The GOP's War On Voting

[Whitey44]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...oting-20110830


The GOP War on Voting

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year

by: Ari Berman

A voter casts his ballot during the primary elections in Virginia
Matt McClain/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. "What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century," says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C.
Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." But since the 2010 election, thanks to a conservative advocacy group founded by Weyrich, the GOP's effort to disrupt voting rights has been more widespread and effective than ever. In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states introduced legislation this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.
All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.
Taken together, such measures could significantly dampen the Democratic turnout next year – perhaps enough to shift the outcome in favor of the GOP. "One of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time," Bill Clinton told a group of student activists in July. "Why is all of this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate" – a reference to the dominance of the Tea Party last year, compared to the millions of students and minorities who turned out for Obama. "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today."
To hear Republicans tell it, they are waging a virtuous campaign to crack down on rampant voter fraud – a curious position for a party that managed to seize control of the White House in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote. After taking power, the Bush administration declared war on voter fraud, making it a "top priority" for federal prosecutors. In 2006, the Justice Department fired two U.S. attorneys who refused to pursue trumped-up cases of voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, and Karl Rove called illegal voting "an enormous and growing problem." In parts of America, he told the Republican National Lawyers Association, "we are beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are colonels in mirrored sunglasses." According to the GOP, community organizers like ACORN were actively recruiting armies of fake voters to misrepresent themselves at the polls and cast illegal ballots for the Democrats.
Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."
GOP outcries over the phantom menace of voter fraud escalated after 2008, when Obama's candidacy attracted historic numbers of first-time voters. In the 29 states that record party affiliation, roughly two-thirds of new voters registered as Democrats in 2007 and 2008 – and Obama won nearly 70 percent of their votes. In Florida alone, Democrats added more than 600,000 new voters in the run-up to the 2008 election, and those who went to the polls favored Obama over John McCain by 19 points. "This latest flood of attacks on voting rights is a direct shot at the communities that came out in historic numbers for the first time in 2008 and put Obama over the top," says Tova Wang, an elections-reform expert at Demos, a progressive think tank.
No one has done more to stir up fears about the manufactured threat of voter fraud than Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a top adviser in the Bush Justice Department who has become a rising star in the GOP. "We need a Kris Kobach in every state," declared Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit. This year, Kobach successfully fought for a law requiring every Kansan to show proof of citizenship in order to vote – even though the state prosecuted only one case of voter fraud in the past five years. The new restriction fused anti-immigrant hysteria with voter-fraud paranoia. "In Kansas, the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive," Kobach claimed, offering no substantiating evidence.
Kobach also asserted that dead people were casting ballots, singling out a deceased Kansan named Alfred K. Brewer as one such zombie voter. There was only one problem: Brewer was still very much alive. The Wichita Eagle found him working in his front yard. "I don't think this is heaven," Brewer told the paper. "Not when I'm raking leaves."

