Voter ID Law....safeguard or supression? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 10:41 AM

The Supreme Court is hearing a case on the Indiana Voter ID law today. Under the law, registered voters in Indiana who dont present a valid driver's license or passport would not have their ballots counted.

The Court does not appear to be sympathetic to the concerns expressed by those opposed to the law who believe that it infringes on Constitutional rights.

I share that concern and think its reasonable to assume that this will disproportionately affect the poor, seniors and minorities...all of whom tend to vote more Democratic than Republican.

Will it provide for less voter fraud or suppress a segment of the voting population? You decide.

genuinegirly · 01-09-2008, 10:49 AM

Posessing a valid, current form of identification, indicating that you are a US citizen is what most people choose to do. I have a good friend who is disabled and cannot drive. She has never been out of the country, so she has never gone to the effort to get her passport. She has a state-issued ID that looks exactly like a driver's license. Anyone of voting age can get one of these for a small fee. There are no restrictions. I do not understand why it would be discrimination or unconstitutional for one to prove who they are.

ShaniFaye · 01-09-2008, 10:50 AM

I am really confused as to why this is such an issue....whats the big deal about having a picture ID? Heck when I use my debit card in some places I still get asked for ID (which is stupid cause my pictures is ON it...but most of the time their thumb is covering it up lol)

Someone explain to me why having this is a bad thing? Everything I have heard says the "poor" can get ID cards for free...so ho does this affect poor people, minorities an seniors negatively

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 10:56 AM

Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, nuff said.

Everyone else has an ID of some kind.

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 10:59 AM

Shani...there is a fee required to get a state photo ID in most states and a limited number of places to get such an ID, often nowhere near minority communities.

If one must pay a small fee to get a photo ID in order to vote, how is that not similar in some respect to a small poll tax?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, nuff said.

Everyone else has an ID of some kind.

Why does it have to be a photo ID? There should absolutely be an ID requirement to vote, but there is no evidence that current requirements in nearly every other state (social security card along with such documents as a bank statement, utility bill, Social Security paystub or other forms of ids that contain an address) have resulted in voter fraud or voting by dead people.

ShaniFaye · 01-09-2008, 11:04 AM

I guess Im basing this on where I live...they are free and at any DMV

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/dldata...49371755&ty=dl

Quote:

Georgia law provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens eighteen (18) and over who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years.

dksuddeth · 01-09-2008, 11:06 AM

complex issue.

I think Id's should absolutely be required and because of this, they should also be issued free of charge.

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 11:07 AM

Quite frankly, this is looking at the wrong side of things if they really want to prevent voting problems. Voters are fine. It's the vote counting that has the problems. We need Dibold replaced by a public system that has fail-safes and is double blind.

Shauk · 01-09-2008, 11:08 AM

whatever, i tend to lean towards democratic tendacies and i think you should have an ID.

I have my ss card, ID, birth cert, etc... no reason why any legal resident shouldn't.

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Why does it have to be a photo ID? There should absolutely be an ID requirement to vote, but there is no evidence that current requirements in nearly every other state (social security card along with such documents as a bank statement, utility bill, Social Security paystub or other forms of ids that contain an address) have resulted in voter fraud or voting by dead people.

So the problem is a picture?

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 11:10 AM

The problem is paying for a picture, as small as the fee may be, or access to obtaining such an ID... when other IDs are acceptable in nearly all other states without having to leave home to obtain one.

Rekna · 01-09-2008, 11:31 AM

Unless these id's are provided free and are easy to get (ie within walking distance) and the wait times on these is not significant (ie in line for over an hour) there isn't' a problem. The problem is that most of the id's cost money, require you to drive 10 miles to the dmv, and require you to wait for 3 hours in line.

The poor that work hourly may not be able to take off a half day of work to get one of these, they also may not be able to get transportation to the place to get it, or afford it when they get there.

I think the people requiring these id's should have the burden of proving that lack of them is causing significant fraud.

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 11:38 AM

One has to wonder how these people who can't find a way to get an ID have time to go vote.

I know the polls by my house almost REQUIRE you drive to them. One is on a busy street in a church that has really nothing around it or bus service, the other is in a school that would be walkable only to people who lived in that area.

So you can't seem to be able to afford an ID (and sure make them free) with your picture on it, or get out of the house to get one, but you can show up to the poles on election day?

I'm sure thats the next step on the agenda

ShaniFaye · 01-09-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

One has to wonder how these people who can't find a way to get an ID have time to go vote.

I know the polls by my house almost REQUIRE you drive to them. One is on a busy street in a church that has really nothing around it or bus service, the other is in a school that would be walkable only to people who lived in that area.

So you can't seem to be able to afford an ID (and sure make them free) with your picture on it, or get out of the house to get one, but you can show up to the poles on election day?

I'm sure thats the next step on the agenda

quote for truth

sometimes its really scary when you post exactly (well pretty much) what I was going to say)..though I think its more of a "oh god I agree with him on something" scary...

Hain · 01-09-2008, 11:42 AM

Absolutely agree that there should be a photo ID required. Granted I hail from Chicago but there were plenty of places to get a state ID. Over here, everyone gets a ID card with their picture. It would be just another safe guard against voter fraud. And a poll tax... how often does the State ID need to be replaced?

Also agree with Will, the system itself needs an overhaul. I worked a simple county election and that was fucking ridiculous. All these old "veteran" election workers telling me what I was doing wrong when I had the god-damned guide lines in my pocket!

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 11:45 AM

From Indiana:

Quote:

on Election Day last November, Valerie Williams became that evidence, according to lawyers in a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. After Ms. Williams grabbed her cane that day and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections, she was barred from doing so.

The election officials at the polling place, whom she had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used — a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver’s license — were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us...us&oref=slogin

From Georgia:

Quote:

After 40 years of voting in American elections, 61-year-old Dean Shirley of Decatur, Ga., could be denied the right to cast his ballot because he doesn't have a photo ID.

"I'm registered, and they have the registration book right in front of them at the polls," he says. "Who else is going to come in and say they're Edward Dean Shirley?

...

AARP's Georgia office, for example, found that more than 150,000 older Georgians who voted in the last election—when 17 forms of identification were acceptable—do not have driver's licenses and are unlikely to have other forms of government-issued photo IDs.

Dean Shirley, a former Georgia cotton mill worker, is disabled because of lung disease and arthritis. He no longer drives and says he doesn't have a passport because he's only been out of the country once, when he was in the service.

But Shirley wants to continue to vote, so he asked a relative to take him to a motor vehicle office to get a nondriver's photo ID. They drove 45 minutes and waited in line nearly three hours to pay $20 for an ID (note to Shani: the fee must have been waived since this article in 2005). His number was skipped, and he left empty-handed. "I just don't see the right in that," he says.

Responding to complaints about the accessibility of photo IDs, Perdue announced the state would send a bus on the road to issue them. But a state official conceded that the hand-me-down bus would stick close to Atlanta because it might break down. Unimpressed, critics charged the bus was nothing more than a public relations gimmick.
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourlife/voter_id.html

ShaniFaye · 01-09-2008, 11:56 AM

Im sure my ignorance is going to show here..but I'm going to ask anyway.....If these people that are so adamant to vote...cant/wont get a id card to show at the polls....cant they just say they are going to be out of town and vote by absentee ballot?

Ok I kinda answered my own question....these are the rules for TN, and it seems the "old and infirm" can vote by absentee with no issues

To vote by mail, a registered voter must fall under one of the following categories:

1. The voter will be outside the county of registration during the early voting period and all day on election day;
2. The voter or the voter’s spouse is enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited college oruniversity outside the county of registration;
3. The voter’s licensed physician has filed a statement with the county election commission stating that, in the physician's judgment, the voter is medically unable to vote in person. The statement must be filed not less than five (5) days before the election and signed under the penalty of perjury;
4. The voter resides in a licensed facility providing relatively permanent domiciliary care, other than a penal institution, outside the voter's county of residence;
5. The voter will be unable to vote in person due to service as a juror for a federal or state court;
6. The voter is sixty-five (65) years of age or older;
7. The voter has a physical disability and an inaccessible polling place;
8. The voter is hospitalized, ill, or physically disabled and because of such condition, cannot vote in person;
9. The voter is a caretaker of a person who is hospitalized, ill, or disabled;
10. The voter is a candidate for office in the election;
11. The voter serves as an election day official or as a member or employee of the election commission;
12. The voter’s observance of a religious holiday prevents him or her from voting in person during the early voting period and on election day;
13. The voter possesses a valid commercial driver license and certifies that he or she will be working outside the state or county of registration during the early voting period and all day on election day;
14. The voter is a member of the military or is an overseas citizen

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 12:05 PM

Shani.....I think the registered voters in question (without state-issued photo ID) can vote absentee in IN and GA....so it debunks the myth that such laws are to prevent voter fraud.

But why should they be forced into absentee voting rather than voting in person. Many, particularly those not politically active except once every 4 years, may even be unaware of the absentee option.

IMO, it represents a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution....they have to pay (fee and/or lost wages in obtaining photo ID) or lose their choice in how they vote.

Fotzlid · 01-09-2008, 07:46 PM

how about this for a solution.
pass a law that requires supermarkets and malls to provide a small area for the state to set up an ID counter. i can almost guarantee you that every state has a small warehouse full of old printers and computers not being used. how much does a cheap digital camera cost these days? the only major expense for the state would be OT for employees to man the booths. free ID's in places everyone can get to for relatively short money for the state.

Rekna · 01-10-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

how about this for a solution.
pass a law that requires supermarkets and malls to provide a small area for the state to set up an ID counter. i can almost guarantee you that every state has a small warehouse full of old printers and computers not being used. how much does a cheap digital camera cost these days? the only major expense for the state would be OT for employees to man the booths. free ID's in places everyone can get to for relatively short money for the state.

Won't work, if you want the ID's to mean anything at all they must be printed on specific equipment to prevent forgeries.

Also to the comments that people who can't drive to the DMV can't drive to the polls or who can't miss work is silly because they can still absentee.

Fotzlid · 01-10-2008, 01:08 AM

aside from the fact that anything can be forged, just how specific should the equiptment be?
here in MA, when you get a new license they just graft a picture onto a simple form till you get the laminated version in the mail. i doubt it would be that difficult to produce laminated picture IDs with watermarked backgrounds using current or slightly older computer/printer combos.

belezabaub · 01-10-2008, 01:25 AM

Fucking ID wrecks my buzz. I currently do not posess a drivers licence or a passport and you would not believe the fucking hassle I have trying to apply for jobs and stuff. What cracks me up to apply for ID like a drivers licence or a passport you need ID. I personally think it is a pile of bollocks, more beaurocracy to make it difficult for people to get on with their lives. I have to pay over £80 for a passport and £45 for a drivers licence (times that by 2 for dollars). I'm currently unemployed and my benefits work out at £45 a week. It is fucking stupid.

I believe all identification should be free. It is unfair that goverment requirement should cost an individual his/her chance to vote, obtain employment or leave or enter their country. Both the US and UK can afford to spend a massive amount of their budget 'liberating' other countries, however they charge their own citizens for ID, essential in participating within a 'liberal society'.

It probably would help voter fraud, if you had to present photographic ID but if that is the case the identification shouldn't cost the individual.

Bill O'Rights · 01-10-2008, 07:47 AM

I have absolutely no problem with an ID requirement to vote. Most people carry some form of ID on them anyway. For those who do not, I have no problem with the state providing a no cost voter specific ID.

Cynthetiq · 01-10-2008, 07:56 AM

I've only been registered in CA, NJ, NY. Doesn't every state give back a voter registration card? I'm not even sure about NY actually now that I think about it since I don't really look at the political mail. I can't imagine how anyone gets anything done in this day and age especially now that it is a post 9/11 world without some form of ID.

If not, I don't see even charging a fee for processing the ID as problematic in any form either. People have to pay judiary fees ON TOP of parking fines, and judgements. I see no reason to increase the tax base just to insure that people have free IDs.

joshbaumgartner · 01-10-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by belezabaub

I believe all identification should be free. It is unfair that goverment requirement should cost an individual his/her chance to vote, obtain employment or leave or enter their country. Both the US and UK can afford to spend a massive amount of their budget 'liberating' other countries, however they charge their own citizens for ID, essential in participating within a 'liberal society'.

It probably would help voter fraud, if you had to present photographic ID but if that is the case the identification shouldn't cost the individual.

