Democracy and Elections

Covering election theft, voting rights, money and politics, and political reform.

Election Activists Win Three Key Battles
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld on May 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM.

Voting rights activists won three big battles this week.

The Missouri state Legislature adjourned without taking up a controversial voter ID bill. The Department of Justice settled a lawsuit with Arizona that will force the state to offer welfare recipients the opportunity to register to vote. And Hans von Spakovsky, the White House's controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission, withdrew his nomination.

The Missouri voter ID bill would have required voters show a government-issue photo ID to vote and would have required new registrants to produce proof of citizenship to complete their voter registration. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, estimated more than 200,000 people could have been disenfranchised by the citizenship requirement.

The voter ID proposal, which was intended to take effect before the November election, was extremely controversial. According to voting rights activists monitoring the Missouri Legislature's final day, the criticism of the bill pressured Republican sponsors and legislative leaders to not bring up the proposal before the Missouri Legislature adjourned on Friday.

Missourians for Fair Elections reports over 4,200 calls were made to lawmakers in the past two weeks urging them to not back this legislation.

Arizona

In Arizona, which is the only state to require proof of citizenship from state residents seeking to register to vote, that requirement has lead to the rejection of 37,000 new applications since 2004, when the law took effect.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was settling a lawsuit with Arizona to bring the state into compliance with a federal law that requires certain state agencies offer public aid recipients the opportunity to register to vote.

This past January, Project Vote and Demos, two voter advocacy groups, sent a letter to Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer notifying her that Arizona was not in compliance with the public agency provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The letter said voter registration at the state's welfare had declined 70 percent over the past 12 years.

"This agreement ends the need for litigation and means Arizona will bring voter registration to the state's low-income communities," said Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote.

Washington, DC

Finally, the decision by Republican lawyer Hans von Spakovsky to withdrew his name for consideration for an appointment to the Federal Election Commission was also seen as a victory for voting rights activists. He had been one of the administration's most outspoken voices to newly regulate various aspects of voting, such as more stringent voter ID laws.

Von Spakovsky had served as a FEC commissioner after a recess appointment but could not gain Senate confirmation. Before his temporary FEC post, he was a lawyer at the Justice Department where he changed its voting rights enforcement priorities from defending minority voting rights to ensuring only people with current ID and other credentials could vote.

Missouri Amendment Would Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote
Posted by Attaturk , Firedoglake on May 12, 2008 at 6:58 AM.

Here's to you Milliard Fillmore, the nation's Lou Dobbs viewers turn their bitter eyes to you!

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its execrable decision allowing more strict voter identification at the polls, though no evidence of widespread voter fraud has ever been produced, the nativist still do not think it is enough. Now, it is about disenfranchisement of groups that vote against conservative agendas and nothing less.

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

How bad is Missouri's plan, pretty damn bad:

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship.

In most of the states that require identification, voters can use utility bills, paychecks, driver’s licenses or student or military ID cards to prove their identity. In the Democratic primary election last week in Indiana, several nuns were denied ballots because they lacked the required photo IDs.

Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport.

So how many of you walk around with your birth certificate, how many of you actually have a passport, how many of you carry it around with you?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

PA: High Turnout, Some Machine Problems
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet on April 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM.

Good weather and intense interest appear to be producing a high turnout in Pennsylvania's presidential primary Tuesday. However, there were reports of long lines and delays of more than an hour before voting in African-American neighborhoods in Philadelphia as a result of voting machine failures, according to the 1-866-MY-VOTE-1 hotline.

The voter hotline taking calls from across Pennsylvania reported there were problems with electronic voting machines freezing at the start of voting, as well as people not finding their names on voter rolls at precincts, voter hotline officials said.

By midday, callers to the 1-866-MY-VOTE-1 hotline had made 850 calls, according to Harry Cook of InfoVoter Technologies, which screen the requests for help and forward callers to local election officials to help them. The calls came from 710 polling locations across the state, although most were from Philadelphia and then Pittsburgh, the two largest cities.

