Tag Archives: voting

What’s Going On Here?

Posted on by
Reply

US military members tend strongly to vote Republican.  Yet in election swing states, absentee ballot requests are shockingly low.  There are a couple of possibilities for why this is so: on the one hand, our soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, don’t care enough about voting in this year’s elections to request their ballots.  This is hard to credit.

On the other hand, they’re not getting the information they need to get their ballots so they can vote.  We know some things about this.  For instance, we know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in the chain of command for our soldiers, but it is charged with providing the command chain with training, equipage, and support for the commanders’ soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

We also know that the Chairman of the JCS, General Martin Dempsey, is too busy hectoring ex-military and civilians for exercising their free speech rights to have any time left providing that support—which, among other matters, includes making it possible for our soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, to vote absentee.

Here’s how well he’s doing on soldiers’ absentee voting, and how will others specifically charged with the task are doing.  This table, taken from the Military Voter Protection Project‘s report, shows how far the numbers of requested absentee ballots have fallen from the numbers in 2008 (the complete report is available at the MVP Project link).

State

Total Requested
in 2008

Current
Requested
in 2012

Percent
Difference

Florida

121,395

65,173

-46%

Virginia

41,762

12,292

-70%

North Carolina

19,109

7,848

-59%

Illinois

9,858

3,532

-64%

Ohio

32,334

9,707

-70%

Alaska

13,766

6,535

-52%

Colorado

5,104

2,986

-41%

Nevada

4,919

1,750

-64%

We also know some other things about this shameful failure.  DoD spokeswoman Cmdr Leslie Hull-Ryde is insisting that 2012 is much different than 2008: the 2008 elections had contested primaries for both major parties, but this time only Republicans had a contested primary.  That’s their excuse, apparently: there must be primaries by both parties, else the Pentagon is relieved of its duty.  Hull-Ryde added, proudly,

We are in complete compliance with the law.  (The Federal Voting Assistance Program) strives to ensure that every absent military and overseas citizen voter has the tools and resources to receive, cast and return an absentee ballot and have it counted—regardless of who they vote for.

When I was on active duty in the USAF, such “meets standards” performance, noted on an Officer Efficiency Report or an Airman Proficiency Report, was the kiss of death to a career.  We were expected to do better than that.  Moreover, DoD was authorized $75 million for last year and this to set up the mechanisms—including those voting assistance offices—for getting this voting information to its service members.  Yet it has chosen not to, to any great extent, despite the fact that the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires them to.

Pam Mitchell, acting director of the FVAP, compounds the matter, bragging that there are over 220 voting assistance offices seat up worldwide, and claiming with a straight face,

I strongly believe that voting assistance is the best that it has ever been.

Never mind that she has a vested interest in downplaying this failure.  Never mind that the 220 offices of which she’s so proud is a trifling number compared to the thousands of locations around the world at which we have soldiers and spouses, and those who support them—or just soldiers and their support—stationed.  It seems the FVAP isn’t striving very hard.

Despite the Pentagon’s decision to fail [sic] on this, soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, can request absentee ballots at the MVP Project link above and at  the Heroes Vote Initiative Web site, http://heroesvote.org.

One more thing: think the military vote is too trivial to matter?  Aside from the utter immorality of depriving these men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything in order to protect us and our freedoms—including our right to vote—of their right to vote, think about the numbers involved.  Compare the present reduction in military votes cast (again, a segment of our population that tends strongly to vote Republican) with the closeness of past Presidential elections in Florida and other swing states, the 2008 Senatorial election in Minnesota, the gubernatorial elections in Washington, and so on.

Voting Rights

Posted on by
Reply

From The Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog comes this hopeful sign.  A number of states have filed a Friend of the Court brief in support of South Carolina as that state prepares to defend itself against the Obama administration’s assault on its effort to protect the sanctity of the vote.  The money paragraphs in the brief speaks is this, and it needs no further comment from me.

Because Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act of 1965] applied arbitrarily to the Covered Jurisdictions [i.e., those states subject to the VRA], none of which uses discriminatory tests or devices, and many of which have higher voter turnout, or lower disparity in minority voter turnout, than many of the uncovered jurisdictions, the Covered States are denied the fundamental principles of equal sovereignty and equal footing.  Because the VRA’s purpose is to eradicate voting discrimination for all United States citizens, treating states differently is not congruent with the Act’s purpose.

The brief, BRIEF OF ARIZONA, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND TEXAS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER, can be found here.

Broadening Attacks on Vote Sanctity

Posted on by
Reply

Now President Obama is having his DoJ attack Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law.

The letter from DoJ to Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Commonwealth can be viewed here.  Not only is Obama objecting to protecting the sanctity of a legitimate vote by trying to block efforts at screening “voters” who are ineligible, in this letter he’s also demanding a potful of wholly irrelevant personally identifying information on voters and potential “voters.”  Here’s a sample from his DoJ’s letter:

  • The current complete Pennsylvania voter registration list, including each registered voter’s full name, address, date of birth, identifying numbers (including driver license, social security, or other numbers), voter history, and race.
  • The current complete Pennsylvania driver license and personal identification card list, including each individual’s full name, address, date of birth, identifying numbers (including driver license, social security, or other numbers), and race.