Kobach might be the gop's most outspoken crusader working to prevent citizens from voting, but he's far from the only one. "Voting rights are under attack in America," Rep. John Lewis, who was brutally beaten in Alabama while marching during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, observed during an impassioned speech on the House floor in July. "There's a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process."
The Republican effort, coordinated and funded at the national level, has focused on disenfranchising voters in four key areas:
Barriers to Registration Since January, six states have introduced legislation to impose new restrictions on voter registration drives run by groups like Rock the Vote and the League of Women Voters. In May, the GOP-controlled legislature in Florida passed a law requiring anyone who signs up new voters to hand in registration forms to the state board of elections within 48 hours of collecting them, and to comply with a barrage of onerous, bureaucratic requirements. Those found to have submitted late forms would face a $1,000 fine, as well as possible felony prosecution.
As a result, the law threatens to turn civic-minded volunteers into inadvertent criminals. Denouncing the legislation as "good old-fashioned voter suppression," the League of Women Voters announced that it was ending its registration efforts in Florida, where it has been signing up new voters for the past 70 years. Rock the Vote, which helped 2.5 million voters to register in 2008, could soon follow suit. "We're hoping not to shut down," says Heather Smith, president of Rock the Vote, "but I can't say with any certainty that we'll be able to continue the work we're doing."
The registration law took effect one day after it passed, under an emergency statute designed for "an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare." In reality, though, there's no evidence that registering fake voters is a significant problem in the state. Over the past three years, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has received just 31 cases of suspected voter fraud, resulting in only three arrests statewide. "No one could give me an example of all this fraud they speak about," said Mike Fasano, a Republican state senator who bucked his party and voted against the registration law. What's more, the law serves no useful purpose: Under the Help America Vote Act passed by Congress in 2002, all new voters must show identity before registering to vote.
Cuts to Early Voting After the recount debacle in Florida in 2000, allowing voters to cast their ballots early emerged as a popular bipartisan reform. Early voting not only meant shorter lines on Election Day, it has helped boost turnout in a number of states – the true measure of a successful democracy. "I think it's great," Jeb Bush said in 2004. "It's another reform we added that has helped provide access to the polls and provide a convenience. And we're going to have a high voter turnout here, and I think that's wonderful."
But Republican support for early voting vanished after Obama utilized it as a key part of his strategy in 2008. Nearly 30 percent of the electorate voted early that year, and they favored Obama over McCain by 10 points. The strategy proved especially effective in Florida, where blacks outnumbered whites by two to one among early voters, and in Ohio, where Obama received fewer votes than McCain on Election Day but ended up winning by 263,000 ballots, thanks to his advantage among early voters in urban areas like Cleveland and Columbus.
That may explain why both Florida and Ohio – which now have conservative Republican governors – have dramatically curtailed early voting for 2012. Next year, early voting will be cut from 14 to eight days in Florida and from 35 to 11 days in Ohio, with limited hours on weekends. In addition, both states banned voting on the Sunday before the election – a day when black churches historically mobilize their constituents. Once again, there appears to be nothing to justify the changes other than pure politics. "There is no evidence that any form of convenience voting has led to higher levels of fraud," reports the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College.
Photo IDs By far the biggest change in election rules for 2012 is the number of states requiring a government-issued photo ID, the most important tactic in the Republican war on voting. In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a photo-ID law in Indiana, even though state GOP officials couldn't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop. Emboldened by the ruling, Republicans launched a nationwide effort to implement similar barriers to voting in dozens of states.
The campaign was coordinated by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which provided GOP legislators with draft legislation based on Indiana's ID requirement. In five states that passed such laws in the past year – Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – the measures were sponsored by legislators who are members of ALEC. "We're seeing the same legislation being proposed state by state by state," says Smith of Rock the Vote. "And they're not being shy in any of these places about clearly and blatantly targeting specific demographic groups, including students."
In Texas, under "emergency" legislation passed by the GOP-dominated legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, a concealed-weapon permit is considered an acceptable ID but a student ID is not. Republicans in Wisconsin, meanwhile, mandated that students can only vote if their IDs include a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date – requirements that no college or university ID in the state currently meets. As a result, 242,000 students in Wisconsin may lack the documentation required to vote next year. "It's like creating a second class of citizens in terms of who gets to vote," says Analiese Eicher, a Dane County board supervisor.

