In regard to the Texas election referenced above, Lyndon Johnson liked to tell the story of "little Juan", a mythical Mexican-American child. The story went like this:

Q: Little Juan, why are you crying?
A: My daddy came to town last week, and he didn't even come to see me!
Q: But Juan, your daddy is dead, isn't he? What makes you think he came to town last week?
A: He must have come to town, because he voted for Lyndon Johnson.

(sigh)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

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

As long as State Election laws take precedence over Federal Election laws, which they do, corruption of the voting system will continue. As it now stands because of the 1833-- Barron vs. Baltimore case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights, and other Federal laws, applies only to actions of the federal government, not to the states and local governments, we have no access to the Bill of Rights and Federal Election laws. Because of this ruling the States do not have to recognize the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its mandate that every vote cast must be counted. What all this means is simply each State has its own Election Code and each State’s Chief Election officer, is the deciding factor on which votes do or do not count according to State Code. Partisan politics write State codes. Most recent case is in Florida were Katherine Harris discounted votes according to State Election Codes in direct opposition to the Federal Voting Rights Act mandating every vote cast be counted. Barron v Baltimore also had an effect on the Supremacy law making State law the supreme law in some cases.

In a little known case filed in the 3rd Federal District court in California in 2002 where the Secretary of State was charged with throwing out write-in votes for the office of House of Representatives, the Federal District Court ruled, “The Voting Rights Act of 1965, count every vote cast to include write-in votes, does not apply to any citizen living within a State within the United States.” The Federal District court upheld that the Secretary of State was correct according to California State Election Code to ignore, throw out, votes because according to California law they can, even though it was in direct violation to laws in the Voting Rights Act. The case could have gone to the 9th district’s court of appeal but because of the time and expense involved it became impossible. The State is able now to continue to manipulate votes and do whatever it deems proper and necessary to get whomever they want elected to office, elected without federal interference.

The argument of course is if Federal law does not apply to a citizen living within a State within the United States then when does it apply? The answer is disturbing. Federal Law Never Applies to citizens. Only when a citizen is able to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court will it be decided if their federal rights were violated. You have better odds of winning the lottery than getting a citizen’s case to the Supreme Court.

I will bet that most people think they are U.S. citizens with all the rights and protections guaranteed them in the U.S. Constitution. But the truth is they are citizens of a State and subject to State Laws rather than citizens of the United States entitled to the protections and guarantees in the Bill of Rights. A State could, include the Bill of Rights into their State Constitutions. The State of Virginia’s Constitution includes a similar Bill of Rights but not exactly. Wonder why? Ever wonder why when you appear in a state court, your right to due process and equal protection under the law does not seem to automatically apply? The reason is some state laws allow for fast tracking thereby sidetracking certain inalienable rights. A separate motion filed in an appeals court is necessary to get your federal rights applied to State courts. It is a long, involved, tedious, expensive and somewhat dubious process. There are no guarantees you will succeed. And winning does not reverse the unlawful law. Every single person has to fight and win in order to get their due process rights. Few try to get their rights by using this process. So violations to due process are more the norm than the exception. If State courts recognized citizens as U.S. citizens our rights would be a part of us no matter what State we lived in. Conclusion on next post.

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

Ever wonder also why each State and even some counties have different election codes, or different gun laws, peacefully assembly laws, etc? If the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were in effect in each state then the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be uniform throughout the states and apply equally to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Not happening.

Anyway, you want fair elections? It is not going to happen until each and every state is forced to recognize every citizen as a citizen of the United States. That can only happen if each state is forced to recognize and incorporate into their State constitutions the United States Bill of Rights word for word. You want war? This is the war that will decide if we are a real democracy or facsimile. Until that happens we remain ‘fictitious’ citizens of the United States and subjects and property of a state. Not exactly what our founders had in mind say what?

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

The congressional comments are interesting , but pale compared to the video on stealing elections that appeared in AlterNet on Sept. 15 about stealing elections with Diebold voting machines. I do not understand why there has not been a national outcry and a reaction from the secretaries of state of every state in the union, banning the use of electronic voting machines.

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

The congressional comments are interesting , but pale compared to the video on stealing elections that appeared in AlterNet on Sept. 15 about stealing elections with Diebold voting machines. I do not understand why there has not been a national outcry and a reaction from the secretaries of state of every state in the union, banning the use of electronic voting machines.

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

I'm sorry but I don't see where in this post there is any indication of bragging about anything. There is a reference to Lyndon Johnson, there is an inaudible remark, there is some laughter and joking about electioneering but I don't see anything that indicates a straight up boast. Can some please clue me in. Is there something I'm missing or is this just an inflated headline from hearsay?

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

I'm usually a fan of Evan's writing, but in this case I'd caution him against referring to a black liberal Democrat as a "good ol' boy" (or any term that includes the word "boy" for that matter). That's a racially loaded term, and I doubt most progressives would tolerate such language from a conservative. Just because Evan doesn't support him doesn't make someone a good ol' boy. Nobody is going to confuse Al Wynn with a white redneck, and I guarantee you if Evan came to Maryland and called Wynn a "boy" of any kind to Wynn's face, Evan woul have hell to pay, and not just from Wynn.

As for assertions that a uniform application of the federal Constitution and Bill of rights in all states would stop election fraud, I'd just note that it was the U.S. Supreme Court - not state or local courts - that stole the 2006 presidential election.

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