During the 2000 election controversy, I found myself doing a tremendous amount of research on Florida's constitution. It occurred to me that a search of the constitution in Georgia might hold interesting information with regard to the 40,000 (some say 50,000) registrations which are "missing." Remember, when the Secretary of State was asked to take responsibility for straightening this problem out, he uttered words to the effect that it was not his job to do so.

SECTION II.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Paragraph I. Procedures to be provided by law. The General Assembly shall provide by law for a method of appeal from the decision to allow or refuse to allow any person to register or vote and shall provide by law for a procedure whereby returns of all elections by the people shall be made to the Secretary of State.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/georgia/conart2.html

But it gets better!

Paragraph II. Right to register and vote. Every person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least 18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the registration of electors.

and still better!

The state constitution has a recall provision!

Paragraph IV. Recall of public officials holding elective office. The General Assembly is hereby authorized to provide by general law for the recall of public officials who hold elective office. The procedures, grounds, and all other matters relative to such recall shall be provided for in such law.

Perhaps the disenfranchised voters in George should form a class action lawsuit and sue the Secretary of State. If they are successful in convincing the courts he violated the state constitution, not to mention the U.S. Constitution, if he is convicted, he is ripe for recall.

The problem is some have suggested the 40,000 can be given provisional ballots. However, we know that in many states provisional ballots are only counted if the election is very close. The Democrats need for all eligible votes to be counted on election day -- not provisionally.

If you are so inclined, you can read the entire section at the link above, but what do you think these quoted paragraphs suggest?

Sam

As many know, Bill Clinton was the first candidate sponsored by the DLC to reach the Oval Office. During his term in office, he personally tried to come up with a new term to describe his politics. "Third Way" and "New Dem" both were labels he considered. I read this in one of his bios written a few years ago.

The DLC fell out of favor with many true Dems and eventually had to fold. It has risen from the ashes, and many of the former members use one of these two labels to describe their political approach. We here at DU commonly refer to these particular types of politicians as conservative Democrats. Less generous critics might call them Trojan Horses.

Bill Clinton is of course a gifted politician. During his terms in office, however, he made many compromises with the Republicans in order to pass legislation such as cuts to welfare. While I do appreciate his political gifts to the Democratic party, I do not personally support New Dems or the Third Way. I am a liberal and want to see the party represent the citizens of this Country -- not the corporations and Wall Street.

I arrived here in DU in 2001 hotly complaining about the DLC and its failure to support Al Gore during the 2000 election controversy. In 2004 while rumors were surfacing Gore might seek the Presidency again, that particular group publicly voiced its opposition to another Gore run. An article appeared in The Washington Post along with a sentence with words to the effect that while they (the DLC) did not actually choose the Democratic candidate, it had a lot of influence on who the Party chose, and it would not support a Gore candidacy. Talk about hubris ....

I took a lot of heat for my posts wailing on the DLC in 2001, but eventually those here at DU at that time came to detest the DLC as much as I.

Sam

It just one more made-up misrepresentation by the msm to misinform. We need to start calling them out more for these type maneuvers.

Everyone has the right to privacy when it comes to the question of how he or she voted. Running for public office does not obliterate that right. Grimes properly cited the sanctity of the right to privacy in the voting booth. In her role as Kentucky's Secretary of State (the person actually in charge of State elections), she would have been slammed by the press as a political novice had she actually answered the question saying she had voted for President Obama. The reporter who asked that question set a trap for Grimes; Grimes deftly refused to step in it.... Additionally, President Obama is very unpopular in Kentucky, and if Grimes had said she voted for him, that would have been the equivalent of shooting herself in the rear.

The REAL issue that should have been highlighted is the fact that while Kentucky Connect has been a huge success story in that state, most of its citizens do not realize it is a plank of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare but JUST NOT DOWN THERE, which they believe should be canceled. Mitch McConnell danced around that issue by saying he thinks the Act should be canceled but the website can remain! Why didn't Chuck Todd focus on THAT?

And Chuck Todd's and Chris Matthews' adverse reporting on Grimes' response (and their pretended outrage) reminded me of MSNBC's biased remarks against Gore in 2000.

Sam

She literally, as do all other voters, has the right to protect the privacy of how she chose to cast her ballot. The fact that she is running for office does not deprive her of that right. That was a trap question the interviewer chose to pose, and the candidate chose not to step in it. Had she done otherwise, we would be hearing outcries as to her failure to properly handle that question. She appropriately mentioned her Constitutional right to protect the sanctity of how she chose to vote, or perhaps even not to vote -- neither of which choices is any of our business.

Chuck Todd, NBC's touted "political expert", evidently never studied basic civics. His "outrage" is both obviously faked and misplaced, and he did nothing but demonstrate he is a rank amateur in his field -- and a partisan hack to boot.

Sam