Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Monday 05/05/08

[tbyg52]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Monday 05/05/08

Esteemed DUer's, please consider taking a moment (or more)
to graciously participate by posting Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.


If you can:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.



2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.



4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.




Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page!

[tbyg52]

1. States nt

[tbyg52]

8. IN: 1.1 Million Purged from Indiana Voter Registration Rolls According to State Data, Says BBV

The Republican War on Voting continues apace.

In addition to the recent, outrageously bad decision by the Supreme Court to approve Indiana's draconian polling place Photo ID restrictions, sure to keep thousands of legal voters from even being able to cast a vote in tomorrow's important Primary Election --- despite the state's inability to offer up a single instance of in-person polling place voter impersonation that's ever occurred during the state's entire history (as we've covered here, here and here, for example) --- another 1.1 million voters have now been purged from the voting rolls all together, reports Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, as based on the Hoosier State's own data.

Moreover, the state will use unverifiable touch-screen style voting systems across the state. One widely used system, made by MicroVote, will be used despite having been decertified, and two other systems, made by ES&S and Diebold have been found vulnerable to undetectable vote-flipping viruses by several reputable universities.

More:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5955

[tbyg52]

9. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3246304&mesg_id=3246304

[tbyg52]

13. OK: Voter ID law may come to Oklahoma

Oklahoma soon may join many other states in passing a voter identification law, which lawmakers said will help combat election fraud and bring ease to voters’ minds.

Senate Bill 1150, authored by Rep. Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, would require voters to show identification before being allowed to vote.

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law that requires voters to show a valid form of photo identification before casting a ballot on Election Day. The ruling was a victory for Republicans, against Democrats who claimed the rule was keeping many eligible voters away from the polls.

“Oklahomans have lost faith in our voting system because of fears that their vote will not count,” Tibbs was quoted as saying in a press release. “This legislation will not prevent anyone eligible from voting, but will instead restore voter confidence during elections.”

More:
http://www.edmondsun.com/local/local_story_126121727.html

[tbyg52]

31. Picture imperfect: Voter ID measure gets shelved

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court said it was OK to require voters to show proof of their identity at the polls, a bill that would mandate the same practice in Oklahoma was mothballed for this session. Go figure.

Sen. John Ford, R-Bartlesville, waved the white flag after being peppered with questions from Democrats who, like their brethren on the national level, view voter ID requirements as onerous toward minorities, the poor and older voters — that is, toward folks who usually vote Democratic. You'd think the party that screamed fraud after the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 would favor common-sense efforts to reduce the possibility of that occurring, but no.

More:
http://newsok.com/picture-imperfect-voter-id-measure-gets-shelved/article/3239022/

[tbyg52]

21. MD. allows voters to use many IDs

Unlike the Indiana legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court, the General Assembly of Maryland has appropriately balanced making it easier for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote and reducing the risk of election fraud ("A voting setback," editorial, April 30).

In Maryland, if your identity is challenged on Election Day, you can use several forms of identification to prove that you are who you are: a voter registration card, a valid Maryland driver's license, a Social Security card, any state- or federal government-issued ID, any employment card with a photo ID or a copy of a current bill, bank statement, government check or other government document that shows your name and current address.

(A little) more (plus comments):
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters05m2may05,0,1492690.story

[tbyg52]

23. OH: Cuyahoga vote audit matches primary results

The elections board in Cuyahoga County says a hand-count audit of votes from the presidential primary matches the results from scanned paper ballots.

A sample of 30,000 paper ballots from 99 precincts were hand-counted by teams composed of Republicans and Democrats last week.

(A little) more:
http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8272072

[tbyg52]

25. NC: Our voting rights investigation: Where does it stand?

It has been six days since Facing South and the Institute for Southern Studies published our first investigation into the mysterious "Lamont Williams" robo-calls (listen to the audio file here) that blanketed North Carolina on the eve of the state's critical primary elections.

Over the past week, our ongoing investigation has ignited a national firestorm. We'd like to take a moment to reflect on what brought us here, and offer our best sense of where the issue stands.

First, a little background. Voting rights has always been a special focus for us. Since our founding by civil rights veterans in 1970, we have published dozens of ground-breaking investigations into African-American voter suppression and other threats to democracy, including a series looking at the role of the Department of Justice's "voting integrity" policies in the 2004 elections (see an example here ).

When we started looking into the North Carolina robo-calls a week ago, they had generated widespread complaints from African-American and other voters -- and outrage from voting rights advocates and the progressive community nationally -- who believed the tactics were, at the very least, confusing and deceptive. At worst, many saw in them the elements of a sophisticated voter suppression campaign.

More:
http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/05/our-voting-rights-investigation-where.asp

[tbyg52]

37. Women's Vote, Women's Voices Statement On North Carolina

Background is here. Whether you believe their explanation or not, credit activists on the left for bringing the problems to the attention of the press, and, in general, marvel at how quickly the these types of controversies are brought to the attention of everyone.

