we rise up, at that point, and overthrow the diseased beast? Or do we shrug and change the channel?

My partisan jab for this thread: it's interesting to me that the pro-Democrat fraud is about getting ineligible people to vote (including, allegedly, dead people and criminals), whereas the pro-Republican fraud is about preventing eligible people from voting (via, allegedly, intimidation and lies). It's almost like the Republicans don't really want the vote to reflect what the public believes or wants.

dc_dux · 10-27-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Thats great, but it dodges the point. This voting guide seems to be encouraging people to at least try to vote even if they are not qualified

Based on your OP, I would describe it more as educating newly naturalized citizens on their voting rights, particularly in light of the mailing by a republican candidate in California (on the letterhead of a bogus hispanic organization) threatening immigrants even if they qualified:

Be advised that if your residence in the United States is illegal or if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration, and possible deportation for voting without the right to do so. …

edit: I am looking at the voting guide on the La Raza website:
http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/37082/

I dont see anything that "seems to be encouraging people to at least try to vote even if they are not qualified". Maybe the mailing to you was different.

The only problem I have with it is the notion that "a pro-hispanic candidate supports....a, b, c" which discourages independent thinking.

Again, church guides do the same with a "pro-christian candidate supports..."

Elphaba · 10-27-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Based on your OP, I would describe it more as educating newly naturalized citizens on their voting rights, particularly in light of the mailing by a republican candidate in California (on the letterhead of a bogus hispanic organization) threatening immigrants even if they qualified:

The democratic incumbent is of Hispanic descent. What a "clever" attempt to run off some number of her supporters. Suppressing the vote appears to be an effective strategy getting wide use.

Sun Tzu · 10-27-2006, 05:40 PM

I'm ususally not an advocate of IDs, but because the situation is the way it is especially here in AZ I think the requirement should be implemented.

Apparently so does a majority of the voters here because if you want to vote you will have to present 2 forms of ID here.

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 06:36 AM

A group, Women's Voices.Women Vote, has released several PSAs primarily targeted to single women who havent voted.

http://www.wvwv.org/mediaroom/index.cfm?id=44

One in particular, "My First Time," features several Hollywood stars and has Rush all upset:

Rush Limbaugh has lashed out at the ads as degrading to women. "Now I want to ask you, is this clever or is this demeaning?" he said.

SO what do you think.....clever or demeaning?

Rekna · 10-28-2006, 07:21 AM

NCB i don't see anything in your post that suggests they are telling people to vote illegally. Not everyone has an id, and not everyone appears on the roles, that is why they have provisional ballots.

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 07:29 AM

I think having an ID (assuming an ID means anything official with your name/address like bank statements, utility bills, etc) is reasonable as long as voting officials onsite informs those without IDs that they can still cast a provisional ballot (which are now required by HAVA) and present the ID later. I am more troubled with requiring photo IDs, which several state co urts have struck down.

jorgelito · 10-28-2006, 09:27 AM

Oh my God!! La Raza is a crazy organization!! They are always on campus advocating taking back the states and enslaving Americans. Scary, scary peoplee. They use intimidation and inflammatory tactics.

Requiring photo IDs is very reasonable. Why would anyone object to that? The only thing better would be fingerprinting. It would be good for preventing election fraud.

_God_ · 10-28-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

My partisan jab for this thread: it's interesting to me that the pro-Democrat fraud is about getting ineligible people to vote (including, allegedly, dead people and criminals), whereas the pro-Republican fraud is about preventing eligible people from voting (via, allegedly, intimidation and lies). It's almost like the Republicans don't really want the vote to reflect what the public believes or wants.

Or that the more people the Democrats can give other people's money to, the greater the likelihood that they will remain in office.

Put another way, the government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote.

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 11:22 AM

Whether or not La Raza is a crazy organization is not the issue. I thought Campus Crusade for Christ was "intimidating and inflammatory" for stalking me aournd campus and condemning me to hell if I did not convert from Judaism.

La Raza's election guide is a perfectly reasonable example of an advocacy group's material to educate its constituents.

As to photo IDs, if they were free and readily accessible, they might be acceptable. Otherwise, it might be considered a de facto "poll tax" imposed primarily on poor minorities and the elderly (those most likely to not have a photo ID).

