The Repubs are aware of the massive number of new voters the Obama Campaign has registered in almost every swing state. Many of the new voters are young citizens, in college, just graduated, and minorities(who for quite sometime now have become disenchanted with the political process).
The Hillary Clinton campaign also energized quite a number of women who are now new voters determined to exercise their rights come November.
The Republican Dirty Tricks department is at it again…
There is no question that they know that many of the folks who would not have bothered to go to the polls are now energized. The target is definitely going to be in the areas of swing states where minorities and low-income workers who can be intimidated or delayed live.
I’m not sure law suits will stop them. What other action can be used to stop them?
Let me get this straight, you want to stop “the Republicans” from preventing people voting in a district in which they no longer reside? Have you thought this through at all?
I suggest you read the other thread, then you can come back and curse actions against voter fraud like a good Democrat.
Ah, but you *don’t *know they don’t reside there anymore. Furthermore, Michigan law says that they’re still eligible to vote in that precinct for a period of time.
Here’s how it works.
The voter registration record is matched up with the foreclosure list. When there’s a match, a piece of mail is sent out to that house that’s marked “do not forward”. That mail gets sent and if nobody is living there, it doesn’t chase to the target, it’s sent back to the originator. The originator then goes to the city clerk and says that there’s “proof” that nobody lives at this place. It’s then up to the city/county clerk to kick them off the rolls. Most city clerks don’t accept that as enough evidence to boot someone off the rolls, but some do.
Foreclosure is the start of a process that can last many months, possibly ending in a person being evicted from the house in question, but by no means is this a certainty.
Due to job location, children in school, etc. Even when finally forced out of a house, many families seek housing near the old address, within the same school district, and often within the same precinct.
Additionally, maintaining and updating voter lists is a bureaucratic process fraught with delays, and thus in most jurisdictions there is a grace period during which a recently moved or evicted voter may legally vote based on having recently resided in that precinct.
I wonder how well it would go over if Democrats decided to challenge the validity of any voter who was over the average life expectancy, because it is reasonable to think that that voter was dead, and the person who came to the polling location must therefore be an impostor? All quite logical, and you can’t seriously suggest that republicans are really OK with impostors assuming the identity of the deceased in order to illegally vote, can you?
Another thing that’s worth mentioning is the state of Michigan Voter Registration form. In the “Identification” section, there are three parts (you fill out one). The first is the drivers’ license/state ID number. The second part is last 4 digits of your Social Security number. The third part is if you don’t have either, you can check a box to have an identification number given to you for voter registration purposes.
That third box is useless. That third box is primarily used by the homeless and people that have transient housing. In order to register those individuals, they have to provide an address of some kind.
If they don’t have a shelter or anywhere to get mail (a P.O. Box doesn’t count), they don’t get registered. That fact, coupled with the voter caging, sounds an awful lot like “you don’t own land, you don’t get to vote”.
Where should they vote then? Did they lose the right to vote when they were evicted (if they even were evicted)? I know that in my county to vote in election the following criteria must be met:
[ul]
[li]Be a U.S. Citizen.[/li][li]Register to vote no later than 29 days before the election.[/li][li]Be 18 years old on or before the date of the election in which you want to vote.[/li][li]Reside in Colorado and at your present address at least 30 days before the election.[/li][li]Complete the fields marked “REQUIRED” on the application,[/li][li]including your complete address with apartment or unit number.[/li][/ul]
I assume that if I move in the 30 days before an election I will be eligible to vote at my previous address, even though I will be voting in a district in which I no longer reside. Yes? If not, what then.
I think that your attitude, and the tactics of the Michigan Republicans is mean spirited, and possibly even un-American. We should be encouraging the populace of our country to vote if they want to, even if we don’t agree with their choice of candidates. I think you are morally bankrupt.
As long as the people trying to stop the voters aren’t actually violating the law, I don’t really care. If they are, then I’m concerned, but it doesn’t look like they are to me.
I’d much rather have people try to get an advantage by **following **the rules extra strictly than by bending them.
The problem is it does not really leave the affected people any options. If you went to your polling station and the workers challenged you right to vote and would not let you cast a ballot what would you do? File an appeal? Call the cops? Hell, I am not sure what I would do, but in all likelihood, even if the challenge failed in the long run, you would still not have your vote count in the election. This is one of the things that really bothers me, even if the evicted homeowners are vindicated, the tactic will still be successful and the votes will not be counted.
You don’t seee that there is something particularly unfair about targeting just a specific group of people in an area, with such a flimsy excuse that absolutely violates the spirit of the law they trying to enforce?:dubious:
That is really not what they’re doing sir. They know fully well that these people are registered in that precinct/district, but because of their name being on some foreclosure list, they are attempting to just simply frustrate them enough in the hope that they may get a few who don’t know the rules/law to drop off. This pretty much is something the have practiced for years in minority districts.
OK, Michigan ain’t Illinois, but I just went to the training session to be an Election Judge in Illinois.
There are several situations in which someone might not actually be residing at the address listed for them. For example, someone who just moved within a few weeks before the election might not have all their data correctly lined up (and are not resident at their old address any longer.) Under Illinois law, they MUST vote at the old address (that’s the only logical approach, because otherwise we’d have all sorts of fraudulent voters claiming they just moved yesterday and they’d like to vote HERE at their new address.)
In short, a simple change of address does NOT prevent someone from voting. And that’s when there’s an actual change, not just when there’s a foreclosure in place. At least, that’s the situation in Illinois, and I’d be very surprised if Michigan is much different. I think it’s hot air.
In most jurisdictions, if you do not meet the requirements to vote, you will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. You can then return within 60 days with whatever paperwork is needed and if you do, your vote will be counted. In most cases, you don’t need to return because vote margin ended up being wide enough that your vote wouldn’t make a difference.
Of course, this solution isn’t very good, but it directly addresses your concern.
They’ve done this in different ways in the past. All they’re trying to do is frustrate and impede a specific group of voters in chosen districts long enough to cause them to backout, and their job is done.
The Obama campaign recognizes this and is advising foot soldiers to counsel their constituents to be more tenacious and not give in to the Republican Dirty tricks squads across the country.