problems at the polls
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
I do not know one single person of voting age that doesn't have his ID with him/her every time he/she leaves the house. I have been thinking about this since two elections ago when our voter ID law went into effect. I can't think of one.
cawacko
Well-known member
It's pretty hard to live in today's society without an ID.
"Hey dude, you gonna vote today?" "Naa, what's the use." "Then I'll go vote for Bernie Sanders for you. I heard we can get a lot of free stuff if he is elected."
OK, OK, I understand that the above is far fetched (and picks on Bernie supporters) but it has been done right here (and we are vast majority democratic registration by about a 90:1 ratio) in local elections where sometimes one or two votes make a difference.
I have a solution. If you're doing something as important as voting in a presidential primary, don't forget your ID.
That's what Democrats do and they do it on anything.
evince
Truthmatters
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-25/news/mn-7435_1_republican-national-committee
GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down'
October 25, 1986|From the Washington Post
NEWARK, N.J. — A Republican National Committee official calculated that a so-called ballot security program in Louisiana "could keep the black vote down considerably," according to documents released in federal court Friday.
The documents and court hearing were the latest developments in a controversy over the GOP's ballot program that Democrats maintain is aimed at reducing minority turnout. The Republicans say the program's sole purpose is to purge ineligible voters from voting roles.
In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:
"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."
Unseals Document
She said in the memorandum that the program had been approved by Gregory Graves, deputy political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe.
Wolfe testified that she wrote about the possibility of keeping the black vote down to remind Griffith that there "might be a political situation he might want to consider. . . . I wanted him to be aware of the political considerations."
The Democrats are suing the Republican Party for $10 million, charging that the Republican National Committee ballot security programs--a method of assuring that voters reside at their listed addresses--violated a 1981 consent agreement signed by both parties.
Under the agreement, the Republican committee would "refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial composition of such districts is a factor."
Debevoise refused to issue a restraining order requiring the GOP to stop all similar activity.
Accepts Lawyers' Word
The judge said he accepted the word of Republican lawyers who told him all ballot security programs have been stopped, including an effort the Democrats say singled out predominantly black and Latino precincts in Pontiac, Mich.
In testimony Friday, Mark Braden, the Republican National Committee's chief counsel and the organizer of the ballot security program, said he repeatedly sought to make it clear to subordinates that "race was a factor that could not be used. I would instill the fear of God in them. . . . I'm not an idiot, this is a big press issue, and it's a big legal issue."
The committee's ballot security program was conducted in Louisiana, Indiana and Missouri. Before it became controversial, GOP political strategists said they planned to use it in other states.
'Insidious Scheme'
Louisiana state District Court Judge Richard E. Lee issued an injunction against the program on Oct. 14. In his order, Lee said: "This was an insidious scheme by the Republican Party to remove blacks from the voting roles."
GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down'
October 25, 1986|From the Washington Post
NEWARK, N.J. — A Republican National Committee official calculated that a so-called ballot security program in Louisiana "could keep the black vote down considerably," according to documents released in federal court Friday.
The documents and court hearing were the latest developments in a controversy over the GOP's ballot program that Democrats maintain is aimed at reducing minority turnout. The Republicans say the program's sole purpose is to purge ineligible voters from voting roles.
In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:
"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."
Unseals Document
She said in the memorandum that the program had been approved by Gregory Graves, deputy political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe.
Wolfe testified that she wrote about the possibility of keeping the black vote down to remind Griffith that there "might be a political situation he might want to consider. . . . I wanted him to be aware of the political considerations."
The Democrats are suing the Republican Party for $10 million, charging that the Republican National Committee ballot security programs--a method of assuring that voters reside at their listed addresses--violated a 1981 consent agreement signed by both parties.
Under the agreement, the Republican committee would "refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial composition of such districts is a factor."
Debevoise refused to issue a restraining order requiring the GOP to stop all similar activity.