Missouri is one state where the state supreme court invalidated photo IDs for voting:

Quote:

The Voter ID law requires each of the individual plaintiffs in this case to present a Missouri driver’s license, a Missouri non-driver’s license, or a United States passport on election day in order to vote. The record reveals that between 3 and 4 percent of Missouri citizens (estimates vary from 169,215 to 240,000 individuals) lack the requisite photo ID. Appellants concede that many of these citizens, including all of the individual plaintiffs in this case, are eligible to vote and, in many cases, are already registered to vote. […]

It is to these citizens that the Court directs its attention, as it determines whether this statute places into jeopardy their ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote under article I, section 25 of the Missouri Constitution. To do so, the Court must examine the required processes for them to obtain a photo ID to determine the extent of the burden it imposes on their right to vote.

Those citizens who do not possess the requisite photo ID, with few exceptions, must expend money to gather the necessary documentation to obtain it in order to exercise their right to vote. […] Many voters who presently lack one of the required photo IDs would have to, at the very least, expend money to obtain a birth certificate. In Missouri, obtaining a birth certificate requires at least a $15 payment, which, Appellants conceded at oral argument, is not a de minimis cost. If the citizen requires documentation beyond a birth certificate, the costs are greater.

Although this Court has not previously had occasion to evaluate the validity of putting a direct or indirect price or fee on the franchise under the Missouri Constitution, the United States Supreme Court held, in the context of addressing a $1.50 poll tax: “Wealth or fee-paying has . . . no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened.” Harper, 383 U.S. at 670.

While requiring payment to obtain a birth certificate is not a poll tax, as was the $1.50 in Harper, it is a fee that qualified, eligible, registered voters who lack an approved photo ID are required to pay in order to exercise their right to free suffrage under the Missouri Constitution.

When we get to the point where the government has the fingerprints of all citizens on file, maybe we can go to touch screen fingerprint ID voting

jorgelito · 10-28-2006, 11:37 AM

Why is anyone against photo IDs? A photo ID is not terribly expensive and is readily available (I have at least 5 photo IDs). If it's truly too much of a problem, then the state or feds should require it and institute it. Seems like it would resolve alot of the election fraud concerns.

Or better yet, just have people register their thumbprint when they register to vote and then the voter can "sign in" at the voting machine using their thumb. They already take your fingerprints at the DMV (in California at least) so this really shouldn't be a problem at all (your are automtaicall registered to vote when you get your DL). The technology is readily available already so cost shouldn't be an issue.

Assuming NCB is correct in his pamphlet, churches encouraging their members to vote is irrelevant unless it's a church of people ineligible to vote. I think what NCB is alluding to is La Raza encouraging people to vote who do not have that right to do so.

The Campus Crusaders at my school are polite and respectful and never follow people around in stark contrast to the La Raza, Mecha and the LaRouchians who use violent tactics and harrassment to "persuade" people including disrupting classes.

Speaking of fraud, what exactly are we talking about here? chads? Or are there really people who try to sneak into the polls to vote when they aren't allowed to? It's kind of weird to me that anyone would go to such great lengths when such a small portion of our elegible voteing population actually goes out and votes.

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 11:46 AM

"not terribly expensive and is readily available"is subjectve.

I imagine many in the South in the 1950s and 60s thought the $1.50 poll tax was "not terribly expensive."

And if La Raza (or La Rouche or Campus Crusade) were violent and harassing, they should have been thrown off campus. I dont agree with their message either, but until they break the law, they are entitled to educate their constituents, particularly when their constituents are the subject of voter intimidation.

Quote:

Speaking of fraud, what exactly are we talking about here? chads?

The fraud I am concerned about is voter intimidation like the letter to Hispanics in Orange County, Cal that I referenced above or flyers in black neighborhoods in Baltimore saying that you cant vote if you have an outstanding parking ticket.

jorgelito · 10-28-2006, 12:01 PM

I agree it's subjective but I don't agree with the insinuation and analogue to a poll tax. But point taken.

No campus organizations should be violent, period. And of course they are entitled to their constituents. It's one of the things I love about US campuses. At my school, the Republicans and Democrats are set up right next to each other across from the Muslim Student Association and Students for Israel booths/tables. I love that. Sure it gets noisy and raucus at times but the fact that such opposing views can exist side by side without violence is awesome and a testament to free speech and rule of law.

There was this one guy who did get thrown off campus. He was threatening and harassing gay students. It was kind of scary too. And yes, he was a "right-wing Christian extremist". The LaRouchians and La Raza are also like that. MeCHA has calmed down a bit these days.

