GOP Busted for Voter Suppression

[Mr.Jones]

Read more here: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/372992/gop_busted_for_voter_suppression

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ban my account ffs!]

That's pretty sad.

Similar things happen here... the Republicans are really big on being at the polling places so they can scrutinize the new registrants.

You never see the Republicans trying to get people to register to vote here.. except at exclusively Republican events...

When I interned for the central MN DFL in '06, we went to area high schools and helped register many 18 year old seniors and we gave talks on the importance of voting...

And it was all done in a completely non-partisan manner.

Many of the teachers commented "you know... we never see the other side doing stuff like this"

[Alcon]

So, the challenges aren't going through?

They would have been a lot less objectionable if they weren't specifically limited to heavily Democratic counties and Indian reservations.  That was pretty bald-faced.

[Torie]

If the addresses don't match, it is fraudulent voter suppression. The judge is probably a Dem hack.  He should be ignored. In fact, writing a letter sounds unethical to me. The judge is opining about aspects of the case without making a ruling. Who cares what the judge thinks about the motives or whatever?  F him.

[Meeker]

The Republicans dropped the challenges a week or two ago.

[J. J.]

So, the challenges aren't going through?

They would have been a lot less objectionable if they weren't specifically limited to heavily Democratic counties and Indian reservations.  That was pretty bald-faced.

There is a right to challenge, i.e, claim they are not proper registrations in court.  The Republicans did and judge said they were legitimate. 

I'm not seeing a problem.

[Alcon]

If the addresses don't match, it is fraudulent voter suppression. The judge is probably a Dem hack.

This sort of voter registration challenge is based on the National Change of Address Database, and is one of the most inappropriate mass address challenges I've ever seen.  Here is a good summary of why this is an essentially horrible idea.

Not only that, but the registration challenges were only done in college counties, in Butte-Anaconda (union areas), and on Indian reservations.  There is absolutely no moral justification to this, beyond wanting to get rid of Democratic registrations.

I'll also point out (pet issue ahead) that the challenges on the Indian reservations were done in a particularly objectionable way.  Many reservations are essentially trailer parks, without a street grid.  You end up with descriptive addresses - "2 blocks W of 4th & Main", and this inevitably trigger database mis-matches.  They're how mail is delivered in such areas, though, and while they are not legal addresses (many people in this area see their legal addresses only on taxes), postal workers and county election boards accept them as such.  At least half of the challenges in Big Horn county were this form, I hear.

Completely, totally unacceptable behavior.  It would be a dumb idea even if they weren't cherry-picking counties.

[Alcon]

There is a right to challenge, i.e, claim they are not proper registrations in court.  The Republicans did and judge said they were legitimate. 

I'm not seeing a problem.

Judges do not handle the processing of election challenges.  A judge not canceling challenges does not mean the challenges are legitimate.  It just means that it's a validly filed challenge, not that the challenge is valid.

There is a right to challenge, and it should be used more often.  This (mis-use of databases, filing so close to election time, unacceptable and unnecessary targeting of locales for political benefit) is a partisan stunt.  The dude was right to resign.

[Torie]

If the addresses don't match, it is fraudulent voter suppression. The judge is probably a Dem hack.

This sort of voter registration challenge is based on the National Change of Address Database, and is one of the most inappropriate mass address challenges I've ever seen.  Here is a good summary of why this is an essentially horrible idea.

Not only that, but the registration challenges were only done in college counties, in Butte-Anaconda (union areas), and on Indian reservations.  There is absolutely no moral justification to this, beyond wanting to get rid of Democratic registrations.

I'll also point out (pet issue ahead) that the challenges on the Indian reservations were done in a particularly objectionable way.  Many reservations are essentially trailer parks, without a street grid.  You end up with descriptive addresses - "2 blocks W of 4th & Main", and this inevitably trigger database mis-matches.  They're how mail is delivered in such areas, though, and while they are not legal addresses (many people in this area see their legal addresses only on taxes), postal workers and county election boards accept them as such.  At least half of the challenges in Big Horn county were this form, I hear.

Completely, totally unacceptable behavior.  It would be a dumb idea even if they weren't cherry-picking counties.

One is free to challenge who one likes, like Gore challenged in only 3 Florida counties. The Dems can monitor the GOP counties.

Of course, the voters in question should not be systematically purged based on a mismatch alone. But there should be more investigation, like sending letters of inquiry to the address, one to the voter, and one to current resident.