“Founded in 2004, the non-partisan Women’s Voices, Women Vote (WVWV) pioneered the use of direct marketing techniques (direct mail and automatic phone calls) to register voters. As its name suggests, the organization’s focus is the large group of unregistered voters among the nation’s 53 million unmarried women. It has registered 600,000 voters since 2004.

“In February, March and early April of this year, WVWV registered 26,000 voters in North Carolina, approximately 57% of whom are African American. No organization that would spend resources to register these voters would then turn around and attempt to disenfranchise them in May. We address this issue in two parts: first, what we did in North Carolina, and second, the history and achievements of the organization which add important context for understanding the way direct marketing to register voters is a welcome addition to more traditional approaches.

“OUR WORK IN NORTH CAROLINA

More:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/womens_vote_womens_voices_stat.php

[tbyg52]

28. CA: Bowen - Poll Workers Are On California’s Front Line of Democracy

Each election, Californians see snapshots of what makes our democracy tick. Candidates. Initiative measures. Campaign commercials. Voter registration drives. Ballots and the machines that count them.

One crucial element that’s often overlooked is the contribution from the state’s largest one-day volunteer work force: the 100,000 men and women who serve on the front lines of democracy as poll workers.

Teenagers and senior citizens, professionals and retirees, people of all backgrounds come together to ensure all of the more than 23,000 polling places across California are staffed on Election Day. Poll workers make voting easier and they protect our ballots until they are delivered to county election officials.

For their valuable service, poll workers take home modest stipends. But they walk away with so much more – a sense of community, a chance to reconnect with neighbors and friends, first-hand experience with democracy, and personal satisfaction.

More:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/bowen_poll_work.html

[tbyg52]

29. OH: Machine helps disabled cast their ballot

The Automark voter assist terminal is a ballot-marking system designed for use by voters who are blind, vision impaired or physically challenged in ways that would make it difficult or impossible to vote in the typical fashion. Platte County has had the machines in use since the primary election in 2006.

“The Automark machine is really just an automated pencil that makes it possible for those who are physically disabled to mark a paper ballot,” said Diane Olmer, Platte County election commissioner.

The machine is used to mark the specific partisan or non-partisan paper ballot required for each individual and does not count or store the vote.

More:
http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2008/05/05/news/local/doc481f3785e8989696714859.txt

[tbyg52]

30. IN: Surge of absentee ballots before Indiana primary

Days before Indiana's critical primary showdown between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, Hoosier voters are flooding county clerk offices with an unprecedented number of absentee ballots as both campaigns push their supporters to vote early.

Thursday alone, more than 14,000 absentee ballots were processed across the state, boosting the total number of early primary ballots cast to 127,247, the Indiana secretary of state's office said.

That's more than twice the number cast in Indiana's presidential primaries over the past two decades. And it's nearing the number of early ballots cast in the 1992 general election, when 162,068 people voted early, and in 1996, when 165,218 early ballots were cast.

Strong interest in the Clinton-Obama race has kept the 92 county clerks in Republican-leaning Indiana struggling to handle a deluge of ballots sent in by mail or cast in person for Tuesday's primary.

More:
http://www.miamicountylife.com/articles/2008/05/04/state_news/1state.txt

[tbyg52]

33. CT: Secretary of the State says voter privacy at stake

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz today May 5, 2008 called on State Representative Christopher Caruso, the chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, to bring S.B. #444 to a vote in House of Representatives. Provisions of S.B. #444 touted by the Secretary of the State and passed by the State Senate codifies critical safeguards to guarantee every voter’s fundamental Constitutional right to vote privately and independently at the polls.

“We have less than 72 hours before the end of the 2008 legislative session,” Bysiewicz said, “After conducting hearings in every Congressional district in the state, it is clear Connecticut citizens want more privacy protections in place with our new optical scan voting system.”

In a letter to Rep. Caruso Sec. Bysiewicz wrote, “We are preparing for a record turnout in November and it is critical that we provide local election officials with concrete guidance about how best to safeguard voter privacy. Voters in our state have a right to expect that we will protect their most fundamental civil right and this bill provides a good framework to do just that.”

Among other provisions, SB #444 guarantees the following:

More:
http://www.stamfordplus.com/stm/information/nws1/publish/News_1/Secretary_of_the_State_says_voter_privacy_at_stake2282.shtml

[tbyg52]

34. NJ extends deadline for verification of electronic votes

New Jersey now has until year's end to require paper verification of electronic voting.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine on Monday signed a bill changing the deadline from June 3 to Jan. 1.

(A little) more:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--votingmachines0505may05,0,5678830.story

[tbyg52]

35. TX: Texas lawmakers likely to consider photo ID rule for voters

Another rancorous fight over voting could be brewing in the Texas Capitol, El Paso legislators said after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that states could require photo identification at the polls.

"This sets us up for a very contentious session," said state Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso.

In a 6-3 ruling Monday, the court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters there to present photo IDs before casting a ballot.

