Just read: GAB shut down non partisian exit polling...

[midnight]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4917332


The Government Accounting Board (GAB), apparently changing their
regulations as they go along, has effectively shut down citizen-run exit
polls in today's Democratic Primary Recall Election in Wisconsin.

Despite having the GAB Regulations (��5.35 (5), 7.37 (2))in hand plus a
letter from Kevin Kennedy, head of the GAB, both clearly allowing exit
polling, the GAB today, through GAB member David Buerger, has said that
the group is "electioneering" because candidates names appear on the
polling "ballot."He further dictated that no voter would be allowed to
touch an exit poll ballot, that pollsters can only verbally ask the
voters their responses.This despite the fact that Edison-Mitofsky, the
polling company commissioned by the Media Consortium to conduct Exit
Polling nationally over the last many years, uses /written /polling
ballots that the voters fill in themselves.

The polls were being run by concerned Wisconsin citizens volunteering
under the guidance of Election Defense Alliance and Protect California
Ballots, two non-partisan organizations with the mission of restoring
transparency to our elections.Both organizations have run non-partisan
exit polls many times in the past in close to a dozen states.Neither
group has ever been harassed in such a way before.

[sybylla]

1. Is it me or do they act like someone taking orders?

First the laws are interpreted one way and then, suddenly, with no explanation, at a time when some involved party has something to hide, they are interpreted another way. As if by magic the language has just now become clear to them.

Government Accountability my ass.

[Yon_Yonson]

2. My thoughts exactly ....

[dragonlady]

3. Isn't this part of the Walker plan?

Governor has power to oversee the regulations of all independent agencies in the government, "in order to serve us better." Not sure if this has passed yet, but if not, they have another four weeks. Do you think they might demand recounts in all of today's elections, in order to gain even more time? :evilgrin:

[mojowork_n]

4. They'd probably like to but none of the races was close enough n/t

[dragonlady]

5. You can have a recount for any election if you pay for it

If they thought it was to their advantage to recount and gain more time they would do it in a heartbeat. Pay no attention to their earlier howls about how futile and wasteful the Kloppenburg recount was with less than .5% difference. It would look bad? So does what they are doing with the redistricting, but they seem to be going ahead with it anyway.

[mojowork_n]

6. The redistricting is Mississippification at its worst.

And even though it's in violation of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
according to this opinion on Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2274411/

it sounds like it would be an uphill fight to mount a challenge on that basis:

"...Section 2 (of the VRA) authorizes both the DoJ and private parties to challenge districting plans that dilute the voting power of racial minorities. While these tussles emerge after districts have been drawn, politicians keep a close eye on Section 2's requirements when drawing lines. They don't want a successful lawsuit blowing up the political deal they've struck.

Barring a new Supreme Court decision, the VRA's provisions will serve as only a modest constraint on partisan gamesmanship during this redistricting cycle. In the wake of the Republican gains of the 1990s, Democrats feared that any push for more majority-minority districts would give the GOP an excuse to pack Democratic voters into a relatively small number of districts during the 2000 cycle. The party thus worked hard to convince courts that the VRA could be satisfied by "crossover districts," where blacks and Latinos elect their candidates of choice with the help of white voters. But a 2009 Supreme Court case called Bartlett v. Strickland made it harder for Democrats to push for new crossover districts, which likely helps the GOP. On the other side of the political ledger, the VRA will prevent Republicans from inflicting a total bloodbath on Democrats by forcing the GOP to maintain existing majority-minority districts and to draw new Latino-majority districts to keep pace with that group's massive growth. This all looks like pretty small potatoes when compared with the central role the VRA played in the partisan fights of the 1990 and 2000 cycles. What's more, the institution with the power to press for more dramatic change—the Department of Justice—is likely to be gun-shy about doing so. During the last two cycles, the Supreme Court repeatedly rebuked the DoJ for pushing the VRA's mandates well beyond what a majority of justices thought was appropriate."