[Alcon]

One is free to challenge who one likes, like Gore challenged in only 3 Florida counties. The Dems can monitor the GOP counties.

Within their rights, but completely unethical.

Of course, the voters in question should not be systematically purged based on a mismatch alone. But there should be more investigation, like sending letters of inquiry to the address, one to the voter, and one to current resident.

I think you miss what they're doing -- they're using the national mail forwarding list.  Basically, the MTGOP is assuming that anyone who has an order to forward their mail doesn't actually live at that address.  It's oftentimes used for moving, but it's also used for foreign military, those who maintain a legal residence but are elsewhere (living abroad/etc.), and other situations where it's perfectly legal to have a legal residence from which you forward mail.  It is also likely to affect students, those who are transitory and maintain a static residence for legal purposes, etc. etc. 

Uncoincidentally, several classes of those folks would also have difficulties showing up to their voter challenge hearing.

[J. J.]

There is a right to challenge, i.e, claim they are not proper registrations in court.  The Republicans did and judge said they were legitimate. 

I'm not seeing a problem.

Judges do not handle the processing of election challenges.  A judge not canceling challenges does not mean the challenges are legitimate.  It just means that it's a validly filed challenge, not that the challenge is valid.

There is a right to challenge, and it should be used more often.  This (mis-use of databases, filing so close to election time, unacceptable and unnecessary targeting of locales for political benefit) is a partisan stunt.  The dude was right to resign.

Sorry, but they can challenge, just like the Democrats can.  It is part of election in the US in the early 21st Century and probably an improvement from the the 20th.

[Zarn]

How is challenging potential voter fraud an act of voter fraud?

[Torie]

One is free to challenge who one likes, like Gore challenged in only 3 Florida counties. The Dems can monitor the GOP counties.

Within their rights, but completely unethical.

Of course, the voters in question should not be systematically purged based on a mismatch alone. But there should be more investigation, like sending letters of inquiry to the address, one to the voter, and one to current resident.

I think you miss what they're doing -- they're using the national mail forwarding list.  Basically, the MTGOP is assuming that anyone who has an order to forward their mail doesn't actually live at that address.  It's oftentimes used for moving, but it's also used for foreign military, those who maintain a legal residence but are elsewhere (living abroad/etc.), and other situations where it's perfectly legal to have a legal residence from which you forward mail.  It is also likely to affect students, those who are transitory and maintain a static residence for legal purposes, etc. etc. 

Uncoincidentally, several classes of those folks would also have difficulties showing up to their voter challenge hearing.

As I said, do more investigation. Invite a response. Invite the registrant to sign an affidavit. Invite the current resident to say something at the address. The burden of proof should be on of course the government if it is going to deregister.

[Alcon]

Sorry, but they can challenge, just like the Democrats can.  It is part of election in the US in the early 21st Century and probably an improvement from the the 20th.

Did you miss the first clause of my post, or something?

As I said, do more investigation. Invite a response. Invite the registrant to sign an affidavit. Invite the current resident to say something at the address. The burden of proof should be on of course the government if it is going to deregister.

Agreed.  I'm reviewing Montana law, and apparently they have no requirement to show up in-person.  This is not how it is in most states, but it's a good idea.  An affidavit by mail is much better.  However, realistically, signing an affidavit isn't going to accomplish much.  All it proves is that the voter eventually received the mail.  It'll scare away a few people, but probably fewer fraudsters and more the type of voter I mentioned (static residency address but transitory.)  Yeah, I wish people would update their registrations on-the-fly, but there are a ton of people who don't and these are not high-priority for me.  (But I don't care!)

I'm not denying the public's right to challenge registrations.  It's something I wish was used more often.  Forwarded mail, however, is going to result in a lot more false positives than real ones.  It should be legal for them to file, much as it was legal for a fellow here to file voter registration challenges solely based on Hispanic last names, but there's a responsibility to do so fairly and reasonably.

I think this was gray-area in reason, and pitch-black in fairness.

Basically, beyond that, this boils down to a classical semi-partisan debate over whether transitory voters should be prosecuted/canceled if they fail to update their registrations.  Most election officials (D or R) agree that they have little interested in doing either.  But I'm leaving my opinion on that matter aside.  The problem I'm having here is that you shouldn't file a mass voter challenge where most of the challenges are invalid because you used a stupid method, and you certainly shouldn't target certain counties for political reasons.  Targetting transitory voters is always going to relatively help the GOP.  Cherry-picking counties is just fundamentally abhorrent.