Last year, Texas lawmakers considered a similar measure that Republicans said was meant to safeguard the election system and Democrats said would disenfranchise thousands of voters. The bill narrowly passed the House but died after a high-drama standoff in the Senate.

More:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_9134293

[tbyg52]

41. AK: NARF AND ACLU Ask Federal Court To Stop Disenfranchisement Of Alaska Natives

Who Need Language Assistance

On behalf of four Alaska Natives and four tribal governments, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion in federal court today ordering state and local elections officials to provide effective oral language assistance and voting materials to citizens who speak Yup'ik, the primary language of a majority of voters in the Bethel region of Alaska. The motion comes in a lawsuit filed in 2007 charging state and local elections officials with ongoing violations of the federal Voting Rights Act.

"The state of Alaska and city of Bethel continue to violate the Voting Rights Act by blocking Alaska Natives from participating in the democratic process," said NARF attorney Natalie Landreth, who is lead co-counsel in the case. "Election officials expect Yup'ik voters to understand translations which are incomprehensible, inaccurate, confusing, and cause them to vote the wrong way. Under federal law, state and local elections officials must provide oral language assistance in Yup'ik and ballots and other voting materials translated into Yup'ik – an obligation with which they have never complied."

More:
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/35168prs20080505.html

[tbyg52]

42. CO: No photo to vote, for now

You may need a driver's license to get a beer, but you don't need one to get a ballot.

When voters go to the polls this year, they will be able to show they're eligible to vote by presenting a copy of their birth certificate, pay stub or utility bill.

The Legislature has debated whether Colorado needs stricter standards, and the parties are split on the issue. Republicans say they're defending the integrity of the election process. Democrats say they're defending citizens' fundamental rights.

The issue for those who think laws need to be tightened is voter fraud - in which someone is able to vote more than once - or illegal immigrants being able to cast votes.

More:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/photo_35997___article.html/vote_.html

[tbyg52]

45. MD: Task force sets out ways to organize chaotic elections

Some apparently believe that the biggest problem with Maryland elections has been the state's attempt to use touch-screen voting machines. Others think the biggest problem is voter fraud.

Neither group is right.

This was pointed out convincingly last week by a task force assembled by state Attorney General Doug Gansler, who was appalled at the foul-ups and inefficiencies that plagued state elections in 2006, most noticeably during the primary election.

More:
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/05_05-28/OPN

[tbyg52]

2. National nt

[tbyg52]

7. Lamont Williams Says Please Stop Calling Him

It's not a great time to be named Lamont Williams.
Lamontwilliams
Not That Robocall Guy: Stage actor Lamont Williams says he's got nothing to do with WVWV's automated calls to North Carolina voters.
Courtesy Lamont Williams

Lamont Williams, an actor and vice president at the theater company StageNorfolk in Norfolk, Virginia, says that he's received several calls in the past few months regarding voter registration issues.

So far, he's received two calls this week. And it's only Monday.

"I have nothing to do with politics," he says. "My understanding is this (voter registration) effort is legitimate, but it's got nothing to do with me."

More:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/its-not-a-great.html

[tbyg52]

10. Missouri Congressional Candidate Byron DeLear Speaks to The BRAD BLOG About 'Securing the Vote'

Yesterday The BRAD BLOG interviewed Byron DeLear who is running for Congress in Missouri's 2nd District. The current holder of the seat is the ultra-conservative war supporter and Bush crony, Todd Akin (R-MO), who last year infamously argued to keep sending reinforcements to Iraq by invoking Davy Crockett at the Alamo.

We found the intellectual DeLear, who supports the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, extremely knowledgeable on a wide range of issues including election integrity. DeLear even goes so far as to call for the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution to secure the vote.

More:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5953

[galloglas]

56. Rec for the Show Me State !!

Akin could be beaten. Not saying he will, but MO is now 4 Ds and 5 Rs.

The ground work on Show Me The Vote!!'s run at a Missouri Constitutional Amendment to mandate hand-counted paper ballots, counted at precinct, and totals posted at precinct, is (in general) supported by well over 70% of the voters, regardless of party affiliation.

We failed to achieve the required number of signatures by this past Sunday (the deadline) but we did gather thousands of signatures working strictly from a Grass Roots level.

And we did it on the cheap, with word of mouth organizing and a good and honest Petition (see at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/08init_pet.asp#2008011).

Other than the contributions from Board Members and Officers, our largest single donation was for $250 (from a True Patriot who posts at ER) and the rest was in tiny sums. With any type of support at all from the general public, we can do this work cheaper than any of the phony "Affirmative Action" type Initiative Petitions that are backed by special interest, as was this year's Missouri failure by Connerly.

I suggest that if we wish to ban the machines, we should start in the eighteen states that allow citizens to propose, and Petition for, their own laws. After all, does anyone really know anyone in public office who both wants to, and can, ban the machines?

If not, let's do it ourselves.