The barriers erected in Texas and Wisconsin go beyond what the Supreme Court upheld in Indiana, where 99 percent of state voters possess the requisite IDs and can turn to full-time DMVs in every county to obtain the proper documentation. By contrast, roughly half of all black and Hispanic residents in Wisconsin do not have a driver's license, and the state staffs barely half as many DMVs as Indiana – a quarter of which are open less than one day a month. To make matters worse, Gov. Scott Walker tried to shut down 16 more DMVs – many of them located in Democratic-leaning areas. In one case, Walker planned to close a DMV in Fort Atkinson, a liberal stronghold, while opening a new office 30 minutes away in the conservative district of Watertown.
Although new ID laws have been approved in seven states, the battle over such barriers to voting has been far more widespread. Since January, Democratic governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina have all vetoed ID laws. Voters in Mississippi and Missouri are slated to consider ballot initiatives requiring voter IDs, and legislation is currently pending in Pennsylvania.
One of the most restrictive laws requiring voter IDs was passed in South Carolina. To obtain the free state ID now required to vote, the 178,000 South Carolinians who currently lack one must pay for a passport or a birth certificate. "It's the stepsister of the poll tax," says Browne-Dianis of the Advancement Project. Under the new law, many elderly black residents – who were born at home in the segregated South and never had a birth certificate – must now go to family court to prove their identity. Given that obtaining fake birth certificates is one of the country's biggest sources of fraud, the new law may actually prompt some voters to illegally procure a birth certificate in order to legally vote – all in the name of combating voter fraud.
For those voters who manage to get a legitimate birth certificate, obtaining a voter ID from the DMV is likely to be hellishly time-consuming. A reporter for the Tri-State Defender in Memphis, Tennessee – another state now mandating voter IDs – recently waited for four hours on a sweltering July day just to see a DMV clerk. The paper found that the longest lines occur in urban precincts, a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from erecting hurdles to voting in minority jurisdictions.
Disenfranchising Ex-Felons The most sweeping tactic in the GOP campaign against voting is simply to make it illegal for certain voters to cast ballots in any election. As the Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist restored the voting rights of 154,000 former prisoners who had been convicted of nonviolent crimes. But in March, after only 30 minutes of public debate, Gov. Rick Scott overturned his predecessor's decision, instantly disenfranchising 97,491 ex-felons and prohibiting another 1.1 million prisoners from being allowed to vote after serving their time.
"Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" Bill Clinton asked during his speech in July. "Because most of them in Florida were African-Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats – that's why."
A similar reversal by a Republican governor recently took place in Iowa, where Gov. Terry Branstad overturned his predecessor's decision to restore voting rights to 100,000 ex-felons. The move threatens to return Iowa to the recent past, when more than five percent of all residents were denied the right to vote – including a third of the state's black residents. In addition, Florida and Iowa join Kentucky and Virginia as the only states that require all former felons to apply for the right to vote after finishing their prison sentences.
In response to the GOP campaign, voting-rights advocates are scrambling to blunt the impact of the new barriers to voting. The ACLU and other groups are challenging the new laws in court, and congressional Democrats have asked the Justice Department to use its authority to block or modify any of the measures that discriminate against minority voters. "The Justice Department should be much more aggressive in areas covered by the Voting Rights Act," says Rep. Lewis.
But beyond waging battles at the state and federal level, voting-rights advocates must figure out how to reframe the broader debate. The real problem in American elections is not the myth of voter fraud, but how few people actually participate. Even in 2008, which saw the highest voter turnout in four decades, fewer than two-thirds of eligible voters went to the polls. And according to a study by MIT, 9 million voters were denied an opportunity to cast ballots that year because of problems with their voter registration (13 percent), long lines at the polls (11 percent), uncertainty about the location of their polling place (nine percent) or lack of proper ID (seven percent).
Come Election Day 2012, such problems will only be exacerbated by the flood of new laws implemented by Republicans. Instead of a single fiasco in Florida, experts warn, there could be chaos in a dozen states as voters find themselves barred from the polls. "Our democracy is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people," says Browne-Dianis. "It doesn't matter how much money you have, what race you are or where you live in the country – we all get to have the same amount of power by going into the voting booth on Election Day. But those who passed these laws believe that only some people should participate. The restrictions undermine democracy by cutting off the voices of the people."
This story is from the September 15, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone.

[Whitey44]

The GOP has gone through a lot of effort to prevent illegal voters from voting, although the occurrence of illegal voting is rare. It certainly could impede some legitimate poor citizens from voting, since someone poor is more likely to not vote for a GOP candidate. It's going to be really important that people recognize how important it will be to have the proper identification when they go to vote.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

The GOP has gone through a lot of effort to prevent illegal voters from voting, although the occurrence of illegal voting is rare. It certainly could impede some legitimate poor citizens from voting, since someone poor is more likely to not vote for a GOP candidate. It's going to be really important that people recognize how important it will be to have the proper identification when they go to vote.

College students are also prone to vote Democrat. Republicans are making it difficult for them to vote.

[Whitey44]

here is a paper written about the exaggerations about voter fraud...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.brennancenter.org/content...outvoterfraud/

Allegations of election-related fraud make for enticing press. Many Americans remember vivid stories of voting improprieties in Chicagoland, or the suspiciously sudden appearance of LBJ's alphabetized ballot box in Texas, or Governor Earl Long's quip: "When I die, I want to be buried in Louisiana, so I can stay active in politics." Voter fraud, in particular, has the feel of a bank heist caper: roundly condemned but technically fascinating, and sufficiently lurid to grab and hold headlines. Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.
Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up - when any exists - is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.
Download entire publication here.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

College students are also prone to vote Democrat. Republicans are making it difficult for them to vote.