Interesting that if any state tried to tack on a $50 to $100 "fee" that had to be paid at the polling place to get a ballot to vote, I think, rightfully, most of us would be incensed and see it as an unacceptable abridgement of our right to vote. But simply require $50 to $100 (or more) in fees for the ID documents required to vote and that seems perfectly acceptable to most folks?

I'm miffed. I agree with belezabaub: No fees should be required for any licenses, documents, or other government-required paperwork. So-called 'user fees' are a major form of taxation, but it is dis-honest taxation and thus most likely to be used irresponsibly.

Aladdin Sane · 01-10-2008, 08:07 AM

Your delicious irony of the day comes from Florida and Indiana. The litigant who is trying to kill off Indiana’s voter ID law is a walking, talking case of potential voter fraud. She certainly appears to have broken the law by registering to vote in both Indiana and Florida, and by claiming homestead tax exemption in both states. But let’s re-write the law so she doesn’t have to provide proper ID before voting!

Read the article here:
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008...5420740819.prt

dc_dux · 01-10-2008, 09:38 AM

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the issue in question.

It is not opposition to the necessity for a valid ID in order to vote. That is not being questioned.

The question I raised in the OP was if a specific requirement for a STATE-ISSUED PHOTO ID disproportionately impacts particular segments of registered or eligible voters (seniors, minorities) and/or if the rationale for the law (to prevent fraud) is legitimate when the state can produce no evidence of fraud under the old (pre-photo) voter id requirements.

In Indiana, there is a larger percentage of seniors -as opposed to all voting age citizens -who do not possess a STATE-ISSUED PHOTO ID and are now barred from casting a regular ballot until they obtain such an ID. Apparently some 30,000-40,000 seniors who have been voting for years are affected.

Is this an undue burden on a particular class of citizens? To not be an undue burden, the STATE-ISSUED PHOTO IDs should be both free and easily accessible...and they are not.

I wont raise the question of the political motivation of the legislatures in question...intent is much more difficult to prove.

host · 01-10-2008, 01:00 PM

I've moved this series of exchanges, posted over at the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130016&page=2">Comeback Clintons</a> thread, because the exchanges between Ustwo and dc_dux SHOWCASES the different perspectives we at TFP, (_and I'm assuming, across the country), have regarding the background of the origins of the controversy discussed in this thread...are we experiencing in the US, a republican driven voter supression "Op", or a sincere response to the problem of Vote Fraud?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...96#post2377396

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?

I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Republicans are still better at voter suppression in NH, like they did in the 2002 senate election.

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4088097&page=1">How to rig an election</a>

And we still need Congress to enact the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01487:">Ballot Integrity Act</a> to require a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting.

Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

Quote:

Part one of a two-part series.

All reasonable people know it -- it was well documented by various media sources throughout the 2004 election and now we have the concrete proof: Democrats and their operatives were far and away more involved in voter intimidation, fraud, suppression and, yes, disenfranchisement, than Republicans. It's not even close. But don't take our word for it liberals, read the 368-page report by the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights yourself.

Quote:

Remember the incident involving allegations of Democratic operatives slashing the tires of Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee? Here are the actual indictments in the case:

The following is a list of the individuals charged with slashing tires on the morning of November 2, 2004, and their connections to the Democrat campaign in 2004:

Michael J. Pratt

* Paid $7,965.53 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
* Pratt’s father is former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, who chaired the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Milwaukee

Sowande Ajumoke Omodunde (a.k.a “Supreme Solar Allah”)

* Paid $6,059.83 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
* Son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)

Lewis Gibson Caldwell, III

* Paid $4,639.09 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004

Lavelle Mohammad

* Paid $8,858.50 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and America Coming Together ($966 for canvassing work in June and July) in 2004

Justin J. Howell

* Paid $2,550.29 in 2004 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (62)

I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...07#post2377507

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006

Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.

Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.

I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...69#post2377569

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.

I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.

Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...90#post2377590

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?

I am saying there was no evidence that it was a premeditated act with the knowledge of, or planning by, the Democratic party as alleged or implied by the "non-partisan" (give me a break!) ACVR and its director, Thor Hearne, a Republican party operative and former General Counsel for Bush/Cheney 04....rather than an independent and unsanctioned act of vandalism by Democratic campaign workers whose fathers were prominent Democrats. I cant say I am surprised by the way Hearne (and you) would like to portray it.

We obviously see the two cases differently.... the unsubstantiated ACVR allegation regarding the role of the Democratic Party in the tire slashing and the admission in court of NH phone jamming by a Republican party operative and his sworn testimony citing the involvement of the Republican Party of NH (and the advance knowledge and acquiescence of the national party)

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...11#post2377611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So in your world if a bunch of republicans on the republican payroll planned attacks on democrat assets such as the tire slashing then it would just be some guys doing it?

Homey doesn't think you would present it that way......

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...12#post2377612

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its not how I present it...it is the evidence and testimony presented in the two courts of law.

In the one case, there is testimony pointing to Republican party complicity (including plea bargains by high level Republican party officials) and in the other case, there is nothing to indicate the Democratic party's involvement.

Chuck McGee, former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and Republican consultant Allen Raymond (GOP Marketplace's former president) both pled guilty to conspiracy and James Tobin, (regional director of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee at the time) was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in the NH phone jamming.

Dont you think that McGee, Raymond and Tobin, all with direct ties to the RNC, are a bit higher political operatives than the low level "bunch of guys" who slashed the tires?

<h2>The exchanges between Ustwo and dc_dux, from the other thread end here, and my post, a reaction to their exchanges, begins:</h2>

<h3>....and here is an article describing the sentencing of the accused tire slashers and the role that "Rick Wiley, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin", played in the sentencing of the tire slashers:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418855
4 get jail in election day tire slashing
Judge says probation doesn't atone for crime
By MEG JONES

Posted: April 26, 2006

Tossing aside a plea agreement that called for probation, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael B. Brennan sentenced four Democratic Party workers to jail Wednesday for slashing tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to take voters to polls for the 2004 presidential election.

Calling the vandalism more than harmless hijinks, Brennan admonished the men, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee politicians, for disenfranchising voters. The judge said he had received letters from county residents upset over the crime.

"They see you tampering with something they consider sacred, and that's the ballot box," Brennan said during a two-hour sentencing....

...
At the time of the pleas, Assistant District Attorney David Feiss said that if the defendants collectively paid $5,317.45 restitution by their sentencing Wednesday - which they did - he would recommend they all get probation. Misdemeanor property damage carries a possible maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

But Brennan said stiffer punishment was needed.

"This case has to be an example of what happens if you interfere in voters' rights," Brennan said....
....Before Brennan sentenced the defendants, Rick Wiley, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, told the judge that the crime warranted more than probation. "I think it's kind of a travesty that the defendants here can kind of go on their merry way."

After listening to Brennan sentence the men, Wiley smiled and said, "I think the judge did a great job. I think it's going to deter people in the future" from campaign vandalism....

But....should not, as far as accountability and punishment, ONE SIZE FIT ALL, when it comes to impeding and suppressing the vote, especially when it stems from a highly organized conspiracy, engineered at very high levels of government, professional association, and partisan political organizations, instead of from the random decision by a few misguided partisans, to engage in slashing of tires of a fleet of voter transport vans, in one location, on one election day?

Let's begin with a look at "Rick Wiley, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin".... but, before we do that, let's pinpoint the origin of the vote suppression sentiment as republican party policy:

1980, the co-founder of the conservative republican Council for National Policy declared:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...te#post2345838

Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote ...."

Quote:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=588156
State GOP official pushed vote fraud issue
Posted: April 7, 2007

Daniel Bice
No Quarter

The mystery is solved.

For weeks, it was unclear who whined to the White House last year that not enough voter fraud cases were being prosecuted in Milwaukee.

Now we know.

The state Republican Party went straight to the top in its efforts to make voter fraud an issue in Wisconsin.

Sources tell No Quarter that Rick Wiley, then the executive director of the state GOP, directed a staffer in 2005 to prepare a 30-page report on election abuses in Wisconsin <h3>so Wiley could pass it along to a top White House official.</h3>

That document, entitled "Fraud in Wisconsin 2004: A Timeline/Summary," turned up last week in the horde of White House and U.S. Justice Department records released by the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

"The report was prepared for Karl Rove," said a source with knowledge of the situation. <h3>"Rick wanted it so he could give it to Karl Rove."</h3>

Yeah, that Karl Rove, President Bush's political mastermind and his deputy chief of staff.

The same guy who was knee-deep in helping decide which U.S. attorneys to keep or to boot.

So the head of the state party went to the political arm of the White House with a report supposedly documenting widespread abuse of election laws in Milwaukee, violations that the party clearly believed weren't getting the attention they deserved. In late 2005, U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic, a Bush appointee, announced that his probe found no evidence of a conspiracy to steal the 2004 election here.

Was Wiley - or his boss at the time, then-Chairman Rick Graber - hoping the Bush team would ax Biskupic, as it did the other top federal prosecutors last year?

"I'm not sure it was that nefarious," said the knowledgeable source. "I think the idea was to make Rove aware of the situation in Wisconsin."

Gee, that's an awfully generous reading of the facts.

Look at what White House officials have put on the record.

Last month, Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said that, beginning in mid-2004, the White House received complaints that federal prosecutors were not vigorously pursuing complaints of voter fraud in Philadelphia, New Mexico and Milwaukee. She said the president met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in October to discuss those concerns, among other things.

White House Counsel Dan Bartlett made it clear in a March 13 press briefing who specifically was coming under criticism.

"Over the course of several years, we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases - not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania."

Then consider the high-profile testimony from Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

Under questioning from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sampson said Rove was leaning on the attorney general.

"I do remember learning - I believe, from the attorney general - that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in three jurisdictions, including New Mexico," Sampson said on March 29.

"And the substance of the complaint was that those U.S. attorneys weren't pursuing voter fraud cases aggressively enough."

Hmmm, who were those two other prosecutors that Rove brought up to Gonzales? Were they from the areas named by Perino and Bartlett?

More to the point: Was Biskupic on the chopping block?

For now, that question will remain unanswered.

U.S. Sens. Herb Kohl or Russ Feingold - both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee - failed to raise the question at the Sampson hearing.

And everybody else's lips are sealed.

Wiley, now with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, was unavailable. Chris Lato, the party's former press guy and now a WTMJ-AM (620) reporter, also didn't return calls. Graber, now the U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic, has declined to talk.

Biskupic had little to say early in the week, repeating his earlier statements that he didn't know anybody was complaining about him.

On Friday, he did not return calls.

Which is understandable, given the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling late last week that tossed his case against a former state worker.

So it was a tough week for Biskupic, but at least he still has his job.

Quote:

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2...ied-about.html
News From The U.S. Election Reform Movement

Tuesday, January 25, 2005
News Exclusive: G.O.P. Lied About Democratic Tire-Slashing in Wisconsin; Affected Vans Were Designated Primarily for Poll-Watchers, No Voters Affected

By ADVOCATE STAFF

You could be forgiven for thinking that five street criminals doing dirty work for the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign in Wisconsin swung the general election in the Badger State to the Democratic candidate.

You could be forgiven for that misapprehension, given the claims by the national and Wisconsin G.O.P. that the twenty-five Bush-Cheney vans whose tires were slashed in Milwaukee on Election Day were designated solely for emergency transportation of Republican voters who otherwise would not have voted -- and who, under the scenario put forward by Republicans, may not, in fact, have ultimately voted.

The Wisconsin tire-slashing has been used by Republicans for the past sixty days to fend off Democratic accusations that most if not all of the coordinated voter suppression efforts on Election Day were engineered by the Republican Party.

In some radical conservative quarters, the rumor-mongering has even led some Republicans to openly speculate that Bush really won Wisconsin.

Then again, maybe not.

Especially now that a substantial piece of the Republican tire-slashing scenario -- utilized so effectively by the G.O.P. to deflect Democratic criticism of the presidential election in Ohio -- appears to have been a lie.

A good one, too. Because it worked.