Oh, BTW, if we had gotten the Amendment on the November ballot, we would find Democrats winning both the 2nd District as well as either the 6th District, or Jo Anne Emerson's seat.

:patriot:

[Wilms]

58. When is a tally a hand count???

Moral of the Story

Take care when writing petitions, initiatives, regulations, and legislation!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x482760

[galloglas]

60. Wilms,

Instead of looking for logical reasons to criticize what you claim to champion, why don't you just go to the MO SoS website and READ the existing Manual of Election Law?

Search for the terms "hand counted" and "tally" and see which shows up, historically, as the method of enumerating votes manually. It should teach you a lot. But, I suspect you have already done that. NO??

And you are right about taking care when writing Initiatives, Petitions, etc. Miswording could be disastrous, couldn't it? So your advice would be to sit back and do nothing until someone (who? ex-lawyers? those disbarred?) says "It's finally perfect! Go with it!"

Well, Wilms, no more talk today as I have stuff to do and I suppose you do, also. Just don't let any ideas get past this forum and into general circulation because... well... anything could happen, right?

Watch that door! Arf!! Arf!!


BTW, what did you manage to accomplish this term in your state? Why not publish a link to those laws that YOU have managed to get passed and which make your elections safer than they were in 2006 and 2004.

Give us some perfect example to follow. Your are a leader, correct? A guiding light here at DU_ER?

All the rest of us just seem to blunder when you, or any of the rest of the Central Committee, don't tell to us exactly what we should do. You know, The Perfect Plan? Or should we just observe and imitate you and the other CC members?

That would guide us to some wondrous and synchronous hand-wringing, would it not?

[tbyg52]

12. ACCURATE Submits Comments on the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections () submitted today to the on their draft (VVSG), urging the Commission to adopt certain key features fo the draft. The VVSG provides a national certification framework for U.S. voting systems against which 40 states require their voting systems to be certified.

ACCURATE's comments laud the new draft as a groundbreaking and badly needed overhaul of our national voting system standards while making constructive suggestions for further development.

The most significant element of the draft VVSG is the requirement for *software independence*, which would require voting systems to be designed so that undetected flaws in the voting system software cannot cause changes in the vote count. ACCURATE fully supports requiring software independence as the backbone of a robust and comprehensive next-generation voting system certification regime.

More:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2843&Itemid=26

[tbyg52]

44. Dan Rather Reports to Provide Live Coverage of the North Carolina and Indiana Primaries on HDNet

As the drama of this year's race for the Democratic presidential nomination unfolds, all eyes are now focused on the upcoming primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. This Tuesday, "Dan Rather Reports" will take place in front of a live audience at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., providing full coverage and analysis of this all-important night for the Democrats.

Rather and his team will look behind-the-scenes to discuss what is really going on with the Democrats. Will this be the night that determines who will lead them in the race for the White House?

In "Dan Rather Reports on Politics: The North Carolina and Indiana Primaries," Rather will be joined on the broadcast by former Congressman Tony Coelho (D-CA), veteran campaign strategist Democrat Donald Fowler, Pollster Peter Hart, Media Critic Tom Rosenstiel and Superdelegate Lauren Wolfe, President of the College Democrats of America.

More:
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/536368.html

[tbyg52]

3. Foreign nt

[tbyg52]

49. UK: Voting age idea rejected

NEWS Shopper readers have given a firm 'no' to a call for the voting age to be lowered to 16.

The Votes at 16 coalition, which includes the British Youth Council and Electoral Reform Society, is campaigning for 16-year-olds to be given the right to vote.

It says there were nearly 25,000 16 and 17-year-olds in the Bexley and Bromley and Greenwich and Lewisham constituencies who were not able to vote in the London Assembly and mayoral elections.

More:
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2246359.mostviewed.voting_age_idea_rejected.php

[tbyg52]

4. Blogs, Editorials, LTTEs, etc. nt

[tbyg52]

11. Guam's Razor-Thin Caucus Vote Shows the Need for Paper Ballots

The extremely close vote in Guam's Democratic Presidential caucus shows the need for recountable and verifiable voting systems, the Verified Voting Foundation said Sunday. Only seven votes separated Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama out of over 4,500 cast. The caucus used voter-marked paper ballots, and a recount was ordered.

“Since the election was conducted using voter-marked paper ballots, they can do a recount,” said Warren Stewart, Senior Projects Manager for Verified Voting. “If the caucus had used paperless touch screens, all they would get would be a reprint,” Stewart said. “Imagine the Electoral College this November is hanging on the results from one state – Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia – where the winner is determined by a razor-thin margin and there is no way to conduct a meaningful recount. Add to that inevitable machine failures in a handful of precincts in the state that will have resulted in long lines or anomalous results, and we have a constitutional crisis.”

More:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2844&Itemid=113

[tbyg52]

14. Pro-Con: Did the Supreme Court make a positive decision on voter IDs? YES

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law is a step forward in protecting the integrity of the voting process. It’s also a victory for good sense.