Of those calls, 150 people left complaints that were recorded and forwarded to local election officials. Shortly after 7 AM, when polls were slated to open, there were a handful of complaints of precincts that failed to do so. In the next few hours, there were complaints of electronic voting machine failures in several precincts leaving voters without any machines to vote on.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Colbert Report: Finally, the Voices of America's Long-Suffering White Males Will Be Heard [VIDEO]
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on April 20, 2008 at 9:14 AM.

It's gray and pissy here in the Northeast. So here's a little fun on a gloomy Sunday, courtesy of the Colbert Report ...

Surprise: Election Reforms Politicized
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet on April 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM.

Two developments on Tuesday underscore how election reforms are becoming increasingly politicized in a presidential election year.

In the first instance, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Tuesday criticized the Department of Veterans Affairs for not helping wounded ex-soldiers living in VA facilities to register to vote. The new VA Secretary, General James Peake has said that voter registration is a "partisan distraction" that would detract VA staff from their mission of caring for sick ex-soldiers.

Obama called on the VA to help wounded vets register to vote and urged a full accounting of our wounded, injured and medically evacuated troops when discussing the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While all of the Democratic presidential candidates have decried the treatment of vets from the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, only Obama has spoken on the VA's efforts to suppress the voting rights of wounded former soldiers.

"You cannot lead this country into war, and then fail to care for those who have served, and for their families," Obama said. "It starts with protecting the fundamental rights of our troops. They have fought across the world so that others have the right to vote, but here at home, the Bush Administration has refused to help wounded warriors register. There is nothing patriotic about denying wounded troops the ability to vote. It's time for the VA to do the right thing. It's time to reverse this shameful decision."

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, which has been urging the VA to help injured vets with voter registration, praised Obama's remarks.

"Registering voters and encouraging them to participate in our democracy is a non-partisan issue – every citizen aged 18 or older should be strongly encouraged to vote, especially our service members and veterans who have defended our Constitution," he said. "Again, we urge VA to reconsider their ill-advised policy of preventing voter registration drives at VA hospitals filled with our wounded, injured, ill, and disabled veterans."

In the second instance, the Bush Administration and House Republicans led to the likely defeat of an election reform bill, HR 5036, sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have helped many counties and states buy voting machines with a paper trail before the fall presidential election. The bill, which also would pay for audits to check the accuracy of vote counts, was the first election integrity vote to come before the House in years.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Anti-Democratic Backlash: Surge in Voter Registration Sparks New Wave of Voter Suppression
Posted by Project Vote, MyDD.com on April 11, 2008 at 7:46 AM.

Voter registration applications continue to pour into elections offices across the country at record breaking rates, contributing to unprecedented turnout over the course of the presidential primary season so far. The closely contested primaries, especially on the Democratic side, are one factor behind the surge. Another includes a spark of political interest in young people. Whatever factors are involved, the bottom line is that more Americans are engaging in the electoral process. This reality of exploding participation in American democracy should be closely considered by lawmakers when evaluating legislation that could expand or restrict access to the polls this November.

"This year's presidential battle has brought a record [number] of voters to the polls. So far, primaries in 23 states and the District of Columbia have broken turnout records for at least one party," Martha T. Moore of USA Today reported this week. Primary turnout this year "is on pace to eclipse the record set in 1972, when nearly 26% of eligible citizens cast ballots," Curtis Gans, director of Center for the Study on the American Electorate at American University, told Moore.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Former President Carter Winks, Nods, Blows Kiss at Obama
Posted by Trish , Pensito Review on April 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM.

He was a little cagey about it but former Pres. Jimmy Carter used the name "Obama" four times when asked who's getting his super delegate vote.

Speaking with a Nigerian paper while in Abuja, Carter noted several reasons why he might be leaning toward the Illinois senator.

"Don't forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia," Carter said. "My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama."

"As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess," Carter added.

The Carter Center confirmed to CNN the newspaper did quote Carter accurately.

