771 search results for ""voter fraud""

Nixon vs Bush

by digby

Swopa, writing over at FDL, has some thoughts on this discussion among bloggers today about why Bush didn’t get run out of town on a rail for doing many of the things that Nixon did.

Swopa points out that Kevin Drum’s explanation, that Nixon did what he did for petty political reasons while Bush did it out of ideology (the prerogatives of the executive branch during wartime), is incorrect, explaining that Nixon had the same ideological underpinnings.

The whole “unitary executive” claptrap and all the other pseudo-ideological manure put out by the Bushites is simply a flimsy fig leaf over the kind of naked power grab Nixon thought was his right (indeed, Kevin seems to have forgotten that Tricky Dick tried to use “national security” as an excuse, too).

The difference now is that the petty political vendettas pursued by Nixon have been raised to the level of ideology by the modern GOP. Unrestrained use of power for its own sake is their sine qua non, their raison d’etre (and probably a bunch of other foreign phrases, too).

The other day I actually excerpted the passage of the interview where Nixon asserted “if the president does it, it’s not illegal” and he uses nearly the exact language the Bush administration has used. Swopa is quite correct that the petty political vendettas pursued by Nixon are now ideology, but we have quite a few examples of petty political vendettas pursued for just plain old poltical gain.

Nixon didn’t have the Democratic national Committee offices bugged out of personal pique. He wanted to spy on his opponents during an election campaign to gain an advantage. I don’t think there’s any substantial difference between that and trying to force US Attorneys to indict political opponents on bogus charges of voter fraud or ginning up phony scandals to derail the political careers of Democrats. It’s all ratfucking. And Karl Rove, the student of Nixon and Atwater, was at the heart of most of it.

Do you remember this?

Bush administration targets sources, reporters under espionage laws

By Dan Eggen
March 4, 2006

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI’s Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA’s warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.

Numerous employees at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department and other agencies also have received letters from Justice prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified issues related to the NSA program, according to sources familiar with the notices. Some GOP lawmakers are also considering whether to approve tougher penalties for leaking.

Here’s a little something you might not remember:

THE BUSH administration’s warrantless wiretapping program may have shocked and surprised many Americans when it was revealed in December, but to me, it provoked a case of deja vu.

The Nixon administration bugged my home phone – without a warrant – beginning in 1973, when I was on the staff of the National Security Council, and kept the wiretap on for 21 months. Why? My boss, national security advisor Henry Kissinger, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover believed that I might have leaked some information to the New York Times. When I left the government a few months later and went to work on Edmund Muskie’s presidential campaign (and began actively working to end the war in Vietnam), the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports on everything it heard to President Nixon and his closest associates in the White House.

Recent reports that the Bush administration is monitoring political opponents who belong to antiwar groups also sounded familiar to me. I was, after all, No. 8 on Nixon’s “enemies list” – a curious compilation of 20 people about whom the White House was unhappy because they had disagreed in some way with the administration.

The list, compiled by presidential aide Charles Colson, included union leaders, journalists, Democratic fundraisers and me, among others, and was part of a plan to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,” as presidential counsel John Dean explained it in a 1971 memo. I always suspected that I made the list because of my active opposition to the war, though no one ever said for sure (and I never understood what led Colson to write next to my name the provocative words, “a scandal would be helpful here”).

As I watch the Bush administration these days, it’s hard not to notice the clear similarities between then and now. Both the Nixon and Bush presidencies rely heavily on the use of national security as a pretext for the usurpation of unprecedented executive power. Now, just as in Nixon’s day, a president mired in an increasingly unpopular war is taking extreme steps, including warrantless surveillance, that many people believe threaten American civil liberties and violate the Constitution. Both administrations shroud their actions in secrecy and attack the media for publishing what they learn about those activities.

This is why FISA matters. We just don’t know what happened and because of their history, we have every reason to suspect that these powers were used for political purposes under the guise of national security. And with Telcom Immunity, we will have foreclosed the most likely avenue for finding out.(Clearly, the politicians don’t have the political will…)

And frankly, the more these politicians insist, for dubious and unpersuasive reasons, that this program must be swept under the rug, the more imperative it seems to me to find out what’s being swept under with it.

.

Meet The Devious, Corrupt, Scheming Face Of Voter Fraud

by dday

It’s a 97 year-old woman who has voted in every election since 1932.

Whew! Did we ever dodge a bullet forcing this lady to admit she didn’t have a birth certificate. Fraudster! Sure, she claims they weren’t issued in Kentucky in 1910 where she was born, as if we can believe a known cheat.

Her and the other 40,000 whose voter registration cards have been rejected in Arizona can just sit on the sidelines while the real Americans vote this November. Our democracy is on the verge of collapse from this terrible scourge of voter fraud. I mean, nobody can find any instances of it, but that’s why it’s so dangerous!

If we let all the 97 year-olds vote for President, the terrorists will have already won.

.