There are a total of 16 different items of information being demanded, including the legitimate request for clarification of the apparent disconnect between the governor’s statement that 99% of eligible voters already have acceptable ID, and the commonwealth secretary’s statement that 758,000 registered voters lack acceptable ID.  However, this question’s legitimacy only exists on the basis of a legitimate concern for voter eligibility and has nothing to do with any voter ID requirement itself.  Since the administration’s attack on the Pennsylvania law has no legitimacy, the question about the disconnect is irrelevant.

Moreover, a voter’s voting history is wholly irrelevant to such an inquiry: what other fishing expedition is Obama’s DoJ conducting, sub rosa?  Nor is the individual’s address or age relevant.  Nor is the voter’s race, except that this administration intends to play, again, its race card.  In fact, the prior question that must be answered is whether legitimate voters are being removed from the voter registration lists in any significant number.  Only then can a question of racial motivation come into play.  (Disparate impact has no legitimate role, here, only motive.)  Since DoJ hasn’t established that legitimate voters are being removed in Pennsylvania, the entire investigation is bogus.

Finally, the Supreme Court already has upheld a substantially identical Voter ID law passed by Indiana.

Why is Obama running this, then?  So he can add names and addresses to his campaign and fund-dunning mailing lists?  So he can target those who might vote or support the wrong candidate?

There’s No Voter Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Nosirree.  But there is this AP story carried by Fox News with incidents like this reported.

The voter registration form arrived in the mail last month with some key information already filled in: Rosie Charlston’s name was complete, as was her Seattle address.

Problem is, Rosie was a black lab who died in 1998.

And this

A Virginia man said similar documents arrived for his dead dog, Mozart, while a woman in the state got forms for her cat, Scampers.

The AP story notes that residents and election administrators around the country have encountered a number of questionable mailings like this addressed to animals, dead people, noncitizens and people already registered to vote.  Voter Participation Center brags about having distributed 5 million forms in the last few months, intended to get “unmarried women, blacks, Latinos, young adults,” and so on registered.

The problem with such ad hoc systems is that there is no accountability attached.  VPC itself says it relies on the recipients to toss the bad forms; it doesn’t try not to send them in the first place.  Except that Rosie isn’t around to toss her bad form, and Scampers can’t read.  VPC, though, says it’s all someone else’s fault: they use “commercially collected information.”

More seriously, as New Mexico officials note, ineligible voters who complete the documents can make it onto the rolls.  In New Mexico, for instance, noncitizens can qualify for a driver’s license by simply proving residency—not even necessarily legal residency—and state elections officials have no way of verifying the voting eligibility status of those who file registration documents.  Further, the registration forms often arrive with information already filled in and with a pre-addressed (to appropriate local elections officials) envelope enclosed.

There really are a small number of fraudulent registrations compared to the overall legitimately voting population.  But keep in mind that Senator Al Franken (D, MN) was elected in 2008 by 300 votes out of nearly 3 million cast, and President George W Bush won Florida’s Electoral College votes in 2000 by 500 votes out of some 6 million cast.

Also keep in mind that Attorney General Eric Holder opposes voter ID laws, which would protect the sanctity of Americans votes by reducing the opportunity for election stealing through voter fraud even further.

DoJ and…Racism

Posted on by
1

Speaking to the NAACP in Houston last Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder had this to say about Texas’ attempt to protect Americans’ voting rights by implementing a voter ID law that would help ensure that only eligible voters got to vote:

Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them—and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them.  We call those poll taxes.

The racism in Holder’s remarks is apparent.  As the WSJ pointed out

The Texas law stipulates that voters can use several kinds of ID to vote, including a driver’s license, passport, a US military ID, and (this being Texas) a handgun permit.  As for the “poll tax” canard, the law says the Texas Department of Public Safety will issue a free Election Identification Card if requested.

When was the last time Holder’s Jim Crow had a poll tax of $0.00?

But this is the new Jim Crow, Eric Holder style: anyone who votes Democratic (as opposed to democratic) should be allowed to vote, regardless of eligibility.  Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld a substantially identical voter ID law in Indiana just three years ago.  But Holder can’t attack Indiana; that state isn’t under his personal thumb, courtesy of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Texas is.

This is also the same Attorney General that, shortly after he assumed the position, threw out a case of New Black Panther voter intimidation of white voters that the Federal government already had won—at the end of the previous administration—and concerning which it was, literally, all over but the sentencing.  That case eventually led to the resignation of career Federal Prosecutor J Christian Adams.  This case also led to then-active Federal Prosecutor Christopher Coates’ testimony in front of the US Civil Rights Commission about the new DoJ’s policy of not seeking enforcement of voter laws when the victims weren’t people of color or when the suspected perpetrators were.

It would be interesting to hear Holder give the same speech to a more balanced audience.