In a 6-3 decision, the court noted that the plaintiffs failed to show that it’s an undue burden to require voters to produce a state-issued photo ID before filling out a ballot.

(A little) more (plus opportunity to post comments):
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/605365.html

[tbyg52]

15. VOTER ID: Tucker has it wrong again on photo IDs

As a testament to the common-sense nature of the law, a rare but welcome coalition of liberal, moderate and originalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices found common ground last week and voted to uphold, by a 6-3 margin, the constitutionality of Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo identification when voting in person. The Supreme Court's ruling is a victory for voter protection and the integrity of the elections process in Indiana, Georgia and other states with similar photo identification requirements.

Unfortunately, the AJC's Cynthia Tucker took this opportunity to pen yet another fact-challenged rant against Georgia's photo identification requirement, a measure supported by 80 percent of Americans ("Partisan Supreme Court errs on strict voter ID laws," @issue, April 30).

First, Tucker argues against photo identification laws by stating, "The fact that a group of wealthy male jurists favors suppression of the franchise hardly makes it right."

If "wealthy male jurists" are working to suppress voter turnout, they are doing a terrible job.

More:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/05/05/handeled.html

[tbyg52]

16. Striking a Blow for Common Sense: Stevens, Carter Make Powerful Case against Voter Fraud

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold Indiana’s voter-identification law requiring voters to present a driver’s license or other form of photo ID when they go to vote, a decision that has infuriated many on the Left. The ACLU criticized the ruling, and Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, called it “a body blow to what America stands for – equal access to the polls.” This is nonsense. A careful reading of the majority opinions in the case, particularly the main one written by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, shows that the court carefully considered a variety of factors, including the paramount interest in insuring the integrity of the electoral process itself, in making its decision.

Stevens’ opinion (which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy also signed) strikes a huge blow for common sense and against the argument of groups like the ACLU that fighting voter fraud constitutes an unconstitutional burden on the poor, elderly, minorities, etc.

“We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” Stevens wrote. Stevens noted that an U.S. Court of Appeals panel which heard the case had not heard from “any plaintiffs who claimed that the law would deter them from voting.” From that, the appellate court inferred that reason for the effort to overturn the Indiana statute, which required voters to present photo ID at their voting place, was “that the law may require the Democratic Party and other organizational plaintiffs to work harder to get every last one of their supporters to the polls,” Stevens said.

More:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1387445

[tbyg52]

17. ID rule protects integrity of vote

Unlike the writer of the editorial criticizing the Supreme Court for upholding Indiana's voter identification law ("A voting setback," April 30), I believe the court's decision was correct.

We need a photo ID for driving, traveling, banking, buying pharmaceuticals, etc.

I believe most people, even among the elderly and the poor, already have one to do one or more of these daily tasks.

(A little) more (and another LTTE in the same vein):
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters05m0may05,0,706256.story

[tbyg52]

18. NEGATIVE US SUPREME COURT RULING: Potential blow to black voting rights

*In a decision which could potentially lead to increased attacks on Black voting rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that states can require voters to produce photo identification in order to cast their ballots.

Civil and voting rights groups have long argued that state requirements for photo ID were part of a Republican Party campaign to make it more difficult for Blacks and other minorities to vote.

However, in a 6-to-3 decision, with the high court's liberals in opposition, the Supreme Court upheld a strict photo ID requirement in Indiana. At least six other states have similar strict requirements.

Last Monday's ruling could prompt other states to enact similar laws. The legal director of the Indiana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union Ken Falk said he was "extremely disappointed" by the decision because voter ID laws "inhibit voting."

More:
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur43199.cfm

[tbyg52]

19. FOLLOWING UP A partisan move on voting

What we said: "This country's election system is ailing. Not enough people vote, campaigns are costly, confusing and faulty vote-counts taint the process. So, what is Congress proposing? A measure, approved by the House GOP majority, calling for a photo ID card for voters. The idea has a sensible appeal at first blush: What's wrong with digging out a driver's license or smiling-face workplace ID before stepping into the ballot booth? Actually, the problems are many. Not everyone - think disabled, elderly or poor - has such ID, and getting it could be comparatively expensive or time-consuming for these Democratic-leaning groups." - Editorial, April 29, 2006

What happened: Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court approved Indiana's voter ID law, the nation's strictest.

(A little) more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/04/ED9M10G5GP.DTL

[tbyg52]

20. How will voter ID law affect voter participation?

The United States Supreme Court guaranteed another inflammatory legislative session when it ruled last week that it was constitutional for states to pass laws requiring a picture ID to vote.

Nevertheless, the court added to the confusion because it could not reach a single majority opinion. Instead, the six judges who agreed on the principle broke into two separate and conflicting camps.

Three of the six agreed that voter IDs fix no demonstrable problem. After all, supporters have little evidence of any voter impersonation. It is hard for many Americans to remember that as recently as 1963, Texas and other states methodically imposed poll taxes, literacy tests and other impediments to keep minorities from voting.