I know of many republican college students. I live in a republican state where the kids usually are raised to be republican when they grow up. Their parents will fork over the money if they need it to vote for the republican candidates.

[CS natureboy]

[richief]

The once great Union now appears to be a series of banana republics strung together.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by richief

The once great Union now appears to be a series of banana republics strung together.

Yepper...it is a fucking mess right now and the foreseeable future.

[thikdik]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

The GOP has gone through a lot of effort to prevent illegal voters from voting, although the occurrence of illegal voting is rare. It certainly could impede some legitimate poor citizens from voting, since someone poor is more likely to not vote for a GOP candidate. It's going to be really important that people recognize how important it will be to have the proper identification when they go to vote.

There is a difference between illegal and poor dunbass.

[BigTrobbing]

I guess that is why the democrats do not want the voter rolls purged of people that are either dead not eligible to vote or that have moved and are registered in 2 places.

But then again the democrats motto vote early vote often.

As for the rolling stone article, this is just yet another left wing rag that has lies in it, Just like when they interviewed the General in the war they finally admitted they lied in the article. So All that rag is good for is a dog to piss and shit on it. But it is OK for you.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

The McCain-Palin campaign accuses ACORN, a community activist group that operates nationwide, of perpetrating "massive voter fraud." It says Obama has “long and deep” ties to the group. We find both claims to be exaggerated...

Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes. What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes...

ACORN itself has not been officially charged with any fraud. Aside from the heated charges and counter-charges, no evidence has yet surfaced to show that the ACORN employees who submitted fraudulent registration forms intended to pave the way for illegal voting. Rather, they were trying to get paid by ACORN for doing no work. Dan Satterberg, the Republican prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., where the largest ACORN case to date was prosecuted, said that the indicted ACORN employees were shirking responsibility, not plotting election fraud...

Election fraud does exist, but hasn’t been shown to be widespread. The New York Times reported in 2007 that a five-year crackdown on such fraud by the Bush administration’s Justice Department had produced 70 convictions at the federal level, including 40 campaign workers or government workers convicted of vote-buying, intimidation or ballot forgery, and 23 cases of multiple voting or voting by ineligible voters. But the Times described these as unconnected incidents and said the Justice Department had turned up no evidence of "any organized effort to skew federal elections."

http://factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by richief

The once great Union now appears to be a series of banana republics strung together.

Spoken like a man who truly misses his Empire, but unfortunately the sun has already set on it.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by richief

The once great Union now appears to be a series of banana republics strung together.

Since the eighteenth century the United States has been more heterogeneous than countries in Europe and the Far East. That is the main reason the American working class never developed a socialist consciousness. Employees who belonged to the dominant ethnicity have usually found it easier to identify with their employers of the same ethnicity than co-workers of different ethnicities.

Since 1965 the United States has become even more heterogeneous because of the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This has lead to a large influx of legal and illegal Hispanic immigration that seems likely to reduce whites from the majority race to the largest minority.

This ongoing demographic change is unsettling to many whites, and probably to most lower income whites, who would otherwise vote Democratic.

The Great Recession exacerbates the political polarization in the United States because there is a growing feeling that economic disputes are a zero sum game.

A very large segment of whites do not want their tax money to help blacks and Hispanics, even if the money will fund programs that help them.

There are some unemployed teabaggers who are dim enough to think that economic policies advocated by the Tea Party will lead to a robust job market. Most teabaggers have reasonably secure jobs or retirements. They know that millions of Americans face long term unemployment and/or are losing their homes. They do not want their tax money to help them.

[origen01]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Since the eighteenth century the United States has been more heterogeneous than countries in Europe and the Far East. That is the main reason the American working class never developed a socialist consciousness. Employees who belonged to the dominant ethnicity have usually found it easier to identify with their employers of the same ethnicity than co-workers of different ethnicities.

Cuba? Most of Latin America?

[Kimiko]

That article is sickening. I thought the days of Jim Crow were over....but apparently, not so. At least not so in states run by Republicans.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Whitey,
In 1980, the Democratic National Committee budgeted over $300,000 dollars for lawyers in order to use legal challenges to prevent John Anderson's name on appearing on ballots in the 1980 Presidential election.
Any examples of the Republicans doing something like that, Whitey?
If you have one, I would be interested to know about it.

