Ohio voter interference

[J. J.]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

[J. J.]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

They are poll watchers, which is what they do.  I believe in PA any registered voter can challenge the credentials of any other registered voter.

Opebo, you really seem to be in favor of voter fraud.

[J. J.]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

They are poll watchers, which is what they do.  I believe in PA any registered voter can challenge the credentials of any other registered voter.

Opebo, you really seem to be in favor of voter fraud.

I would prefer it to people having to deal with vigilante posses confronting them while they attempt to vote.  I think a citizen has a right to expect to be confronted *only* by the duly appointed authorities.  By the same token I don't expect to be pulled over by just some ordinary citizen if I'm out speeding on the highway - that is what the police are for.

The likely result of all this challenging of one individual by another is a brawl or riot.

No it is not, as just pointed out.  I cannot walk into any poll in the US and challenge a voter, but, in my state, I certainly could, if a poll watcher and, possibly, if a registered voter.  You seem to not only favor fraud, but denying others their rights under the law.

[J. J.]

I do not favor everyone having a right to inspect the actions of everyone else for legality.  Vigilantism is a recipe for loss of individual rights, rioting, and abuse.

This is hardly vigilantism, but thight of an elector or official "challenger" under Ohio law, which is:

§ 3505.20. Challenges.

   
 
 Any person offering to vote may be challenged at the polling place by any challenger, any elector then lawfully in the polling place, or by any judge or clerk of elections.

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

Opebo, you are now on record as not only condoning vorter fraud, but of wishing to deprive the electors of their rights under statute.  It sounds quite Stalinist.
 

[J. J.]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

Unfortunately, some of the local election officials are turning a blind eye to fraudulent voter registrations.

If I walk into the polls on election day and see a 4'8", elderly Asian man claiming to be either of my next door neighbor, you are correct that I'm going to challenge it!  (My next door neighbor is a 5'7  African American woman of less than 50).

[J. J.]

If I walk into the polls on election day and see a 4'8", elderly Asian man claiming to be either of my next door neighbor, you are correct that I'm going to challenge it!  (My next door neighbor is a 5'7  African American woman of less than 50).

How on earth are YOU going to 'see' what someone else is doing?  Are you going to peer over the shoulder of every voter and look at his paperwork?  Perhaps lay a heavy hand on his shoulder and demand to know all about him?  I think citizens have a right to be protected against such intimidation by their fellows.  Only the election officials should be allowed to pry into a voters privacy, and even then only the minimum necessary.

Well, largely because the the poll workers ask you your name, and in some cases, your address, in turn.  I'm standing in a relatively small room.

The law in OH, where this is being done, the law permits each party and candidate to appoint someone, called a "challenger," to sit in the polls and challenge a voters ability to vote, on specific grounds.  This is done to prevent fraud.  Further a voter, who happens to be in the polls, can also challenge the voter, on specific grounds.


What you suggest, aside from not being in compliance with state law, deprives voters, and candidates of their rights under statute.  It further promotes voter fraud.

[J. J.]

So, opebo, in Columbus- where many more people are registered to vote than actually live there- you believe the GOP should allow the Democrats 30,000+ illegal/bogus votes?

There is no way for you to know how many people actually live in Columbus.  The Census is notoriously inaccurate, and is, after all, around four years old.  People move, things change.  I'm sure those new voters are almost all real.

So opebo, you favor only Democrat voter fraud?

[J. J.]

So opebo, you favor only Democrat voter fraud?

Of course, at present I'm supporting the Democrats, so I do hope they commit fraud successfully.  However I doubt that much of what the GOP is making a fuss about is actually fraud. 

The point I'm making is a more general one about privacy and individual rights, and a preference for policing by trained officials and not vigilantes.  I do not relish the idea of a voter being interefered with by just anyone - sounds like a recipe for intimidation, brawling, and completely incapacitated polling stations - conveniently the ones in black neighborhoods.

I do object to violations of election law. 

I'm not entirely sure that you ever went into a polling place, but the official do[i/] ask your name.  The "challengers" do have a right to know the name of the voter and the address.  What "sounds" like intimidation to you, sounds like attempts to prevent fraud.  The difference is that statute says it the right of the challenger or of another voter that is in the polling place.  The system is in place to prevent voter fraud, but you've already indicate that you support voter fraud.