Witness, for example, the Republican-fueled hysteria over the tire-slashing incident in the days and weeks following the election:

"About thirty rented cars and vans that were to be used in the Wisconsin Republican Party's get-out-the-vote effort had their tires slashed Tuesday morning..."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137323,00.html
-- Fox News Channel, November 3rd, 2004

"...a state Republican party news release accused [Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann] of 'dragging his feet' in the investigation of the election-day slashings of tires on twenty vehicles Republicans had rented to drive voters to the polls..."
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=292520
-- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, January 12th, 2005

"Said [Republican Party of Wisconsin Executive Director Rick Wiley], 'This was a coordinated act of political sabotage allegedly involving several paid staffers of the Democrat Party of Wisconsin...."....Early on the morning of the November 2nd, 2004 election, tires on twenty vehicles were slashed while parked in a lot in the 7100 block of West Capitol Drive. The vehicles were to be used by RPW in part to help voters get to the polls, including the elderly and disabled..."

-- The Conservative Voice, January 12th, 2005

"Two sons of prominent Democratic politicians and three paid party activists will face felony charges as a result of a widely-publicized attempt to keep Republicans from voting on Election Day in Milwaukee..."

-- Front Page Magazine, January 24th, 2005

Then witness, if you will, how the story imperceptibly, yet on a crucial point, suddenly changes, and with nary an asterisk from the mainstream media:

"The sons of a first-term congresswoman and of Milwaukee's former acting mayor were among five Democratic activists charged Monday with slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans to drive voters and monitors to the polls on Election Day."

-- The Washington Post, January 25th, 2005

And now consider, for a moment, where the story stands at this very minute:

"The GOP rented more than 100 vehicles that were parked in a lot adjacent to a Bush campaign office. The party planned to drive poll watchers to polling places by 7 a.m. and deliver any voters who didn't have a ride...[Republican Party of Wisconsin Executive Director Rick] Wiley didn't say whether the vandalism prevented anyone from voting, but he said poll watchers were about two hours late."

-- CNN, January 25th, 2005

<h3>Is that it?

Is this the Republican response to the House Judiciary Committee's 102-page report on voting irregularities? That Republican "poll watchers" -- largely designated, incidentally, to "cage" minority voters at polling places around the country -- were "two hours late"?

And can it be that the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin can't even identify a single Republican voter disenfranchised by the tire-slashing -- which, as it turns out, was in no way sponsored, supported, condoned, or sanctioned by the Kerry-Edwards campaign or the Democratic Party of Wisconsin?</h3>

The G.O.P.'s fraudulent media blitz over the slashed tires is made all the more nauseating by the fact that Republicans have claimed since 2000 -- erroneously, as it turns out -- that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission never found a single African-American who was disenfranchised by Republican antics leading up to the 2000 general election.

[Hint: try starting with Jeb Bush's illegal purging of 90,000 legitimate voters from the Florida voting rolls prior to Election Day 2000, with tens of thousands of them being, quite conveniently, Democratic-leaning minority-group members].

See Related Stories:

("Democrats Charged in Election Day Tire-Slashing in Wisconsin," CNN and The Associated Press, 1/25/05)
http://web.archive.org/web/200502090...es.slashed.ap/

("Democratic Activists Face Charges," The Washington Post, 1/25/05)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...4.html?sub=new

("Wait for Criminal Charges in Tire-Slashing Case Now in Its Third Month," The Conservative Voice, 1/12/05)

http://web.archive.org/web/200501131...p?storyid=1971

<h3>The question for the thread is; how does the following, well documented ALL OUT effort by highly connected republican politcal officials to hype an issue - VOTE FRAUD, which apparantly is rare to the point that it almost never occurs, compares to the arrest of a handful of partisan "tire slashers", working to render a small fleet of republican party voter transfer vans, inoperable on one election day, in one location?</h3>

Is it more reasonable to dismiss the tire slashing for what it has been reported to be....an uncoordinated incident of partisan motivated vandalism of little consequence, except for the way it was used as part of a massive hyped, campaign of disinformation intended to deflect from the well planned, long standing conspiracy to actually suppress the vote, nationally, election after election, by the opposing major political party....or to focus on the "tire slashing" as the smoking gun, highlight of the REAL problem?

Quote:

http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=4418
<center>KEY BRAD BLOG ARTICLES IN THE SERIES SO FAR 
(Most recent articles at bottom of list.)</center>
<blockquote>03/22/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1276">The First Report Concerning the "American Center for Voting Rights"</a> 
Group shows up to testify at phony hearings on "Ohio Election Irregularities" held by House Administrative Comm. Chair Bob Ney (R-OH) 
03/22/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001276.htm">New 'Non-Partisan' 'Voting Rights' Org Appears Little More than Republican Front Group!</a>

<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1282"><center><img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/AC4VR_Hearne_RNLAOhio.jpg"></center></a>
03/23/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001279.htm">High-Level Republicans from the New 'Non-Partisan' 'American Center for Voting Rights' Explain Themselves...</a>
03/24/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1282"> 'Voting Rights' Group Leader Withholds Bush/Cheney/RNC Ties During Congressional Testimony!</a>
03/24/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1283">Mystery Solved! Location of 'American Center for Voting Rights' Found! Exclusive Photographs!</a>
<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1283"><center><img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/AC4VR_WhoIsRecord.gif"></center></a>
<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1283"><center><img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/AC4VR_299_POBox_Headquarters.jpg"></center></a>
03/25/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001283.htm">Air America Picks up Our Story on the ACVR!</a>
03/26/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001286.htm">Help Counter the ACVR/GOP Disinformation Campaign!</a>

<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1292"><img src="http://www.BradBlog.com/Images/AC4VR_JimDyke.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="right"></a>03/28/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1292">'Non-Partisan' Ring-Leaders of GOP 'Voting Rights' Front Group Currently Very Active Partisans!</a>
03/29/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001293.htm"> Bush's 'Hometown' Crawford Paper reports on ACVR!</a>
03/30/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001295.htm"> Right-Wing Extremist 'News' Service Attempts to Legitimize Phony GOP 'Voting Rights' Group!</a>
03/30/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001296.htm">RNC Political Director Cites Report by RNC 'Voting Rights' Front Group to RNC Email List!</a> 
PLUS: ACVR has the inside skinny on the Baker/Carter Commission! ACVR News Release published just 24 minutes after commission was announced!
03/31/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001298.htm">Revealing More About the Phony 'Voting Rights' Org and the Collusion of the Rightwing Echo Chamber of Friends Who Support It!</a> 

GOPUSA Runs CNS Story on GOP Front Group ACVR! The axis-of-evil-acronyms.
04/12/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001316.htm">The ACVR Lands on the Baker/Carter Blue-Ribbon Election Reform Commission!</a> 
Anyone surprised?
<a href="http://larisaunplugged.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/11/themap.gif"><img src="http://www.atlargely.com/images/2007/04/11/themap.gif" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="left"></a>04/14/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001322.htm">RAW STORY EXPOSÉ FINDS ACVR COLLUDING WITH BAKER/CARTER COMMISSION!</a> 
Surprised yet? Story includes loads of other troubling related issues!
04/27/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001357.htm">New ACVR Details from Columbus Free Press</a> 
Bob Fitraks connects a few more dots on the phony GOP Front Group.

06/22/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001486.htm">ACVR Continues Attempts at Defrauding American Voters</a> 
Issue smokescreen press release in reply to DNC Election 2004 Report. 
Preparing to release their own 'Voter Fraud' report even as Exec Director Thor Hearne lies on video tape.
08/2/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001650.htm">ACVR Delivers Onslaught of Disinfo Today!</a> 
Releases Report, Six Press Releases Focusing on Democratic 'Election Fraud' 
Massive Republican Voter Disenfranchisement Virtually Unmentioned, Phony Quotes by 'Democrat' Used in Releases

08/2/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001651.htm"> ACVR Scams American Democracy</a> 
GOP Grateful, DNC Still Keeps Head in the Sand
08/3/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001653.htm"> Rightwingers, 'News' Sites Fall Hook, Line & Sinker for ACVR Scam Report</a> 
Blogs and 'Journalists' Alike Fall Over Themselves to Cover Phony GOP 'Voting Rights' Group Propaganda
08/8/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001671.htm">ACVR Adds a 'Democrat' to Their Team! And he's a Fake too!</a> 

Brian Lunde shows up as an ACVR scamster. They claim he's a Democrat, but whaddaya know? He's also works with Karl Rove, and is a donor to Bush/Cheney '04 and to a PAC dedicated to "Maintaining a Republican Majority" --- like all good Democrats, of course!
08/15/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001707.htm">Indicted GOP Moneyman Abramoff Tied To ACVR, the Phony GOP 'Voting Rights' Group!</a> 
The DNC Finally Fights Back at the Republican Run 'American Center for Voting Rights' Hoax! 
PLUS: Proof that Republicans only pretend to hate Marxists and More on ACVR's Fake 'Democrat'!
08/18/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001727.htm">The Mainstream Media Catches on to the ACVR Fraudsters!</a> 
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review calls them and the Pennsylvania Republican Party out for the America and democracy-hating sheisters they are.
10/6/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001898.htm">'Non-Partisan' 'Voting Rights' Group Founder Works for White House!</a> 

ACVR's Jim Dyke Moonlights to Push Bush Supreme Court Nominee 
'Honesty and Integrity' in the Bush-Era Now at it's Bushiest Level of All Time!
10/11/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001911.htm"> 'Non-Partisan' 'Voting Rights' Group Founder Now Works for Dick Cheney's Office!</a> 
Will the "non-partisanship" ever stop?!
11/23/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002065.htm">Ohio's U.S. Rep. Bob Ney Reportedly on Verge of Indictment</a> 
Corrupt Ohio Congressman, who gave ACVR their "big break" in Congress, may be headed to slammer!
12/15/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002166.htm">ACVR Frivolous Legal Attacks Against Legit Voting Groups Have All Collapsed</a>

12/30/05: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002217.htm">Connecting More Dots Between ACVR and More High-Level GOP Officials</a>
1/10/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002261.htm">The Soon-to-be-Indicted Rep. Bob Ney's Connection to Ohio Electoral Fraud and More!</a> 
A BRAD BLOG EXPOSÉ: The dots begin to converge --- big time --- between Ney, former staffers turned Diebold lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, the ACVR, HAVA legislation, pay-offs and other top-level GOP operatives!
4/10/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002676.htm">Karl Rove Thanks ACVR's Thor Hearne for Work on 'Clean Elections' in 2000 and 2004</a>

10/11/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3609">U.S. Elections Assistance Commission Withheld Report Showing 'Voter Fraud' (as Opposed to ELECTION Fraud) Not a Problem!</a> 
Democracy Hater, GOP Operative, Thor Hearne of the Phony Anti-American Front Group 'American Center for Voting Rights' is Back Spreading Propoganda for the Republicans! 
And the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is Set to Help Them in a Hearing this Friday...
10/13/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3611]">The EAC's Buried Report on 'Voter Fraud' --- or Actually Lack Thereof --- and 'Thor' Hearne's Continuing Loathesome Attempts to Destroy American Democracy</a> 
No Wonder Hearne's Phony GOP Front-Group, ACVR, Didn't Want to See the Report Released 

They're Named Three Times as the Only Group Forwarding the 'Voter Fraud' Bullshit!
10/16/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3628"> Missouri Supreme Court Declares State Photo ID Laws Unconsitutional (Again!)</a> 
Court Rulings (and Facts) Continue to Pile Up Against Those Who Hate Democracy (Like Thor Hearne and the ACVR), Who Want to Keep YOU From Being Able to Vote! 
Decision Echoes Other Such Findings in Georgia and Arizona...
10/27/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3677">Bush's U.S. Elections Assistance Commission is Hopelessly Compromised, Misleading America and Utterly Failing in Their Job of Overseeing U.S. Elections</a> 
Current Chairman Paul DeGregorio Now Running a Desperate Misinformation Propaganda Campaign Just Days Before Election...

12/5/06: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3879"> Discredited Mark F. 'Thor' Hearne's Permanent Seat at the Discredited EAC Table</a> 
Founder of Phony Anti-Democracy GOP Front Group, Bush/Cheney Operative, Welcomed Again as 'Expert' at America's Federal Elections Oversight Commission Hearings...
<img src="http://www.BradBlog.com/Images/RoveHearneGOP_DoJ_DemocracyHaters.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="right">3/15/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4276">EXCLUSIVE: New Details on the Phony 'Voter Fraud' Angle in the U.S. Attorneys Purge Scandal...</a> 
An Insider's Report from a New Mexico Election Attorney on the Firing of David Iglesias and the Rove/DoJ/Republican Efforts to Create a 2004 'Voter Fraud' Scare in the State... 
RELATED? - The GOP 'Voter Fraud' Front Group ACVR Goes Suddenly AWOL!