In effect, Texas told minorities, prove to us you are entitled to vote.

More:
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=207735&SecID=2

[tbyg52]

24. Supreme slip-up

Candidates aren't the only ones causing controversy this election season. Frenzy over poll policies flourished in the wake of last Monday's Supreme Court ruling regarding voter identification laws. In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's 2005 voter identification law requiring that voters show valid photo ID before casting a ballot. Michigan, which also requires voters to produce this type of identification before stepping into the booth, should not be distracted by the Supreme Court's decision, but instead use this as an opportunity to reexamine its own policies, prioritizing voter access to polls to ensure that elections are a representative as possible.

More than 20 states require some form of voter identification at the polls, including Michigan. Photo IDs put an added burden on voters. They cost money, and generally require individuals to take time off work to make it to the Secretary of State's office during its rigid hours. This adds to the burden of voting and disproportionately affects those who do not have the need to acquire ID for other reasons and lack resources or transportation to do so simply for the purpose of casting their ballots such as senior citizens.

Although intended to combat voter fraud, the necessity of these policies has not yet been proven. As the dissenting justices pointed out in the Indiana case, little evidence has been brought forth proving that fraud is occurring at rates high enough to warrant these measures, especially considering the barriers they create. Even Indiana's Secretary of State Todd Rokita admitted that there were no such prosecutions currently underway in his state. As things stand now, the benefits of exclusive voting laws don't outweigh the drawbacks.

More:
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2008/05/05/Editorials/Supreme.SlipUp-3364161.shtml

[tbyg52]

27. Supreme Court Makes Right Call - Voter ID Law Constitutional

Last month the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, came down on the side of both the Constitution and common sense by upholding an Indiana law that requires individuals to present a photo ID prior to casting a vote.

Those who disagree with the ruling contend that voting is a right and compelling individuals to present photo identification at the polls would negatively impact persons who might not be able to afford or acquire such an ID. That is a false argument because, as Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has said, “The law provides free IDs to the public and statistics show that more Hoosiers voted in every population segment after Indiana implemented the law. It is no coincidence that the petitioner could not produce even one person that the law disenfranchised.”

Requiring a photo ID at the polls is not an obstacle to voting. It simply guarantees that the individual seeking to cast a vote is who he or she claims to be and is entitled to exercise that right.

More:
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jbell_20080505.html

[tbyg52]

32. Supreme Court is correct; voter-ID law is prudent

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state's right to require photo identification before anyone can vote at the polls doesn't have much practical application here. But Secretary of State Sam Reed thinks it could be another solid argument for implementation of the federal Real ID Act.

That, in turn, could turn into a valuable tool for dealing with illegal immigration. More on that later.

The main problem with applying a photo identification requirement in this state is the move to all-mail elections in 37 of 39 counties. King and Pierce counties still maintain poll sites, but the vast majority of their voters voluntarily choose the mail ballot, and both counties are expected to convert to all-mail elections in the near future, Reed said.

More:
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/3741

[tbyg52]

36. In Our View: Carding voters

A 6-3 decision is generally considered a slam-dunk when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court. And while we think a unanimous decision would have been more appropriate when it comes to allowing states to ask voters for identification when they cast ballots, we’ll take the slam dunk.

Not that it matters much in Washington or Oregon, where vote-by-mail rightly rules. Eliminating polling places in Washington was a sound financial decision that reflects the way people do most business these days — by phone, by e-mail and from the kitchen table, rather than hopping in cars or going on foot to an office with limited hours.

But back to the Supremes: Last week, the justices upheld a 2005 law in Indiana that requires voters to present photo identification when they vote.

More:
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/05/05052008_In-Our-View-Carding-voters.cfm

[tbyg52]

38. Solution without a problem

THE United States Supreme Court has handed Republicans an election-year gift. In a 6-3 decision, the court gave its blessing to a modern day version of the poll tax in a ruling that could make voting more difficult for some citizens, especially those likely to favor Democratic candidates.

Just in time for this week's Indiana primary, the high court upheld an Indiana law that requires voters to show a government-issued photo identification before voting. The statute permits voters who lack such identification to cast provisional ballots, but they must appear at their county courthouse within 10 days to show identification for those votes to be counted.

Dozens of states have voter ID laws but the Indiana measure is considered one of the strictest because of the hoops it requires voters to jump through who currently lack photo identification. To obtain one, courtesy of the state, Indiana residents must produce documents such as a birth certificate, passport, certificate of naturalization, or military ID.

No similar barriers existed before Republicans in state after state wielded their party's controlling power in legislatures to push through voter ID laws, including a less-restrictive version in Ohio. Previously, most citizens needed only to sign a poll book to vote, with their signatures checked against one on file. The system has worked for years without anything approaching a problem with in-person voter fraud.

More:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080505/OPINION02/805050308

[tbyg52]

40. The Worth of a Picture ID for Honest Voting

Is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ever on the right side of any issue? On one issue out of a bundle we might find ourselves in agreement. As for most, forget it. For example, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an Indiana statute which requires a picture ID in order to vote. If voters can’t afford to obtain a picture ID the State of Indiana will provide it for them.