[J. J.]

Fraud on both siades is wrong obepo and we should have cleaned up this mess already.

The problem with the challenge is that it often becomes intimidation and many people who were eligble to vote do not because of it.  The challenges tend to be dealt out to African Americans (wonder why).

Would you care to support that claim?  I have voted in a 90+% African American polling place for 5 years, and one that was at least 35% African American for 7 years before that.  I have never seen voter intimidation based on a "challenge."

[J. J.]

Race-Based Targeting
- Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which could suppress their turnout in this year’s elections. Six members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in the matter.
- This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation of a “potential felon” purge list to remove voters from the rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge,
which removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after news media investigations revealed that the
2004 list also included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually ignoring Hispanic voters.
- This summer, Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have
a tough time in this election.” African Americans comprise 83% of Detroit’s population.
- In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African American areas were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards, driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs designed to look like law enforcement insignia.

I could go on, pages and pages.

You could go on with pages and pages of inaccurate information.  In the FL case, the investigation, of voter fraud, happened after the election.  It's is exceptionally hard to "suppress" voter turnout after the people have voted.  They were investigating to see if the people who were listed as voting actually voted.  I have been questioned by law enforcement to see if I had properly witnessed a form (not related to voting) and I was called as witness to testify.  This is called investigating a potential crime.

FL prohibits felons from voting.  So the found that the purge list was inaccuratate and didn't use it.  I'm not seeing that as "supression" either.

In the MI case, The Representative is not referring to any illegal activity.  I mentioned in another post that the weather tends to suppress votes; is mother nature supressing the vote.  Obviously, neither party wants the other party to turn out.

I live in Phila, in a section of the city that is 90% African American.  No  mysterious 300 sedans with magnetic signs; no mysterious men with clip boards in that election.  No media reports of it.  That was the mayor's race, which the incumbent Democrat won by 20 points; I know because I was supporting him.  Now there was two report of something happening.  Someone punched a Republican poll worker and stole his campaign material.  Someone threw a bottle through the window of one of the Republican's campaign offices.

The same two guys ran against each other in 1999.  The Republican complained because there were large union members passing out material at polls.  He thought that it might have "intimidated" some Republicans.  Now, they might have been large, but there was no reported effort that they were doing anything but passing out his material.  Is that Democratic attempt at "intimidation."  I've seen large people passing out material for Democrats in from of my polls; is this another attempt at voter "intimidation" by the Democrats?

My answer is no.  They are exercising there right of freedom of speech to enourage voters to vote for their candidate.  They were not hindering anyone.

Why do you oppose attempts to commit voter fraud, khirkhib?  Do you only object to voter fraud if it isn't Democrats doing it?  Do you believe that one party should be above the law?

[J. J.]

No I oppose Voter Fraud, I also oppose voter supression on both sides. You wanted some examples and you disagree with many of them systemically.

Maybe some of them aren't accurate but where there is smoke there is fire.  I think we have to work accross the aisle to make our elections better to stop fraud and to allow everyone the chance to vote.  I think this is critical for the success of our country.

I don't care if it helps the republicans or the democrats, thats not my call.  I just think that a country that wants to promote democracy around the world should have the fairest and most transperant elections in the world.

I don't understand why this didn't become an important issue of concern four years ago and I hope we can fix it. 
I don't think our leaders and government should be lead by which ever side is sneakiest.  Let the people decide.

I disagree that, factually, those example which I cited, including those of Democrats, are voter suppression.  Clearly, investigating the possibility that someone fraudulently voted after the votes were cast (I believe this was also after the election) cannot be considered voter suppression.  Stating thay you would really prefer that opposite party voters not go to the polls is not voter suppression.  The phantom fleet of sedans is not voter suppression.  Having someone "large" standing in front of the polls, at a proper distance, and peacefully pass out material is not voter suppression.

I object to your claims that legal activities, in some cases, investigations of potential crimes, are voter "suppression" or voter "intimidation."