3/16/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4280">NY Times on the Phony 'Voter Fraud' Claims Behind U.S. Attorney Purge</a> 
More Evidence that the Bush Administration Used the Dept. of Justice for Little More Than a Blunt Political Instrument 
Even as Democrats Continue to Rubber Stamp Wildly Inappropriate White House Appointments to Oversee the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission...
3/26/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4324"> Evidence Suggests U.S. Attorney Firings May Have Been Part of White House Scheme to Help Game 2008 Election</a> 
Karl Rove Associate and GOP Operative Tim Griffin's Appointment in Arkansas --- and Others Like it --- Are Worth Noting as the Scandal Continues to Unravel...
3/30/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4341">EAC Finally Releases Previously Withheld, 9 Month Old Report on 'Voter ID' Concerns After Congressional Prodding</a> 

One of Several Reports 'Buried' by EAC, Shows Drop in Voter Participation in Wake of Poll Restrictions, Is Shamelessly Described as 'Draft' 
Election Law Professor Warns: 'Chance for EAC to be an Honest Broker Above Politics Are Fading'...
4/5/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4372">The GOP's ACORN 'Voter Fraud' Canard Appears Again, This Time in U.S. Attorney Purge Scandal</a> 
NM's David Iglesias Pressured by Republicans to Bring 'Voter Fraud' Charges Against Voter Registration Group 
But Prosecutor Found No Case Worth Bringing...
4/11/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4391">U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION ALTERED FINAL REPORT ON 'VOTER FRAUD' FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES</a> 
NY Times Finds Original Bi-Partisan Draft Report, Buried by the EAC, Concluded Fears of 'Voter Fraud' Were Overblown 
Altered, Politicized Report Follows Familiar White House Pattern, Brings Additional New Concerns About Continuing Status of EAC... 

Guest Blogged by Arlen Parsa with additional reporting by Brad Friedman
4/15/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4410">Federal Judge Finds Against U.S. Dept. of Justice in Missouri 'Voter Fraud' Case</a> 
Democratic Secretary of State Acted Properly, Voter Registration Database Meets Federal Standards, No 'Voter Fraud' Found...
4/19/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4429">A Direct, As Yet Unreported Connection in the U.S. Attorney Purge Scandal Leading Straight to the White House</a> 
Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins Was Fired Just After Reports Surfaced of Investigation into Law Firm of Top Level White House/GOP Operative and Close-Friend-of-Rove, Thor Hearne 

Prosecutor Was Replaced by Rove Aide Timothy Griffin...
<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4447"><img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/PresidentsMenMissouri_DoJ.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="right"></a>4/23/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4447">THE UNDERLYING CRIME: White House Interference into a U.S. Attorney's Criminal Investigation in Missouri</a> 
High-Level White House, DoJ, Rove Operatives Went to Work While now-Fired Prosecutor Bud Cummins Was Building a Case Against Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and the WH Connected MO Law Firm Lathrope & Gage...
5/2/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4494">High-Level White House/DoJ Operative Thor Hearne Hired a High-Level White House/DoJ Operative to Put out Fire in Missouri Investigation Leading to Dismissal of U.S. Attorney</a> 

Powerful GOP Missouri Lawyer at Powerful GOP Missouri Law Firm Admits Bringing Powerful GOP Attorney William Mateja in to Manage DoJ Investigaton of Lathrop & Gage, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt 
Firm Also Recently Hired Governor's Sister Amy... More is Still to Come...
5/2/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4500">McClatchy: 'Missouri Was Ground Zero' For GOP 'Voter Fraud' Scam, Thor Hearne and ACVR at Center of Scheme</a> 
National Mainstream Media FINALLY Picks up on, Exposes the 'Non-Partisan' 'American Center for Voting Rights' Fraud...
<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4519"><img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/AC4VR_Logo_Against_OwnedByACORN.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="right"></a>5/7/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4519">EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Takes Control of High-Level GOP Front Group ACVR's Internet Domain Names!</a> 

Abandoned Webspace of White House-Connected 'Voter Fraud' Group, 'American Center For Voting Rights', Purchased by DC Attorney; Handed Over to Non-Profit Which They Had Targeted for Years! 
As More Allegations of DoJ Corruption in Missouri --- 'Ground Zero' for the ACVR Republican Fraudsters --- Continue to Reach Towards the Oval Office, Underscore Need for Congressional Investigation...
5/17/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4568">CEO RESIGNS FROM MISSOURI LEGAL FIRM EMBROILED IN U.S. ATTORNEY PURGE, GOP 'VOTER FRAUD' SCAM</a> 
Is the Noose Tightening Around Lathrop & Gage, Thor Hearne, Gov. Matt Blunt and the American Center for Voting Rights Corrupt Law Firm?
<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4647"><img src="http://www.BradBlog.com/Images/ThorHearne_LookingAtYou.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="left"></a>5/18/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4576">Finally: The ACVR's 'Voter Fraud' Scam Outed in All Their Ignominious Shame in New Slate Article!</a> 

Rick Hasen's: 'The Fraudulent Fraud Squad - The Incredible, Disappearing American Center for Voting Rights'
6/6/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4647">NPR Covers the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) 'Voter Fraud' Scam</a> 
'Liberal Blogger Brad Friedman' Interviewed in Report on Disappearance of GOP 'Vote Fraud' Fraudsters and Their White House Connections 
Nobody from ACVR Agrees to Speak to Them on Record, But the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Says Thor Hearne Has Some Complaints About The BRAD BLOG...
6/7/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4652">Post-Dispatch: ACVR's Thor Hearn Blames The BRAD BLOG for His Demise</a> 

(Imagine What We Could Have Done if the GOP Gave US the Million Dollars That Thor Had?!)
6/12/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4680">Wikipedia Entry for GOP 'Voter Fraud' Front Group Co-Founder, Thor Hearne, Scrubbed of References to ACVR</a> 
Latest Edit Performed by Someone at Hearne's Lawfirm, Lathrop & Gage, According to Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog...
6/13/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4684">GOP Vote Fraudster Thor Hearne's Attempt to Disappear Himself from Wikipedia Continues</a> 

PLUS: The GOP 'Voter Fraud' Legislation-Influencing Front Group Lied on Their Tax Disclosure Forms, Claiming They DID NOT Attempt to 'Influence Legislation'...
6/15/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4691">Hearne Created In-State Missouri 'Voter Fraud' Front Group, Funded It With ACVR Dollars</a> 
Group Was Run by Another Shady Character Involved in Missouri Fee Office Scandal, Connected to Jack Abramoff Groups... 
Guest Blogged by Howard Beale of Fired Up! Missouri
6/15/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4693">'Hello,' He Lied: Thor Hearne Says 'No Conspiracy Afoot' Behind Effort to Scrub ACVR References from His Wikipedia Page</a> 
Tells Paper It Was Marketing Department at His Lawfirm, Lathrop & Gage, Who Dunnit 

Beyond That, Has No Idea Why His 'Client' ACVR's Website Disappeared... 
PLUS: More on Todd Graves & Tim Griffin...
6/19/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4705">Three Fresh Thor Hearne/ACVR Exposés for Your Phony 'Voter Fraud'/US Attorney Purge Pleasure...</a> 
Coverage at Columbus FreePress, TPMCafe and National Journal...
7/1/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4760">ACVR Reached into New Mexico U.S. Attorney Firing; More Details Unearthed in GOP 'Voter Fraud' Front Group's Central Role in Republican National Strategy to Game Elections</a> 

Founder, Front Man, Thor Hearne, Crawls Out from Under His Rock to Provide a Few Laughs 
Even as His Vote Suppression Efforts Continue to Haunt the DoJ, America's Electoral System...
8/26/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5006">Another Media Outlet Digs Into the Nefarious Thor Hearne and His 'American Center for Voting Rights'</a> 
Many Questions, Legal and Otherwise, Still Unanswered Concerning the Mysteriously-Funded 'Non-Partisan' GOP Front Group
12/12/07: <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5434">Thor Hearne, the GOP's 'Voter Fraud' Fraudster, Gets His Groove Back</a> 

<h2>Files Amicus Brief to SCOTUS in Indiana Photo ID Case, on Behalf of New Congressional 'Clients'</h2> 
Dems Indignantly Issue More Harshly Worded Statements, as Voter Suppression Mainlined by Bush DoJ...

I offer an apology for taking until the last lines (right above this sentence) to connect all of the above to the subject of this thread....but....it turns out that it is that involved, and here we are !

Seaver · 01-10-2008, 02:40 PM

Host, do I really need to copy/paste random dribble from a Conservative blog which has nothing to do with each other in order to seem like I know what I'm talking about?

You need an ID to drive.
You need an ID to drink.
You need an ID to go to school.
You need an ID to work.
You need an ID to deposit/withdraw money from a bank.
You need an ID to use a credit card
You need an ID to rent an apartment.
You need an ID to buy cigarettes.
You need an ID to buy electricity/water/gas/cable/internet utilities.
You need an ID to <et al>.

Seriously, this is only preventing illegals and convicts from voting.

loquitur · 01-10-2008, 03:00 PM

I read the transcript of the oral argument at the Supreme Court.

There is not a shadow of a chance in hell that they will toss this Indiana law on the current record. It'll probably be 6-3 or 7-2. Even Breyer was skeptical of the challenge.

host · 01-10-2008, 04:00 PM

What the fuck kind of a country do you boys want me to have to live in? Here is a "commission" on election "reform" that conducted hearings where the public was not permitted to testify, yet it sported an advisory board with a member who has been exposed as a criminal, republican sponsored vote REFORM, saboteur, Mark "Thor" Hearne:

Quote:

http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/
COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM

The Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, issued its report with 87 recommendations on September 19, 2005. The Commission was organized by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management (CDEM) and remains an ongoing project of CDEM to make sure that future elections are an improvement on the past ones. The project will focus on evaluating the impact of the Help America Vote Act and will bring the Commission's recommendations to the attention of the executive and legislative branches of federal and state governments and to the public....

http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/members.htm
Co-Chairs

President Jimmy Carter

President Carter was the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and 83rd Governor of Georgia from 1971 to 1975. In 1982 he founded the Carter Center as a forum for mediating conflicts and promoting democracy, health care, and human rights. He co-chaired with former President Gerald Ford the National Commission on Election Reform.

Read full bio

Honorable James A. Baker, III

James A. Baker, III has served in senior government positions under three United States Presidents. He served as Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, and White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Baker is presently a senior partner in the law firm of Baker Botts and Honorary Chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

Read full bio

Meet the Academic Advisory Committee Members.
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/aadvisory.htm
Academic Advisors...

<h2>....Mark F. Hearne II, Partner, Lathrop and Gage LC</h2>

Quote:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1317&print=1
<center>
<div id="Outline">
Conyers to Carter: James Baker 'Inappropriate' for Blue-Ribbon Election Commission!

Ranking Minority House Judiciary Comm. Member Calls for True Voting Rights Advocates to Be Included on Commission
ALSO: American Center for Voting Rights GOP Front Group Confirmed as 'Academic Advisor' to Panel!
Posted By Brad Friedman On 12th April 2005 @ 11:44 In Election Irregularities, Election 2004, ACVR | Comments Disabled

<div id="BlogContent"><img src="http://www.BradBlog.com/Images/Siren.gif" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="left">In a letter sent yesterday by Congressman John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, to former-President Jimmy Carter, Conyers has expressed his "strong opposition" to the "conflicting interest" of having Bush/Cheney loyalist, James A. Baker, III serve as the Co-Chair of a recently seated blue-ribbon commission set to investigate Election 2004!
<img src="http://www.BradBlog.com/Images/BakerConyersCarter.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="3" border="0" align="right">Carter has been named as Co-Chair, along with Baker, on the secretly convened and recently announced commission to investigate problems in Election 2004 and to make recommendations on changes needed to improve accuracy, confidence, transparency and inclusion in the American Electoral System.
From <a href="http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/ltrtopotuscarter.pdf" target="_blank">Conyers' letter to Carter [PDF]</a> [1]...
<div class="media">For many of us, Mr. Baker will be forever remembered for his ultimately successful efforts to shut down the counting of votes in the 2000 Florida election and I am concerned that his involvement in that election may present a conflict with the goals and initiatives of your Commission.</div>

In the letter, Conyers also calls upon Carter to include true Voting Rights and Election Reform advocacy groups such as <a href="http://www.VelvetRevolution.us" target="_blank">Velvet Revolution</a> [2] on the commission which is currently staffed instead by politicos and Bush/Cheney/RNC cronies.
ALSO: <a href="http://www.BradBlog.com" target="_blank">The BRAD BLOG</a> [3] can now confirm that Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II, the National Attorney for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. and leader of the recently invented, phony GOP front group calling themselves the "non-partisan" <a href="http://www.AC4VR.com" target="_blank">American Center for Voting Rights</a> [4] (ACVR) has been seated on the Academic Advisory board for this commission!