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 12:13 PM

I havent been on a college campus in 20+ years and back then I marched from the campus to the South African embassy to protest apartheid, where I was arrested for "violating the sovereignty of a foreign government".....so in case my fingerprints are still on file, I am good to go for the fingerprint voting system

Rekna · 10-28-2006, 02:57 PM

But how long would it take before the government would start using voting fingerprints in criminal searches?

dc_dux · 10-28-2006, 03:45 PM

The Republican Congress took the first steps last month when the House passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 on a party line vote (H.R.4844). The bill mandates a national photo ID and would also prohibit providing a ballot - even a provisional ballot - to any individual that did not present a current and valid photo identification to the election official.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.ph...1774&Itemid=26

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require each individual who desires to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate election official with a government-issued photo identification, and for other purposes.

Intense1 · 10-28-2006, 09:08 PM

Such interesting points you all have, but I would like to ask this: isn't it the responsibility of our state governments to ensure that the votes collected come from legally registered voters? And isn't it true that those who are not legal in our country do not have the right to vote?

I have personally lived in two countries other than the US, and I was never accorded the privilege of voting in any of their elections. Why should the US allow someone who isn't a citizen of our country to vote?

No offense to La Raza and all, but hey, if you're not legal here, you don't vote.

ratbastid · 10-29-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _God_

Or that the more people the Democrats can give other people's money to, the greater the likelihood that they will remain in office.

Put another way, the government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote.

You can split hairs about the cause all you like, but the fact remains the same: the higher the voter turnout, the more Democrat the election goes.

This year the Dems have pledged to match the Republican "72-hour campaign" for voter turnout voter for voter. We'll see whether that makes a difference in some of the close races.

dc_dux · 10-29-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

isn't it the responsibility of our state governments to ensure that the votes collected come from legally registered voters?

Absolutely...and the government also has the responsibility to ensure that there are no legal barriers or external intimidation activities to prevent eligible citizens from voting.

I have seen nothing from La Raza that encourages (even in a veiled manner) illegal immigrants to vote. What I have seen is information to ensure that legal and naturalized immigrants understand their voting rights.

jorgelito · 10-29-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Absolutely...and the government also has the responsibility to ensure that there are no legal barriers or external intimidation activities to prevent eligible citizens from voting.

I have seen nothing from La Raza that encourages (even in a veiled manner) illegal immigrants to vote. What I have seen is information to ensure that legal and naturalized immigrants understand their voting rights.

In this particular example, that's reasonable and instructive (however that's far different from their usual message of hate and violence, unless they have changed in recent years). I guess it would be like the NRA or MTV Rock the Vote instructing people to know their rights and helping them register etc, even putting their slant on things (which doesn't bother me too much) like that Pee Doody rapper guy.

ratbastid · 10-30-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

like that Pee Doody rapper guy.

It's just "Doody" now.

10-27-2006, 01:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Many churches do the same thing to encourage their congregrants to vote. They have voters guides (and/or sermons) that go as far as to explain candidates positions on particular issues (ie abortion). It is within the law for non-profit organizations that have 501(c)(3) tax status to participate in this kind of election "education". What they cant do is endorse a particular candidate. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-27-2006, 05:40 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I'm ususally not an advocate of IDs, but because the situation is the way it is especially here in AZ I think the requirement should be implemented. Apparently so does a majority of the voters here because if you want to vote you will have to present 2 forms of ID here. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

10-28-2006, 06:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	A group, Women's Voices.Women Vote, has released several PSAs primarily targeted to single women who havent voted. http://www.wvwv.org/mediaroom/index.cfm?id=44 One in particular, "My First Time," features several Hollywood stars and has Rush all upset: Rush Limbaugh has lashed out at the ads as degrading to women. "Now I want to ask you, is this clever or is this demeaning?" he said. SO what do you think.....clever or demeaning? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2006 at 06:41 AM..

10-28-2006, 07:29 AM	#10 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think having an ID (assuming an ID means anything official with your name/address like bank statements, utility bills, etc) is reasonable as long as voting officials onsite informs those without IDs that they can still cast a provisional ballot (which are now required by HAVA) and present the ID later. I am more troubled with requiring photo IDs, which several state co urts have struck down. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2006 at 07:31 AM..

