Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush's Veterans Affairs Department Continues to Ban Voter Registration Drives at Veterans Facilities

Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress at 2:42 PM on August 11, 2008.


Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz asks: "What is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking?"

This past May, the Veterans Affairs Department, led by Secretary James Peake, issued a directive prohibiting nonpartisan voter registration drives “at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans.” In today’s New York Times, Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz writes, “What is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking?“:

The department has placed an illegitimate obstacle in the way of election officials across the country and, more important, in the way of veterans who want to vote. A group of 21 secretaries of state -- Republicans and Democrats throughout the country, led by me and my counterpart in Washington State, Sam Reed -- has asked Secretary Peake to lift his department’s ridiculous ban on voter registration drives.

[…]

But federal legislation shouldn’t be needed for the Department of Veterans Affairs to lift the ban on voter registration drives by state and local election officials and nonpartisan groups.

The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation’s veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy’s most fundamental act, the vote.

Digg!

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report.


Bill Kristol Thinks America Should Reward Torturers
No Bill, these people should not get the Medal of Freedom.
November 30, 2008.
Report: Fox Bosses Despise and Loathe Bill O'Reilly
They are, of course, willing to tolerate him for ratings.
November 29, 2008.
Obama to Address Economy ... Bush to Pardon Turkey
"The president-elect working hard while the president is hardly working."
November 26, 2008.
The Secret to Rachel Maddow's Success
Head of MSNBC on Maddow's success: 'She comes in every day and studies for eight hours.'
November 24, 2008.
Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales Indicted By Grand Jury
A South Texas grand jury has returned multi-count indictments against Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
November 18, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A violation of patient and resident rights- SW required duty
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 11, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having worked in long term care and experienced state & federal surveys regarding patient care and their rights.....This is in direct Violation to the patients Rights Act.
This directive is an admission of guilt to this civil Liberty. Prosecution should commense with the number of patients who have been effected to determine the number of counts to this charge.
Any Social Worker who Provides services to these residents is required to assist them in registering and obtaining Absentee ballots. but if a directive is issued which contradicts this - that Official is personally liable for the constitutional Crime.Unless a person has been deemed incompetent and is a ward of a Guardian by law, they have the right to exercise this fundmental Right!Arrest him for the confession of attempting to (or the crime of -from previous elections/primaries)Voter Suppression

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are free to choose a candidate...
Posted by: chuckjs on Aug 12, 2008 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if they allow you to vote. So what's the problem? I need some new pillow covers for my bed. Mind if I use your November elections because they are the Perfect Sham!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If this is what it seems,
Posted by: tap17x on Aug 12, 2008 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it's merely a typical Refucklican strategy for reducing the number of people who might vote Democratic. It's like disenfranchising blacks in Florida in 2000, which had the effect of making the Texas Turd NOT our legitimate president, regardless of what the Five Stooges did. If the voters had any idea of the stunts Refucklicans are pulling, they might begin to see the light, even as politically stupid as many of them are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]