[Alcon]

Basic re-summary of my last post:

Yes, there's speeders, but I wish we'd go after the DUIs.  But my objection is not that; it's hat they're pulling over any car that's pulling out of a bar, even if it isn't driving erratically.

And then some added metaphor component relating to targeting cars in only Democratic-leaning counties, which you can write for yourself. 

[Torie]

Basic re-summary of my last post:

Yes, there's speeders, but I wish we'd go after the DUIs.  But my objection is not that; it's hat they're pulling over any car that's pulling out of a bar, even if it isn't driving erratically.

And then some added metaphor component relating to targeting cars in only Democratic-leaning counties, which you can write for yourself. 

The job of a party is to target the fraud of the other party. I know it is a subtle and shocking concept, but sometimes the essence of elegance is simplicity. Think of it as two lawyers representing opposing clients in a courtroom. Heck, if you want "fair and balanced," well, there is a cable channel that hawks that.

I wonder how many states one could vote in during one election day, thanks to some registration help from Acorn, with your budget for transportation unlimited. You know, you start at 7am in Kennepunkport, zip into NH and then Marblehead, and then into RI, and Eastern Connecticut, helo to the Hamptons, then a quick jet ride to Wilmington, and pop over to Chester, and the Pine Barrons (sp), slip into the Eastern Shore, helo down to VA on the same shore, and well you get the idea. I think this is a perfect project for you Alcon!   Remember to take into account the time zones, although I don't think even with that, you can't make Hawaii work, as included in the optimal objective function.

[Alcon]

Might as well spend all day voting in every precinct in North Dakota.  You'd rack it up much faster.  Do I win?

(P.S. Let me have my righteous anger while I'm young! )

[J. J.]

Sorry, but they can challenge, just like the Democrats can.  It is part of election in the US in the early 21st Century and probably an improvement from the the 20th.

Did you miss the first clause of my post, or something?

I did, but one of jobs of the party, both parties, all parties, is to challenge these things. 

[Alcon]

Sorry, but they can challenge, just like the Democrats can.  It is part of election in the US in the early 21st Century and probably an improvement from the the 20th.

Did you miss the first clause of my post, or something?

I did, but one of jobs of the party, both parties, all parties, is to challenge these things. 

And if they were actually interested in fair elections, instead of elections that aren't too fair that they lose, they'd have done a statewide challenge.  Period.

[J. J.]

Sorry, but they can challenge, just like the Democrats can.  It is part of election in the US in the early 21st Century and probably an improvement from the the 20th.

Did you miss the first clause of my post, or something?

I did, but one of jobs of the party, both parties, all parties, is to challenge these things. 

And if they were actually interested in fair elections, instead of elections that aren't too fair that they lose, they'd have done a statewide challenge.  Period.

The party is interested in winning, as all parties are expected to be.

[Alcon]

The party is interested in winning, as all parties are expected to be.

Which means any legal action they take, as unethical as it may be, is excused?

no thanks.

[J. J.]

The party is interested in winning, as all parties are expected to be.

Which means any legal action they take, as unethical as it may be, is excused?

no thanks.

No, it means that the parties have a job to do, and won't be critical of them for trying to do it. 

Sorry.

[Alcon]

The party is interested in winning, as all parties are expected to be.

Which means any legal action they take, as unethical as it may be, is excused?

no thanks.

No, it means that the parties have a job to do, and won't be critical of them for trying to do it. 

Sorry.

I suppose if winning is so much more important than ethics that this isn't even worthy of questioning, that's your prerogative.  I don't share your view.

[Zarn]

The ethical thing is to make sure they are valid, if there is suspicion. We are not getting numerous fraudulent Republican registrations across the country. If the Dems wanted to check it out, then by all means they should do so. They don't, because they don't suspect anything.

[Alcon]

The ethical thing is to make sure they are valid, if there is suspicion. We are not getting numerous fraudulent Republican registrations across the country. If the Dems wanted to check it out, then by all means they should do so. They don't, because they don't suspect anything.

These aren't fraudulent registrations.  Even among the invalid ones, probably a minority, the vast majority are probably people who have not updated their registrations, or have a typographical error in them, or something of that nature.  They're more fraudulent than the average registrations in the same way I'm more likely to be a violent felon because I'm male.

The ethical thing would be a statewide challenge drive, instead of limiting the challenges to politically expedient areas.  The procedurally competent thing would have been using a database not prone to so many false positives.  They managed neither.

The MTGOP does not give half a crap about the integrity of the voter database, and neither do the MT Dems.