Lose your house, lose your vote: Pubs using foreclosure list to block voters

In Michigan.

:mad::mad::mad: This is a new low, and that’s quite an achievement at this point. After all that happened in 2004, haven’t they learned any shame yet?!

I don’t understand. You lose your house due to foreclosure, you’re not living at that address anymore. You may be living in the same district, you may not. What’s wrong with confirming that info?

I live in a town, and I get a different ballot from those who have the same city as their address but do not live in the town itself.

I’m not sure I get this either, although I suspect some of these people may be living out of their cars, which means their foreclosed address is the only one they have.

I think the OP may be thinking that foreclosed=in foreclosure, ie. the local Pubs are trying to disenfranchise people who are about to lose their homes.

If they’re not living there anymore, and the law says they have to live there if they are registered there, what’s the problem? Can’t they just re-register somewhere else?

Does a homeless person lose the right to vote because he lost his address?

Michigan requires registration 30 days before the election. (cite)
If a person is evicted from his home on October 5th, should he lose the right to vote?

If they have a new place to live, and time to update their registration, sure.

Is he (or she) registered at a specific address? Can I go ahead and vote in any state election even though I don’t live there? I wish I could vote in the school district that I work at, but I live in a different school district…specific addresses matter.

However, do you have to register at a specific address? Since voter rolls are made by addresses (I thought), I guess you have to. I honestly don’t know - what does a homeless person do? Wander into any election place? Could someone theoretically go to a dozen polling places with a different name and claim homelessness?

The problem, for those who are confused, is that just having a home in foreclosure, doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t living in it anymore.

As noted in the same article, the legality is doubtful:

But my real objection is that this is part of a pattern of systematic voter suppression tactics the Pubs have been using for at least four years now. See this thread, and this one, and this one.

Actually, it goes back to 2000.

Again, the quote from the party official says “foreclosed homes”, not “homes in foreclosure”, which means they aren’t living in it anymore.

If they’re really talking about homes which are in foreclosure, then yes, that’s a problem.

Are these foreclosed homes, in that the paperwork has been done, the sheriff has shown up, and the house is vacant?

Or are these homes that are in foreclosure, meaning the process is still underway and the owners are still living there?

It seems this could be easily addressed by having *every *voter show a current utility bill, just to ensure that they’re still at the address on their voter registration form.

You think they’ll do that?

You can, if your registration is challenged at the polls, still cast a provisional ballot, which in theory will be validated once your claim of proper registration/eligibility checks out – but, as Greg Palast has documented, such are extraordinarily likely to be discarded (and you will never know one way or the other).

You win the thread without making a funny. Bravo.

Not every voter is a householder paying utility bills.

No, because it’s a bad idea. What if you don’t pay the utilities at your residence? It may be included in the rent, or you may be an adult living with your parents, or a student in a dorm, or a myriad or other legitimate reasons that someone can’t produce a utility bill for their address.

I doubt its about home forclosure as such. The effort is more about securing some sort of credibility for the whole “voter fraud” meme, which is about as threadbare and tattered as it gets. If they can establish any credibility on this, however tenuous, they can establish a cause to monitor voting places for “fraud”, which is the real point of the excercise: they are trying to get a toe-hold to permit their operatives a “legitimate” basis to harrass and intimidate.

And, of course, if the foreclosed home is in…certain neighborhoods…that increases the likelihood that the foreclosed voter leans Obama.

Voter supression? Goes back a llllooooonnngg way before 2000.

What if you’re one of the many, many people, especially renters, who moved in the interim between the last election and this one, without changing their voter registration, and will simply be going to their old polling place to vote.

Why aren’t we interested in stopping *those *people?

They’re not disproportionately black. What good would that do us?