And the dirty elections continue

[unixronin]

Seems the Macomb County, Michigan Republican Party is gathering a list of foreclosed homes prior to the November election.

Why?

Apparently so that they can deny the foreclosed-upon their votes, since some of them are no longer technically residents of the precinct.  "Mean-spirited" is putting it mildly.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:  The people running the political machines are scum of the worst kind.

---

Update:

It's been pointed out to me that this is far from an objective source.  I don't know anything about ACORN, which features prominently.  Biased source or not, I'm still disgusted by the dirty tricks that both [arties pull to either disqualify voters for the other party or invalidate their ballots by any means possible.  I clearly remember the 2000 campaign, and the Gore campaign lawyers distributing an inch-thick book to Democratic counting-room staff in Florida detailing all the possible ways to invalidate military absentee ballots on minor technicalities, because military absentee voters were expected to vote for Bush.

What the fuck happened to democracy and everyone being entitled to vote?  How do you get from that to "Use every dirty trick in the book to disenfranchise as many opposing voters as you possibly can"?

I personally won't be surprised if I wake up one day to find Congress has passed a new election law that, without actually saying so in so many words, makes it illegal to vote for any candidate who isn't either Democratic or Republican.  Call me cynical, but I suspect a major reason why it hasn't happened already is simply that they haven't figured out a way to get away with it.

Comments

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Woah, woah, woah.

they're no longer technically residents of the precinct.

Technically?
What?

"Mean-spirited" is putting it mildly.

Stopping voting fraud is not mean-spirited.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Did you read the article? They're not talking about stopping vote fraud. They're talking about using it as one of an undisclosed number means of denying the vote to as many as possible people whom they expect to vote Democratic. They're not asserting that these are people who aren't legally entitled to vote.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

More accurately, they're asserting these people aren't legally entitled to vote in that precinct.

They're partisan. They're allowed to be partisan. Just the same as Democrats are allowed, if not encouraged, to do the same thing against Republicans. The central idea being that if both parties are keeping voters of the other side honest, the election itself will be honest.

(Note that I don't buy that logic, but that's a side issue.)

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Yes, I read it. It was a scare piece. Giving prominent placement to the ACORN organizer.
You know. The same ACORN who are not paragons of virtue, have had numerous members indicted, and, IIRC, have 20 or so under indictment now. Yeah. My goto guys for election rules.

Let's look at the paper's front page:
* 1980s savings and loan bailout haunts John McCain
* VIDEOS: Obama draws diverse crowd to Farmington Hills
* Obama condemns “shameless” McCain campaign
* Fight for the soul of Michigan’s highest court: Arch-conservative Clifford Taylor stands at the heart of a $20 million battle
Arch-conservative? Naw, I can't see any bias there on the front page.

They're not talking about stopping vote fraud.

Of course not. No fraud. Just people voting from houses where... nobody... lives.
No *fraud*.
Is this going to turn into Seattle, where you can only challenge a absentee ballot if the voter - in person - admits to fraudulently (and criminally) voting?

They're talking about using it as one of an undisclosed number means of denying the vote to as many as possible people whom they expect to vote Democratic.

To vote Democratic illegally.
Who are voting improperly.
You assume. According to the article, these areas split near parity party-wise.

What use are rules if any time you say "Hey, that's wrong" you get shouted down for RACISM! RACISM! If they've moved (and if they've been foreclosed upon, they should have), then they should have updated their addresses, and will be able to vote in the proper polling place. Nobody's getting removed from the register.

They're not asserting that these are people who aren't legally entitled to vote.

That's exactly what they're asserting. That's the entire basis.
Didn't you read it? "[party chairman Carabelli] said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed."

Furthermore, I suspect you won't be finding many of those people trying to vote with their old addresses. I really suspect this is an attempt to stop, groups with reputations for voting irregularities (ACORN, anybody?) from voting using those addresses. They're expecting the people to be voting in the right place - something you're not giving them credit for.

Nor would it be likely to disenfranchise someone. Under such a challenge, they'd be guided to a provisional ballot.
To scream racism and low blow and cheating is a low blow in and of itself.