And if voters do not have a picture ID with them on election day they can cast a provisional ballot and then show up with a picture ID within ten days. It was a 6-3 decision. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. I cannot recall the last time I was in agreement with a controversial decision of his. Even one of the dissenters, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said he did not object to the principle but believed the Indiana law was too strict. He indicated he would have preferred the law in effect in Georgia.

As soon as the decision was announced the ACLU was whining big time. If I didn’t know better I would have thought real people would be deprived of the right to vote. I have yet to hear a cogent argument against having a picture ID in order to cast a vote. Numerous States now have some sort of law requiring same. I predict that many more will enact such laws.

More:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272620387.shtml

[tbyg52]

46. Time for real election reform

The recent Supreme Court decision should prompt more voting reform in Congress.

after the 2000 debacle in Florida - as good a motivation as we'll ever have to undertake serious election reform - it seems our nation took a look in the mirror and instead resolved to fix problems that don't even exist. Such is the case with the Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification, upheld last week by a 6-3 vote in the Supreme Court.

We do not believe that asking voters to provide identification is, on its face, too much of a burden to place on voters. Everything from buying a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack, to getting on an airplane or behind the wheel of a car requires identification. We comply with those requirements without complaint.

But this Indiana law is really a solution in search of a problem. Supporters of the law cite voter fraud as the reason for its necessity, but there has been hardly any evidence for its existence. The one kind of voter fraud that has been documented, and only rarely, has been through mail-in absentee ballots, and the Indiana law and court's ruling pointedly leave that problem unaddressed.

More:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/05/05/72167064

[tbyg52]

47. Editorial: Voter ID Another reason to stay home

Despite the fevered interest in this year's Democratic presidential primaries, it doesn't take much to discourage millions of Americans from voting in most elections.

Rain in the forecast, polls closing at 8 p.m., long day at the office, memory lapse - just name it, someone's used it as an excuse.

So when half of the voting-age population often stays home on Election Day, voters hardly needed the U.S. Supreme Court to give them yet one more reason to stay away from the polls.

That's just what the court did last week, ruling that Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter-identification law passed muster even though it requires forms of photo ID that millions of citizens might not hold.

These laws will make it less likely that poor, elderly, disabled or non-driving voters will cast a ballot, simply because they're less likely to have a driver's license or similar form of government-issued identification. That's the reality the court's 6-3 majority ignored as justices imposed what can be described only as a middle-class point of view on the Indiana law.

More:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20080505_Editorial__Voter_ID.html

[tbyg52]

50. Indiana voting measure unfair to poor

When it comes to requiring voters to show a photo ID, I agree with supporters as well as with opponents of such laws.

Making people who take part in elections produce a government-issued identification card with their picture and an expiration date is a sensible check against voter fraud.

But the Indiana law the Supreme Court recently upheld goes too far.

So do the laws in six other states -- Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota -- that require people to show a photo ID as a condition for voting. Given the stakes, I don't think it's asking too much of would-be voters to verify their identity, but I'm really troubled by the way these laws do that.

Late last month, by a 6-3 vote, the high court rejected challenges to the Hoosier State's law that requires voters to show a federal- or state-issued photo ID as a condition for voting. Anyone who shows up at the polls without one may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if they go to a county clerk's office within 10 days with the required photo ID.

More:
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080505/OPINIONS/805050306/1006

[tbyg52]

22. LTTE: A paper ballot voters can verify is needed

I am writing to clarify my concern about our electronic voting machines. ("No way we can trust the electronic ballot machines," April 23 Times-News) It is not that our local election officials and judges are corrupt or not doing their jobs correctly. On the contrary, I trust our local officials and thank them for their service to us.

My concern is about the voting machines and the fact that computer programs written to count votes have been manipulated in the last three elections in different areas throughout our country.

The computer programs cannot be seen by election judges and are written by employees of large private corporations that have vested interests in changing election results to favor a candidate who can help them by influencing policy once in office.

More:
http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local_story_126110102.html?keyword=secondarystory

[tbyg52]

26. Face it: Texas doesn’t need voter ID law

The U.S. Supreme Court last week upheld the constitutionality of voter identification laws, and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said he will try once more to pass such a law when the Legislature meets next year. But Texas doesn’t need to beef up its existing voter ID law.

Voter ID laws sound reasonable, which is one reason the court upheld them on a 6-3 ruling. Their stated purpose is to ensure that each person who votes is eligible by requiring a voter to present some government-issued identification.

Texas already requires voters to present some identification at the polls - a voter registration card, for example, or a utility bill. About half of the states require no identification at all, just a signature.

But last year Republicans pushed through the Texas House and into the Senate a bill that would require a voter to present identification with his or her photograph on it, such as a driver’s license, a passport or a military ID card. In the Senate, Democrats put up a dramatic fight and blocked it on a procedural vote.

More:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2008/05/03/face_it_texas_doesnt_need_vote.html

[tbyg52]

39. From Australia: Compulsory voting would help Obama

HILLARY Clinton clawed back some ground when she won the recent Pennsylvania primary, but she cannot win the presidency.

The reason is simple – but no one in America talks about it, because the reason involves race. No one talks about it because we tend to forget how different national elections are without compulsory voting.

Clinton cannot win sufficient pledged delegates in state primaries to be the Democrats' popular choice. Barack Obama has 1720 delegates, including 238 superdelegates. Clinton has 1588 delegates including 262 of the super variety. A candidate needs 2025 delegates to secure the presidential nomination and there are only 410 delegates left in the nine state primaries remaining. There's no way Clinton can win it fair and square.

So to be the Democratic nominee, Clinton has to sweep the pool of superdelegates – the elite group of party officials. There are 794 of them. They are unpledged and can change their endorsement and vote at any time. They were introduced to provide a reality check at the convention if an unelectable candidate or a ridiculous policy is put forward.

More:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23646413-5007146,00.html

[tbyg52]

43. Let the troops vote

If troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to fight and die for their country, they ought to have access to a fast and easy way to help choose who will lead the country.

Unfortunately, most forces in far-flung military bases around the globe can't vote by e-mail. Instead, they struggle to meet voting deadlines by relying largely on regular mail to get ballots and cast votes. And, because states often are late in preparing ballots, voters in the military are at risk of being denied a chance to vote.

Communities in 13 states will send overseas troops presidential election ballots by e-mail this year, and districts in at least seven states also will let them return completed ballots over the Internet. But that is just a smattering of the thousands of districts and the tens of thousands of men and women in uniform who may miss out on this year's elections.

More:
http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/story/533887.html

[tbyg52]

5. The Youth Vote nt

[tbyg52]

48. To be young and voting

The excitement started to bubble up a couple of election cycles ago. In 2004, the youth vote spiked dramatically upward. In 2006, it increased again. All signs point to another rise in November. It looks as if America has itself a healthy civic trend going on.
ADVERTISEMENT

It's tough motivating young Americans to exercise their ballot-box rights. Today's young people reach out to their communities by volunteering and fundraising for charities at rates similar to their older cohorts. But historically, young people lag way behind as voters. With one other big exception (1992), the general trend of the youth vote has been down or flat since 1972, when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.

Harvard University's Institute of Politics goes so far as to call the increased participation "the civic reawakening of a new generation."

The youth vote (18-to-29-year-olds) quadrupled in this year's Tennessee primary. It approximately tripled in primary and caucus contests in Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas, according to the institute's latest survey, taken in March.

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080505/cm_csm/eyouth

[tbyg52]

51. The more we imprison, the less we vote

FOR THE past 12 weeks, we have both been students in an Amherst College class on citizenship. Unlike most college courses, however, this one isn't held in a classroom. Each week, as part of the nationwide program Inside-Out, we meet for 2 1/2 hours in the dimly lit visiting room of the Hampshire County Correctional Facility. Half the students in the class are from the college; half are inmates at the facility.

It is a class on citizenship with a cruel irony: Because of a 2000 amendment to the Massachusetts constitution disenfranchising incarcerated felons, half the students in the class cannot vote. In about a week, all of the Amherst students will leave for the summer; many will volunteer for a presidential campaign. This November, like most adult citizens, they will walk to a local polling station or cast absentee ballots from the comfort of a college dorm. The students inside the facility can't.

More:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/05/the_more_we_imprison_the_less_we_vote/

[tbyg52]

6. Campaign Finance nt

[tbyg52]

53. Court Hears Appeal of Campaign Finance Rules

Election lawyers tangled in a federal appeals court Monday over a handful of regulations that remain incomplete six years after Congress approved a landmark campaign-law overhaul.

The latest appeal focuses on five regulations. The Federal Election Commission is trying to salvage four regulations that District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly threw out. Rep. Christopher Shays , R-Conn., a chief sponsor of the law (PL 107-155), is fighting one regulation she upheld.

Lawyers for the FEC and for Shays agreed on very little in their appearance before the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But they each ranked as most important the issue of how to govern coordination between candidates and their outside advocates.

The FEC decided not to regulate ads as contributions to a campaign if a wealthy donor or advocacy group runs them more than 90 days before a congressional election or 120 days before a presidential primary. Kollar-Kotelly threw out those time frames as arbitrary and capricious.

More:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002716917

[Mnemosyne]

52. Needs more R and

:kick:

:hi:

Thanks tbyg! :yourock:

[tbyg52]

55. Hey vickiss!

Much appreciated! :hi:

[tbyg52]

54. That's all, folks! nt

[Kurovski]

57. Kick to the top!

Thank you, dear tbyg52. :thumbsup:

[tbyg52]

61. Thanks!

:hi:

[Kurovski]

59. Kick.

:kick: