Bio Link
email: adams@electionlawcenterdotcom
Syndicate
Oregon: Voter fraud, social security fraud, identify theft, the whole ball of wax
"Keaton first fell under suspicion of Oregon elections officials more than a year ago when it appeared he was voting under his own name and those of at least two other men, including a dead son, said Helen Cooper, a special assistant U.S. attorney who handles Social Security cases."
Oregon, you may recall, is one of the states to whom I sent a notice letter because they did not adequately purge the voter rolls of dead voters. The notice letter sent to Secretary of State Kate Brown said
"The EAC Report details some problematic data for Oregon. Specifically it states that Oregon removed zero dead voters from the rolls from 2006 to 2008.
This failure to maintain the voter rolls creates a risk that the elections in November 2010, and beyond, may not be conducted with sufficient integrity. Because steps
to ensure that only eligible living voters are on the rolls in Oregon do not involve significant effort or cost,
hopefully a resolution to these problems will be in place by November 2, 2010."
... << MORE >>
Squables errupt over Georgia citizenship verification preclearance
A variety of left wing groups are grumbling about the fact that the DOJ conducted a well timed strategic retreat over the Georgia citizenship verification preclearance. The ACLU, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund all filed a pleading protesting the dismissal of the case brought by Georgia. Nothing is quite as nasty as a fight between family members. They argue:
"Although the Attorney General acted within his technical legal authority when he granted expedited preclearance here, this expedited review appears to have been taken at Georgia’s behest solely to prejudice the State’s own citizens who intervened in this case. "
More, the DOJ's actions "were highly irregular, and that the manner in which the administrative request was made and acted upon was
calculated to deprive Intervenors [the groups named above] of the opportunity to contest, comment upon, or play any role in the disposition of the voting procedures for which the State had sought
preclearance in this Court. The Attorney General’s acquiescence to the State of Georgia’s highly prejudicial maneuvers is inconsistent with the Attorney General’s practice in previous Section 5
actions, and with the Attorney General’s self-defined role as a 'surrogate' for this Court."
There are two things these groups overlook, or don't want to acknowledge:
1. It was a bad objection from Day One. It was interposed during the heyday of lunatics running the asylum in Civil Rights before Tom Perez was confirmed. Loretta "I heart the black panthers"
King was the signatory to the objection letter. The objection was bad from the get-go. The current Voting Section chief has forgotten more
about Section 5 than Loretta King ever knew. That is not hyperbole or flip. It is true. ...
Military Voting expert Eric Eversole on Fox
... << MORE >>
Thursday Radio
Another challenge to Georgia ID
"In time we hate that which we often fear" - Ant.Iiii ... << MORE >>
PJTV Interview
Washington Times on Motor Voter
Milwaukee radio Wednesday
WBT-AM Charlotte today.
My Latest at Pajamas Media: Action to protect integrity of voter rolls.
"As the saying goes: if you want a job done right, you have to do it yourself. If Americans don’t want dead and ineligible felons participating in elections, they will have to clean up the mess themselves, as Attorney General Eric Holder won’t do his job by enforcing the integrity protections in the “Motor Voter” law passed in 1993. . . .
Motor Voter struck an important balance — it sought to increase voter registration, as well as ensure voter integrity. Welfare offices and motor vehicle offices became voter registration centers. But the law also required states to conduct list maintenance to ensure ineligible names don’t pollute the voting rolls. Dead people, ineligible felons, and people who moved away must be removed from the rolls by state election officials.
The attorney general was given the power to enforce both provisions of Motor Voter, yet Eric Holder is only interested in enforcing one. This attorney general simply won’t do his job and enforce the list integrity requirements.
During the Bush administration, the Justice Department enforced both Section 7 (the welfare office registration provisions) as well as Section 8 (the list integrity provisions). Section 7 cases were investigated and brought against multiple states, including Illinois and Arizona. Section 8 cases were investigated and brought against multiple states, like Missouri and Maine.
The decision of the Holder DOJ to ignore the integrity provisions of Section 8 is deliberate and corrupt. In November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes told the entire assembled DOJ Voting Section that the Obama administration would not enforce the list maintenance provisions of Section 8. Section 8 “doesn’t have anything to do with increasing minority turnout,” Fernandes said. “We don’t have any interest in enforcing that part of the law.” End of story.