It's damn sure enough time we enforced the voting rules, and have fair, honest elections. If that's a "Republican" point, too damn bad.
Because it *ought* to be a bipartisan point of agreement.
Funny thing it's not. Almost like there's a serious problem benefitting one party.

[robbat2.livejournal.com]

You deny the possibility that people might still be living in their foreclosed homes either because they won't move out, or more commonly, because they have reached some agreement with the lenders. In which case both the address and the foreclosure status are correct.

[novel-tharkun.livejournal.com]

No voter registration form I've ever seen allows someone forcibly removed from domicile to claim homeless. Does that mean that someone who fails to obtain housing is legally unable to vote?

In fact, as shelters are transitory housing and can't be used for registration purposes (to my very limited understanding), it would appear that the answer is yes. So much for eliminating "land-owners" from the criteria. Just substituted land-holders.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

The general rule is, "if you sleep there and the US Mail can deliver a postcard to you there, you can register to vote from there." The homeless are allowed to vote; I don't see why transitory housing would be any different.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Rather amazingly (or not, considering their aim was to get people fired up at those 'orrible, 'orrible, racist republikkkans), the paper didn't ask what was actually going to be the status that will be checked.

people might still be living in their foreclosed homes either because they won't move out,

Then they're trespassers. They're living someone they have no right to. IANAL, and I don't know what that means in terms of voting. But that very act does raise the question that they, in fact (or someone in their name), are not living there. It's worth further investigation.

more commonly, because they have reached some agreement with the lenders.

Then there should be no problem. Just because a challenge is made does not mean that it will be *upheld*. That's why there are procedures for these sorts of things.

[robbat2.livejournal.com]

The act of being challenged is the source of the problem. Not that it may be upheld. Of those challenged, how many will just give up, or won't be able to pull whatever additional proof is required of them out in sufficient time? Or merely that they don't have the time to get the proof, as they need to get back to work (depends on electoral system).

The additional matter is that those challenged because of foreclosure will be of a certain demographic, combined with selective enforcement of the check in voting districts, and you've got a way to exclude some chunk of voters.

Not being familiar with the intricacies of the US or even the Canadian electoral systems, just wondering, is the actual voting held on a public holiday or not?

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

The act of being challenged is the source of the problem.

Yes, if abusive. But just like any other check it has to be available. You can't say that the confirmation of voting eligibility is by itself bad. (You're required to at least nominally do that in any election to someone.)

Of those challenged, how many will just give up, or won't be able to pull whatever additional proof is required of them out in sufficient time? Or merely that they don't have the time to get the proof, as they need to get back to work (depends on electoral system).

No, it's not a holiday.

But in the case of a disputed ballot, such as an observer claiming a problem, it wouldn't be solved there. A provisional ballot would be cast and set aside for later adjudication.

The additional matter is that those challenged because of foreclosure will be of a certain demographic,

That's an assumption currently unbacked by facts. (Other than they're in the demographic of "About to lose the house".) The housing crunch has been spread pretty decently through demographics.

combined with selective enforcement of the check in voting districts, and you've got a way to exclude some chunk of voters.

Nothing stops any other party from doing the exact same thing in any district, or even the government from correcting the polls automatically. (Other than the default, rabid screams of racism that invariably occur.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll freely admit unfamiliarity with ACORN, and I didn't go look at the front page of the paper. Nevertheless, just because you've received a foreclosure notice doesn't mean you're automatically not eligible to vote there. It doesn't even necessarily mean it's not still your legal residence.



I see US elections getting dirtier and dirtier. And it disgusts me, and makes me angry. I think 90% of the people in this country don't realize or appreciate what a priceless thing they have, or how they're pissing it away.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll freely admit unfamiliarity with ACORN,

Don't look them up if you want to hope for "clean" elections. They're the worst of the worst. Google "ACORN election fraud".

and I didn't go look at the front page of the paper.

I did, because the way the article was written hit about 4 nerves from my newsdays that it was a hit piece. ACORN's quote was one of them. But that article was written very well - if you trust the media.