The fix, as we've been warning for some time, is clearly --- and dangerously --- in with this commission! 
For more on the Bush/Cheney/RNC-run ACVR and how they are tied directly to the Baker/Carter Commission, please see the <a href="http://www.BradBlog.com/ACVR" target="_blank">BRAD BLOG Special Coverage page on the developing ACVR scam</a> [5].
UPDATE: The letter from Conyers to Carter is now posted <a href="http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/ltrtopotuscarter.pdf" target="_blank">here [PDF]</a> [6]. As well, Conyers has just blogged on the topic, and added even stronger language for his concern of Baker on this commission. From the just posted item at ConyersBlog:
<div class="media">How can an individual who played a critical role in the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Floridians now co-chair a Commission which should have as its mission ensuring that every vote counts?

This is of great concern to me and should be of great concern to every single person who cares about this important issue. <a href="http://velvetrevolution.us/content/electoralreform/BakerCarterComm_PressRelease_033005.php" target="_blank">Online activists</a> [7] have been taking a close look at this issue. Please keep an eye on it.</div>
...MORE WILL BE COMING ON BRAD BLOG CONCERNING THE BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION, ITS MAKE-UP, AND THE INSIDIOUS GAMING OF ITS MANDATE...STAY TUNED...

Quote:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5524&print=1

<center>
<div id="Outline">
USA Today: Voters Who Would be Disenfranchised, as Photo ID Case Set to be Heard by SCOTUS on Wednesday

Republican Vote Suppression Scheme, Said to be 'Most Important Voting Rights Case Since Bush v. Gore' to be Judged by Republican Supreme Court
[UPDATE: USA Today Allows Discredited GOP Vote Suppressor, Con Man, Thor Hearne to Blog on Their Website in Reply!]
Posted By Brad Friedman On 7th January 2008 @ 18:40 In Indiana, ACVR, Photo ID Laws, U.S. Supreme Court | 8 Comments

<div id="BlogContent">In advance of Wednesday's hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court on the landmark case concerning the Republican Photo ID polling place restrictions in the state of Indiana, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-06-court_N.htm" target="_blank">USA Today reports...</a> [1]
<div class="media">WASHINGTON — The League of Women Voters has tried to put names and faces on the people who could be hurt by a strict Indiana voter-identification law that the Supreme Court will take up Wednesday.
The league, in a court filing, refers to Mary Wayne Montgomery Eble, 92, who had no driver's license or ready access to the birth certificate she needed to get an alternative ID.
Ray Wardell, a stroke victim, made one trip to a state office for an alternative ID in vain. He did not have the proper document and returned home on foot with the aid of his walker.
Kim Tilman, a mother of seven whose husband, a janitor, is the family's sole source of income, found it would cost $26-$50 to round up the necessary papers for a proper ID.
The league is among the groups backing Indiana challengers to the law who say it impinges on the right to vote and mostly hurts elderly, disabled, poor and minority voters. A Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure in 2005.</div>

Backers of the law have been unable to cite a single case of "voter fraud", apparently in Indiana history, that would have been prevented by this law, which is, as <a href="http://www.BradBlog.com" target="_blank">BRAD BLOG</a> [2] readers know well by now, meant to do little more than keep as many Democratic-leaning voters from being able to exercise their right to cast a legal vote in an election.
UPDATE 1/8/08: Where USA Today did themselves proud with the article linked above, they did themselves in by giving space to discredited GOP operative, snake-oil salesman, vote suppression front man, Thor Hearne to blog in reply. Hearne shouldn't be allowed outside of a jail cell, much less allowed to post his lies, disinformation and propaganda with impunity at USA Today. And I've said as much in the comments section (typos and all, in my middle-of-the-night, outraged response) below <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/opposing-view-m.html" target="_blank">his blog item at the newspaper's website</a> [3].

It's incredible that USA Today did not note Hearne's dozens of conflicts of interest with the very item he wrote on their pages. As to Hearne, it would hardly be the first time this conman has slid by without telling the truth about who he actually is.
Shame on USA Today. If readers here are unaware who and what Thor Hearne is, see our years long special coverage on him and the GOP propaganda scam he has been running right here: <a href="http://www.BradBlog.com/ACVR" target="_blank">www.BradBlog.com/ACVR</a> [4].
</div>
<hr class="Divider" align="center" />
Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com

URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5524
URLs in this post: [1] USA Today reports...: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-06-court_N.htm [2] BRAD BLOG: http://www.BradBlog.com [3] his blog item at the newspaper's website: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/opposing-view-m.html [4] www.BradBlog.com/ACVR: http://www.BradBlog.com/ACVR

Click <a href="#Print" onclick="window.print(); return false;" title="Click here to print.">here</a> to print.
</div>

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/18/voter-id-sponsor/
<h2 class="title">Voter ID Sponsor: If Blacks “Are Not Paid To Vote, They Don’t Go To The Polls”</h2>
Tom Daschle blogged on ThinkProgress yesterday about the problems with a Voter ID bill proposed in Georgia. He called it a “<a href="/2005/11/17/appointees-voting/">modern day poll-tax</a>” that would make it harder for people to exercise their right to vote.

Apparently, that was the intent. In a memo released today, the bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta), <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051124203157/http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/1105/18natvra.html">explained the rationale of her bill</a>:
<blockquote>The chief sponsor of Georgia’s voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district “are not paid to vote, they don’t go to the polls,” and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud.
The newly released Justice Department memo quoting state Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) was prepared by department lawyers as the federal government considered whether to approve the new law.</blockquote>
As <a href="/2005/11/17/appointees-voting/">Daschle noted yesterday</a>, the Washington Post reported “A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602504.html">recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters</a>,” but were overruled by political appointees.

(HT: <a href="http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003107.html">War and Piece</a>)

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/spakovsky-primer/

<h2 class="title">Hans Von Spakovsky 101: How To Suppress The Vote Like A Pro</h2>
<img src='/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/von_spakovsky.jpg' class=imgright alt='von_spakovsky.jpg' />
Today, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004289.php#more">will vote</a> on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. In June, the Rules Committee <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/feinstein-warns-fec-member-of-rough-confirmation-process-2007-06-14.html">held a confirmation hearing</a> on four nominees to the FEC. But much of the hearing focused on <a href="http://www.civilrights.org/press_room/buzz_clips/civilrightsorg-stories/who-is-hans-von-spakovksy.html">Spakovsky</a>, who has become a lighting rod for criticism over his controversial tenure in the Justice Department. 

The committee <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wirestory?id=3275151">did not vote on von Spakovsky at the time</a> because chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wanted to give Spakovsky “a chance to respond in writing to a <a href="http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-2667.html">letter</a>, submitted by six former career staffers at the Justice Department, opposing his nomination.” 
Spakovsky, a former political appointee in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division whom President Bush temporarily placed on the FEC using <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060104-3.html">a recess appointment</a>, is said to have “used every opportunity he had over four years in the Justice Department to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702289.html">make it difficult for voters</a> — poor, minority and Democratic — to go to the polls.”

Here’s an overview of his record of disenfranchising voters:
<blockquote>Spakovsky stalled ruling on Mississippi redistricting, effecting electoral outcomes: In 2002, under Spakovsky’s leadership, the DoJ <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200984_pf.html">stalled</a> making a determination under the Voting Rights Act on a conservative-drawn redistricting plan, approving it by default. The plan <a href="http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-109.html">influenced the outcome of a key House race</a>.
Spakovsky pushed through Texas re-districting that violated the Voting Rights Act: In 2003, “<a href="http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-109.html">led the battle within [the] Civil Rights Division</a> to approve the Texas redistricting.” In 2006, the Supreme Court held that parts of the plan <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?ex=1181880000&en=958aa2eebe71bbf4&ei=5070">violated provisions of Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting strength</a>.

Spakovsky urged Maryland officials to reject voter registration forms of lawful voters: In 2003, Spakovsky told a Maryland election official <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/maryland_ltr.htm">to deny voter registration applications</a> if any of the information on the application failed to match what is in the DMV and Social Security databases. The move exceeded federal law and was found to <a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17102317.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation">needlessly reject thousands of applications to vote</a> that were lawful.
Spakovsky blocked an investigation into voter discrimination against Native Americans: In 2004, then-Minnesota U.S. Attrorney Thomas Heffelfinger believed a state voter ID ruling would disenfranchise Indian voters, but when the DoJ’s voting rights section sought to open an investigation, Spakovsky directed attorneys not to contact county officials, which “<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usatty31may31,0,7660086,full.story?coll=la-home-center">effectively ended any department inquiry</a>.”

Spakovsky approved “modern day poll tax” over objections of career staff: In 2005, a team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602504.html">it was likely to discriminate against black voters</a>. But the law was approved the next day by political appointees, including Spakovsky. When the law was eventually overturned, a federal judge compared it to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901382.html">a Jim Crow-era poll tax</a>.</blockquote>
In June, five House Democrats from Georgia, including civil rights veteran John Lewis of Atlanta, wrote a letter cautioning senators against confirming Spakovsky, saying his appointment “<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wirestory?id=3275151">could potentially turn back the clock on 50 years of progress</a>” in voting rights.
As the six former Justice Department officials wrote in June, because of his “dubious stewardship” of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the Senate Rules Committee should “<a href="http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-2667.html">refuse to reward</a>” him with a seat on the Federal Election Commission.

The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights has more on Spakovsky <a href="http://www.civilrights.org/press_room/buzz_clips/civilrightsorg-stories/who-is-hans-von-spakovksy.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.civilrights.org/press_room/fact-sheets/hans-von-spakovksy.html">here</a>. Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker has <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003415.php">more</a> as well. 
UPDATE: Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has more on why Spakovsky shouldn’t be confirmed <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174680/">here</a>.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102702171.html
The headline on an Oct. 28 article incorrectly said that a Georgia law on voter identification was overturned. A federal appeals court upheld an injunction barring the state from enforcing the law, which requires many voters without government-issued identification such as a driver's license or passport to get a new digital ID card. A secondary headline said the state can no longer charge for access to the Nov. 8 election. The state never levied a charge for voting; it did charge $20 for five years to get the new digital ID.
Voter ID Law Is Overturned
Georgia Can No Longer Charge For Access to Nov. 8 Election

By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; A03

In a case that some have called a showdown over voting rights, a U.S. appeals court yesterday upheld an injunction barring the state of Georgia from enforcing a law requiring citizens to get government-issued photo identification in order to vote.

The ruling allows thousands of Georgians who do not have government-issued identification, such as driver's licenses and passports, to vote in the Nov. 8 municipal elections without obtaining a special digital identification card, which costs $20 for five years. In prior elections, Georgians could use any one of 17 types of identification that show the person's name and address, including a driver's license, utility bill, bank statement or a paycheck, to gain access to a voting booth.

Last week, when issuing the injunction, U.S. District Judge Harold L. Murphy likened the law to a Jim Crow-era poll tax that required residents, most of them black, to pay back taxes before voting. He said the law appeared to violate the Constitution for that reason. In the 2004 election, about 150,000 Georgians voted without producing government-issued identification.

"Obviously, we're very pleased with the decision," said Daniel Levitas of the American Civil Liberties Union, which joined the NAACP and other groups in a federal lawsuit against the Georgia law. "It's especially timely to see the federal courts step in to protect the precious rights of voters. This decision confirms our contention that the Georgia ID law poses a constitutional hurdle to the right to vote."

State officials say they will challenge the decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that was handed down by Judges Frank M. Hull, Stanley F. Birch Jr. and Joel F. Dubina. Birch and Dubina were appointed by President George H. W. Bush, and Hull was named to the appellate court by President Bill Clinton. The case is being watched nationally as Republicans and Democrats in many states battle over who will be allowed on the voter rolls.

The Georgia ID law has been controversial from the day it was submitted in March. Conservative lawmakers said it was needed to limit elections fraud. Liberal lawmakers said that argument was a smokescreen masking another intent: to maintain Republican power in the state by diluting the minority vote, which typically goes to Democrats.