Accepts Lawyers' Word
The judge said he accepted the word of Republican lawyers who told him all ballot security programs have been stopped, including an effort the Democrats say singled out predominantly black and Latino precincts in Pontiac, Mich.
In testimony Friday, Mark Braden, the Republican National Committee's chief counsel and the organizer of the ballot security program, said he repeatedly sought to make it clear to subordinates that "race was a factor that could not be used. I would instill the fear of God in them. . . . I'm not an idiot, this is a big press issue, and it's a big legal issue."
The committee's ballot security program was conducted in Louisiana, Indiana and Missouri. Before it became controversial, GOP political strategists said they planned to use it in other states.
'Insidious Scheme'
Louisiana state District Court Judge Richard E. Lee issued an injunction against the program on Oct. 14. In his order, Lee said: "This was an insidious scheme by the Republican Party to remove blacks from the voting roles."
cawacko
Well-known member
LR? Really? Not surprising you don't pay attention to what he (or really anyone) posts and understand the differences. Much easier for an uneducated simpleton such as yourself to lump all people into groups.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/politics/03voting.html
Politics
U.S. Judge Opposes Republicans on Elections
By JOHN SCHWARTZDEC. 2, 2009
The Republican National Committee will not be able to use election tactics that have been linked to suppression of voting by racial minorities without court supervision, a federal judge in New Jersey has ruled.
The measures, known as “ballot security” programs, were the subject of a lawsuit between the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee that ended with a consent decree in 1982. Under the agreement, some election tactics could only be used with court approval, including the creation of voter challenge lists, photographing voters at the polls and posting off-duty police and sheriffs officers at the polls in minority precincts.
The restrictions on the Republican National Committee were extended by the courts to cover the nation in 1987.
Last November, the Republican Party went to court seeking to end the decree, arguing in part that a rise in voter fraud required the change. A voting expert for the Republicans, Tom Josefiak, argued in court that the political landscape had shifted, with African-Americans serving as president and attorney general.
With such officials in place, Mr. Josefiak had testified, he found it hard to believe that laws on the books regarding voter fraud, intimidation and suppression were not “going to be actively pursued by this Justice Department.”
Mr. Josefiak also testified that the chairman of the Republican National Committee and its chief administrative officer are African-American, and that the party had no incentive to intimidate minority voters.
In an opinion issued on Tuesday, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise of Federal District Court ruled that the Republicans failed to show that conditions had changed enough to justify changing the agreement.
“It does not appear that the R.N.C.’s incentive to suppress minority votes has changed since 1982,” Judge Debevoise wrote, citing statistics showing that most minority voters support Democrats. “It appears that the R.N.C. has been largely unsuccessful in its efforts to attract minority voters. Until it is able to do so, it will have an incentive to engage in the type of voter suppression that it allegedly committed in the actions that led to the enactment and modification of the consent decree.”
The judge dismissed arguments by Republican advocates that voter fraud is a growing problem, and said suppression of minority voters was a more serious issue.
In his ruling, which is likely to be appealed, Judge Debevoise did agree to narrow the scope of the consent decree somewhat. He agreed that some forms of poll watching would be allowed, narrowed the definition of ballot security program to include “only efforts that are aimed at preventing potential voters from casting a ballot” and set an eight-year expiration date on the agreement. He noted that the agreement could be extended if violations were proved.
Richard L. Hasen of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles called the decision “a major development” in election law, since the judge found that Republicans still had electoral incentives to suppress minority votes even in the absence of “racial animus.”
The Democratic National Committee hailed the decision as “a resounding repudiation of the Republican Party’s trumped-up claims of voter fraud.”
Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the modifications to the consent decree “a step in the right direction,” but added that “there is still work to do in order for the R.N.C. to be able to compete on a level playing field and ensure fair elections across the country.”
Instances of voter fraud, Ms. Wright said, “plague federal, state and local elections,” though the extent of such fraud is unknown.