I don't. They're lying sumbitches, and often they're partisan political operatives. In the vast majority, that breaks to the same party that is so protective of fraudulent voting.

Nevertheless, just because you've received a foreclosure notice doesn't mean you're automatically not eligible to vote there. It doesn't even necessarily mean it's not still your legal residence.

Exactly. You're right, and I don't know what they'll be challenging on. But the mere fact that someone steps up when you go to vote and says "Hold on a second" doesn't mean you're disenfranchised. That article was in the same vein as those who told all sorts of stories about Florida in 2000. The Highway Patrol! On the road! Blocking the Black Vote!
Accidentally removing non-felons from the rolls! OMGWTFBBQ! (Nevermind no-one removed was not legally allowed to vote, and many did cast provisional ballots. Also they'd ignored 3 separate letters as to their voting status.
Which gets back to this a little bit, right now, the law specifies you've got to state your address, which determines where and possible when, you vote. If you don't keep your address current, then you're voting in some status of error.

I see US elections getting dirtier and dirtier. And it disgusts me, and makes me angry.

I totally agree with you. But my reaction is to play *by the rules*, not allow the rules to be so rubbery that they're meaningless.
Groups like ACORN have been illegally registering cartoon characters, felons, illegal immigrants - sometimes they get caught. I suspect nowhere near as often as they're breaking the law.

I want every vote counted. And everybody to vote. Once.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence as to various bad practices, and I'd really suspect this is a result of a plan by some group to go in with faked utility bills or something, and vote for a registered voter who's house was foreclosed upon. Depending where they moved, they likely wouldn't have been removed from the rolls. In a close election, it could make a big difference. Check out what happened in Wisconsin in 04. They've got same-day-registration, requiring only a single registered voter to vouch for the new registee.

I agree with you. But this article is a large part of that "dirt". It was meant - and did! - rile you up and disgust you. Without telling you the real facts and the real story.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I worked for ACORN briefly about 20 years ago, and remember it as being an above board and idealistic organization.

I also remember there being very little training, though, for the minimum-wage employees who go door to door trying to get people to register to vote. Being an idealistic organization, a whole lot of those employees were barely-employable bums who "just needed a chance". I respected the office staff, but was very uncomfortable with my get-out-the-vote coworkers. I found a different job as soon as I could.

So I'm not surprised that they've had workers arrested for voter fraud. After all, it's a lot more comfortable to sit in the library and fill out fraudulent registrations than to pound the pavement in all sorts of weather and actually work.

But when I googled "ACORN election fraud", I also found follow-up articles like this one (http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1214-09.htm) stating "Community Group ACORN Vindicated as Baseless Lawsuits, Investigations Collapse".

I'm thinking there's a lot more smoke than fire here. Yes, there probably are some people working for ACORN who have broken the law, whether through ignorance, illegal partisan zeal, or, probably, just plain laziness. But I think that the piling on, making ACORN out to be "the worst of the worst", is definitely excessive.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

and remember it as being an above board and idealistic organization.
I can't, of course, speak to your recollections. And "Idealistic", I'll readily concede as likely.
Some of their problems come from the lack of training, paying people for registrations without checking, sure.
However, if you'll track what they've been up to in the last 10 years, it's by no means what I'd consider "Above board". This includes refusing to pay minimum wage - while in the middle of a campaign to force the minimum wage higher (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005713.html#61535).

The best overall expose of ACORN was by Stern: “The banks know they are being held up, but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business.” Some of ACORN’s fellow community activists are even blunter. “ACORN knows that corporate America has no starch in their shorts and, therefore, what they try to do is buy peace from groups that agitate against them,” (http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html)

ACORN replied to that article, of course.: Acorn-friendly reply to Stern entitled “Enraging the Right.” Written by academic/activists John Atlas and Peter Dreier, the reply’s avowed intent is to convince Acorn-friendly politicians, journalists, and funders not to desert the organization in the wake of Stern’s powerful critique. The stunning thing about this supposed rebuttal is that it confirms nearly everything Stern says. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==)

But I think that the piling on, making ACORN out to be "the worst of the worst", is definitely excessive.