FUD

by tristero

I think by far that Digby is the more street smart observer. I only wish I shared her optimism about the fall. I do think Obama will win, assuming no rampant voter fraud, but it will be a nail-biter. As mentioned, I’ve been reading Rick Perlstein’s must-read masterpiece, Nixonland (I’m deep in part IV now) and I think it goes without saying that Obama, as well as all Democrats, will be hit with an extensive, well-coordinated Nixonian-style ratfucking campaign that will make ’72 look like the work of rank amateurs. Obama showed considerable skill recently in responding rapidly to Bush’s innuendos in Israel. But that strikes me as a minor effort by the Repubs. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

I am also concerned by what Sean Wilentz points out in the second half of this post. I hope that those of you who dislike the first half won’t be distracted into arguing about what he says there. I think the important material as we look forward to a difficult campaign begins at the section quoted below. To put it mildly, Wilentz is very concerned about Obama’s support among the white working class, and openly angry at what appears to him the repetition of a classic progressive mistake:

The Democratic Party, as a modern political party, dates back to 1828, when Andrew Jackson crushed John Quincy Adams to win the presidency. Yet without the votes of workers and small farmers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a strong Democratic turnout in New York City, Jackson would have lost the Electoral College in a landslide…

[more history regarding the importance of white working class voters to Democratic victories]

…the perceived elitists Al Gore and John Kerry lost what Clinton had gained, as George W. Bush carried the white working-class vote by a margin of 17 percent in 2000 and a whopping 23 percent in 2004.

This year’s primary results show no sign that Obama will reverse this trend should he win the nomination. In West Virginia and Kentucky, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania, blue collar white voters sent him down to defeat by overwhelming margins. A recent Gallup poll report has argued that claims about Obama’s weaknesses among white voters and blue collar voters have been exaggerated – yet its indisputable figures showed Obama running four percentage points below Kerry’s anemic support among whites four years ago.

Given that Obama’s vote in the primaries, apart from African-Americans, has generally come from affluent white suburbs and university towns, the Gallup figures presage a Democratic disaster among working-class white voters in November should Obama be the nominee.

Yet Obama’s handlers profess indifference – and, at times, even pride — about these trends. Asked about the white working-class vote following Obama’s ten-point loss in Pennsylvania, chief campaign strategist David Axelrod confidently told an National Public Radio interviewer that, after all, “the white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections going back even to the Clinton years” and that Obama’s winning strength lay in his ability to offset that trend and “attract independent voters… younger voters” and “expand the Democratic base.”

Now, this may strike you, as it did me when I first read it, as a rehash of one of Clinton’s arguments, and a dubious one. I also resented the “perceived elitists” line, which evades discussing the extent to which that perception was falsely created. But given all these caveats and concerns, I was struck by the fact that Wilentz’s point is similar to a very compelling one made by Perlstein in his book.

Back in the 60’s and early 70’s, Perlstein writes (and this jibes with my own memories), progressives were extremely confident that they were forging a new Democratic coalition, arrogantly ignoring the traditional ties of the Democratic party to blue collar voters and their worries. They were abetted in their arrogance by a press that completely misunderstood, and misreported, the complex political and cultural changes that Nixon’s politics produced. One important wedge Nixonism drove into American life split the Roosevelt coalition of liberals and blue collars in two, creating an enormous amount of downright hostility between the two groups. Nixon harvested the blue collar vote for himself while progressives fooled themselves into thinking those votes were irrelevant to the trend of increasing liberalism. Perhaps they were, but they were also necessary to win elections.

Wilentz is worried that today, we may be repeating that mistake. I hope he is wrong but I’d be curious to know what you think. I’d like to believe that the country is very different than it was in ’68 and ’72, that the modern Democratic messages (and in particular, Obama’s) resonate not only with me – an unabashed liberal – but with others who would never describe themselves that way. I’m not sure it is that different in the way that concerns me here.

I’m sure that some of you will say I’m just obsessing over bowling scores, but that’s not it at all. I think Howard Dean pithily summarized my concerns when he said that Democrats need to make it clear not only to me but even to the guy in the pickup with the Confederate Flag sticker that they are the party that best represents the country’s interests. I thought he was right then (as did most liberals I knew) and I think he’s still right. As I saw it, Dean wasn’t talking about pandering, but about making the positions Democrats hold, and their advantages, clear to the widest possible audience.

So, please educate me. This aspect of politicking – framing appeals to specific constituencies – is not something I have much of a feel for (and Wilentz thinks that’s a fatal insensitivity). Rather my default position, probably naive, is to go with the assumption that we should craft a smart, feasible liberal program combined with a rhetoric of common sense that is simple, direct and understandable by all. Sure, one tailors the rhetoric to the audience, and one needs to connect in specific ways, but I put the emphasis on the strength of the ideas and rhetoric rather than on the specific framing (pace Lakoff). So Wilentz’s point, or more precisely, what to do about it, is somewhat unclear to me.

Is Wilentz – who I’m sure you all realize is neither stupid, ignorant, nor anti-liberal – simply wrong? Or does he have a point? Or, are his fears of such overarching concern, we should be very worried? I look forward to your comments.

Recounting Recount

by digby

I don’t know about you but last night after watching Recount, I had nightmares. Nightmares of screaming at the television for 30 days at the shameful spin of the Bush people. Nightmares of watching a purely political power game lay bare the rickety foundations of our democracy. Nightmares of Tim Russert and that stupid goddamned tote board of his.

It certainly brought back all the memories. As I’m sure is true with most of you who watched it in real time, it was obvious to me from the moment Gore retracted his concession that the Republican establishment and the Bush Florida machine had more levers of power to work with in a battle like this. But it wasn’t obvious to me that they would use it so blatantly, with the media egging them on with endless hand wringing about the “uncertainly” weakening the fabric of the country. Like all the Democrats in the movie, I completely dismissed the idea that the US Supreme Court, when put to the test, would end up as the final enforcer for the Republican Party. (I would say the last of my naivete died then — but that would be wrong. A little more of it reveals itself in its death throes every single day. It seems my idealism ran more deeply than I thought.)

It was interesting in the movie to see how the Bushies avoided the appearances of collusion with Katherine Harris’s office. I have a little detail, which I wrote about once before, that some of you who watched the movie last night might enjoy reading:

It seems that every day we hear of another example of the Bush administration politicizing the Justice department. Today we hear from a former career prosecutor in the civil rights division, filling in another piece of the puzzle:

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

Here’s another article debunking the “voter fraud” trope.

No surprise there. What is a surprise is how nobody seems to have seen this coming. The rough outlines were available when I wrote about what I saw as an emerging “illegal aliens are voting” theme almost a year ago. I thought they were preparing to use it for last November but I was a premature anti-purger.

But since I first started writing on-line, one of my recurring themes is that the modern Republican party has become fundamentally hostile to democracy.(And we already knew they were crooks.) This was first made obvious to me back in 1994, when Republican leader Dick Armey famously stated “your president is just not that important for us.” They went on to impeach that president against the clear will of the people.

But the biggest clue about what they were up to came in 2000 with the Florida recount. I know it seems like ancient history to go back to that but it is extremely important to remember just how outrageous their tactics were: the Gore campaign used legal tactics and the Bush campaign didn’t. There was the “bourgeois riot” and dirty trickster Roger Stone directing the street theatre from a van. (Here’s a list of what the Village Voice termed the five worst Bush recount outrages.) They used every lever of power they could to count illegally cast overseas ballots. They operated a hypocritical and situational media campaign that the press completely failed to properly analyze until it was too late. And after they did they helpfully told those who objected to “get over it.” And I guess we did.

The Republicans have been remarkably good about keeping their mouths shut about the Florida shennanigans, pretending that Jeb Bush’s electoral apparatus gave them no unusual help. Still, I was surprised to see a former Florida recount icon show up on the Lehrer News Hour last week to argue that the US Attorney firings were completely above board. His name is Michael Carvin and he was the lawyer who argued the Bush case before the Florida Supreme Court. Here’s his picture. I’m sure many of you will remember him:

The Newshour failed to identify him as one of the Florida recount team and instead named him merely as a former Reagan official. But he didn’t fail to carry the Bush water one more time:

MICHAEL CARVIN: I really think this is much ado about very little. I’m not saying that they haven’t mishandled this from a public relations perspective. They clearly have.

But the notion that firing eight U.S. attorneys with White House personnel involved is somehow shocking is like saying you’re shocked to discover there’s gambling in Casablanca. I don’t know where these people have been.

There’s not one member of that Judiciary Committee who hasn’t called the White House or the Justice Department and said, “My cousin or my law school roommate wants to be a U.S. attorney.”

So the notion that these kinds of appointments and removals in Walter’s administration — they fired all 93 in one slot — the notion that is isn’t influenced by the fact that the president needs his team in place, both at the main Justice Department and in the field, is really quite silly and quite counterfactual.

This would be typical Carvin. For instance, here’s something he said after Bush v Gore was decided:

The new deadline for all recounts to be submitted to Katherine Harris was 5 p.m. Sunday, November 26. Now, that Sunday afternoon you could watch any of the television coverage and see that Palm Beach was still counting. And by late afternoon you heard various officials in Palm Beach acknowledging that they were not going to be finished by five. Now, we maintain that was completely illegal, because the law said you had to manually recount all ballots. [See Village Voice top five outrages for why this is such a slimy position for him to take.]

But as five o’clock approached, we heard that the secretary of state was going to accept the Palm Beach partial recount — even though the Palm Beach partial recount was blatantly illegal. We were told that the secretary of state’s view was that unless Palm Beach actually informed her — in writing or otherwise — that the returns were only a partial recount, she could not infer that on her own.