Politics
U.S. Judge Opposes Republicans on Elections
By JOHN SCHWARTZDEC. 2, 2009
The Republican National Committee will not be able to use election tactics that have been linked to suppression of voting by racial minorities without court supervision, a federal judge in New Jersey has ruled.
The measures, known as “ballot security” programs, were the subject of a lawsuit between the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee that ended with a consent decree in 1982. Under the agreement, some election tactics could only be used with court approval, including the creation of voter challenge lists, photographing voters at the polls and posting off-duty police and sheriffs officers at the polls in minority precincts.
The restrictions on the Republican National Committee were extended by the courts to cover the nation in 1987.
Last November, the Republican Party went to court seeking to end the decree, arguing in part that a rise in voter fraud required the change. A voting expert for the Republicans, Tom Josefiak, argued in court that the political landscape had shifted, with African-Americans serving as president and attorney general.
With such officials in place, Mr. Josefiak had testified, he found it hard to believe that laws on the books regarding voter fraud, intimidation and suppression were not “going to be actively pursued by this Justice Department.”
Mr. Josefiak also testified that the chairman of the Republican National Committee and its chief administrative officer are African-American, and that the party had no incentive to intimidate minority voters.
In an opinion issued on Tuesday, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise of Federal District Court ruled that the Republicans failed to show that conditions had changed enough to justify changing the agreement.
“It does not appear that the R.N.C.’s incentive to suppress minority votes has changed since 1982,” Judge Debevoise wrote, citing statistics showing that most minority voters support Democrats. “It appears that the R.N.C. has been largely unsuccessful in its efforts to attract minority voters. Until it is able to do so, it will have an incentive to engage in the type of voter suppression that it allegedly committed in the actions that led to the enactment and modification of the consent decree.”
The judge dismissed arguments by Republican advocates that voter fraud is a growing problem, and said suppression of minority voters was a more serious issue.
In his ruling, which is likely to be appealed, Judge Debevoise did agree to narrow the scope of the consent decree somewhat. He agreed that some forms of poll watching would be allowed, narrowed the definition of ballot security program to include “only efforts that are aimed at preventing potential voters from casting a ballot” and set an eight-year expiration date on the agreement. He noted that the agreement could be extended if violations were proved.
Richard L. Hasen of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles called the decision “a major development” in election law, since the judge found that Republicans still had electoral incentives to suppress minority votes even in the absence of “racial animus.”
The Democratic National Committee hailed the decision as “a resounding repudiation of the Republican Party’s trumped-up claims of voter fraud.”
Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the modifications to the consent decree “a step in the right direction,” but added that “there is still work to do in order for the R.N.C. to be able to compete on a level playing field and ensure fair elections across the country.”
Instances of voter fraud, Ms. Wright said, “plague federal, state and local elections,” though the extent of such fraud is unknown.
There's nothing the Democrats have presented worth supporting.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
April 1, 2009
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. The RNC subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Related Court Documents
2012
Petition for Rehearing (2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (2012)
2009
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (2009)
RNC Reply Brief (2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (2009)
Debevoise Opinion (2009)
Debevoise Order (2009)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (2008)
Minute Entry (2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Motion to Intervene (2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (2004)
Malone Order (2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (2004)
Malone en banc Decision (2004)
Malone Dismissal (2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle SD Complaint (2004)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Complaint (1981)
Consent Decree (1982)
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
April 1, 2009
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. The RNC subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Related Court Documents
2012
Petition for Rehearing (2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (2012)
2009
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (2009)
RNC Reply Brief (2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (2009)
Debevoise Opinion (2009)
Debevoise Order (2009)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (2008)
Minute Entry (2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Motion to Intervene (2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (2004)
Malone Order (2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (2004)
Malone en banc Decision (2004)
Malone Dismissal (2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle SD Complaint (2004)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Complaint (1981)
Consent Decree (1982)