10-28-2006, 12:13 PM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I havent been on a college campus in 20+ years and back then I marched from the campus to the South African embassy to protest apartheid, where I was arrested for "violating the sovereignty of a foreign government".....so in case my fingerprints are still on file, I am good to go for the fingerprint voting system __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-27-2006, 01:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yeah, well that's a problem. Rigorous, fair, legal elections are the bedrock of our governmental system, and they're under serious attack these days. What happens on the day when election results are announced and the system is so hopelessly broken that nobody trusts that the winner has anything to do with the voting? Do we rise up, at that point, and overthrow the diseased beast? Or do we shrug and change the channel? My partisan jab for this thread: it's interesting to me that the pro-Democrat fraud is about getting ineligible people to vote (including, allegedly, dead people and criminals), whereas the pro-Republican fraud is about preventing eligible people from voting (via, allegedly, intimidation and lies). It's almost like the Republicans don't really want the vote to reflect what the public believes or wants.

10-28-2006, 07:21 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	NCB i don't see anything in your post that suggests they are telling people to vote illegally. Not everyone has an id, and not everyone appears on the roles, that is why they have provisional ballots.

10-28-2006, 09:27 AM	#11 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Oh my God!! La Raza is a crazy organization!! They are always on campus advocating taking back the states and enslaving Americans. Scary, scary peoplee. They use intimidation and inflammatory tactics. Requiring photo IDs is very reasonable. Why would anyone object to that? The only thing better would be fingerprinting. It would be good for preventing election fraud.

10-28-2006, 11:37 AM	#14 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Why is anyone against photo IDs? A photo ID is not terribly expensive and is readily available (I have at least 5 photo IDs). If it's truly too much of a problem, then the state or feds should require it and institute it. Seems like it would resolve alot of the election fraud concerns. Or better yet, just have people register their thumbprint when they register to vote and then the voter can "sign in" at the voting machine using their thumb. They already take your fingerprints at the DMV (in California at least) so this really shouldn't be a problem at all (your are automtaicall registered to vote when you get your DL). The technology is readily available already so cost shouldn't be an issue. Assuming NCB is correct in his pamphlet, churches encouraging their members to vote is irrelevant unless it's a church of people ineligible to vote. I think what NCB is alluding to is La Raza encouraging people to vote who do not have that right to do so. The Campus Crusaders at my school are polite and respectful and never follow people around in stark contrast to the La Raza, Mecha and the LaRouchians who use violent tactics and harrassment to "persuade" people including disrupting classes. Speaking of fraud, what exactly are we talking about here? chads? Or are there really people who try to sneak into the polls to vote when they aren't allowed to? It's kind of weird to me that anyone would go to such great lengths when such a small portion of our elegible voteing population actually goes out and votes.

10-28-2006, 12:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I agree it's subjective but I don't agree with the insinuation and analogue to a poll tax. But point taken. No campus organizations should be violent, period. And of course they are entitled to their constituents. It's one of the things I love about US campuses. At my school, the Republicans and Democrats are set up right next to each other across from the Muslim Student Association and Students for Israel booths/tables. I love that. Sure it gets noisy and raucus at times but the fact that such opposing views can exist side by side without violence is awesome and a testament to free speech and rule of law. There was this one guy who did get thrown off campus. He was threatening and harassing gay students. It was kind of scary too. And yes, he was a "right-wing Christian extremist". The LaRouchians and La Raza are also like that. MeCHA has calmed down a bit these days.

10-28-2006, 02:57 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	But how long would it take before the government would start using voting fingerprints in criminal searches?

10-28-2006, 03:45 PM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The Republican Congress took the first steps last month when the House passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 on a party line vote (H.R.4844). The bill mandates a national photo ID and would also prohibit providing a ballot - even a provisional ballot - to any individual that did not present a current and valid photo identification to the election official. http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.ph...1774&Itemid=26 To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require each individual who desires to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate election official with a government-issued photo identification, and for other purposes. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-28-2006, 09:08 PM	#20 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	Such interesting points you all have, but I would like to ask this: isn't it the responsibility of our state governments to ensure that the votes collected come from legally registered voters? And isn't it true that those who are not legal in our country do not have the right to vote? I have personally lived in two countries other than the US, and I was never accorded the privilege of voting in any of their elections. Why should the US allow someone who isn't a citizen of our country to vote? No offense to La Raza and all, but hey, if you're not legal here, you don't vote. __________________ (none yet, still thinkin')