Because Georgia falls under the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department had to approve the change in state law. It did so in August, prompting charges from outside and inside the department that it was backing away from strong enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

Under the Georgia law, residents would need to produce original birth certificates and other documents to get the new digital identification card. The cards could only be obtained at Department of Motor Vehicles offices.

But critics say that many potential voters do not have the required documents and that some could not afford the $20 processing fee for identification.

State officials promised to provide free identification to anyone who swore under oath that they were indigent. But the law provided no definition of what constituted indigence in the state of Georgia, opening the possibility for possible perjury charges, activists said.

Liberal critics compiled statistics showing that far more white residents owned cars than African Americans. The law, they argued, gave an unfair advantage to white people while placing a burden on those who are black.

On top of that, the state recently reorganized the Department of Motor Vehicles, paring down the number of offices. After the reorganization, there were no DMV offices in Atlanta, a city with a wide black majority. The closest station is at least nine miles away. Fewer than 60 of the state's 159 counties have DMV offices.

State officials countered that they were providing a single vehicle, known as the GLOW bus, to traverse the state, providing applications and licenses to those with the proper documents. Critics expressed disbelief that one bus could accommodate the needs of so many potential voters.

Black lawmakers railed against the law. At times, they openly wept during the debates. Nevertheless, it passed both the House and Senate in near-lightning speed. The governor signed it in April.

"We did it because we thought it was the . . . thing to do to clean up Georgia election law," said Sen. William Stephens, a Republican from Cherokee County. He cited a report in the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper saying that more than 5,000 dead people voted in the eight elections before 2000.

Stephens said another Journal Constitution report stated that a poll revealed 80 percent of Georgians supported the voter ID law.

But Secretary of State Cathy Cox, a Democrat who oversees the election process, said there has not been a proven case of voter fraud in the state in nearly a decade.

As for the poll, Rep. Tyrone Brooks, president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, said respondents, especially those who are black, were not informed of the law's impact.

"You talk to African Americans, and they will tell you that this is a hardship," Brooks said.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601717_pf.html
Bush Picks Controversial Nominees for FEC

By Thomas B. Edsall and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 17, 2005; A09

President Bush nominated two controversial lawyers to the Federal Election Commission yesterday: Hans von Spakovsky who helped Georgia win approval of a disputed voter-identification law, and Robert D. Lenhard, who was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

In addition, Bush proposed a second term for commissioner David M. Mason and nominated Steven T. Walther, a Nevada lawyer with close ties to Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Von Spakovsky and Mason are Republican appointees, while Lenhard and Walther are Democratic picks for the bipartisan six-member commission.

In a letter to Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) wrote that he is "extremely troubled" by the von Spakovsky nomination. Kennedy contends that von Spakovsky "may be at the heart of the political interference that is undermining the [Justice] Department's enforcement of federal civil laws."

Career Justice Department lawyers involved in a Georgia case said von Spakovsky pushed strongly for approval of a state program requiring voters to have photo identification. A team of staff lawyers that examined the case recommended 4 to 1 that the Georgia plan should be rejected because it would harm black voters; the recommendation was overruled by von Spakovsky and other senior officials in the Civil Rights Division.

Before working in the Justice Department, von Spakovsky was the Republican Party chairman in Fulton County, Ga., and served on the board of the Voter Integrity Project, which advocated regular purging of voter roles to prevent felons from casting ballots.

In a brief telephone interview, von Spakovsky played down his role in policy decisions in the Civil Rights Division. "I'm just a career lawyer who works in the front office of civil rights," he said. He noted that the department has rules against career lawyers talking to reporters.

In a 1997 policy paper, von Spakovsky wrote, "Georgia should require all potential voters to present reliable photo identification at their polling location to help prevent impostors from voting."

Asked if it was a conflict for von Spakovsky to work on a case involving a Republican plan in his home state of Georgia, Justice spokesman Eric Holland said: "Many of the dedicated and professional attorneys in the Voting Rights Section have worked in advocacy roles involving voting issues prior to their arrival at the Justice Department. . . . Justice Department attorneys are always mindful of their responsibility to perform duties in ethical matters, including recusing themselves as necessary under standards of ethical and professional conduct."

The Lenhard nomination, first proposed in July 2003, has provoked strong opposition from advocacy groups seeking tough enforcement of campaign finance laws, especially the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill.

Meredith McGehee, president and executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, described the prospect of Lenhard replacing Thomas as "beyond disappointing" when it was first proposed.

Reid issued a statement yesterday saying that he is "very pleased the president acted today upon my two recommendations for Commissioners on the Federal Election Commission," Walther and Lenhard.

<h3>What are you advocating here, seaver and loquitur, what is the problem you both seem in favor of "fixing"?</h3>

Quote:

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...n/12fraud.html

Quote:

The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Rights ...
The major bipartisan draft fraud report (PDF) (recently posted by Slate and suppressed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission [TimesSelect subscription ...
www.slate.com/id/2166589

Quote:

Tova Andrea Wang - A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting ...
Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082901928.html

loquitur, you're a member of the bar. Why am I getting the impression that you are unconcerned about a massive, long standing partisan operation of one major political party to suppress the vote, that encompasses members of the Federalist Society, republican national lawyers association, high ranking elected and party officials and political appointees, has resulted in the compromising of the DOJ's commitment and ability to enforce voting and civil rights, and to investigate and to prosecute crimes in a non-partisan, fair, and timely manner.

And to recognize that the wrongdoing reaches into the offices of the POTUS and the VP:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070313-4.html

...The President did that briefly, in a conversation had with the Attorney General in October of 2006, in which, in a wide-ranging conversation on a lot of different issues, this briefly came up and the President said, I've been hearing about this election fraud matters from members of Congress, want to make sure you're on top of that, as well. There was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that.....

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...ics&id=5117015
White House Mulled Firing All U.S. Attorneys
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 | 11:58 AM
Dems: Firings Politically Motivated

..."At no time were names added or subtracted by the White House," Perino said. "We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within administration's discretion. We stand by the Department of Justice's assertion that they were removed for performance and managerial reasons."

Dating back to mid-2004, the White House's legislative affairs, political affairs and chief of staff's office had received complaints from a variety of sources about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases in various locations, including Philadelphia, Milwaukee and New Mexico, she said.

Those complaints were passed on to the Justice Department or Mier's office.

"The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general during a brief discussion on other Department of Justice matters," Perino said, adding that the conversation would have taken place in October 2006.

"At no time did any White Hose officials, including the president, direct the Department of Justice to take specific action against any individual U.S. attorney," Perino said.

The Washington Post reported initially on the idea of dismissing all the prosecutors, saying it reviewed a number of internal White House e-mails preceding the final dismissals....

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/u...ory/15977.html
New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud—policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters....

...The Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys—two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Bush has said he's heard complaints from Republicans about some U.S. attorneys' "lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases," and administration e-mails have shown that Rove and other White House officials were involved in the dismissals and in selecting a Rove aide to replace one of the U.S. attorneys. Nonetheless, Bush has refused to permit congressional investigators to question Rove and others under oath.....

.....Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.
<h3>Rove thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."....

....Rove talked about the Northwest region in his speech last spring to the Republican lawyers and voiced concern about the trend toward mail-in ballots and online voting. He also questioned the legitimacy of voter rolls in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.</h3>

One audience member asked Rove whether he'd "thought about using the bully pulpit of the White House to talk about election reform and an election integrity agenda that would put the Democrats back on the defensive."

"Yes, it's an interesting idea," Rove responded.....

Quote:

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070531nj1.htm
LEGAL AFFAIRS
The Scales Of Justice

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, May 31, 2007

In the closing weeks of Missouri's tight 2006 U.S. Senate race, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., took the unusual step of revealing that his office's investigation into possible state government contracting abuses in Missouri had found no evidence of wrongdoing by Republican Gov. Matt Blunt....

.....Mark (Thor) Hearne
As national election counsel for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, Hearne worked with White House presidential adviser Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee to identify potential voting fraud in battleground states, three people who worked with Hearne at the time said in interviews. Party activists say that Hearne has become one of the most important Republicans on voting-fraud issues in recent years.

A resume posted on the Web site of Hearne's law firm showed that during the 2004 presidential campaign, Hearne was "responsible for advising the campaign on national litigation and election-law strategy as well as overseeing local counsel.... From September through the election, Hearne traveled to every battleground state and oversaw more than 65 different lawsuits that concerned the outcome of the election."

Although Hearne has a reputation as a committed partisan, as a partner at Lathrop & Gage he has represented private citizens faced with losing their homes or properties to eminent domain claims. Associates say that Hearne has personally represented more than 50 property owners. "It's a passion of his not just because of his belief that eminent domain claims are not right, but because he wants to help the people," says an attorney who has worked with him on election-law issues.

But politics is clearly also a Hearne passion. Among his mementos are personal letters from President Bush and Karl Rove thanking him for his work in the 2004 campaign and a picture of Hearne holding up and examining a ballot with a "dimpled chad" in Broward County as a representative of the Bush campaign during the contested 2000 Florida recount.

In February 2005, with encouragement from Rove and the White House, Hearne founded the American Center for Voting Rights, which represented itself as a nonpartisan watchdog group looking for voting fraud. Critics, including the liberal group People for the American Way and state chapters of the League of Women Voters, say that the group was a Republican front and pursued only allegations of voting fraud by Democrats. The group now appears to be defunct.

Citing Hearne's work, Rove told the Republican National Lawyers Association in a speech on April 7, 2006: "We are, in some parts of the country, I am afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are ... colonels in mirrored sunglasses." .....

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/u...ory/16224.html
U.S. attorneys
rss
2006 Missouri's election was ground zero for GOP
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Wednesday, May 2, 2007
...The preoccupation with ballot fraud in Missouri was part of a wider national effort that critics charge was aimed at protecting the Republican majority in Congress by dampening Democratic turnout. That effort included stiffer voter-identification requirements, wholesale purges of names from lists of registered voters and tight policing of liberal get-out-the-vote drives.

Bush administration officials deny those claims. But they've gotten traction in recent weeks because three of the U.S. attorneys ousted by the Justice Department charge that they lost their jobs because they failed to prove Republican allegations of voter fraud. They say their inquiries found little evidence to support the claims.

Few have endorsed the strategy of pursuing allegations of voter fraud with more enthusiasm than White House political guru Karl Rove. And nowhere has the plan been more apparent than in Missouri.....

....._The Missouri General Assembly—with the White House's help—narrowly passed a law requiring voters to show photo identification cards, which Carnahan estimated would disenfranchise 200,000 voters. The state Supreme Court voided the law as unconstitutional before the election.

_Two weeks before the election, the St. Louis Board of Elections sent letters threatening to disqualify 5,000 newly registered minority voters if they failed to verify their identities promptly, a move—instigated by a Republican appointee—that may have violated federal law. After an outcry, the board rescinded the threat.

_Five days before the election, Schlozman, then interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, announced indictments of four voter-registration workers for a Democratic-leaning group on charges of submitting phony applications, despite a Justice Department policy discouraging such action close to an election.

_In an interview with conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt a couple of days before the election, <h3>Rove said he'd just visited Missouri and had met with Republican strategists who "are well aware of" the threat of voter fraud.</h3> He said the party had "a large number of lawyers that are standing by, trained and ready to intervene" to keep the election clean.

Missouri Republicans have railed about alleged voter fraud ever since President Bush narrowly won the White House in the chaotic 2000 election and Missouri Republican Sen. John Ashcroft lost to a dead man, the late Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan, whose name stayed on the ballot weeks after he died in a plane crash.

Joining the push to contain "voter fraud" were Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., who charged that votes by dogs and dead people had defeated Ashcroft, Missouri Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, whose stinging allegations of fraud were later debunked, and St. Louis lawyer Mark "Thor" Hearne, national counsel to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, who set up a nonprofit group to publicize allegations of voter fraud.

Many Democrats contend that the efforts amount to a voter-suppression campaign.

"The real problem has never been vote fraud," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo. "It's access to the polls. In the last 50 years, no one in Missouri has been prosecuted for impersonating someone else at the polls. But thousands of eligible voters have been denied their constitutional rights. . . . It's sickening.".....

