Indiana Voter Suppression: Police raided voter registration program
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:34:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Indiana Voter Suppression: Police raided voter registration program
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Indiana Voter Suppression: Police raided voter registration program  (Read 979 times)
rafta_rafta
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 926


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 15, 2016, 07:07:29 AM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2016, 07:28:34 AM »

Wait, they had 45,000 voter registrations just lying around, not submitted?

wat.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2016, 08:56:24 AM »

It was due to voter fraud,  not suppression. You don't register to vote in five different names.
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2016, 10:03:01 AM »

It was due to voter fraud,  not suppression. You don't register to vote in five different names.
And this excuses seizing upwards of 40,000 forms? That's like using a nuclear missile to take out Bin Laden.
Logged
Rocky Rockefeller
Nelson Rockefeller 152
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2016, 10:03:38 AM »

They are going to disenfranchise 45,000 people because of 10 fraudulent registrations
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2016, 10:34:39 AM »

Wait, they had 45,000 voter registrations just lying around, not submitted?

wat.
Agreed. Unless Indiana law requires those doing voter registration drives to conduct extreme due diligence, that is, do the job of the election officials for them, there's zero reason for them to have had 1,000 registrations waiting to be sent in, let alone 45,000.

It probably isn't deliberate fraud, but sheer incompetence that is at the root of their problems.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2016, 11:30:58 AM »

They weren't holding onto 45,000 forms, it's just 45,000 forms that they turned in over the the course of the registration drive that have been seized base on minor inaccuracies in 10 forms. It would be great if you guys actually read the article before coming up with ridiculous theories and accusations.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2016, 12:23:55 PM »

These are the tactics of a banana republic. Someone has to put an end to that.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2016, 01:15:12 PM »

It was due to voter fraud,  not suppression. You don't register to vote in five different names.

Brennnan Center for Justice at NYU Law School: Myth of Voter Fraud

Read up and educate yourself before spewing lies.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2016, 02:19:22 PM »

They weren't holding onto 45,000 forms, it's just 45,000 forms that they turned in over the the course of the registration drive that have been seized base on minor inaccuracies in 10 forms. It would be great if you guys actually read the article before coming up with ridiculous theories and accusations.
You see Atlas loves to comment on things not knowing anything about them.  It makes them seem smart.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2016, 04:32:07 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2016, 04:35:08 PM by Alcon »

They weren't holding onto 45,000 forms, it's just 45,000 forms that they turned in over the the course of the registration drive that have been seized base on minor inaccuracies in 10 forms. It would be great if you guys actually read the article before coming up with ridiculous theories and accusations.
You see Atlas loves to comment on things not knowing anything about them.  It makes them seem smart.

Totally unnecessary condescension, Jerry.  The article says no such thing.  In fact, it seems to contradict Ebsy's claim (emphasis mine):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's realistic that Ebsy is right and the article is just misleading.  But do either of you have a source that supports that assumption?
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2016, 05:43:43 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2016, 05:48:27 PM by JerryArkansas »

They weren't holding onto 45,000 forms, it's just 45,000 forms that they turned in over the the course of the registration drive that have been seized base on minor inaccuracies in 10 forms. It would be great if you guys actually read the article before coming up with ridiculous theories and accusations.
You see Atlas loves to comment on things not knowing anything about them.  It makes them seem smart.

Totally unnecessary condescension, Jerry.  The article says no such thing.  In fact, it seems to contradict Ebsy's claim (emphasis mine):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's realistic that Ebsy is right and the article is just misleading.  But do either of you have a source that supports that assumption?
How, most here in the thread haven't read the article.  And the quote only seems to support Esbys point.  That 45000 people won't likely get too vote because of a few fake registrations that have to be turned in. 

So please what are you trying to harp on again.  That they don't return the applications right when they are filled out?  I want too know.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2016, 07:57:45 PM »

It appears that in the rush to be dramatic, the Washington Post got their facts wrong.

Here's a quote from the corrected story and the mea cupla at the end of the article.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The OP gave a sufficient quote for me to make a response without having to read the story.  It's only because the Washington Post initially got the story wrong, that reading it became necessary.

Reading the story, it appears the group was planning on making a last minute publicity dump of 50,000 registrations at the last moment to file them. At least we now have our answer to the question posed in another thread on why some states require registration well in advance of election day.  There's no way Indiana election officials could handle 50,000 registrations dumped on them the day before.

Incidentally, that arbitrary goal likely was a good part of the problem, much like the goals for new accounts for Wells Fargo employees proved a problem. Trying to meet that goal created incentives to be less than worried that complete and accurate registrations were submitted, and may have encouraged some to create applications that they knew would be rejected.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2016, 12:27:53 PM »

They weren't holding onto 45,000 forms, it's just 45,000 forms that they turned in over the the course of the registration drive that have been seized base on minor inaccuracies in 10 forms. It would be great if you guys actually read the article before coming up with ridiculous theories and accusations.
You see Atlas loves to comment on things not knowing anything about them.  It makes them seem smart.

Totally unnecessary condescension, Jerry.  The article says no such thing.  In fact, it seems to contradict Ebsy's claim (emphasis mine):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's realistic that Ebsy is right and the article is just misleading.  But do either of you have a source that supports that assumption?
How, most here in the thread haven't read the article.  And the quote only seems to support Esbys point.  That 45000 people won't likely get too vote because of a few fake registrations that have to be turned in. 

So please what are you trying to harp on again.  That they don't return the applications right when they are filled out?  I want too know.

I don't know what's confusing here...

1. I pointed out that it would be stupid and irresponsible if they were holding on to 45,000 forms.

2. Ebsy responded, claiming that they weren't holding onto 45,000 forms, but rather that the 45,000 included the total they had "turned in over the the course of the registration drive," and chastised those in the thread for not reading the article.

3. You replied, agreeing that people had failed to read the article.

4. I point about that I had read the article, and -- rightly or wrongly -- the article claims that the 45,000 forms were seized during the raid.  That would mean, contrary to Ebsy's post, these forms were still at the office, and not turned in.

Yes, I am harping on the fact that 45,000 forms shouldn't be just sitting around until the last moment.  That's irresponsible.  I'm also objecting to Ebsy's reply, which doesn't seem to be supported by the contents of the article.

Reading the story, it appears the group was planning on making a last minute publicity dump of 50,000 registrations at the last moment to file them. At least we now have our answer to the question posed in another thread on why some states require registration well in advance of election day.  There's no way Indiana election officials could handle 50,000 registrations dumped on them the day before.

I can't speak to Indiana, but in most states, voter registrations can still be processed after the deadline, just not submitted.  Here, we had two days of 40,000 registrations apiece on the two days before the deadline, and they took another few days to fully process them all.  I think it's irresponsible for two reasons: 1) it increases the chance that the forms will be misplaced before they're turned in, even if they're stored electronically; and, 2) voters participating in a registration drive shouldn't be calling in to check their registration two weeks later and being told it was never turned in.  Their desire to get a press release for setting a one-day record (or whatever they were trying to do) doesn't mean they can be irresponsible like this.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2016, 12:37:16 PM »

The article says that the forms were seized based on 10 inaccuracies discovered by election officials in 2 counties. How would the election officials have reviewed the forms had at least some of them not been submitted?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2016, 01:50:46 PM »

The article says that the forms were seized based on 10 inaccuracies discovered by election officials in 2 counties. How would the election officials have reviewed the forms had at least some of them not been submitted?

That basically means there are two options, as far as I can tell:

1. The organization or its representatives turned in some applications, but held on to a ton of them.

2. The applications were turned in as received.  WaPo erroneously reported that the applications were seized during the raid.  Instead, the physical applications weren't seized, but rather seized separately from county elections officials, and presumably any that have already been processed were suspended or something.  (Either that or they registered way more than 400,000, and those 400,000 were only the recent applications that haven't been processed.)

#1 is consistent with the article, while #2 (which you seem to be assuming is correct) is not, but your response chastised others for not reading the article, so...huh?
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2016, 01:05:37 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/voter-registration-effort-spurs-an-inquiry-in-indiana.html

Update on events. The organization was not sitting on 45k forms and had been turning them in as they received them, and they state that they had been flagging forms to county clerks they thought to have had inconsistencies. The massive fraud alleged by the Republican Indiana Secretary of State has not emerged in the forms examined by county clerks all over the state.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2016, 03:04:22 PM »
« Edited: October 21, 2016, 03:06:30 PM by Alcon »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/voter-registration-effort-spurs-an-inquiry-in-indiana.html

Update on events. The organization was not sitting on 45k forms and had been turning them in as they received them, and they state that they had been flagging forms to county clerks they thought to have had inconsistencies. The massive fraud alleged by the Republican Indiana Secretary of State has not emerged in the forms examined by county clerks all over the state.

...Which also means it's not true that 45,000 forms were seized, right?  Unless I misunderstand, the forms largely had been processed, and I'm not seeing any indication that registrations were/are frozen.  Am I missing something?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.