Let's not forget that the people who used literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent people from voting were Democrats.

When it serves their purposes, the Democrats are no different than Republicans when if comes to preventing people from voting.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Spoken like a man who truly misses his Empire, but unfortunately the sun has already set on it.

The British Empire was the most enlightened empire in history. It lives on in the British Commonwealth. The legacy of the British Empire outside of Africa has been representative democracy and reasonably well functioning economies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Kve...eature=related

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Whitey,
In 1980, the Democratic National Committee budgeted over $300,000 dollars for lawyers in order to use legal challenges to prevent John Anderson's name on appearing on ballots in the 1980 Presidential election.
Any examples of the Republicans doing something like that, Whitey?
If you have one, I would be interested to know about it.

Let's not forget that the people who used literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent people from voting were Democrats.

When it serves their purposes, the Democrats are no different than Republicans when if comes to preventing people from voting.

That was then. This is now.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Whitey,
In 1980, the Democratic National Committee budgeted over $300,000 dollars for lawyers in order to use legal challenges to prevent John Anderson's name on appearing on ballots in the 1980 Presidential election.
Any examples of the Republicans doing something like that, Whitey?
If you have one, I would be interested to know about it.

Let's not forget that the people who used literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent people from voting were Democrats.

When it serves their purposes, the Democrats are no different than Republicans when if comes to preventing people from voting.

And you think that's a good thing?

Those racist Democrats in the South have long since seen the light and are now Republicans. Why do you think the South is the most reliably Republican part of the country?

And by the way...I'll bet $300,000 is chump change compared to what these guys are spending on this nationwide effort.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by origen01

Cuba? Most of Latin America?

If the class of those who work for paychecks is ethnically distinct from the class of those who employ them class consciousness is likely to be even greater than in a homogeneous country.

In Latin America the upper class is primarily if not exclusively of European ancestry. The classes of workers and peasants are not.

[Baddog_WOOF]

By his own later account, Raymond Chafin, a political boss in Logan County, is asked by Kennedy backers what it would take to get him to switch his support from Humphrey to Kennedy. Chafin tells them “35,” meaning $3,500, but the Kennedy forces apparently misunderstand him. A few days before the election, Chafin is handed two sealed briefcases containing $35,000 in cash. When he calls the Kennedy campaign to report the mistake, he is told to keep the extra money, which by his own later admission, he spends bribing voters. Vote-buying allegations threaten to taint JFK’s victory in West Virginia, but nothing comes of a subsequent Justice Department investigation. Kennedy himself will joke about the expensive win, saying that his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, had complained that JFK was supposed to “rent the state, not buy it.”

Vivid story of vote buying in West Virginia in the 1960 Presidential election by JFK's campaign.

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/...nedy_vs_nixon/

[Heyesey]

Are you saying that it's okay to rig the votes? Or what?

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

And you think that's a good thing?

Those racist Democrats in the South have long since seen the light and are now Republicans. Why do you think the South is the most reliably Republican part of the country?

And by the way...I'll bet $300,000 is chump change compared to what these guys are spending on this nationwide effort.

No, it isn't good thing.
I am simply pointing out that the Democrats have no problem fucking about with the ballot box.
Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.

Oh, and by the way, $300,000 in 1980 was not chump change and it does not change the fact that the Democrats tried to deny voters the chance to vote for John Anderson in the 1980 Presidential election.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

Are you saying that it's okay to rig the votes? Or what?

Not at all.
I am simply pointing out that the Democrats are no slouches when it comes to voter fraud.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Not at all.
I am simply pointing out that the Democrats are no slouches when it comes to voter fraud.

WERE. You haven't pointed at any current examples. And given your total failure to condemn the Republican tactics of today, I can only conclude that you would have been okay with it when the Democrats were doing it.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

By his own later account, Raymond Chafin, a political boss in Logan County, is asked by Kennedy backers what it would take to get him to switch his support from Humphrey to Kennedy. Chafin tells them “35,” meaning $3,500, but the Kennedy forces apparently misunderstand him. A few days before the election, Chafin is handed two sealed briefcases containing $35,000 in cash. When he calls the Kennedy campaign to report the mistake, he is told to keep the extra money, which by his own later admission, he spends bribing voters. Vote-buying allegations threaten to taint JFK’s victory in West Virginia, but nothing comes of a subsequent Justice Department investigation. Kennedy himself will joke about the expensive win, saying that his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, had complained that JFK was supposed to “rent the state, not buy it.”