Not if you're interested in clean elections. I am. There's a lot of fire there. Not just in voting registration. That's just what's drawn my attention.

The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group’s board members and not to alert law enforcement.
Dale Rathke remained on Acorn’s payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/09embezzle.html)

I'm sorry, but ACORN getting a pass for any comment on election law or fairness is just utterly Bizarro World. But the media does give them a pass, because well, they're idealists, and they mostly agree, so surely it's just a few bad apples! (Or, err, bad acorns.) Look at the venom in this story against the Republicans. Notice the lack of mention of anything concerning ACORN's issues - they've been doing their level best to disenfranchise people and make the voting system defraudable. Acorn's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier. "... what's the point of that, ... overwhelm the system ... phony registrations on the voter rolls,"... "These were Democratic officials saying that they felt their election system in Ohio was under assault by these kinds of efforts to game the system." (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189)

You can say a lot of things about ACORN. Idealistic, sure. Above board - not anymore, at least.

[zaitcev.livejournal.com]

ACORN is the worst of the worst, no matter how it looked from a rank and file activist's perspective.

Here's a funny link:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003982533_acorn30m.html?syndication=rss

So, in 2004 they were squeaky clean and then only two years past enacted the biggest voter fraud ever, were prosecuted, admitted guilt, were sentenced -- in the same locale? It was known for years that ACORN was rotten to the core and simply speaking 2004 cases were poorly put together and gave ACORN the excuse to become even more eggregious later.

Googling for this is a lost cause.

[zaitcev.livejournal.com]

Right on cue
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/more_acorn_fraud_what_else_is.html

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

If you live in a precinct and you lose your home, then you become a legal resident somewhere else, even if it's "underneath the bridge near what used to be my home". Anyone whose home has been foreclosed needs to update their voting registration information and poof, they're safe.

Wait, you say, but they're required to do that anyway, any time they change addresses?

My God. What a conspiracy.

It may be mean-spirited, yes. But it has precisely zero ability to affect people's right to vote. All you have to do is make sure that your address is correctly listed with your precinct. If someone challenges you at the polls by saying "that home is in foreclosure", you get to say "yeah, and I'm still living there. Do you have any evidence I'm not?" The burden is on them, y'see.

So yeah, while I agree the political elites who run things are the worst kind of scum, it's hard for me to see this as anything more than amateur-night villainy, and the reporting of it as fearmongering.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The reporting is hardly balanced. ACORN is protesting. (I remember many stunts that ACORN pulled in St. Louis when I was living there. Legal? Not!)

This is a hotly contested election. Since Palin has been named as VP candidate, the polls show just about even. I expect to see several stunts, by both parties, related to voting. (The democrats tend to get MORE people to vote, the republicans LESS. Sometimes, the tactics are less than savory to achieve those ends.)

Whatever. If a person is no longer a resident of a voting precinct, they should not vote there. (The resident requirement varies state to state about cutoffs and dates of residency.) The swing states are going to get brutal. I live in an uncontested state. Things should be quite tame here.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

I personally won't be surprised if I wake up one day to find Congress has passed a new election law that, without actually saying so in so many words, makes it illegal to vote for any candidate who isn't either Democratic or Republican.

They're certainly trying; every round of "campaign finance reform" certainly makes it harder for candidates from other parties to get the funding they need to win an election.

Update

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I think we have an unreasonable standard for elections. Everybody should be able to vote, once, and every vote cast should count and be counted. That is the ideal.

In practice, there are several things that voters can do to invalidate a ballot. Very few voters know that they invalidated their vote, even fewer know that they can request a fresh ballot, and have the old one discarded. The rules vary from state to state, and county to county. There are some places where election fraud is the purpose of the laws. Fixing all the problems is not something that I really want to see happen. I never want to live under a government that is that efficient.

By and large, our elections in the USA are pretty clean. Both major parties pull stunts to increase their percentage of the turnout. I suspect that it largely comes out even. Playing the rules rather than the game is what the law is all about. It should not surprise anyone to see the law applied creatively.