Perhaps the best way to tell if Carter was saying he's voting for Obama was the reaction of the Clinton campaign. Can you say, "frosty?"

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Thursday, "Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have a great deal of respect for President Carter and have enjoyed their relationship with him over the years, and obviously he is free to make whatever decision he thinks is appropriate with regard to presidential choice."

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Clinton Superdelegate Lead Nearly Erased
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on April 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM.

Right now, Democratic Convention Watch prominently displays the superdelegate endorsement totals compiled by four major sources. The AP shows Clinton ahead 250-220, CBS shows Clinton ahead 249-217, CNN gives Clinton an advantage of 243-212, and DCW itself shows Clinton ahead 246-216. These margins are virtually identical, and all show Clinton ahead by between 30 and 32 superdelegate endorsements. However, a closer look at the numbers strongly suggests that Clinton's superdelegate advantage is actually much smaller, and will probably be erased entirely before Pennsylvania.

Consider the following:

• Add-on superdelegates: Democratic Convention Watch currently shows Obama ahead 2-0 among add-on superdelegates. At this point, very few add-on superdelegates have been chosen, and the complete schedule for when the rest of the 76 add-ons will be selected can be found here. Looking over the number of add-on superdelegates from states that have already held primaries or caucuses, and keeping in mind that add-on superdelegates are reviewed by each campaign before state party committees or state pledged delegate committees vote on these delegates, it seems that Obama will lead Clinton 40-24 among these delegates. (For this calculation, I am projecting a Clinton add-on victory in New Hampshire, a split in Missouri, and an Obama victory in Nevada and Texas). This means that Obama will actually close the superdelegate gap on Clinton by another 14 delegates once all of the add-ons are chosen, reducing Clinton's advantage from 30-32 down to 16-18 in favor of Clinton.

• "Pelosi Club" superdelegates: Democratic Convention Watch also posts a list of seven superdelegates who have publicly stated they will endorse the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. They call this group the "Pelosi Club," since Nancy Pelosi first made this pledge. At this point, since Obama only needs 37.4% of the remaining pledged delegates to win pledged delegates, he is a lock to be that candidate. As such, the four uncommitted superdelegates and one Clinton endorsing superdelegate in this "club" are all effectively Obama superdelegates. This adds five superdelegates to Obama's total, and removes one from Clinton, allowing Obama to close the 16-18 delegate gap down to 10-12.

  Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

  

  
  

Is Obama Ahead in Pennsylvania?
Posted by GottaLaff , Cliff Schecter's Blog on April 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM.

An outlier or ….?

Barack Obama 45
Hillary Clinton 43

Barack Obama has taken the lead in Pennsylvania, a remarkable turnaround after trailing Hillary Clinton by 26 points in a PPP poll in the state just two and a half weeks ago.

Obama’s steep rise could be a reflection of a growing sense among Democratic voters that a continued divisive nomination process will hurt the party’s chances of defeating John McCain this fall. An Obama upset in Pennsylvania would be virtually certain to force Clinton out of the race.

Obama has his customary large advantage with black voters (75-17) and is keeping it relatively competitive with white voters (49-38)

He leads across all age groups except senior citizens and balances Clinton’s 10 point lead with women with his own 15 point lead with men.

Pdf version here, with details.

Home page of PPP here.

H/t: Commenter David G.

Will Hillary Say Anything to Win the Nomination? [VIDEO]
Posted by Adam Howard, AlterNet on April 2, 2008 at 12:10 PM.

Hillary Clinton talks about counting all the votes, but what she doesn't talk about is that she also wants to use super delegates to overturn the judgment of voters. It's just another example Hillary Clinton's New Rules. Check out the video made by the Jed Report (the folks behind the Bosnia video) to your right for more.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Bill Clinton Stuns Superdelegates with Angry Tirade Behind Closed Doors
Posted by Paddy , Cliff Schecter's Blog on April 2, 2008 at 10:12 AM.

Take it with a grain of salt, since it's anonymous, but wow.