Vivid story of vote buying in West Virginia in the 1960 Presidential election by JFK's campaign.

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/...nedy_vs_nixon/

There is reason to believe that during the general election of 1960 Joseph P. Kennedy paid Mafia gangsters to stuff ballot boxes in tight election districts. John Kennedy did not learn of this until after the election, which may have been fraudulent as a result.

After the election Kennedy asked Richard Nixon if he would call for an investigation. Nixon said he would not, because such an investigation would be bad for the country. Nixon probably felt that he deserved similar consideration during the Watergate Scandal, but it was not given to him.

After the inauguration of Kennedy the Justice Department under Bobby Kennedy began to go after the Mafia. The gangsters whom Joseph P. hired would have felt betrayed. They may have conspired to kill both of them. I lean toward not believing that either Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, but a conspiracy by a small number of gangsters is more plausible than the vast conspiracies some have imagined involving the CIA, the Pentagon, and so on.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

That was then. This is now.

LOL
Is that all you have?
Pretty lame, DL

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

There is reason to believe that during the general election of 1960 Joseph P. Kennedy paid Mafia gangsters to stuff ballot boxes in tight election districts. John Kennedy did not learn of this until after the election, which may have been fraudulent as a result.

After the election Kennedy asked Richard Nixon if he would call for an investigation. Nixon said he would not, because such an investigation would be bad for the country. Nixon probably felt that he deserved similar consideration during the Watergate Scandal, but it was not given to him.

After the inauguration of Kennedy the Justice Department under Bobby Kennedy began to go after the Mafia. The gangsters whom Joseph P. hired would have felt betrayed. They may have conspired to kill both of them. I lean toward not believing that neither Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, but a conspiracy by a small number of gangsters is more plausible than the vast conspiracies some have imagined involving the CIA, the Pentagon, and so on.

DL, all your Mafia bullshit has nothing to do with the example I cited in Logan County West Virginia.
Nice smokescreen, but pure bullshit nonetheless.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

DL, all your Mafia bullshit has nothing to do with the example I cited in Logan County West Virginia.
Nice smokescreen, but pure bullshit nonetheless.

What both stories have in common is John and Joseph P. Kennedy.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What both stories have in common is John and Joseph P. Kennedy.

What your posts have in common is that none of them refute the statement of Raymond Chafin.

[ericblue]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Whitey,
In 1980, the Democratic National Committee budgeted over $300,000 dollars for lawyers in order to use legal challenges to prevent John Anderson's name on appearing on ballots in the 1980 Presidential election.
Any examples of the Republicans doing something like that, Whitey?
If you have one, I would be interested to know about it.

Just to be clear, when you read the phrase 'legal challenge,' you are able to process the words correctly, no? Parties ARE allowed to challenge whether their adversaries collected enough signatures, or filed on time, etc. That's not fraud.

[ericblue]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

After the election Kennedy asked Richard Nixon if he would call for an investigation. Nixon said he would not, because such an investigation would be bad for the country. Nixon probably felt that he deserved similar consideration during the Watergate Scandal, but it was not given to him.

Nixon very much did have people look into Illinois, behind the scenes. They didn't come up with enough to make it stick. On the surface, he was the nice-guy-let-bygones-be-bygones, but he had it looked into.

Btw West Virginia was a highly competitive Democratic primary that year, Kennedy upset Humphrey there. I don't believe it was at issue in the general election.

[richief]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Spoken like a man who truly misses his Empire, but unfortunately the sun has already set on it.

Ha, I never lived in the age of the Empire nor do I wish too. However the US voting system and the blocks put in the way of registering is disturbing for a nation that claims to base its existence on fairness and equality. Blocks on certain groups of society to vote sounds more like Robert Mugabe's regime than the good ole US of A.
I can soon see the French asking for the Statue of Liberty to be returned if you (collectively) continue to allow your politicians and their workers to corrupt the ballot register.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ericblue

Just to be clear, when you read the phrase 'legal challenge,' you are able to process the words correctly, no? Parties ARE allowed to challenge whether their adversaries collected enough signatures, or filed on time, etc. That's not fraud.