At the same time, Fernandes stressed that the DOJ would vigorously enforce the welfare agency registration provisions of Section 7."
Full story here.
Nicole Marrone at Pajamas Media: A Philadelphia Story - Dead Voters Pollute Philly Voter Rolls
"The city of Philadelphia is known for many things: The Liberty Bell, cheesesteaks, water ice, and Santa Claus-booing Eagles fans. But if research that I conducted in 2006 is still accurate today, Philadelphia should also be known for all-inclusive voting — that is, voting regardless of whether one has a pulse or is otherwise eligible to cast a vote.
In the spring of 2006, I reviewed portions of the city of Philadelphia’s 2005 voting list. I found that underaged voters, deceased voters, and incarcerated felons were registered to vote and had remained on the voting list, despite the fact that none of them were eligible to vote in Pennsylvania (or, in most cases, anywhere else)."
... << MORE >>
So goes Cuyahoga; So goes military voting
"All four Board of Elections members have expressed concerns about the timing of the Justice Department actions. Board member Sandy McNair said if the feds had told the county earlier that it was in violation, the board could have acted sooner. "
Look for the same mess to happen with military voting cases, if they even bring any. The DOJ waited and waited and waited on action against Cuyahoga. They are doing the same with military voting.
In both instances, the delays harm their case. Defendants can raise equitable defenses that delay cuts against the DOJ.
The Department's rebuttal is thin: we told you 2 years ago about this provision of the law. That's hardly responsive to the claims of delay because those were broad discussions of the law, not a specific threat to sue. And they went to many states. There is a common denominator here that we will let Election Law Center readers figure out. Two words, sounds like... ... << MORE >>
Pittsburgh Tribune Review: The DOJ and Georgia
Partisan politics at Virginia SBE causes minority vote dilution
In the heat of the Presidential campaign, and with Virginia suddenly up for grabs, Virginia election secretary Nancy Rodrigues and her
staff made a little noticed change in election procedures involving college students. This change was done at the behest of the Obama for President campaign. Sources inside the Virginia State Board
of Elections tell us that nakedly partisan views of those ordering the change were well known. And ironically, the change may dilute the voting strength of African-Americans in Richmond,
Charlottesville and Newport News.
When the policy was changed in 2008, it was an administrative change. But now Nancy Rodridgues has sought to enshrine the change in the SBE regulations. This permanent change potentially invites a
lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because the change dilutes the votes of African American voters. This change comes from an office which has faced numerous charges of racial
discrimination against African-Americans in the last few years.
What is the change? SBE told county voter registrars that they no longer should make any inquiry of college students whether their “domicile” in the college town is bona fide. Instead, they should
just take a college student’s word for it that they live there. SBE Policy 2009-005 relaxes the residency requirements for voting that were set forth in prior statutes and regulations. Those
regulations were in place for decades, and enforced by local and county registrars without any significant problems. The policy was upheld repeatedly in cases like Kegley v. Johnson and Alami v. City
of Williamsburg.
University students, under the State Board of Elections’ new regulation, would be allowed to vote in their college district even if they do not have intent to remain in that area indefinitely,
which, until SBE Policy 2009-005, was considered a Constitutional requirement to vote in Virginia.
Before the change, all voters were asked a series of questions about their domicile. These questions were perfectly legal and proper. They did not offend any provision of the Voting Rights Act. The
questions involved “financial independence, business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes, residence of parents, spouse and children, if ...
Sixteen dead people voted in Ohio
Wisconsin challenges basic premise of MOVE Act
"To deny a waiver because you don't have 45 days seems to be a misuse of waivers," said GAB Chairman Gordon Myse.
Sorry Gordon, that's inaccurate. FVAP knew better. Hopefully, so will the DOJ attorneys negotiating the case. Frankly, one wonders why Wisconsin hasn't been sued already. And in a turn of events from the twilight zone, Wisconsin may be dumping thousands of military voters into he inactive category thus blocking them from voting. Yet another reason for DOJ to launch a lawsuit immediately. There is no reason not to as it strengthens their negotiating position and mitigates the same argument that has been used against their military voting cases in the past - the DOJ waits too long to sue states. ... << MORE >>