Quote:

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/rove_..._lott_writings

omgA <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003100.php#more">post this afternoon at the excellent TPM Muckraker</a> demonstrates that a speech on "Voter Fraud" delivered by Karl Rove to the Republican National Lawyers Association in April 2006 drew heavily on a New York Post op-ed co-authored by nutty professor John Lott: <blockquote>...we took a hard look at just where Karl Rove got the bulk of the voter fraud stories he imparted at an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002982.php">April 7, 2006 speech</a> before the Republican National Lawyer's Association. We noted that three of the seven "hot spots" he mentioned in that speech appeared to come directly from a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.americanretiredpersons.com/InsuranceServices/itsfraud.htm">2000 New York Post op-ed</a> by Stephen Bronars and John Lott, Jr.... </blockquote>Missourians <a target="_blank" href="/lott_id_hearing">may recall</a> that John Lott was the creator of written "expert" testimony submitted to the Cole County Circuit Court by <a target="_blank" href="/cummins_hearne_doj_purge">voter fraud hypester Thor Hearne</a> as the prominent GOP attorney spearheaded the third-party legal defense of Missouri's Republican-built Photo ID Voting Law, which the courts would <a target="_blank" href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/missouri-judge-rules-voter-id-law.php">ultimately find unconstitutional</a>. That Rove and Hearne were relying on writings from the same discredited academic to stoke the bogus flames of "voter fraud" fear and agitate for the constitutionality of a suppressive Photo ID voter identification law is yet another indicator of the national pervasiveness and thorough coordination of the effort by Republican Party operatives at the highest levels.

One giant, criminal cabal, ethics, oaths to the constitution, all compromised in the quest for total political domination, at any cost, injustice, or consequence. I once would not have thought it was even possible for so many to be so united, and yet so compromised....empty, corrupt vessels on a fool's mission resulting in the destruction of the republic.

Seaver · 01-10-2008, 04:30 PM

Please Host, what burden.

I hear all of this that it's a poll tax, it's hard on blacks, that it's whitey trying to stop them from voting.

They apparently have no utilities.
They apparently have no car.
They apparently have no job.
They apparently have no housing.
They apparently have no school they attend.
They apparently have no ..... et al.

Do I need to post it all? They have ID's. So PLEASE, give a decent reason why these states can not decide to make it mandatory to show upon polling.

With all of your dibold paranoia you spread about, I assumed you'd want even this absolute BASIC poll security matter to be in effect. Yet on this issue you are absent.

host · 01-10-2008, 04:51 PM

Seaver, are you curious, at all, as to why republicans have been pushing this voter I.D. requirment, so vigorously? Can you provide any untainted support for this new hurdle in the way of casting a ballot? Look at the effort and expense to push this restiriction though the courts. I read that, aside from the now exposed outrageous republican driven misinformation campaign attempting to describe a problem that does not exist, there is no justification for the effort and money expended.

If it is not part of the same partisan operation as the late 90's discredited "Florida felon voter purge", what justifies it? Was it important enough to wreck the DOJ and to destroy it's credibility? I'm pushing back Seaver, and your embracing this with open arms.... It seems to be our reflexive natures. You have an ability to downplay, dismiss, or ignore, the information I find significant enough to post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I read the transcript of the oral argument at the Supreme Court.

There is not a shadow of a chance in hell that they will toss this Indiana law on the current record. It'll probably be 6-3 or 7-2. Even Breyer was skeptical of the challenge.

Yeah, loquitur, they're "gettin" it done, aren't they? I weep for the prospects of the least of us, under the thumb of the criminality of these fucking thugs!

Quote:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ro...heir_0410.html
Rove thanks Republican lawyers for their work on 'clean elections'

RAW STORY
Published: Monday April 10, 2006

Print This | Email This

In a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association in Washington last Friday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove thanked its members for their "work on clean elections," RAW STORY has found.

"I want to thank you for your work on clean elections," Rove said. "I know a lot of you spent time in the 2004 election, the 2002, election, the 2000 election in your communities or in strange counties in Florida, helping make it certain that we had the fair and legitimate outcome of the election."

Rove then suggested that some elections in America were similiar to third world dictatorships.

"We have, as you know, an enormous and growing problem with elections in certain parts of America today," Rove said. "We are, in some parts of the country, I'm afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where they guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses. <h3>I mean, it's a real problem, and I appreciate that all that you're doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the ballot -- the integrity of the ballot is protected, because it's important to our democracy."

Also in attendance on Friday was Mark "Thor" Hearne, the National General Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. and also the Executive Director of the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights, which Brad Blog described as "a Republican front group created by high-level GOP operatives expressly for the purpose of spreading disinformation to sidetrack the Election Reform movement in this country."

"I ran into Thor Hearne as I was coming in," Rove said. "He was leaving; he was smart, and he was leaving to go out and enjoy the day."</h3>

Other excerpts from Rove's speech:
#

I also appreciate all that you've done in our campaigns in the past. I know that for some of you it's meant your partners have been swept away to serve in the government, but don't worry, they'll be back with enhanced reputations and the ability to bill even bigger hours. <h3>And we really appreciate what you all have done on our judges. To think that this president has appointed 27 percent of the members of the federal judiciary, and most -- most of all, that he has been able to appoint such terrific individuals to the U.S. Supreme Court. John Roberts and Sam Alito will serve for decades with distinction and integrity, and it's going to be really -- (applause).</h3>

....

Ustwo · 01-10-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah, loquitur, they're "gettin" it done, aren't they? I weep for the prospects of the least of us, under the thumb of the criminality of these fucking thugs!

And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids!

joshbaumgartner · 01-10-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Do I need to post it all? They have ID's. So PLEASE, give a decent reason why these states can not decide to make it mandatory to show upon polling.

I guess I come at this from the opposite tack: I have no problem with identification of voters, but I do have a problem with fees for necessary government license, ID, or other documents that are arbitrary and inflexible, whether they are used for voting or not.

If a government is going to require a license or other paperwork as a condition for participating in the society in any manner (voting, driving, shooting, whatever) then that paperwork should be provided without fee. Your 'fee' is already paid in your taxes.

I see no good reason why the government should charge a citizen to obtain a document that the government requires that they obtain. I would like to know if anyone has any.

Ustwo · 01-11-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

I guess I come at this from the opposite tack: I have no problem with identification of voters, but I do have a problem with fees for necessary government license, ID, or other documents that are arbitrary and inflexible, whether they are used for voting or not.

If a government is going to require a license or other paperwork as a condition for participating in the society in any manner (voting, driving, shooting, whatever) then that paperwork should be provided without fee. Your 'fee' is already paid in your taxes.

I see no good reason why the government should charge a citizen to obtain a document that the government requires that they obtain. I would like to know if anyone has any.

What is the difference between a fee and a tax when its the government doing both?

loquitur · 01-11-2008, 06:53 AM

Listen, Host, the arguments at the Supreme Court went something like this (and if you don't follow the legal arguments, ask and I'll explain how the concepts work). Bear in mind, this is a LEGAL issue, not an issue of whether an ID requirement is good public policy:

1. a state legislature is entitled to deal with what it perceives to be a problem
2. state statutes are usually evaluated in terms of whether they are rationally related to a legitimate purpose
3. the plaintiffs here brought a facial challenge to the statute rather than an "as applied" challenge, which means they have to show that the statute necessarily burdens the exercise of a basic right. (In an "as applied" challenge, they'd have someone who was denied the right to vote on grounds of lack of ID.)
4. the facts in the record about the extent of the burden don't appear to show substantial burdens on substantial numbers.

The issue is not whether requiring IDs are a good idea - it's whether requiring photo ID is permissible under the constitution.

I will stipulate for purposes of this argument that the law was passed for the purpose of helping Republicans. But that doesn't invalidate the legislation any more than pro-union legislation should be invalidated because it helps Democrats. Political parties want to win elections for a reason, and among the reasons is that they get to reward their friends, punish their enemies, and try to perpetuate themselves in power. Welcome to the real world. The constitution contemplates political games, and it expects that if people aren't happy with the things their representatives do, that they will toss the bums out in the next election -- pretty much as they did in November 2006.

jewels · 01-11-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will it provide for less voter fraud or suppress a segment of the voting population? You decide.

Both. Less votes would definitely be counted.

I think the ID is very necessary. There is so much identity fraud and it grows exponentially each year. The shame is that there are many seniors, especially those born in the south and in other countries, that have difficulty acquiring birth certificates when none were kept. I always wonder how they got buy for 70 - 90 years without an ID or passport.

I see this on a daily basis as my "clients" are required to have state-issued photo IDs in order to qualify for specific programs. I've seen lots of other makeshift IDs that I will not accept because they don't offer the same safeguards as the state IDs (especially the post 9/11/01 versions).

loquitur · 01-11-2008, 09:22 AM

There is another aspect to the public policy question that isn't being addressed here much. Voter fraud, or the perception of voter fraud, is corrosive. It's not merely that the elections have to be clean - the process must be seen as being clean. People have to have confidence in it. The FL vote in 2000 did enormous damage to democracy because it caused people to lose confidence in the system - justifiably, because the system was a mess, and sometimes you need a crisis before problems get addressed.

But each person who votes has a right to expect that the process is clean, that only qualified voters vote, that each vote gets counted only once. If that is not true, it injures every single voter.

That means the case weighs two kinds of harm against each other: (1) the risk that some voter somewhere who is otherwise qualified might be turned away from the polls for lack of ID; and (2) the systemic harm to every voter from having a system without adequate and obvious safeguards. Usually, in a democracy we rely on our elected representatives to make this balance.

As a matter of constitutional law, I would expect that is what will decide the case. Note that that has nothing to do with whether I personally believe item 1 or item 2 is more important. The issue is whether the legislature of a state is entitled to make that choice.

pan6467 · 01-11-2008, 09:51 AM

You want to vote, you have an ID. That plain and simple. I don't see a reason why this is even a problem.

State IDs are dirt cheap and you can even use fake addresses on them.

I deal with a great many homeless people and even they have ID's.

All having an ID will do is help to prevent voter fraud (you know dead people voting, illegals voting, etc.), I'm a Democrat but if my party is scared of this law then something is seriously wrong.

And for anyone to bring race into it "it's discriminatory against blacks".... how the fuck do you figure? What states don't issue state ID's to everyone with $15 (in Ohio I'm sure a little more in some states less in others) and an address... and I believe the state ID expires like 20 yrs after the issue date and you could still use it. I'm sure at the polls they are not going to check nor have the time to check the expiration dates that closely.

I need to show my ID to cash a check... no matter where I cash it, a bank, a store, a check cashing place, etc.

If you drive, you need a driver's license, so that takes care of that population. If you have a library card, at least everywhere I have ever lived, you need a photo ID with proper address (unless you are a minor then your parents have to sign). To buy spray paint, anything with pseudoephedrine (Sudafed), etc. you need an ID (and if you say you can buy pseudoephedrine cough medicines, you are lying or the place you buy it is selling it illegally..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoephedrine

Quote:

The Federal statute included the following requirements for merchants ("regulated seller") who sell these products (pseudoephedrine is defined as a "scheduled listed chemical product under 21 USC 802(45(A)):

Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers

In Ohio the law requires that if you look under 40 you are supposed to be ID'd for tobacco and alcohol.... many places don't but the law is there.

I need an ID when I go to pick up a registered letter, when I use my credit cards.... etc.

There is no reason in the world why a legal resident should not have an ID.

It's a major way to stop voter fraud and if one party is using excuses why it is wrong to need one to vote, when you need an ID for just about any other service, it makes me wonder what that party is truly afraid of.

But.... why not let the populace vote on it, put it on ballots and let the people decide.

01-09-2008, 10:41 AM	#1 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Voter ID Law....safeguard or supression? The Supreme Court is hearing a case on the Indiana Voter ID law today. Under the law, registered voters in Indiana who dont present a valid driver's license or passport would not have their ballots counted. The Court does not appear to be sympathetic to the concerns expressed by those opposed to the law who believe that it infringes on Constitutional rights. I share that concern and think its reasonable to assume that this will disproportionately affect the poor, seniors and minorities...all of whom tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. Will it provide for less voter fraud or suppress a segment of the voting population? You decide. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-09-2008 at 10:45 AM..