No, it's suppression. There have been VERY few documented cases of voter fraud in the United States. Republicans aren't pursuing voter fraud because they believe in the integrity of the electoral system. They're pursuing it in order to make it difficult for people to vote and to prevent people from voting for their opponents. Republicans win when voter turnout is low.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Not at all.
I am simply pointing out that the Democrats are no slouches when it comes to voter fraud.

This is a matter of principle. If you agree that it was wrong then, it's just as wrong now. It should be easy in this country to vote. It's as simple as that.

[anotheruser1]

as usual i see it is made out to be the usual racist bullshit. if they stop the white people from voting well then thats ok

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

No, it isn't good thing.
I am simply pointing out that the Democrats have no problem fucking about with the ballot box.
Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.

Oh, and by the way, $300,000 in 1980 was not chump change and it does not change the fact that the Democrats tried to deny voters the chance to vote for John Anderson in the 1980 Presidential election.

Shouting "you did it, too!" is the tactic of a schoolyard urchin, Baddog_WOOF. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

[richief]

It is easy to register here, every year they send out a canvass between Aug and Oct fill in the form and return to register office.

[ericblue]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

No, it's suppression. There have been VERY few documented cases of voter fraud in the United States. Republicans aren't pursuing voter fraud because they believe in the integrity of the electoral system. They're pursuing it in order to make it difficult for people to vote and to prevent people from voting for their opponents. Republicans win when voter turnout is low.

I'm puzzled why you're going after me. Every sentence here, I agree with, after the very first one that is. But you must've misread my post. The guy is going back into history to find examples of Democrats skirting the rules, and not all his examples are wrong (though, as you said, a lot of it is the racist Southern Dems of yesteryear doing it). But certain practices are perfectly legal. You ARE allowed to go over the other side's signatures to look for duplication and the like, things like that. The Dems challenging Anderson, or just making sure he'd dotted his i's and crossed his t's, what's wrong with that? He lost in the Republican primaries, so his entry was pretty late in the going. There's nothing wrong with hiring lawyers to ensure a late-entry candidate's followers followed the stated rules and deadlines.

[tenguy]

So far I have not seen any evidence of illegal activity regarding the registration of voters or the suppression of voting rights by the GOP.

This is just more of the hysteria that the left seems to crave so much.

[lancedulak]

Tenguy that is because you seem to be specifically ignoring it.

To the wingnuts posting here.. are you truely proud of your ignorance, racism and servility? You're Proud of actively supporting lies and corruption? You're actively proud of blindly swallowing lies and groveling before those who tell them to you?

That is truely sad. A handful of far right wing billionaires and corporations have almost entirely eviscerated our democracy. And you servile, hateworshipping fools cheer it on. You're a disgrace to every man and woman who ever picked up a weapon to fight for our democracy.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by lancedulak

Tenguy that is because you seem to be specifically ignoring it.

Show me the evidence that you claim that I am ignoring.

[ericblue]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Show me the evidence that you claim that I am ignoring.

The Bush Administration attorney firing scandal. Your side is so fond of trying to obscure the details that they seem to always need relisting.

Administrations typically ask for all the U.S. attorneys' resignations on coming into office. Which Bush did. Nothing wrong with that. But, it means they ALL were his own people, and most of them were very conservative. Problem for Bush/Rove, some of them also had integrity.

So when the admin pushed them to trump up charges of voter fraud on people in their district, so the admin could trumpet their arrests in order to smooth the way for their suppression efforts, those attorneys with integrity refused to do so, absent actual evidence of it. And they were fired for it. Eight of them, at once. Un-fucking-precedented.

Please look up David Iglesias, who was the most outspoken. Conservative. Christian. And fired for not going along with Karl Rove's fraud.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

So far I have not seen any evidence of illegal activity regarding the registration of voters or the suppression of voting rights by the GOP.

That's just the point, tenguy. The suppression of voting rights by the GOP is legal, because they're passing laws in the states they control that MAKE it legal. That is, until those laws get challenged in the courts. By then, of course, the election will be over. Mission accomplished.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by ericblue

The Bush Administration attorney firing scandal. Your side is so fond of trying to obscure the details that they seem to always need relisting.