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

UPDATE:

Turning toward the much more classy Richardson, look at how he addressed being called "Judas" by Clintonista James Carville. (WaPo):

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Keith Olbermann Presents the Commander-in-Chief Test [VIDEO]
Posted by Adam Howard, AlterNet on March 31, 2008 at 7:27 AM.

This is Keith Olbermann's diary regarding this video on Daily Kos

   Well, it's not a Special Comment, and with one possible exception, I don't think it's particularly nasty towards one side more than the other in the current Democratic Endlessness.
   But, if like me, you've recently been called out by Governor Ed Rendell or James Carville, you probably need a few yucks.
   So tonight when the show celebrates its 5th Anniversary with our special on NBC, we will be laying on the network folks, four minutes' worth of our exclusive "discovery" of the actual "Commander-In-Chief Threshold Test," the existence of which was revealed by Senator Clinton and Mr. Wolfson earlier in the month.

   That's right: if you hear any small explosions or "thunk"-like sounds just after sunset, that may be one of your neighbors exposed to this kind of stuff for the first time, since it's on real tee-vee.
   So you know what's coming: we have a video package illustrating the seventeen questions on the test.

QUESTION NINE: How often should the commander-in-chief joke about nuclear holocaust?

   Ronald Reagan: "I've introduced legislation to outlaw Russia. We begin bombing in five minutes."    

   Let me repeat Question Nine: How often should the commander-in-chief joke about nuclear holocaust?

   John McCain: "The Beach Boys Song? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

   We have everybody in here from LBJ to Bob Dole, seen everywhere from inside tanks, to inside (then outside) the stage at the incredibly dangerous pancake-flipping contest.

QUESTION SIXTEEN: Explain the fallacious reports of any interaction between secular groups amid the 90% Shia population of Iran, and the violent groups of extremists in 35% Sunni Iraq identifying themselves as Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia?

   And no help from other students.
   John McCain answers.    
   Senator Leiberman corrects him.
   I said no help.

   And not to give it all away, but just one more.

QUESTION SEVENTEEN, the Commander-in-Chief Field Danger Assessment.
   Watch this videotape carefully.  
   Is this a dangerous situation on the front-lines somewhere requiring the Commander-in-Chief to run to his or her vehicle, or is this a meet-and-greet photo-op at an airport?

   Bonus points: Is that a little girl with a poem, or a sniper.  
   A very short sniper.  
   With a poem.

   OK, I take back what I said about it not being particularly nasty towards one side more than the other.
   Plus Worst Persons, Bussssshed, Rachel Maddow, Richard Wolffe, Lewis Black.

   Mort Lindsey conducts the orchestra.

Siegelman Seeks Answers, Eyes Rove
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on March 31, 2008 at 6:12 AM.

Upon his release from prison last week, former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman sounded like a man intent on figuring out why partisanship apparently landed him behind bars for nine months.

Speaking by telephone in his first post-prison interview, shortly after he had left the federal penitentiary at Oakdale, La., Mr. Siegelman said there had been “abuse of power” in his case, and repeatedly cited Karl Rove, the former White House political director.

“His fingerprints are smeared all over the case,” Mr. Siegelman said, a day after a federal appeals court ordered him released on bond and said there were legitimate questions about his case. He was sentenced to serve seven years last June after a guilty verdict on bribery and corruption charges a year earlier.

In measured tones after spending nine months at the prison, the former governor, a Democrat, said he would press to have Mr. Rove answer questions to Congress about his possible involvement in the case.

“When Attorney General Gonzales and Karl Rove left office in a blur, they left the truth buried in their documents,” Mr. Siegelman said, referring to Alberto R. Gonzales. “It’s going to be my quest to encourage Congress to ensure that Karl Rove either testifies, or takes the Fifth.”

Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, told the NYT, “There’s absolutely, positively, no truth to any of the allegations and literally no evidence for any of it.”

Really, Bob? “No evidence” at all?

I seem to recall Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson, answering questions under oath from House investigators, offering at least some evidence.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »