Voter Suppression – ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAW! Lawyers?? Will Pitt???

[Pooka Fey]

I consider the two methods by which the republicans used to steal the 2004 election: 1) paperless electronic voting and 2) massive disenfranchisement of primarily African-American voters; to be two SEPARATE issues. Yes, they were combined to produce the same end, namely another ** sElection; aside from this, they are fundamentally unrelated.

Many democrats and DUers are calling for an Election Reform movement which will address both issues in ONE campaign. I VEHEMENTLY disagree that this is our best course of action. IMHO, paperless electronic voting should be the ONLY focus of the Election Reform movement. In this editorial, I will discuss the issue of voter disenfranchisement through suppression as a violation of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the civil war era, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

LET’S NOT “REINVENT THE WHEEL”. We don’t need another constitutional amendment nor another Voting Rights Act. WE NEED TO ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS PROHIBITING JIM CROW VOTER SUPPRESSION TACTICS. The fight for equal access to the polls was fought during the Civil War, and it was REPEATED 40 years ago during the Civil Rights Movement. The blood and tears of those patriots has been shed, and the reforms that they fought for have been enacted.

Republicans have devised a new voter suppression tactic, 10 hour long lines at the polls, to achieve the same ends of those who used poll taxes, voter qualification tests, harassment and intimidation in the pre-civil rights era. It’s a variation on the SAME theme. If someone devises a new way to murder, are we required to write a brand new law? NO! We prosecute using the existing laws on the books.

If we are unable to enforce our current election laws, dating from the mid 19th century and from 1965, why does ANYONE believe that we will be able to enforce a new law stating exactly the same thing? An unenforceable law is WORSE than no law at all, because it creates contempt for the law. We all know that this contempt is a defining characteristic of neo-conservative republicans. In 2000, 2002, and 2004 the republicans violated American laws repeatedly and vehemently. Attaching voting rights protections to a new Election Reform Movement is the equivalent of IGNORING the hard-won legal battles of prior generations of patriots to ensure equal access to the polls.

We cannot allow another four years to pass writing letters and politely asking a republican congressional majority to pass a THIRD version of a law that they have systematically and deliberately violated. The Ohio Police department will not be making any arrests. The democratic leadership (notable exceptions are Barbara Boxer and the CBC) has done nothing to prosecute the perpetrators of previous Voting Rights crimes, thus it is unrealistic to look to them for ANY effective help at this time.

Why can’t we here at DU organize our brilliant legal team, pool our financial resources, and start handing out some LAWSUITS? DU lawyers, how were violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act prosecuted during the 1960’s? I read some great threads by DU Lawyers in November discussing the 10 hour long lines in Ohio as a form of an illegal Poll Tax – because Time is Money. We need to send a message. We will not accept the flaunting of our laws and our constitution. We do not accept the silencing of our fellow citizens.

These were not stolen Kerry votes in 2004, these were stolen AMERICAN votes. Votes to uphold our constitutional rights. Votes to remove an appointed President who LIES in order to gain acceptance of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Votes for a living wage for regular working Americans. Votes for Social Security for our parents. Votes for a Nation that garners respect abroad, rather than utter contempt and ridicule. I’m not a Lawyer, but I will happily contribute whatever funds I can spare, and work as the DU Legal team office girl. Can we can assemble a legal team to take some action? Can we prosecute some criminals? Lawyers? Your thoughts? Can we keep this thread kicked until we can get some real answers?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I applaud your passion,

and I wholeheartedly support your enthusiasm.

However, thanks to electronic voting machines and the impossibility of producing any viable and admissible evidence that fraud took place, there's not a thing that can be done.

That's my opinion, at this late hour of the day, anyway. Sorry, but the party's over on that one.

I think the next thing is to start pushing for paper ballots, hand counts, and/or voting by mail that worked so well in Oregon.

[Pooka Fey]

2. NO. I'm ONLY talking about LONG LINES in Black precincts.

The machines are an entirely separate issue. This is only about machines in as much as there were not enough machines in Black neighborhoods.

There is clearly evidence that voting machines were removed in Black neighborhoods in Ohio which caused up to 10 hour long waits - people CANNOT wait in line 10 hours to vote. Whites cruised in and out in 15 minutes in suburban neighborhoods.

This is a form of Poll Tax, which is illegal and already prohibited by law.

What can we do? I've seem reams of documented evidence, video-tapes, there's evidence in the Conyers report, etc etc.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. "clearly evidence"

There's a world of difference between what you see as "evidence" and what the courts see as "evidence."

I don't know that removing voting machines is illegal.

But, if someone comes up with something that's admissible, I'll back it all the way.

[Pooka Fey]

12. Here's one example I have of documented voter suppression

due to long lines (Time is Money) constituting an illegal poll tax. Also on the thread I mentioned in the post, the lawyers were bringing up the "Equal Protection" argument of Bush v. Gore, which the SCOTUS said was NOT to be used as precedent (?) - saying if whites can cruise in and out of their polling places in 15 minutes, it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause to force black voters to wait in lines up to 10 hours to vote. The Secretary of State of Ohio is in charge of the allocation of voting machines.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/06/electionday_footage_.html

just scroll to the bottom of the webpage to Link1, Link2, Link3 to view the film footage. Sorry, this link isn't working so well for dial-up Internet access. I hope it works for you.

Someone here also made a graph of the allocation of voting machines in I think Cayahuga County, which clearly showed a pattern of black precincts being shortchanged.

How are these examples looking to you, as admissable evidence?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Well,

if the lawyers have already determined that there's an Equal Protection argument to be made, what's the problem?

Admissible in terms of what violation? You see, you have to be able to show that something happened, something that violated the law. So far, I have no information suggesting that allocating voting machines in one way or another is illegal, unless there's a prima facie case to be made that it did, in fact, violate certain Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If that's the case, then the lawyers are handling it, and I'd urge you to wait and see what evolves. These things, alas, take time.

[Pooka Fey]

23. The problem is that everyone is looking at this as if this is Kerry's

fight to engage in or to walk away from. John Kerry doesn't mind being cheating/losing the election - he's still rich, white, and powerful. (please save your breath, Kerry apologists) So CASE CLOSED for the Democratic party. Look at this thread to get an example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=275761&mesg_id=275761

I am arguing that this has NOTHING to do with John Kerry. This has to do with ENFORCING current laws, namely the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Regardless of who won - Black Americans were forced to stand in lines for up to 10 hours. I heard that when the polls closed, there were so many people in line in some precincts that it would have taken 36 hours of waiting for them to make it up to a voting machine. So they were all sent home - THE LAW says anyone standing in line before the polls close has the right to cast a vote.

IMHO, the Democratic leadership (not B.B. & the CBC) could care less about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, even though it was their baby back in the day. If the law is to be enforced - the people of the U.S. will be the ones to do it. Except no one knows this happened except those of us on the blogs. I was hoping to get a lot of legal input on this.

Thanks for your generous responses to my thread, OldLeftieLawyer. :-)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. Thank YOU for getting so worked up about it

That's good, and it's also good that you understand that this is not JK's fight, that the lawyers there are - I presume - competently building a case that will have to work its way through the courts, not always the easiest trip in the world.

I still believe history will be made, but it's going to take some time. Have faith, stay pissed off, and feel free to contact me anytime you think you have something I might be able to translate into "legal" for you.

:yourock:

[me b zola]

57. In violation of HAVA

One machine per one hundred voters. Simple.

[kk897]

84. how about the various violations of Ohio election law in the recount

process? By the county BoE's own admissions, often, the precincts were predetermined and not chosen randomly, as required. That's just one little thing. There were many infractions before, on, and after Nov. 2 that had little to do with electronic voting machines or even long lines. Just plain violations of what ORC requires for the conduct of elections.

But Pooka, I agree with your basic premise, that the two issues may need to be divided to be conquered. I see it like, oh, I don't know, Germany and Japan in WWII. They attacked in entirely different ways in entirely different scenarios, but the end result, war and death, was the same. I'm starting to think that the election fraud "war" was conducted on these two fronts: the old fashioned but tried and true Jim Crow methods, and the new fangled 21st century hack the vote method. Result: Bush wins.

[Peace Patriot]

103. OldLeftLawyer, if you really are an old left lawyer, then you...

...should know that shorting black precincts on voting machines is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. That's the kind of the thing that the Voting Rights Act was specifically designed to prohibit. It is exactly equivalent to the Poll Tax--not because "time is money," but because it is intended to, and does, apply to one class of people on the basis of race.

[flyarm]

77. ohh my...

thank you for those links..i am speachless ... with tears in my eyes!! and crying from my heart!!:cry:

fly

[hilster]

46. "NO. I'm ONLY talking about LONG LINES in Black precincts."

So does this disclude the thousands of liberal art students (black, white, yellow, red, whatever) from both Kenyon and Oberlin colleges that had to wait 5-12 hours to vote?

I myself am a student at Oberlin, and on November 2nd I waited five hours to vote at a polling place (which held two precincts) that desperately needed more machines while six machines remained unused in the same room for the other precinct. Only two of the five election officials appeared to be doing their job -- in other words, three people were casually sitting at a table without so much as lifting a finger to expedite the process and obvious dilemma we had.

We are a very Democratic community (I would think), and while we had to wait five-six hours to cast our ballots, the other precinct in the same building had no wait at all while its polling stations stood empty for large brackets of time, beckoning to the single line of eager voters that filled the building and wrapped around outside in the rain.

[Pooka Fey]

48. Thank you for waiting so long to vote. However...

I am arguing for to garner support for a lawsuit based on the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (& the 15th Amendment) -both of which I BELIEVE (not positive though) are guarantees of protection from disenfranchisement BASED ON RACE. This is all we have on the books as of now, to move forward on a legal front.

It is not in any way meant to offend white democrats who also were forced to deal with voter suppression. What happened to you is outrageous, and I have not before read a post from an Ohio student documenting what happened to you. Thank you for taking the time to inform us. Peace.

[hilster]

49. However...

Yeah, I assumed as much. I suppose I was most insulted by the comment of the whites going in and out in 15 minutes in suburban communities, although I don't even know if I live in a suburb..

I'm ashamed that there aren't more Ohio students out there because we were just as much disenfranchised as any African American from Cuyahoga County to Franklin County. There's a huge leaning amongst the younger voters towards the left, and I know that any precinct with a liberal arts college nearby would have had a very positive result for Kerry.

[Pooka Fey]

50. Its great to hear what went on in Ohio from you all that live there.

This is just too much criminal evidence to just leave languishing. I know this stuff takes time to enforce, but I've seen many people here on DU and in the blogs saying "lets start a new Civil Rights Movement". NO. Let's enforce the laws we already have.

We should prosecute the crap that happened to the students in Ohio too, but as far as I know we don't have laws against that yet. Thanks again for sharing your story.

[me b zola]

58. Fey, I am so with you

I believe that we are absolutely over looking the very roots of who & what we are. To me, it is right there in front of my face--the voting rights act of 1964. There are too many AA communities with widespread reports of fliers being disseminated telling voters to vote on an a wrong date or wrong place. The felon purge list also seems to go directly to the AA community--what about all of those white-collar criminal bastids--are they on anyone's list??? At what precincts were there 'people' demanding to see identification that they did not demand at Repuke precincts???

I have read three different legal definitions of fraud. Old Lefty, I can not believe, that in good conscious, that you would question Fey.

[Pooka Fey]

59. Thanks mebzola. Questions are fine with me, though. Lets keep TALKING

about this until we have something viable on the table. :hi:

[pbartch]

82. Pooka Fey --- you're 100% correct. There are already laws on the books

and evidence on paper and computers. We should be able to file lawsuits NOW!!!!

Where are the Demo lawyers?? I can't believe that there is not ONE Ohio Democrat lawyer who wants to make a name for him or herself and be in the history books!

[goclark]

69. No it's about everyone but it is harder to prove

based on history and CIVIL RIGHTS suits that WHITES were denied the right to vote. Not saying it didn't happen but it is the history of America that slavery never died, it just comes back in different forms.

Jesse Jackson said it right, "they have taken off the (white) hoods and put on the suits."

The "SUITS" knew, from previous experience, that they must shut the Media down so that African Americans will have to hear info by word of mouth if it was not witnessed.

The word of mouth technique doesn't work any more because we are spread out in cities and towns, there are few gathering places except churches to hear the NEWS.

In Los Angeles, the Sentinel is the major African American newspaper. I have been fighting them for months about their lack of election coverage for Democrats yet they had a huge color photo and loooong article about the Princess Condi.

I have strong strong feelings that they have been bought and paid for by the Republican party! So, with that example,the Black community is not fully aware of what this issue involves for us.

The NAACP was and still is our VOICE but they are being hit with the full force of the IRS to keep Julian Bond from speaking out while Farwell rattles on everyday in churches and so do the right wing other preachers.

Bring on the law suits!

I will say this. I attended several meetings regarding working the polls. At one meeting there was a representative, African American, from the Registrar's office. He was telling us that it was too hard to get polling places in African American neighborhoods because no one would volunteer their homes. I went ballistic on him! I stood up and others joined me to say,"than have the polls at Target or SavOn or other large areas that we go to!"


He sounded just like Bush, telling us,"it's hard work" to find the right locations. We kept screaming at him and we got no where now that I think about it. Many of our Seniors could not wait in the 4 hour lines and the machines were broken and on and on.

I tell that story to say, it didn't just happen in Ohio, it was everywhere and we were not slick enough to do anything about it.

By the way, I was assigned to a lovely precinct in Beverly Hills. Nothing broke down, PTA served cookies to the voters, parking on the street was blocked off just for voters, more than enough trained staff.

My friend was assigned as a poll WATCHER in an African American area. She had to fill in for a poll WORKER because few showed up. The lines were long, Seniors in wheel chairs had to wait two hours and surprise surprise - machines broke down.

Let's get ready to rumble in every city and hamlet!

[Pooka Fey]

72. Thank you for posting this.

Since I started this thread, I'm hearing about voter suppression in places I hadn't even heard of before. This is bad. This is starting to really scare me with the scope of what we are dealing with.

[pbartch]

81. How about the announcing that African Americans would vote the next day?

Is LYING to people about the legal day to vote -- the ONLY DAY to vote illegal???

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. We can be pushing for that, plus a whole lot more

----------------------------------------------------------
Save this nation one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[New Earth]

7. wtf happened to you?

where have you been, and why have you come back so....negative? :shrug: :cry:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. I beg your pardon?

That's an extraordinarily rude comment.

You don't like my professional take on a situation, that's unfortunate. But, to characterize ME as "negative" is beneath you and really puts me off.

I do, though, forgive you.

[New Earth]

10. um, i think you misunderstood what i said?

i said wtf happened to you, where have you been? MEANING YOU HAVEN'T POSTED IN WEEKS. and the last time we heard from you, you were cheery and positive, that's all :hi: sorry if you misinterpreted what i said :shrug:

oh btw, no need to reply again b/c i'm not going to argue. i actually believe this same thing happened before, and i pm'd you to come to the Kerry group and you never wrote back :shrug: don't worry, i'm just overly sensitive :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. I've been posting

You haven't seen them, well, I don't know that people look for other people's posts.

I'm still cheery and positive. Unfortunately, if I deliver my opinion, some take that as negative and unpleasant. It hardly bears discussing - I've had to tell people things they don't want to hear for all of my professional life. They take it about as well as you did.

Since I've already forgiven you, and since there was no basis for any kind of disagreement, I'd say the issue was moot. You obviously take it personally if you're not responded to, but, you clearly didn't see it when I attributed my presence on one of the Kerry threads to your urging.

Now, enjoy your evening.

[New Earth]

29. and you say I'm rude?

ok. you have a good evening as well.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. Thanks for the laugh n/t

[Occulus]

54. Question for you

If I have a piece of technology which I consider to be a "trade secret", but I've inserted into that technology items which are patently against the law, and then try to use the fact that the technology is a trade secret or, if you will, intellectual property to hide the illegal items inside the technology itself.... well, is my claim of intellectual property still valid?

Let me put it simpler, because that was just wordy, wordy, wordy: can I use the concept of intellectual property to shield myself from prosecution when the only evidence against me is stored in the sealed intellectual property? That can't be... can it?

What I'm getting at here is that if the only evidence of shenanigans is in the source code for these machines... well, isn't some legal mechanism by which we can open the source for inspection? Or can a search warrant for the source code never be issued because the source is intellectual property?

You want to open the source so you can find evidence which you believe to be there that points to fraud... how is this done when intellectual property is involved?

I hope I'm making myself clear; I'm very confused on why the source cannot be opened, intellectual property notwithstanding... but, if we want to conclusively prove/disprove hacked code, well... we need to see the code.

And please, tell me we don't have to "obtain" a machine in order to inspect it. That's something I really don't want to hear...

[Pooka Fey]

55. Please don't be upset with me. But can you start this as a new thread?

I'm really trying with all my energy to stay focused on the Voter Suppression/Long Lines/Time is Money/Disenfranchisement Issues on this thread.

I think the DEATH of this issue will be mixing in questions of machine tampering. We ALREADY have laws to deal with disenfranchisement - the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I would prefer to keep this thread focused on that part of the stolen election.

I applaud your question and interest in machine tampering and we need work on that issue. Just not here, please. I don't want to confuse this issue. Thanks. :-)

[snot]

62. I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but

I believe courts can review evidence in secret, and have the records sealed, so that trade secrets can remain secret yet be considered by the court. Not sure if any other folks can review the same info; but theoretically, if subject to some kind of confidentiality order, I don't see why not.

We don't want to see Diebold's software so we can STEAL it; we just want our experts to have a chance to see it to ascertain whether it served the American people in the way it was supposed to.

[Darknyte7]

65. I agree...

The term of art for what my friend is referring to here is called an "In Camera Review." Generally the standard for such a request is that a plaintiff must establish a reasonable probability that the records contain information that is material and relevant to their case complaint.

[fasttense]

66. You know I've never understood how the companies did that.

In Vegas where they use hundreds of thousands of gaming computers the District Attorney can go and look at them and remove them if they are gaffed (rigged). If they can find evidence in the equipment, they can prosecute. They did it with American Coin. Yet we can't look at the equipment that counts our vote? How did the voting machine companies get away with that?

[Amaryllis]

92. Isn't that what the Cobb, Badnarik, Kerry Edwards lawsuit is about?

Preserving and obtaining evidence? What's happening with that, anyway?

[Oversea Visitor]

85. Not really

If people that claim that their vote is switch on machine. Then its up to the Election Board to prove that its not.

However if they cant prove so then what kind of voilation has been done. Since there is no paper trail then I think negligenent comes into play. And when I prove that Bill was introduce to prevent this from being so and was block and so on....

The question I see is burden of proof. Who should present this proof.
The Election Board?? If they cannot what then...

The objectives of the lawsuit is to proof the glaring flaw in the system.

Guys serious just gather up a big group and hit them with lawsuits all over US where this occured.

[Pooka Fey]

86. Thank you for posting, Oversea Visitor!

The republicans knew in advance that there would be "no proof" if there is "no paper trail" - it is a political coup - a government overthrow. I don't know how we will fight this part of the election fraud yet. However - stopping African-American voters has been a part of U.S. elections for 140 years, so we have laws to fight this already. This is where we need to begin, and some lawsuits HAVE started already.

We will figure out how to fight the machines soon. Thank you for your support of our cause. :hi:

[Amaryllis]

91. We still have work to do on our tabulators in OR; some are Diebold. But

are a lot of us on this now and we have a great SOS to work with. Isn't this how it should be- your SOS works WITH you to make the system work?

Senator Wyden actually got us an exception to HAVA when they passed it so we could keep our system.

[jasmeel]

3. I completely agree. How about a class action suit?

I am not a lawyer but it seems that's the way to attack a problem that effects a large group of people. Any idea what the requirements are for that?

[Pooka Fey]

6. That's what I'm trying to get rolling here at DU!!!

This is a sneaky way to kick my own thread. HA! I have no answers - STILL WAITING FOR THE LAWYERS! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Amaryllis]

93. I was wondering that too. Old Leftie Lawyer?

[Mister Ed]

4. Yes! Excellent post.

I've said all along to anyone who will listen: the massive suppression of black voters was a colossal crime. We have no_moral_right to tolerate this crime.

Jim Crow is back with us, as vicious and evil as it ever was. How many brave souls have died to secure the rights that were so flagrantly violated in this election?

[DearAbby]

11. You mean to separate the issues? Rid the machines ,,,,and Violation of

voter's rights?

[Pooka Fey]

14. Yes. Separate the 2 issues. Prosecute the disenfranchisement

NOW with the laws which have been in place already for 134 years, and 40 years, respectively : the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of (?I think?) 1870, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

--------
edited; dates reversed before

[WarNoMore]

13. Thank you for that.

That's been bothering me too. It was so gut-wrenching to watch the testimonies before the Civil Rights Commission after the 2000 election. To suffer those indignities again is intolerable.

[KaliTracy]

15. I agree they are 2 separate issues (which touch on each other) -- it was

the Supression that drew me into DU and into the world of all is not what it seems on the outside (and I am a firm believer in paper ballots if they can be "stuff-proofed".

I am in Ohio -- in a mostly caucasion/upperclass/"excellent schools for 3yrs"/99% Republican (if the lawn signs mean anything)... Bush Rallied in my Neighborhood (drawing from Dayton and Cincinnati-- I live in the middle of both) -- to over 50,000 people. I had NO line at 7:45 am. There was No line when I got home from work at 6:45. DH and MIL/FIL voted in the middle of the day -- longest they waited was like 10-15 minutes.

That got me hopping mad, after I heard of all the other lines.... and I still am. I cried at the Rally in Columbus this past Monday...

How can anyone look a person who waited over 2 ot 4 hours to vote and say, "I'm sorry, we were just basing machine allocation on past election turnout." "I'm sorry, even though we had more machines allocated in the primaries, we just didn't do that for this election." "I'm sorry, you are in the wrong line, you need to be in precinct 1-b not 1-c -- go back to the end of the line and start again" Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. It's WRONG! And why more people don't understand this just baffles me.

[Pooka Fey]

16. I know. I KNOW. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

We have enough evidence (I say that confidently even though I'm not a lawyer) to prosecute the responsible parties. I don't for a minute believe we'll get the big guns; but even sending some of those little smirking BusHitler jungen that ran interference on Nov. 2 would perhaps make the news, and make it harder to pull off in the future - until we can change back to a non-psychotic administration.

[Lurker321]

22. If you decide to go after those allocating machines,

especially if you do that in the cases that were highlighted by Conyers, people that you consider to be "BusHitler jungen" turn out to be Democrats - and not just Democrats, but the county chairman of the Democratic party, for example.

http://www.alternet.org/story/20934

"...William Anthony is the chairman of the Franklin County board of elections. As an African American and a Democrat himself (in fact, he is the county chairman and works as a union representative) Anthony resents the suggestion that Franklin County authorities somehow worked to help Bush. "I worked my ass off in those precincts," he says of African-American areas of the county.

...Significantly, the people making these decisions aren't necessarily Bush partisans. Every county in Ohio, by law, divides its elections personnel evenly between the Democrats and Republicans. This means that where the chief administrator of elections is, say, a Republican, the chairperson of the elections board is a Democrat. In the case of Franklin County, two individuals shared the task of allocating machines – and one was a Democrat."

[KaliTracy]

26. while i keep hearing that, and Tim Burke, from Hamilton County

(Democratic BOE Director) told me "it wasn't partisan , Mason had long lines" -- I still have to wonder at the total ineptness of it all.... I'm sorry, I'm not even very math savy, but if *I* can figure out how many machines to have if we expect a 70% turnout in each precinct -- then certainly those who have the numbers, the experience and the resources could figure this out too. (And, Mason's lines were about 45 minutes to an hour as opposed to 2, 4, or 6 hours in some precincts)

It has gotten me fired up enough to wish I could take a sabatical from my day job to research this --

there was some precinct losses that were extreme if you look at a 20 year history, yet turnout became worse, not better.

as posted here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=274453&mesg_id=276166

my question, is and continues to be, why?

I do belive that Blackwell had something to do with precinct mergings, since he's been Secretary of State. At least this article states his name and Taft's name in merging for "e-voting" preparation http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi1/documents/04258174.asp

whether or not a person had one party affilation over another doesn't really matter to me there should have been no district with a past voting history of over 70% that had machines expected for a 50% or less turnout. If, indeed, we have open and free elections that are fair, then at the least all of us in Ohio should have had a 45 minute to an hour wait.... but that didn't happen, and that's why it stinks. There might be very good reasons for what happened, but I have yet to see any kind of reasoning besides "well Democrats were working there too" "It was bad planning" "etc."

Someone makes the rules, and tells people to follow the rules...

[Pooka Fey]

33. Great analysis of the numbers in your link. WOW. Thanks.

How can we tie all these pieces of evidence into a solid case, and then a lawsuit against, Oh I don't know - ?? I REALLY don't know who we can sue. Lawyers....????

OldLeftieLawyer up earlier on the thread said there HAS to be lawyers amassing evidence. However, from what I understand - it's NOT John Kerry's lawyers or anyone from the DNC. Because they are approaching this as a John Kerry Campaign issue. Not a Civil Rights Violation Issue. IMHO - this has NOTHING to do with John Kerry.

edited sp.

[KaliTracy]

36. this has been my hot issue... while the machine tampering is, too, I think

the blatent voter supression is beyond belief, and I've been writing about it to various outlets since right after the election.

This is a thread I ran about a week or so (it's archived and locked now) -- but there was some interesting discussion in there... I posted a question that someone else asked..."Do long lines prove voter fraud"

-- I'm not sure I'd personally use the word fraud, I was looking for feedback. Supression (which is illegal) is what I think it comes down to)

One note: two of the problems were miscalculated -- they were caught by someone and I corrected them later in the thread.... (I did them too quickly!) -- (number 5 mainly)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=232241&mesg_id=232241

[Pooka Fey]

37. I read that one when it came out. Nice work.

I'm a DU newbie - but I've been obsessively here since Nov. 3rd. I know how tremendously powerful this group can be, and I wanted to put in my 2 cents worth about how we should move on this Voter Suppression issue. I don't know what else I can do besides write an editorial. I'd like to do more - but I won't lobby Congress to rewrite old laws and re-fight 40 year old/ 134 year old battles. I'm in for a class-action lawsuit for violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'll be here. Thanks for your input, KaliTracy. :-)

[KaliTracy]

40. i'm a newbie too.... came here after Thanksgiving.. nice to

meet you! :hi:


btw: don't give up! You are on to something...

[Lurker321]

34. maybe this information will help you -

It shows that the precincts in Franklin county that did not get enough machines allocated were shortchanged because the historical turnouts in them were low

this is from NY Times, Dec 24, 2004, front page story:

http://tinyurl.com/6lxpl

...

In Columbus, Franklin County election officials reduced the number of electronic voting machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them in the suburbs. They used a formula based not on the number of registered voters, but on past turnout in each precinct and on the number of so-called active voters - a smaller universe.

By contrast, the state's most populous county, Cuyahoga, allocated machines based on the total number of voters, a move that the county's election director, Michael Vu, said helped stave off even bigger lines.

...

"Somebody came up with a very sophisticated plan for machine distribution which, either by accident or design, greatly enhanced the president," said Robert Fitrakis of Columbus, who is part of a group that has contested the election results in court.

Matthew Damschroder, a Republican who is the director of elections in Franklin County, said the urban precincts lost machines because many of their voters had not voted recently and because those precincts historically had had low turnout.

Indeed, election results show that a much higher suburban turnout on Nov. 2 meant that machines in Bush areas were more heavily used on average, although whether that was because their voters were less easily discouraged by long lines or simply more efficient in voting is unclear.

"Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs," said William Anthony Jr., a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County election board.

[KaliTracy]

39. in 2000 Cuyhoga county had 1505 precincts, and had 574,782

voters vote out of 1,010,726 registered voters.

in 2004 Cuyhoga county had 1,436 precincts and 665,334 people vote out of 1,005,807 registered voters. (Unofficial results taken from SOS website first week after election, these numbers could have changed)

In 2000 that would have been (if precincts were divided evenly, which they are not) about 381 voters per precinct.

In 2004 that would be (if precincts were divided evenly, which they are not) 463 voters per precinct.

If they had kept their precincts the same it would have been about 442 people per precinct. Still an increase.

And considering 0ver 800,000 new voters registered for the 2004 election, people should have NOT been down sizing. at all.

How many machines does it take to meet each precinct's expectations of actual voter turnout?

[Lurker321]

41. The problem, as I see it, is in the last line of your post

"expectations of actual voter turnout".

Since no one is clairvoyant, people base these expectations on various data. According to the article the URL to which I posted, some places (Cuyahoga) used the total # of registered voters in order to estimate those expectations. Some (Franklin) used the past turnout numbers. Either way can be argued for and against (not with hindsight, but before the election) because high regisration numbers may predict, but certainly do not guarantee high turnout.

The point is, to go back to the original post that started all this, how do you prove, in the court of law, that the allocation was the result of malicious intent, and not errant thinking in hindsight (like basing the allocation on past turnout numbers) or plain stupidity? Having Democrats, including highest Democratic officials for the county, involved in these allocations really will not help the case for malice.

[KaliTracy]

44. the numbers were actual voters, not expected 70% of registered

voters -- try it that way -- I have an idea (I'm too sick to play with numbers tonight) -- that it would be over 65% turnout in both years. I might be wrong about that, though.

I've already posted a thread on expectations (see post #36 )-- which merely points out that this is not too difficult to analyze. That's all I'm trying to get across. This is what their job is -- whether it is voluntee or paid -- they still are expected to do what it takes to ensure fair and open elections.

I think, going back to the original post, that we need to look at historical evidence of turnout and the use of getting rid of districts.... which started in a huge way in the years 1998-1999 just in time for the 2000 election.

No excuse was given for that -- at least, none that I remember -- and this year, besides the articles that have quotes fromm BOE offices, It was also reported that the merging of many districts was to prepare for "e-voting" -- but when they chose not to do it, they didn't unmerge the districuts

I know, there might not be anything there that is to be able to be taken to court -- unless some investigation into the poll books in 2000 would give us time stamp information (I have no idea if times are logged at the time a voter comes in, but that would be very helpful in this case) to see if it really was apathy and not something else (like long lines that people walked away from rather than voteing) that made the turnout 63% -- for apathy (low voter turnout) is one of the excuses to cut even more precincts.

[Pooka Fey]

45. There are other issues besides machine allocation proving suppression.

Precincts were deliberately using voter registration rolls from the 2000 Election; so that all those new voters who turned up in 2004 were not "on the list" - as you hear on the Video the Vote clip, and thus required to vote on a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots were rejected overwhelmingly in African American districts. White suburban republican provisional ballots were counted.

Precincts were drawn so that voters had to vote at a SPECIFIC TABLE in their polling location. Those who didn't vote at the correct table, even in their own polling location, were disqualified from having their vote counted.

Some machines that the State of Ohio had purchased were sitting unused in a warehouse on Election day. With this election being billed as "the most important in our lifetime"; and unprecedented GOTV efforts by the democrats - there is no reason to have held back voting machines that could have been in service. Furthermore, some precincts in minority districts had old voting machines which broke down early in the day. Poll workers called the board of elections to bring in replacement machines and were told that none were available - this is a lie. There were available machines sitting unused in a warehouse, if memory serves there were about 80.

People who are given a provisional ballot are required to sign an affidavit - a vote requires a signature for everybody. It is the responsibility of the poll workers to gather these signatures from those who have been given a provisional ballot. The necessary forms were not available on election day in minority districts, no signatures were collected, and provisional ballots were thrown out. This is procedure - it was not followed. There is no "OH WE"RE JUST DUMB" excuses - this is a Presidential Election.

The BBC has a copy of a document from the Republican National Committee found prior to the election with names of voters whom the RNC planned to confront at the polls to challenge their right to vote - the names on the document are overwhelmingly African American voters.

I think there is a case here. Again, I'm not a lawyer, though.
__________________

edited - 80 machines available

[Pooka Fey]

28. The republican disrupters on this video are those to whom I am referring

Election day footage from Ohio - scroll down to where it says Link1, Link2, etc.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/06/electionday_footage_.html

The dial-up version hasn't been working well at all; I hope you have cable :-)

As far as the allocation of voting machines, there is a mass of evidence that primarily African-American and democratic leaning districts were shortchanged leading to up to 10 hour long lines; white Republican precincts in Ohio had only 15 minute lines. Time is money - ergo a 10 hour wait to vote is a form of an illegal "poll tax" on African Americans.

[m.standridge]

52. candid camera; and, what you say about "time is money"--

that makes sense, somehow, too. And there was something based on that, a legal case or principle. I'm drawing a blank, right now. Something about that... What you're suggesting, is something, the enforcement of a certain law or set of laws, that's above political pressure. I wonder, though, if there's really a law that can do that, when all three branches are controlled by the party that's being investigated? By all three branches, please note that "judges trump prosecutors". Also, "prosecutors trump police."

[Pooka Fey]

53. This is the point where the real lawyers need to take over

this discussion, because you're starting to lose me a bit. I see what you are getting at with "judges trump prosecutors" - but how was the voting rights act enforced in the Southern states during the 1960's? Who sued whom? Surely there were unfriendly judges back then. We had LBJ as president though - big difference there.

I know this editorial is asking a LOT from any individual lawyers who would be willing to take on something like this. This is why I believe that we DUers could/should start a legal fund to support whomever would be willing to "go" on this. I don't believe that the Democratic Party is interested in this battle.

Thanks for your contributions to the thread. :-)

[brindis_desala]

17. I admire your honesty and deeply appreciate your compassion

but if most Americans thought as you we would never have * as our president. Fraud or no. Part of this campaign must be to change hearts and minds.

[Bill Bored]

20. In general, I agree.

We can tie both issues to, say, the electoral vote objection though because the Repubs killed legislation for the VVPB and also did not investigate the stuff that went on in Ohio. It's THEY who tie these issue together, not us.

As far as taking action, I agree we should certainly enforce all current laws, and that the Amendment could divert us from achieving verified voting, which itself may ultimately require litigation at the state or county level.

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Great big kick! Great thread powerful emotion. This is productive energy!

I hope you dont mind if I link this puppy to the "We Need a Special Prosecutor Thread". Organizing Powerful Lawsuits is one of the very ways to light the fire under Congress that will move us closer to real indictments and real prosecution.

[Pooka Fey]

24. Thanks and please link away. Let's talk about this issue! :-) n/t

[Pooka Fey]

38. Can you post a link to that "Special Prosecutor" Thread? n/t

[mikelewis]

25. Since my vote was tossed in the trash, I'd love to sue.

I am a white american, first-time voter. My vote was tossed in the can. Isn't this a violation of my civil rights regardless of what color I am? Wasn't that the point of the 15th amendment? Any lawyers looking for a client, I'm in!

[mikelewis]

27. What do you need to present to show intent?

If we launch a legal battle, which by the way stands no chance of success in Ohio, what requirements are there for proving intent to disenfranchise? What recourse does the law provide and what protection does the state have as it applies to civil litigation? What penalties can a civil suit impose on a state or an office-holder who violates the law and infringes on a persons civil liberties?

[Pooka Fey]

Lawyers???

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you don't need to prove "intent" for a civil rights/1965 Voting Rights Act violation. This law was enacted to stop other forms of disenfranchisement such as "voter qualification tests", poll taxes, etc in the Jim Crow South; all forms of intimidation to suppress the Black vote. What we saw in Ohio, to me, is clearly a new technique towards this same tired old end.

15th Amendment to the Constitution & Voting Rights Act of 1965 laws are Federal laws, not Ohio laws. But, again - I'M NOT A LAWYER. I'm a Jazz Musician, guys.

LAWYERS???

[KaliTracy]

30. would losing over 1,700 precincts when gaining 800,000 registered voters

since 1998 count? (Blackwell became Secretary of State in Ohio in 1998)... oh, I know -- not enough proof, not enough of anything but enough teasing information to irk me to no end because I don't know the reasons behind it, and I'm just looking at these numbers like I'm crazy or something.

When Ohio goes from an average of a little over 70% voter turnout from 1980 to 1996 (but 1996 was 67%) and then falls suddenly to 63% voter turnout in 2000, the same 4 year cycle that over 900 precincts are lost... is that at least not weird? -- makes me think that a whole lot of people had intentions that day, but walked away instead. But, without knowinghow busy the precincts were (if they solidly had voters throughout the day, for example, instead of 5 voters here, 2 there, 1, here, 9 there throughout the day) -- then I would say that there probably was supression, not apathy.

but I am only making a hypothosis, and it could prove to be very wrong.

We had 71% voter turnout this year. I find this odd.

[mikelewis]

51. It fell to 63% because the registration numbers were wrong

The real number was probably in the lower 70% range but since the number of registered voters was incorrect the turnout is also incorrect.

Here's how it breaks down

If you look at the turnout as a function of the population and not the registered population you see that the numbers have stayed consistant and actually risen, not fallen.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html
In 1996 there were 11,150,506 people in Ohio

In 2000; 11,353,140

In 2004; 11,435,798

http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/index.html
in 96 - 4,638,108 ballots cast for a 41.5% turnout

in 2000; 4,795,989 ballots cast for a 42.2% turn-out

and in 2004; 5,722,391 ballots cast for a 50.0% turn-out


Now you adjust the population by
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 25.4%

And you get an a voting age population of 8,531,105 for 2004. These are rough numbers so adjust for (+/-) a few percentage points.
So the voter turnout of the voting age population was actually 67.1%

This is not based on registered voters this is 67.1% of the population voted out of all the people who are old enough to vote. Doesn't this seem a bit high?

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. What was the reason given for disallowing your vote?

:shrug:

[mikelewis]

47. My name didn't appear in the poll book...

so they wrote my name in and handed me a provisional ballot to fill out. On the form, it asked me to swear that I have changed my name or my address within the past year. I hadn't. I told the guy that I wasn't going to lie. He insisted I had to fill it out but wouldn't tell me what I was supposed to be swearing to. The people behind me started paying attention as I put the ballot back on the desk and told him to forget it. The people in line started grumbling and then a supervisor came over and said it was okay, that I didn't have to fill out the form. I voted and thought Kerry lost fair and square. It wasn't until I read a blog somewhere saying that the election was fraudulent that I began to question whether or not my vote counted. I called the number that was posted on here and after several attempts found that my vote was shit-canned. So here I am... disenfranchised. Ain't life a bitch.

[Darknyte7]

42. I just came in for a minute...

And I first want to thank you for starting this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have time this evening to write the thoughtful response I believe you deserve.

I plan to steal some time in the morning when I get to the office to get something to you... :hi:

[Pooka Fey]

43. Thanks. :-)

[Darknyte7]

67. This is what I've been able to put down this morning...

Sorry, but I've been busy already today...

This is the angle from which I’ve been approaching this issue since I joined DU in the days following the election.. You’re correct your observation that we have two separate issues here.

I agree completely with your observation that we need not re-invent the wheel. Apart from the fact that we could we could hardly get a floor vote on such a proposed amendment, much less the 2/3 majority needed to pass it, the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Acts are sufficient basis to bring action for the voter suppression schemes that we saw in Ohio and other places about the country.

I must however also agree with my friend OldLeftieLawyer in his observation that there are a number of actions already in the works. For one, I know the the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is and has been involved in this matter, but it will be at least a few more weeks before we hear about their suits. The NAACP-LDF is the organization through which the former dean of my law school alma mater Charles Hamilton Houston and his star pupil Thurgood Marshall began working toward the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the mid 1930’s. Even still there are cases that we do know about such as Moss v. Bush, The Ohio Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell and National Voting Rights Institute vs. J. Kenneth Blackwell. These thing DO take time. Unfortunately, he wheels of justice turn very slowly.

[Pooka Fey]

73. Thanks, Darknyte7. I feel better knowing

that there are actually some legal challenges in the works. I didn't know this, but OF COURSE, we wouldn't be hearing this news in the papers. Hopefully we here on DU can keep abreast of these actions and be prepared to help out, should the need arise.

Thank you again for taking time out of your busy schedule to contribute to this thread. :hi:

[NMRedGreen]

56. what about civil court suit against Sproul?

I've been waiting to hear about some DA somewhere filing a RICO or Civil RIghts Violations case against the directors, managers of Sproul Associates? The reports coming out of Nevada were that a few people who had their registrations destroyed tried to get a local judge to reopen the registration books, but the judge refused. Maybe those folks could sue, do discovery? While working my way through the Conyers report, there were several citations of federal law that made me (not a lawyer) think Sproul was violating several parts of the Civil Rights Voting Act, and subsequent federal laws.

Yes, there would be obstacles, but if a DA in Nevada won't, maybe a DA in Arizona or one of the other states Sproul operated under false pretenses will. If that fails, maybe a civil suit would expose some more of the dirty tricks and suppression that plagued the election.

Get that nice librarian who did a little checking and discovered Sproul was misrepresenting themselves when they called and asked to do 'voter registration' in her library to testify in front of the next round of investigations led by Conyers.

It's my recollection that Sproul got a lot of money from the RNC. and we should all know about what to do when there's money involved with these rat bastards.

I don't think there's a 'smoking gun' that ties all this stuff together. More likely it was convergence of actors and events that those involved were just working toward a common goal. But if there was dirt to be dug, maybe what was found in the Sproul case would be one more scandal laid upon the back of the republicans. Most Americans say they believe in fair play, if the scandals continue, maybe there will be more folks who reject the snake oil next time around.

Of any one knows of anything recent in the Sproul case, I'd like to hear about it.

[Amaryllis]

94. I heard there are two in the works, but can't remember where I read that.

Too many threads to track it all...seems to me one was in OR. We had some problems with them here.

[snot]

60. Reminds me of Paris Hilton's advice for success

which the Repubs have adopted wholesale: tell people what they want to hear (e.g., pass a law); meanwhile, do whatever you want to do (e.g., don't enforce it).

Good laws aren't enough; they need to be enforced. E.g., lately E. Spitzer's been the only one enforcing securities laws.

Not everything can be dealt with through a lawsuit; but so long as all other enforcement is in Repub hands, that may be all we've got. However, there are standing issues.

[Pooka Fey]

61. What does that mean - standing issues? Is that a legal term?

For us non-lawyers....

[snot]

63. "Standing" is a legal term

E.g., if your neighbor is run over, s/he has standing to sue the driver, but you don't. The rules get complicated, but that's the basic concept.

I probably can't sue over anything that happened in this election, because I live in TX and my vote was probably counted . . . although I'll never be sure, since it was on a f---ing black box. But I'm pretty sure I don't have standing to, e.g., sue Ken Blackwell.

Sorry I can't give better info--I know just enough to raise the question.

[Pooka Fey]

71. Thanks. This helps clarify things.

So we at DU could

1) Throw our collective weight behind someone in Ohio who is already filing a grievance (someone on the thread mentioned an African American couple in Ohio filing a grievance/lawsuit) or

2) Convince some African American Ohio resident DUers to file an action.

OK. Thanks snot. :hi: As I understand the Voting Rights Act - we're talking about RACIAL discrimination right? Because on the thread, we have white liberal arts college students who waited in line for 5 hours. I don't think they have a law to protect them yet - is this correct? (I'm assuming you're a lawyer) Thanks again. :-)

[Darknyte7]

87. Correct again...

As I thought more about this thread last night, I concluded that the best thing i think we can do here at DU is organize and help ensure that this issue doesn't disappear again as it did after the 2000 cycle.

This year will mark the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. I think we need to use the commemoration of the Act as a spring board to launch a campaign for public awareness. Why not start now in organizing a march in Ohio to commemorate the Selma-Montgomery Marches of March 1965?

We could devise an integrated ad campaign that acknowledges the 40 year anniversary and the continuing challenges faced by voters. We could use footage from 1965 in combination with footage of people waiting in line in the rain for hours.

Such a campaign, if done creatively, can help increase public awareness of this continuing issue.

Thoughts?

[snot]

88. Grt idea Darknyte7! 40th anniv. of Voting Rights Act

GREAT idea!

[Pooka Fey]

89. Darknyte7, this is a FANTASTIC IDEA !!!

I was going to PM you because I didn't want to kick my own 3rd page thread, but snot kicked it for me, so here I am. We have many media savvy people in DU. Saracat was talking about starting a TV network. I can write another editorial to put up in 2004 Election Results to float the idea before the DU masses. We do need to win back the hearts and minds of the average American who watches Fox News.

[Darknyte7]

90. Absolutely!

We really don't have much time to plan this... The original Selma - Montgomery Marches were held in March of 1965.
Link to a summary about the Selma-Montgomery March:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/al4.htm

I would suggest that, where ever we ultimately hold this march, that we target March 25th. That is the anniversary of the third March where 25,000 marchers participated in the approximately 40 mile march. I think the question should be where to stage the March. I believe also that it should be our stated goal to have at least as many Marches participating this time.

In terms of starting to get the word out to activists, our first best opportunity will be this coming Monday. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. There will be memorial services in virtually every community across the country. (I grew up in Anchorage, Alaska in the 80's and WE had services there!) I understand that's 4 day's from now, but there's still the counter inaugural this month and the entire month of February to advertise & organize. Given the fact that that February is also Black History Month, we can get the word out about the march and lacy our message with the historical component.

There's so much to be done, but I really want to do this...

[Amaryllis]

95. I'v wondered about that too. BLackwell, Jeb, and Glenda Hood in FL

were all breaking laws all over the place long before the election even happened and there was a lot of litigation going on.

[KaliTracy]

64. Pooka another tactic was the challenges themselves (which you've

mentioned.) I thought it interesting, though that Tim Burke, the Democrat BOE director in Hamilton (Cincinnati area) telling me that they didn't "have" any long lines (he said he was in and out of several places), and his tone pretty much said it was overblown, BUT, in Columbus, at the Jackson Rally on Monday, Alicia Reece (Vice Mayor of Cincinnati) was there -- and had A LOT to say about Challengers coming in from out of the area, and Challenging people who have lived there all their lives. She also had gone to a lot of places, and saw the same thing over and over.... (They also had a lot of areas with multiple precincts in one area)

I was amazed -- and mad all over again.

so... who's eye-witness account do we accept? The BOE director (doesn't matter which party affiliation he/she has) -- or the Vice Mayor? hmmm

I think it's also supportive of your issue that the Challenge of the Electors hinged on these issues mostly. It's something that a majority of people can start to "get" even if they never experienced it. The machine stuff is important, but you cannot deny the long lines. It's not as if they "never" happened. They cannot call standing in the rain for 4 hours a "glitch" -- when in actuality it was a travesty. I didn't see the hearings yet (Read Will Pitts blog during them, he posted updates when possibile) -- but one thing I noticed, even after hearing some of them -- is that I think the Republicans used the word "fraud" -- when the argument from Tubb-Jones and Boxer (and all those who stood with them), that there were irregularities and definite charges of voter suppression that needed to be investigated. I do not think this was a mistake -- this stance by the House and Senate members who challenged. When predominately white areas have no lines or 1 hour lines, and minority areas have 2-6 hour lines (the college with 10 hour lines was a liberal arts college -- a college in the same area which was religious had no problems) -- then possibly, there may be a case.

For me, and I'm not a lawyer, Someone is Responsible for making decisions and giving directives. Even if each individual BOE acts independently -- someone in each District is Responsible for making decisions and giving directives. I tend to think it happened a little higher up.... but we'll see.

[goclark]

68. Let the law suits begin...bring them on!!!

I thought that a African American judge and his wife were suing about some of these same issues.

I have wondered why SUPPRESSION vs.BLACKWELL was not one of the main issues with lots of law suits, not just one.


IMO, this is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. The judge may not think it is because he/she will be bought and paid for by Bushcrooks.
It is a shame!

To think that 90% of the African Americans voted for the Democrats and we had our other voters turned away! I'm not mathematical but if all of us were ALLOWED to vote that waited to vote and couldn't, how many votes would that have put in Kerry's column?

And no one is continuing to fight for African Americans to be allowed to vote based on the existing CIVIL RIGHTS laws on the books!

I am all for DU'ers taking action,
Keep it kicked.

[Joe Chi Minh]

70. You make a most crucial point,

Pooka Fey, about enforcement of the already enacted laws on voter suppression, as the only means of transforming reckless contempt for them into the real-time world of effective laws, sanctions and penal system; as opposed to the current, anarchic demi-monde of Deep South, lynch-law jurisprudence, and its "Deliverance", white-collar, hill-billy agents.

[Pooka Fey]

75. Amen to that, Brother.

Some day I'll make it HOME to Scotland!!! :toast: Here's a very appropriate Scottish Gaelic proverb for all of us Americans wondering what the hell happened to our country:

"Cha bhi fios aire math an tobair gus an tràigh e. / The value of the well is not known until it goes dry."

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. Love the Gaelic proverb!

Wonderful stuff.

[Pacifist Patriot]

74. The civil rights violations have bothered me tremendously, and

in my opinion are in need of immediate attention. This is why I have phrased all of my letters to the media and elected officials in the following manner...."clear evidence of vote suppression and compelling evidence of vote manipulation". In my most recent letter to my elected officials I called for an investigation and then prosecution of any and all elections officers complicit in the verifiable civil rights violations of November 2. This is why I'm not terribly disappointed that Moss v. Bush is being withdrawn in favor of federal civil rights litigation.

I too think they are two separate issues, albeit with the same goal.

[Pooka Fey]

76. Moss v. Bush is being withdrawn? Ahhhhhhhhh crap.

Great - lets give the repugs 4 more years to consolidate their power while the democrats sit in a committee and discuss new versions of old laws that will never be enforced. :mad:

Updated 15 mins later: They are dismissing but they are replacing it with Federal litigation. They know they don't stand a chance with the Ohio Supreme Court. They aren't just giving up. Phheewww. Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x278304

[Pacifist Patriot]

78. I'm sorry I gave you a scare. I did say they were

going with federal civil rights litigation. I think they are right to go this route.

[Pooka Fey]

80. You did say that. I didn't understand it was the same action,

but just in the Federal system. And they are right to go Federal. I'm still upset about how the Ohio recount money we raised didn't get us our hand recount - because of Blackwell.

It doesn't take much to set me off on a political rant these days. :eyes: Thanks for the info. :hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

83. I hear you.

I think some days my husband is afraid to talk to me for fear of setting me off about something or other in politics. LOL!

[ForensicMD8]

105. No. The Ohio Supreme Court

dismissed it.

[berniew1]

96. Documentation of widespread touchscreen fraud, dirty tricks, suppression

There was widespread and systematic voter suppression of minority voters, dirty tricks, vote machine fraud, and other vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida- that was of magnitude enough to call in question who won those states.

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html
etc.

and also similar patterns in other states where the suppression and fraud did not change the election results including vote machine fraud in Calif., Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, etc.
http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html
http://www.flcv.com/snohomis.html
http://www.flcv.com/mercerco.html
http://www.flcv.com/philadel.html
http://www.flcv.com/texas.html
http://www.votersunite.org
etc.

(the voter suppression of minorities in Mercer County is the worst I've ever seen-followup needed)

The unethical and illegal actions were so systematic and widespread that this cannot be allowed to continue uninvestigated and unpunished. There was a huge amount of obvious malfeasance and dirty tricks that should be investigated and dealt with
http://www.flcv.com/dirtytrf.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.votersunite.org
http://www.freepress.org departments

[berniew1]

97. There were hundreds of thousands affected by suppression & dirty tricks

People need to get thousands of affidavits from affected persons and file ethics complaints, complaints with authorities, and complaints with prosecutors as appropriate; as well as sending documentation to Conyers,etc.
some of the hundreds of thousands of cases
There was widespread and systematic voter suppression of minority voters, dirty tricks, vote machine fraud, and other vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida- that was of magnitude enough to call in question who won those states.

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html
etc.

and also similar patterns in other states where the suppression and fraud did not change the election results including vote machine fraud in Calif., Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, etc.
http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html
http://www.flcv.com/snohomis.html
http://www.flcv.com/mercerco.html
http://www.flcv.com/philadel.html
http://www.flcv.com/texas.html
http://www.votersunite.org
etc.

(the voter suppression of minorities in Mercer County is the worst I've ever seen-followup needed)

The unethical and illegal actions were so systematic and widespread that this cannot be allowed to continue uninvestigated and unpunished. There was a huge amount of obvious malfeasance and dirty tricks that should be investigated and dealt with
http://www.flcv.com/dirtytrf.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.votersunite.org
http://www.freepress.org departments
http://www.flcv.com/cuyahovs.html
http://www.flcv.com/cuyahopb.html
http://www.flcv.com/neworlea.html

[Bonobo]

98. I just wanted to say thank you for this thread.

I am not a lwayer, but something about Pooka's idea "feels" right. Almost like how they got Al Capone on failure to pay his taxes in the sense that it is so simple that it might work.

Here's my kick!
:kick:

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

99. I agree.

Thank you for this thread, Pooka Fey. Absolutely. Let's enforce the laws we already have.

Manipulating circumstances, threatening people, confusing people, challenging people unreasonably, wiping or erasing names of registered voters, tearing up or shredding voter registration papers . . . people should be tried before a jury and go to JAIL for that crap. I wouldn't do it to get my candidate elected, and I will not tolerate anyone else doing it. I certainly hope it is illegal under present law. And if it is not prosecute-able, I'd like to clarify why.

*CONSPIRING* TO DISENFRANCHISE people eligible to vote, and channeling funds illegally into that conspiracy launches it into an even more serious illegal realm, by my reckoning.

-------------

Related:

A prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani would have a field day with the GOP’s myriad 2004 criminal offenses. Just a few examples:

* Nathan Sproul, the former head of the Arizona Republican Party (and of the state’s Christian Coalition), managed a multi-state, Republican National Committee-financed campaign to sign up new GOP voters. In the process, his poorly paid employees, pretending to be non-partisan voter registration workers, reportedly destroyed hundreds if not thousands of signed, but unwanted, Democratic registration forms – serious criminal offenses committed in concert in the furtherance of the GOP’s electoral fortunes. A non-Republican “Giuliani” would want to know about every conversation Sproul had had with Republican Party officials over the course of at least a year. Investigators would interview each of Sproul’s interlocutors, and warn them – and Sproul – of the additional penalties attached to conspiracy. The investigator’s goal is to “turn” conspirators into witnesses in the search up the chain, or to catch bad actors in a lie – an additional charge to hold over their heads. This is how the larger scheme – the criminal enterprise – is routinely fleshed out.

* According to the Free Press, a team of 25 men calling themselves the “Texas Strike Force” positioned themselves at a hotel across the street from Republican Party headquarters in Franklin County, Ohio (Columbus), and proceeded to make intimidating phone calls to likely Democratic voters, “targeting people recently in the prison system.” These imported Texans’ rooms were reportedly paid for by the Ohio Republican Party. A “hotel worker heard one caller threaten a likely voter with being reported to the FBI and returning to jail if he voted” – a crime if committed by an individual, but a much more serious conspiracy if engaged in by the entire interstate flying squad and the Republicans who paid, accommodated and sent them on their felonious mission. There is a raft of conspiracy angles to be worked in this case – angles that could lead…anywhere in the GOP matrix in Ohio, Texas and beyond.

(snip)

Those who act in concert with others to violate the Voting Rights Act or related laws (such as the National Voter Registration Act, in the box below) should be confronted with the prospect of conspiracy charges in addition to criminal penalties (prison time) for individual offenses. That’s the way gangsters are brought down, every day.

http://www.blackcommentator.org/119/119_cover_vote_thieves.html

-----------

http://chris-andersen.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/26/152949/17
comments on it. I'm going to have another look at it now.

[Pooka Fey]

100. Thank you and Thanks for the great links! n/t

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

101. Some considerations on prosecuting

The Kos article has some good comments attached to it. Here is one -- a bit over my non-lawyer head, but I like seeing a plan. I cleaned up grammar and spelling a bit for readability.

-----------

Federal law -- U.S. DOJ won't prosecute because all US Attorneys are politically appointed and will refuse to follow the law.

That leaves several possibilities:

1. Find a state in which so events took place and a Democratic prosecutor will take the case .. argue that the state election laws in and of themselves require abiding by appropriate Federal laws under Supremacy Clause, and that therefore since the state is the one carrying out the elections it is at least by implication a violation of state law and responsibility as well, and prosecute thusly Of course, Repubs will immediately file in Federal Court for an injunction against this, which will then give the chance for #2

2. Argue in Federal Court, either in an original filing or in response to a request for a restraining order against state authorities, for a writ of Mandamus, requiring the US Attorney to file such charges

3. In any case where any funds from RNC are involved, file suit for contempt of Court in the district in NJ in which they are governed by consent agreement not to take actions to suppress vote, this agreement flowing I believe from the actions taken during Kean's first election to Governor (over Florio)

4. Prosecute where applicable under direct state authority. In any case where either open admission is given by people or in which a guilty plea is reached, refer to US District Courts in all jurisdictions applicable on the grounds that a Court of competent jurisdiction has reached a finding of fact, and, per #2, demand a writ of mandamus for prosecution as well under relevant federal statutes

by teacherken on Sun Dec 26th, 2004 at 22:47:19 PST

--------------------------

Another comment that seems worthy of consideration:

Giuliani as Prosecutor

A prosecutor like Giuliani would be the worst possible outcome. When Rudy was US Attorney for the Southern Dstrict of New York in the 1980's, he was known as a showboating camera hog who never bothered to do the background work before bringing a major indictment. Virtually every single one of his high-profile prosecutions of white-collar or organized crime figures resulted in either the dismissal of the charges, reversal on appeal, or at best a significant reduction in the sentence due to prosecutorial misconduct. This was always the part of his legacy that he hoped people wouldn't notice.

Organized crime in NYC was largely broken up because of the efforts of the US Attorney for the Eastern District, while the Wall Street scandals of the day were quelled by Giuliani's successor.

A non-Republican version of Giuliani would almost certainly blow the investigation by making big, splashy pronouncements which would have the result of endangering the very prosecutions themselves. What's needed is someone who's tenacious, yes, but also known for their unquestioned integrity.

by The Maven on Sun Dec 26th, 2004 at 14:34:56 PST

http://chris-andersen.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/26/152949/17 (c) 2004. Steal what you want.

----------------------

These two DU links below note that Truitt/Arnebeck Just Filed Motion to Dismiss Moss v. Bush and mention they will file a federal civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging civil rights violations and election fraud.

I wonder if they are mixing voter suppression and vote manipulation, and if that is a problem. Does this civil stuff in any way pave the way for criminal prosecutions? Like with evidence uncovered through discovery?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum= 203&topic_id=277732&mesg_id=277732

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=2 03x278304

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

102. Fixed the DU links here

The two links from the end of my post above. Sorry about that.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=277732&mesg_id=277732
Ohio Voters Challenging Election Results Drop Lawsuit
TruthBeTold22


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x278304
Truitt/Arnebeck Just Filed Motion to Dismiss Moss v. Bush
JoMama49

[Peace Patriot]

104. I think you are very right to separate these issues...

...Voting Rights Act violations, and electronic fraud--although they are connected in the sense that, the voting right that you seek to protect with the Voting Rights Act, they will then take away through electronic fraud. Both issues need to be addressed.

Also, there is a very important political angle to joining them, maybe not legally, but to keep both in very much in mind political action and public education. But first...

Much of what happened in Ohio violated the Voting Rights Act. I don't think intent has to be proved, just pattern (and it sure looks like a pattern, from what I've read). Also, I think there may protection (or theoretical protection) in the Voting Rights Act for denial of voting rights to any category of person who is qualified to vote: students, Democrats, the elderly, the handicapped--if it's a pattern of denial to a class of persons.

Re: politics

Much as I love and respect Jesse Jackson, I think a Constitutional Amendment for voting rights is a waste of time and energy, and a distraction. As someone upthread stated: Who will enforce it? It's not a bad idea, it just doesn't solve the problem--with the BushCon fascists in charge of every branch of government. (The US Attorney General should have been in Ohio--and Florida and other states--prosecuting these crimes. Where was he? Would a Constitutional Amendment have motivated him? No, it wouldn't have. These crimes were probably THOUGHT UP in BushCon AG's office!)

But it might well be possible to get BushCons to pass such an amendment. What do they care, if they have control of the electronic voting machinery?

They pass a Constitutional Amendment to shut people up--with no intention to enforce it. They shut people up enough to stop the election reform movement; the electronic voting problem is not fixed; and we get Jeb Bush as president in 2008.

I'm sure Jesse would not want that outcome. But that's what could happen. These people are devious as hell. (Look what they called this goddamned disaster of an election system that only malfunctions and only commits errors that favor Bush--the "Help America Vote Act"!)

I also happen to think that seeking a remedy from Congress is a waste of time and energy, and a distraction--and a DANGER.

I very much approved of the Jan. 6 challenge--it had to be done, we couldn't just sit back and accept "Bush, the Movie"--but the BushCons are NOT going to give us back our right to vote. They took it away--with electronic voting. They are not going to give it back. Period. And the Democrats have no power to push it through.

The only way we are going to get back our right to vote is through local action, state by state, for paper ballot/hand counts, or strong verification controls on electronic voting, and OPEN SOURCE CODE.

And herein lay the rub, re Congress: Say they take the power of the states over election rules away, in order to "reform" elections and create a "national standard." What if that "national standard" is electronic voting everywhere with no paper trail and no-bid contracts to Diebold and ES&S?

Who has the power to stop them from doing this? The Democrats in Congress? The media (shaming them)? (ha, ha). The public? (--they really paid attention to our antiwar marches, didn't they?, and really care what we think).

Just think what they've accomplished already in terms of their outrageous fascist agenda--and don't tell me they wouldn't have the audacity to do this.

Or, they could put some good provisions into a new "national standards" bill, to get the Dems to go along with taking power away from the states on elections, THEN they amend it with bad measures and force them on the states.

So, I think the grass roots, state by state plan, to recover our right to vote, is rather urgent--while we still have the power.

I also think that, in really bad states, like Ohio and Florida, the public has at least a chance to reform elections (especially if we all help). With Congress, no one has any chance.

So that's my hit on things. Be wary of the BushCons and their false bills and their promises. Keep the two issues together politically, but separate them legally (and seek enforcement of the Voting Rights Act).

One other thought: BushCons control the courts, and, with this second term of Bush's, will be controlling them even more completely. I don't hold out much hope for legal success.

I think the only way blacks can retrieve their right to vote is if we all retrieve our right to vote--because BushCon Senators and House members, and BushCon judges, and the BushCon president have no respect for black voter rights, and have acted in every way they can to prevent blacks from voting.

We have to remove them from power. And the only way I see to do that is to get transparent, verifiable elections in as many states as possible (and keep working on the others).

Re: potential failure in the courts and in Congress. This doesn't mean we can't use Congressional action and legal action to educate the public. We should just be wary of being fooled, and conned--and keep walking straight down the one path that is open to us, the states and state power over elections.

As a long time civil rights activist, I find it ironical for ME to be advocating for states rights. But I think this analysis has validity. Be wary. Be warned.