01-09-2008, 10:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Posessing a valid, current form of identification, indicating that you are a US citizen is what most people choose to do. I have a good friend who is disabled and cannot drive. She has never been out of the country, so she has never gone to the effort to get her passport. She has a state-issued ID that looks exactly like a driver's license. Anyone of voting age can get one of these for a small fee. There are no restrictions. I do not understand why it would be discrimination or unconstitutional for one to prove who they are. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

01-09-2008, 10:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I am really confused as to why this is such an issue....whats the big deal about having a picture ID? Heck when I use my debit card in some places I still get asked for ID (which is stupid cause my pictures is ON it...but most of the time their thumb is covering it up lol) Someone explain to me why having this is a bad thing? Everything I have heard says the "poor" can get ID cards for free...so ho does this affect poor people, minorities an seniors negatively __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-09-2008, 10:56 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, nuff said. Everyone else has an ID of some kind. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-09-2008, 11:06 AM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	complex issue. I think Id's should absolutely be required and because of this, they should also be issued free of charge. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-09-2008, 11:07 AM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Quite frankly, this is looking at the wrong side of things if they really want to prevent voting problems. Voters are fine. It's the vote counting that has the problems. We need Dibold replaced by a public system that has fail-safes and is double blind.

01-09-2008, 11:08 AM	#9 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	whatever, i tend to lean towards democratic tendacies and i think you should have an ID. I have my ss card, ID, birth cert, etc... no reason why any legal resident shouldn't.

01-09-2008, 11:10 AM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The problem is paying for a picture, as small as the fee may be, or access to obtaining such an ID... when other IDs are acceptable in nearly all other states without having to leave home to obtain one. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-09-2008 at 11:13 AM..

01-09-2008, 11:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Unless these id's are provided free and are easy to get (ie within walking distance) and the wait times on these is not significant (ie in line for over an hour) there isn't' a problem. The problem is that most of the id's cost money, require you to drive 10 miles to the dmv, and require you to wait for 3 hours in line. The poor that work hourly may not be able to take off a half day of work to get one of these, they also may not be able to get transportation to the place to get it, or afford it when they get there. I think the people requiring these id's should have the burden of proving that lack of them is causing significant fraud.

01-09-2008, 11:38 AM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	One has to wonder how these people who can't find a way to get an ID have time to go vote. I know the polls by my house almost REQUIRE you drive to them. One is on a busy street in a church that has really nothing around it or bus service, the other is in a school that would be walkable only to people who lived in that area. So you can't seem to be able to afford an ID (and sure make them free) with your picture on it, or get out of the house to get one, but you can show up to the poles on election day? I'm sure thats the next step on the agenda __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-09-2008, 11:42 AM	#15 (permalink)
Hain has a plan Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere	Absolutely agree that there should be a photo ID required. Granted I hail from Chicago but there were plenty of places to get a state ID. Over here, everyone gets a ID card with their picture. It would be just another safe guard against voter fraud. And a poll tax... how often does the State ID need to be replaced? Also agree with Will, the system itself needs an overhaul. I worked a simple county election and that was fucking ridiculous. All these old "veteran" election workers telling me what I was doing wrong when I had the god-damned guide lines in my pocket! __________________ ////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

01-09-2008, 11:56 AM	#17 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Im sure my ignorance is going to show here..but I'm going to ask anyway.....If these people that are so adamant to vote...cant/wont get a id card to show at the polls....cant they just say they are going to be out of town and vote by absentee ballot? Ok I kinda answered my own question....these are the rules for TN, and it seems the "old and infirm" can vote by absentee with no issues To vote by mail, a registered voter must fall under one of the following categories: 1. The voter will be outside the county of registration during the early voting period and all day on election day; 2. The voter or the voter’s spouse is enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited college oruniversity outside the county of registration; 3. The voter’s licensed physician has filed a statement with the county election commission stating that, in the physician's judgment, the voter is medically unable to vote in person. The statement must be filed not less than five (5) days before the election and signed under the penalty of perjury; 4. The voter resides in a licensed facility providing relatively permanent domiciliary care, other than a penal institution, outside the voter's county of residence; 5. The voter will be unable to vote in person due to service as a juror for a federal or state court; 6. The voter is sixty-five (65) years of age or older; 7. The voter has a physical disability and an inaccessible polling place; 8. The voter is hospitalized, ill, or physically disabled and because of such condition, cannot vote in person; 9. The voter is a caretaker of a person who is hospitalized, ill, or disabled; 10. The voter is a candidate for office in the election; 11. The voter serves as an election day official or as a member or employee of the election commission; 12. The voter’s observance of a religious holiday prevents him or her from voting in person during the early voting period and on election day; 13. The voter possesses a valid commercial driver license and certifies that he or she will be working outside the state or county of registration during the early voting period and all day on election day; 14. The voter is a member of the military or is an overseas citizen __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!* Last edited by ShaniFaye; 01-09-2008 at 11:59 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-09-2008, 12:05 PM	#18 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Shani.....I think the registered voters in question (without state-issued photo ID) can vote absentee in IN and GA....so it debunks the myth that such laws are to prevent voter fraud. But why should they be forced into absentee voting rather than voting in person. Many, particularly those not politically active except once every 4 years, may even be unaware of the absentee option. IMO, it represents a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution....they have to pay (fee and/or lost wages in obtaining photo ID) or lose their choice in how they vote. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-09-2008 at 12:17 PM..

01-09-2008, 07:46 PM	#19 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	how about this for a solution. pass a law that requires supermarkets and malls to provide a small area for the state to set up an ID counter. i can almost guarantee you that every state has a small warehouse full of old printers and computers not being used. how much does a cheap digital camera cost these days? the only major expense for the state would be OT for employees to man the booths. free ID's in places everyone can get to for relatively short money for the state.

01-10-2008, 01:08 AM	#21 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	aside from the fact that anything can be forged, just how specific should the equiptment be? here in MA, when you get a new license they just graft a picture onto a simple form till you get the laminated version in the mail. i doubt it would be that difficult to produce laminated picture IDs with watermarked backgrounds using current or slightly older computer/printer combos.

01-10-2008, 01:25 AM	#22 (permalink)
belezabaub Upright	Fucking ID wrecks my buzz. I currently do not posess a drivers licence or a passport and you would not believe the fucking hassle I have trying to apply for jobs and stuff. What cracks me up to apply for ID like a drivers licence or a passport you need ID. I personally think it is a pile of bollocks, more beaurocracy to make it difficult for people to get on with their lives. I have to pay over £80 for a passport and £45 for a drivers licence (times that by 2 for dollars). I'm currently unemployed and my benefits work out at £45 a week. It is fucking stupid. I believe all identification should be free. It is unfair that goverment requirement should cost an individual his/her chance to vote, obtain employment or leave or enter their country. Both the US and UK can afford to spend a massive amount of their budget 'liberating' other countries, however they charge their own citizens for ID, essential in participating within a 'liberal society'. It probably would help voter fraud, if you had to present photographic ID but if that is the case the identification shouldn't cost the individual.

01-10-2008, 07:47 AM	#23 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	I have absolutely no problem with an ID requirement to vote. Most people carry some form of ID on them anyway. For those who do not, I have no problem with the state providing a no cost voter specific ID. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

01-10-2008, 07:56 AM	#24 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I've only been registered in CA, NJ, NY. Doesn't every state give back a voter registration card? I'm not even sure about NY actually now that I think about it since I don't really look at the political mail. I can't imagine how anyone gets anything done in this day and age especially now that it is a post 9/11 world without some form of ID. If not, I don't see even charging a fee for processing the ID as problematic in any form either. People have to pay judiary fees ON TOP of parking fines, and judgements. I see no reason to increase the tax base just to insure that people have free IDs. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-10-2008, 08:07 AM	#26 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	That woman who’s challenging Indiana’s voter ID law? Registered to vote in two states Your delicious irony of the day comes from Florida and Indiana. The litigant who is trying to kill off Indiana’s voter ID law is a walking, talking case of potential voter fraud. She certainly appears to have broken the law by registering to vote in both Indiana and Florida, and by claiming homestead tax exemption in both states. But let’s re-write the law so she doesn’t have to provide proper ID before voting! Read the article here: http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008...5420740819.prt __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Last edited by Aladdin Sane; 01-10-2008 at 08:17 AM..

01-10-2008, 09:38 AM	#27 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the issue in question. It is not opposition to the necessity for a valid ID in order to vote. That is not being questioned. The question I raised in the OP was if a specific requirement for a STATE-ISSUED PHOTO ID disproportionately impacts particular segments of registered or eligible voters (seniors, minorities) and/or if the rationale for the law (to prevent fraud) is legitimate when the state can produce no evidence of fraud under the old (pre-photo) voter id requirements. In Indiana, there is a larger percentage of seniors -as opposed to all voting age citizens -who do not possess a STATE-ISSUED PHOTO ID and are now barred from casting a regular ballot until they obtain such an ID. Apparently some 30,000-40,000 seniors who have been voting for years are affected. Is this an undue burden on a particular class of citizens? To not be an undue burden, the STATE-ISSUED PHOTO IDs should be both free and easily accessible...and they are not. I wont raise the question of the political motivation of the legislatures in question...intent is much more difficult to prove. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-10-2008 at 09:43 AM..

01-10-2008, 02:40 PM	#29 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Host, do I really need to copy/paste random dribble from a Conservative blog which has nothing to do with each other in order to seem like I know what I'm talking about? You need an ID to drive. You need an ID to drink. You need an ID to go to school. You need an ID to work. You need an ID to deposit/withdraw money from a bank. You need an ID to use a credit card You need an ID to rent an apartment. You need an ID to buy cigarettes. You need an ID to buy electricity/water/gas/cable/internet utilities. You need an ID to <et al>. Seriously, this is only preventing illegals and convicts from voting. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

01-10-2008, 03:00 PM	#30 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I read the transcript of the oral argument at the Supreme Court. There is not a shadow of a chance in hell that they will toss this Indiana law on the current record. It'll probably be 6-3 or 7-2. Even Breyer was skeptical of the challenge.

01-10-2008, 04:30 PM	#32 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Please Host, what burden. I hear all of this that it's a poll tax, it's hard on blacks, that it's whitey trying to stop them from voting. They apparently have no utilities. They apparently have no car. They apparently have no job. They apparently have no housing. They apparently have no school they attend. They apparently have no ..... et al. Do I need to post it all? They have ID's. So PLEASE, give a decent reason why these states can not decide to make it mandatory to show upon polling. With all of your dibold paranoia you spread about, I assumed you'd want even this absolute BASIC poll security matter to be in effect. Yet on this issue you are absent. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

01-11-2008, 06:53 AM	#37 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Listen, Host, the arguments at the Supreme Court went something like this (and if you don't follow the legal arguments, ask and I'll explain how the concepts work). Bear in mind, this is a LEGAL issue, not an issue of whether an ID requirement is good public policy: 1. a state legislature is entitled to deal with what it perceives to be a problem 2. state statutes are usually evaluated in terms of whether they are rationally related to a legitimate purpose 3. the plaintiffs here brought a facial challenge to the statute rather than an "as applied" challenge, which means they have to show that the statute necessarily burdens the exercise of a basic right. (In an "as applied" challenge, they'd have someone who was denied the right to vote on grounds of lack of ID.) 4. the facts in the record about the extent of the burden don't appear to show substantial burdens on substantial numbers. The issue is not whether requiring IDs are a good idea - it's whether requiring photo ID is permissible under the constitution. I will stipulate for purposes of this argument that the law was passed for the purpose of helping Republicans. But that doesn't invalidate the legislation any more than pro-union legislation should be invalidated because it helps Democrats. Political parties want to win elections for a reason, and among the reasons is that they get to reward their friends, punish their enemies, and try to perpetuate themselves in power. Welcome to the real world. The constitution contemplates political games, and it expects that if people aren't happy with the things their representatives do, that they will toss the bums out in the next election -- pretty much as they did in November 2006.

01-11-2008, 09:22 AM	#39 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	There is another aspect to the public policy question that isn't being addressed here much. Voter fraud, or the perception of voter fraud, is corrosive. It's not merely that the elections have to be clean - the process must be seen as being clean. People have to have confidence in it. The FL vote in 2000 did enormous damage to democracy because it caused people to lose confidence in the system - justifiably, because the system was a mess, and sometimes you need a crisis before problems get addressed. But each person who votes has a right to expect that the process is clean, that only qualified voters vote, that each vote gets counted only once. If that is not true, it injures every single voter. That means the case weighs two kinds of harm against each other: (1) the risk that some voter somewhere who is otherwise qualified might be turned away from the polls for lack of ID; and (2) the systemic harm to every voter from having a system without adequate and obvious safeguards. Usually, in a democracy we rely on our elected representatives to make this balance. As a matter of constitutional law, I would expect that is what will decide the case. Note that that has nothing to do with whether I personally believe item 1 or item 2 is more important. The issue is whether the legislature of a state is entitled to make that choice.