Administrations typically ask for all the U.S. attorneys' resignations on coming into office. Which Bush did. Nothing wrong with that. But, it means they ALL were his own people, and most of them were very conservative. Problem for Bush/Rove, some of them also had integrity.

So when the admin pushed them to trump up charges of voter fraud on people in their district, so the admin could trumpet their arrests in order to smooth the way for their suppression efforts, those attorneys with integrity refused to do so, absent actual evidence of it. And they were fired for it. Eight of them, at once. Un-fucking-precedented.

Please look up David Iglesias, who was the most outspoken. Conservative. Christian. And fired for not going along with Karl Rove's fraud.

You have posted absolutely no evidence of illegal activity, only innuendo and suspicion of it.

Now be a good boy and post actual examples of evidence.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

That's just the point, tenguy. The suppression of voting rights by the GOP is legal, because they're passing laws in the states they control that MAKE it legal. That is, until those laws get challenged in the courts. By then, of course, the election will be over. Mission accomplished.

So what they are doing is legal, just as what the other parties have done in the past. Because it potentially affects the side that you have chosen, it must be stopped.

In 2010 the Democrats sought to control the vote by massive registration programs, it worked, even though some of the tactics were highly suspect. Do you now think that they were wrong?

The potential for illegal voting rises as the number of new registrations are processed, you seem to find efforts to properly vet those new voters distasteful. Why?

To me, there is nothing wrong with asking a potential voter to provide evidence that they are legally qualified to vote, do you disagree?

[RandyKnight]

This one gets me...

Texas bill would outlaw straight-ticket voting



AUSTIN, TX -- State Sen. Jeff Wentworth said the straight party ticket method is "lazy" voting and he wants the 2011 Texas Legislature to join more than a dozen other states and ban the option.

ABC13 Poll


Wentworth, as he's done unsuccessfully in previous sessions, has prepared a bill that would outlaw straight-ticket voting in Texas,


The Dallas Morning News reported Monday.

"We're not England," said Wentworth, a Republican from San Antonio, in pointing out the British system of voting along party lines. "Straight-ticket voting is a detriment to our system and not the way it was designed to be."

Straight-party voting allows a voter to make one choice, voting for all members of a designated political party as listed on the ballot.

Republicans did not much like what happened to them in 2008

[Distant Lover]

It would be ironic if Republican efforts to discourage poor people from voting cost them the votes of lower income white Republicans who are so stupid that they think they benefit from Republican economic policies.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

So what they are doing is legal, just as what the other parties have done in the past. Because it potentially affects the side that you have chosen, it must be stopped.

Don't be an idiot, tenguy. I said it was "legal" in the narrowest sense of the word, because Republicans had passed legislation to do it. That doesn't mean the laws they pass are constitutional, and it doesn't mean they are right. Is it your position that it should be difficult to vote in this country?

In 2010 the Democrats sought to control the vote by massive registration programs, it worked, even though some of the tactics were highly suspect. Do you now think that they were wrong?

Why is it wrong to register voters? What tactics do you consider "highly suspect"? How many cases have been prosecuted?

The potential for illegal voting rises as the number of new registrations are processed, you seem to find efforts to properly vet those new voters distasteful. Why?

I question the motives of those doing the "vetting". The proper "vetting" of voters is done at the local level, and they have plenty of tools to ensure that it is done properly. That's not what this is about, and you know that perfectly well.

To me, there is nothing wrong with asking a potential voter to provide evidence that they are legally qualified to vote, do you disagree?

When a significant percentage of the voting public doesn't have a driver's license and don't drive, and when DMV offices are open one day a month, and you want to force people to go there and get a photo idea, yes, I have a problem with that. County elections offices already have perfectly legitimate methods for verifying eligibility to vote. Please stop pretending that that's what is going on here.

[anotheruser1]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

It would be ironic if Republican efforts to discourage poor people from voting cost them the votes of lower income white Republicans who are so stupid that they think they benefit from Republican economic policies.

it wont be much longer and voting isnt going to be around, with the current shit that is happening, along with what has come out on the wikileaks, i see a war coming real soon.