So we made some calls to a few Republicans overseeing the Palm Beach recount. We told them to gently suggest to the canvassing board that it might as well put PARTIAL RETURN on the front of the returns that were to be faxed up in time for the deadline. The reason we gave was clarity — that the words PARTIAL RETURN would distinguish those returns from the full count that would be coming in later that night. I’m not exactly sure what happened, but I think the Palm Beach board did in the end write PARTIAL RECOUNT on the returns. We all know that the Secretary of State, in the end, rejected them. [By rejecting them, he means that she said that a partial return missed the deadline altogether and all the previously uncounted votes that were counted in the partial recount were never added to the tally. This had the effect of never allowing Gore to take the lead.]

I think the board members probably agreed to write the PARTIAL RECOUNT notation for two reasons. First of all, I think they hadn’t slept in 48 hours, so I think they’d sort of do anything. Second of all, I don’t think they or anybody else would have suspected that it would actually make any difference. Who would imagine that without the simple notation of PARTIAL RETURN the partial count would have been accepted as a complete count by the secretary of state? Even while the television showed them still counting?

But I don’t think it was Machiavellian to suggest to the board that it write PARTIAL RECOUNT, because that is what it was. I think it would have been sort of Machiavellian to suggest to pretend they were not partial returns. [Talk Magazine, March 2001, p. 172]

I know that virtually nobody cares about this anymore, if they ever did, but this was so full of nonsense that it amazed me that he got away with saying it. And the tale he tells, bad as it is, is still obviously not the whole story.

They were clearly colluding with Katherine Harris’ office throughout and they determined that she could reject all of the Palm Beach county votes they had counted by 5pm with this little gambit. Everything depended on not allowing Al Gore to ever take the lead or their whole PR campaign would start to fall apart.

It’s a small thing, I know, and probably one of thousands of such small acts of illegal and inappropriate collusion between Jeb Bush and the campaign during the recount. But it happened and we knew it happened. And it was done by people like Michael Carvin, former Reagan Justice Department official who now implies that the US Attorney scandal is nothing because everyone knows that the Bush Justice department is an enforcement arm of the Republican Party and that’s perfectly normal.

That is just how these people think. It’s why they hunted Clinton and Reno like dogs for eight years, determined to find evidence of wrongdoing. They either assume everyone does it because they do or they know they can innoculate themselves against accusations of their own bad acts by getting to the punch first. (And harrassing Democrats is rewarding in and of itself.)

I wrote to reporters Don Van Atta and Jake Tapper about this Carvin tid-bit when they were covering the media recount for the NY Times and Salon (and Tapper was writing a book about it.) Tapper was uninterested, but Van Natta called me and I told him where to find the quote. (Talk Magazine is not on lexis-nexis.) Then came 9/11, the recount story was pretty much shelved and the entire country was told we had to gather around the president.

But then, we had been told that from the beginning, hadn’t we? The media were complicit in this, helping the Republicans along every step of the way during the recount with constant rending of garments about a constitutional crisis and fantasies about tanks in the streets if things weren’t settled instantly. (The deadlines! My god, the deadlines!) And when it was all done, they told us repeatedly to get over it.

And here we are, six years later, actually debating whether the Bush White House has been manipulating the electoral system. For god’s sake — of course they have been. This administration was installed through crude manipulation of the rigged levers of power in the Bush family’s political machine and they see such outrageous conduct as perfectly legitimate. Indeed, I’m sure they believe “it’s not Machiavellian” to use the Department of Justice to rig the vote — it would be Machiavellian not to.

Update: Here’s a nice little update from 2005 on the Bourgeois Rioters.

Update II: And lest we forget, Tim Griffin, the houseboy Rove insisted replace the Arkansas US Attorney was on the Florida recount team. So was Kyle Sampson.

It’s pretty to think that this is all ancient history and we can move on. Maybe we can. But just this week, Tim Griffin was hired to run the RNCs Obama opposition research team. And the voter fraud apparatus that Rove and others before him have built, which includes Republican lawyers like Carvin and Griffin, is still up and running. Maybe they are spent and useless now. I hope so.

.

Show Us Your Papers

by digby

And so it begins:

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

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

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

Voting experts say the Missouri amendment represents the next logical step for those who have supported stronger voter ID requirements and the next battleground in how elections are conducted. Similar measures requiring proof of citizenship are being considered in at least 19 state legislatures. Bills in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Carolina have strong support. But only in Missouri does the requirement have a chance of taking effect before the presidential election.

In Arizona, the only state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, more than 38,000 voter registration applications have been thrown out since the state adopted its measure in 2004. That number was included in election data obtained through a lawsuit filed by voting rights advocates and provided to The New York Times. More than 70 percent of those registrations came from people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States, the data showed.

This is what the voter fraud fraud has always been about: making voting such a hassle that a lot of voters will just figure it isn’t worth the trouble or don’t feel like being treated like dirt by officials who suspect them of being criminals on the basis of their ethnicity. I would imagine that there are a whole lot of older people who’ve never had to prove their citizenship in their lives and wouldn’t have a clue about how to go about doing it.

This whittling away at the franchise will be one of the greatest accomplishments of the conservative movement when all is said and done. They simply don’t believe in the democratic concept of one person one vote. Never have.

.

Nuns

by dday

The primary results from Indiana and North Carolina should be pretty much projected by 8:00ET or so. But we already know who’s won, at least in Indiana – voter suppression advocates like the 9 robed figures on the Supreme Court.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary’s Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn’t get one but came to the precinct anyway.
“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,'” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”

This is merely the one story that’s been reported. You have to expect there are many more; in fact there are several more later in the story. Of course, the Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts faction on the Court will tell you that’s just the price we have to pay for dealing with the scourge of non-existent voter fraud.

Today’s vote was kind of a test market for the fall. There’s high turnout throughout the state anyway so I don’t expect this aspect of the vote to be widely reported.

…a group of voting rights advocates that established a separate hot line reported receiving several calls from would-be voters who were turned away at precincts because they did not have a state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

One newly married woman said she was told she couldn’t vote because her driver’s license name didn’t match the one on her voter registration record, said Myrna Perez of the Brennan Center Justice at New York University’s law school, coordinator of the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hot line. Another woman said she was turned away from casting her first-ever ballot because she had only a college-issued ID card and an out-of-state driver’s license, Perez said.

“These laws are confusing. People don’t know how they’re supposed to be applied,” she said.

In case you’re interested in continuing the mentality that allows voter suppression to be codified into law, there is a Presidential candidate that’s right for you.

Here’s what McCain was really telling the party base: If you liked George W. Bush’s nominees, you’re going to love the judges John McCain will put on the bench.

McCain also touted his support for the so-called Gang of 14 as a supposed sign of moderation. But the fact is that he has voted to give lifetime jobs as federal judges to every one of President Bush’s most dangerous and damaging nominees. And they’re already eroding individual rights and legal protections. We’re all going to be living with the consequences of those votes for a long, long time.

The two Supreme Court justices nominated by President Bush are already making it harder for workers mistreated on the job to get justice. They’re letting politicians get away with making it harder for some people to vote. They’re redefining our Constitution and laws to erode progress on women’s rights, educational opportunity, environmental protections, and more.

We all know that a vote for McCain is a vote against women’s reproductive rights, a vote against consumer rights, a vote against worker rights, and a vote for massive corporate power under the law. And we know that the Republicans aren’t able to win legitimately, so laws like Indiana’s will be replicated wherever possible in an attempt to game the system. In a sense awareness is a powerful way to counteract this – sunlight is the best disinfectant. At the same time part of me believes that the vote margin in November needs to be higher than the last two elections in order to get a result in line with the will of the people. But this is not a cause for despair, but a clarion call to get to work right now.

.

Counterpunch

by dday

This is the best way to deal with that awful Supreme Court decision on voter ID.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) are introducing legislation to help more Americans register to vote by allowing Election Day registration at polling places for all federal elections. The Election Day Registration Act addresses chronic problems with the American electoral process – low voter turnout and archaic voter registration laws. Election Day registration is also seen as preferable to advance registration since voters are actually present when they register, reducing opportunities for fraud. The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), who represent states that recently enacted Election Day registration, are also cosponsors of the bill.

Same-day registration ought to be a core election rights value. It raises turnout in every state where it’s tried, it encourages new voters to get involved, and as the Minnesota Secretary of State notes it’s far more secure:

Allowing Election Day registration can also address concerns about potential voter fraud. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has called Election Day registration a “no brainer” and has said it is more secure than advance registration because “you have the person right in front of you – not a postcard in the mail.”

Minnesota and Wisconsin have been running their elections this way for over 30 years. Same-day registration states beat their counterparts in turnout by 16 points (70-54) in the 2004 election.

Now, this wouldn’t cure everything enshrined in that SCOTUS ruling – you’d still need some form of ID to present at the polls under Indiana’s law, for example – but it eliminates all of the barriers to entry associated with registration, and it allows voter registration and mobilization activists to focus in the states on free ID programs and expanding access to photo IDs in underserved communities. The end result would be positive for our democracy, increasing participation and giving voice to everyone who wants it.

I think this should be a legislative goal as soon as possible.

.

Validating Voter Suppression

by digby

Following up on D-Day’s post below about the Supreme Court’s decision on voter ID in Indiana, and particularly his point that Obama is greatly expanding the pool of first time voters who might be affected by this ruling, I would just remind everyone of a couple of things.

First of all, let’s not forget that this may be the biggest political land mine the Bush administration has set for Democrats. “Voter fraud” was, you’ll remember, at the bottom of the US Attorney scandals and one of their main tools for suppressing the Democratic vote. This is the realization of a very long term plan to chip away at the Voting Rights Act. Republicans, like all aristocrats, know that if enough average people vote, they will lose. Period.

I have been writing about this since before I started this blog. It’s at the heart of the Florida debacle in 2000, where they illegitimately purged voter rolls and relied on arcane interpretations of the rules to deny people the fundamental right to have their votes counted. It goes all the way back to the reconstruction period and has continued right up to Ohio in 2004.

The Supreme Court has just legitimized the notion that “voter fraud” is a problem when, in fact, every study shows that it simply does not exist in any systematic way and that the voter disenfranchisement that results from such laws is a far more serious problem.

Here’s Rick Perlstein on the vote suppression effort in 1964, called “Operation Eagle Eye” in which Chief justice John Roberts’ predecessor, William Rehnquist, participated as a young man:

The “vote fraud” fantasies are tinged by deeply right-wing racial and anti-urban panics. I’ve talked to many conservative who seem to consider the idea of mass non-white participation in the duties of citizenship is inherently suspicious. It’s an idea all decent Americans should consider abhorrent. It is also, however, a very old conservative obsession–one that goes back to the beginnings of the right-wing takeover of the Republican Party itself.

Let me show you. Read this report from 1964, running down all the ways how Barry Goldwater’s Republican Party was working overtime to keep minorities from voting. The document can be found in the LBJ Library, where I researched my book Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

John M Baley, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, charged today that “under the guise of setting up an apparatus to protect the sanctity of the ballot, the Republicans are actually creating the machinery for a carefully organized campaign to intimidate voters and to frighten members of minority groups from casing their ballots on November 3rd. “‘Let’s get this straight,’ Bailey added, ‘the Democratic Party is just as much opposed to vote frauds as is the Republican party. We will settle for giving all legally registered voters an opportunity to make their choice on November 3rd. We have enough faith in our Party to be confident that the outcome will be a vote of confience in President Johnson and a mandate for the President and his running mate, Hubert Humphrey, to continue the programs of the Johnson-Kennedy Administration. “‘But we have evidence that the Republican program is not really what it purports to be. it is an organized effort to prevent the foreign born, to prevent Negroes, to prevent members of ethnic minorities from casting their votes by frightening and intimidating them at the polling place. “‘We intend to see to it that the rights of these people are protected. We will have our people at the polling places–not to frighten or threaten anyone–but to protect the right of any eligible voter to cast a secret ballot without threats or intimidation.’

It didn’t stop there. As a result of the massive voter registration efforts of Jesse Jackson during the 1984 and 1988 campaigns, the republicans institutionalized their vote suppression efforts and created the Voting Integrity Project and the Republican National Lawyers Association to create bogus claims of voter fraud. I’ve written reams about this, but this post from last year highlights an important study that directly pertains to the voter registration drives that D-Day mentions:

With the news from Steve Benen coming out of Wisconsin and from Christy about Minnesota, regarding a couple more of those “Good Bushies” in the Justice Department, I thought it might be a good time to bring up a little something I found the other day on the blog Wot Is It Good 4. A commenter there pointed to this very interesting paper (pdf) presented to the Center For Voting Rights just before the 2004 election on the issue of voter suppression.

I was surprised to see that the Republican National Lawyers Association (where Rove delivered his speech last spring in which, among other things, he mentioned as “problems” those states from which the targeted US Attorneys hail) was pretty much formed for the express and exclusive purpose of training and deploying lawyers on matters of purported voter fraud (aka minority vote suppression.) Neither did I know before that they played a pivotal role in the Florida Recount.

The report gives the history of minority voter suppression in America (a very ugly story) and brings it right up to the 1980’s, particularly the huge voter registration effort in the black community by the Jesse Jackson campaign which apparently scared the bejeezuz out of the Republicans:

Democratic activist Donna Brazile, a Jackson worker and Albert Gore’s campaign manager in 2000, said “There were all sorts of groups out there doing voter registration. Some time after the ’86 election, massive purging started taking place. It was a wicked practice that took place all over the country, especially in the deep South. Democrats retook the Senate in 1986, and [Republican] groups went on a rampage on the premise they were cleaning up the rolls. The campaign then was targeted toward African-Americans.” As in the past, Republicans justified the purges in the name of preventing the unregistered from voting. But Democrats charged vote suppression.

[…]

The Republicans’ perceived problems arising from too heavy a reliance on volunteers began to be addressed with a different strategy in the mid-1980s. From Operation Eagle Eye onward, the major Republican ballot security programs had borne the imprimatur of the party high command, overseen by the RNC and implemented at the grassroots by local organizations and commercial political operatives. In the mid-1980s, the situation began to change. GOP ballot-security skulduggery in the city of Newark and environs had led to a consent decree in 1982 presided over by a federal judge in New Jersey, according to which the RNC promised to forego minority vote suppression.19 In 1985, several months before the RNC was hauled back before the same judge as a result of illegal purging efforts in a 1986 Louisiana senatorial campaign and agreed to submit all future ballot security programs it oversaw to the court for its inspection, a new organization was created—the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).

A group of lawyers who had worked on the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1984 were behind its founding, and it was designed “to be a sort of Rotary Club for GOP stalwarts,” according to a contemporary article in Legal Times magazine. The RNC helped the association get off the ground with a $5,000 loan, although today the RNC claims no official connection with it. By 1987 the RNLA had active chapters in several states and the District of Columbia, and planned to hold its first annual convention early the following year. A lure for attendees, the planners hoped, would be continuing legal education credits and a possible appearance by Attorney General Edwin Meese III and President Reagan.20

The RNLA turned out to be much more than a Rotary Club for GOP lawyers, however; it became the predominant Republican organization coordinating ballot security. By its own account, in early 2004 it had grown to “a 1,900-member organization of lawyers and law students in all 50 states.”21 Its officers were experienced lawyers who knew their way around Washington as a result of having served in Republican administrations at the national and state levels and in major K Street firms. Michael Thielen, its current executive director, who earlier worked for the RNC, describes the organization as follows: Since 1985 the RNLA has nurtured and advanced lawyer involvement in public affairs generally and the Republican Party in particular. It is accurately described as a combination of a professional bar association, politically involved law firm and educational institute. . . . With members now in government, party general counsel positions, law firm management and on law school faculties, the RNLA has for many years been the principal national organization through which lawyers serve the Republican Party and its candidates.22

Its prestige in Republican party circles undoubtedly got a boost from its involvement in the Florida ballot recount battles of November-December 2000, when, according to one of its members, Eric Buermann, the RNLA was “extremely helpful . . . by sending lawyers to Florida to work on the recount, providing expertise as needed, and coordinating volunteer lawyer response.” It was this helpfulness which apparently led Buermann, the state’s Republican Party general counsel, to coordinate a collaboration between the RNLA and Florida legal response teams in 2002, so that, in the words of anRNLA newsletter that year, “there will be a permanent structure in place to keep the lawyers active and organized during off-election years.”23

Actually, the collaboration was even broader, involving the National Republican Campaign Committee and the RNC as well.24 The Democrats, on the other hand, also were developing a large network of lawyers that year—10,000, by one estimate—to counter vote suppression efforts. The nationwide deployment of thousands of lawyers in both parties led one journalist to predict “a new era in US politics after the Florida debacle two years ago—the age of the lawyers.”25

Executive Director Thielen gives this account of the organization’s involvement in the 2000 recount: “After election day, RNLA members were dispatched by party organizations and campaigns to multiple locations within several states. When it became clear that the final result in Florida would determine the outcome of the presidential election, members were concentrated there.” Thielen adds, “had it not been for the preeminent litigators retained by the campaign entities and the volunteer attorneys who spent weeks defending the intent of voters before canvassing boards, the will of thenation’s voters would surely have been thwarted.”

What an odd thing to say. The “nation’s” voters clearly preferred Al Gore. It was only through that regrettable anachronism of the electoral college (and cheating in Florida) that had Bush within stealing distance.

Underlining the organization’s enhanced status among Republicans, White House counsel Albert Gonzales told the group, “You know, I must confess I groaned when I was first asked whether I would be willing to address another group of lawyers. However, when I found out this group included many lawyers that helped secure the election for George W. Bush, I quickly reconsidered.”27

The RNLA’s pride in its Florida efforts is expressed by trophies it presents to honorees at special receptions, consisting of lucite blocks that, as described on the organization’s Web site, “contain a commemorative message in honor of the Florida recount team, and contain actual ‘Chads’ from Florida dispersed throughout the Lucite. They [sic] were only a few hundred created and are not for sale but rather only presented to distinguished members and guests of the RNLA.” Not surprisingly, an RNLA lawyer, Hayden Dempsey, formerly a lawyer for Governor Jeb Bush, is heading Lawyers for Bush, the president’s legal defense team in Florida in 2004.

[…]

With the rise to prominence of the RNLA, the Republican Party’s nationally directed ballot security programs appear to have been transformed. While Operation Eagle Eye was directed from the command posts of the RNC by professionals, the people on the ground—poll-watchers and challengers—were often amateurs, which is to say Election Day volunteers who may have had only cursory training. The RNLA, born in the Reagan era, has gradually assumed the role of the party’s overarching anti-fraud enforcement agency. In the process, the organization has professionalized ballot security (its spokespersons seem to prefer the term “ballot integrity”) with a cadre of highly trained, aggressive, and mobile lawyers who can go anywhere in the nation on short notice. Indeed, they don’t even need to be mobile, in many cases. As one of the organization’s newsletters put it: “Ironically, when the Democratic National Committee bragged of sending in a thousand lawyers each to Missouri, Florida, and Texas for election day operations, the [RNLA] Field Operations Committee already had chapters organized in those states and did not need to send out of state lawyers to assist with the elections.”

Now, I realize that Obama is concentrating mostly on registering college students who are first time voters, so it’s a little bit different. But there are plenty of hurdles there too, with arcane residency requirements and the very serious possibility that some college students won’t have local “government issued” ID. I assume there will be tons of outreach using the new social networking tools to educate these voters about what’s required, but there’s always the danger that at least a few will just not bother — and say they did. That’s certainly happened in the past.

This is a terribly pernicious ruling that legitimizes the view that “voter fraud” is a bigger threat than disenfranchisement. That is the opposite of what this country needs right now, with rampant cynicism about the franchise already infecting the body politic. This ruling gives fodder to every wingnut lawyer in the country to say that if there were no voter fraud in this country, there wouldn’t be any need for a Supreme Court ruling that allows states to protect against it.

It’s important to remember that the thrust of many of these latest laws are to suppress the Latino vote, many of whom are reluctant to show up at polling places only to be treated like second class citizens and viewed with suspicion. Life is short. The same, of course, holds true for African Americans, even today. Simply slowing the lines with demands for proof of ID is enough to suppress the votes in urban precincts with too few voting machines. And then there are the handicapped and elderly who often just don’t have the same type of ID as the rest of us. But then that’s the point. These people must be made to jump through hoops in order to exercise their right to vote.

Oh wait. That’s not quite right, is it? After all it was none other than the majority in Bush vs Gore who made it a point to reaffirm that “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

Perhaps we ought to change that.

Other posts on this topic here.

Update: I’m informed in the comments that the concentration of Obama’s voter registration efforts goes far beyond college aged voters. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. IMO, it’s fair to assume that his excellent use of the new technology may work very well to entice young voters to register, but I shouldn’t have made the apparently incorrect assumption that this is where he’s concentrating his efforts.

.

About That Voter Registration Drive

by dday

It had better come with a trip to the DMV:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

Stevens actually wrote one of the majority opinions in this one, in addition to the conservative bloc and Kennedy joining the ruling.

This is, as we know, a solution in search of a problem. Voter fraud is a made-up conservative issue, backed by no evidence. While Stevens suggested that there are no “excessively burdensome requirements” imposed on voters who must show ID at the polls, he’s answering an unknowable question. We simply have no idea how photo ID centers (if there will be any outside the DMV) in Indiana or anywhere else would be managed, whether the same groups that truck elderly and poor voters to the polls on Election Day will be able to do the same to get people their IDs, and so on. If they require the same documentation that the DMV does, many poor and elderly people simply don’t have them. If it requires an application fee, how is that not a poll tax?

Justice Scalia’s broader ruling shows exactly what Republicans want out of this:

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, “The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'”

But during the arguments, Scalia conceded that such laws would “inconvenience… a small number of people,” and the Solicitor General for the state of Indiana actually said that “an infinitesimal portion of the electorate could even be, conceivably be, burdened by” the ID law.

You know, that’s how the 14th Amendment WORKS, with equal protection for all, even that “infinitesimal portion of the electorate”. And, as Amanda Terkel notes, that’s a major soft-pedal of the impact:

Voter ID laws, however, affect more than an “infinitesimal” number of Americans and are more than a “minor inconvenience.” According to the federal government, there are as many as 21 million voting-age Americans without driver’s licenses. In Indiana, 13 percent of registered voters lack the documents needed to obtain a license, and therefore, cast a ballot. These restrictions disproportionately hit low-income, minority, handicapped, and elderly voters the hardest, leading to lower levels of voter participation.

Those affected also tend to vote Democratic, which may explain why Karl Rove and his colleagues have pursued so-called voter fraud with such zeal. Several U.S. attorneys ousted in the Bush administration’s infamous prosecutor purge even alleged that they were fired because they refused to aggressively prosecute baseless voter fraud claims.

Considering that we have at least one Democratic campaign predicated on bringing new voters to the process, this is an incredibly calamitous outcome that could upset the entire effort. Somebody in the Obama campaign had better get out in front of this; the courts are already stacked against them.

UPDATE: I found the part of the majority opinion referring to whether or not there’s an application fee for a driver’s license. Some of this is unbelievable (emphasis mine):

(c) The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.

See, they can just cast provisional ballots! And we all know that every single one of those are counted.

UPDATE II: Let me promote this comment, which is all too typical of depressed areas, I suspect:

Being a Hoosier, I have another piece of news, many of our BMV locations have been closed, especially up around Gary (a horribly depressed industrial area, neighboring Chicago).

OOh…I guess all those poor working class minority types will have to drive three counties away. QUICK, LOOK, Obama scored 37 bowling!

.

Boatloads Of Bad Apples

by digby

High level interest:

The Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating whether a career attorney in the department was dismissed from her job because of rumors that she is a lesbian. The case grew out of a larger inquiry into the firings of U.S. attorneys and politicization at Justice under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales…

Hagen received the highest possible ratings for her work as liaison between the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys’ committee on Native American issues. Her final job evaluation lists five categories for supervisors to rank her performance. For each category, a neat X fills the box marked, “Outstanding.” And at the bottom of the page, under “overall rating level,” she also got the top mark: Outstanding.

The form is dated February 1, 2007. Several months before that evaluation, Hagen was told her contract would not be renewed.

Hagen would not comment for this story, but her job evaluation is consistent with what many others have said about her. A dozen former colleagues, inside and outside of the Justice Department, were interviewed for this story. They worked above, below and side by side with Hagen.

Each one raved about her work.

[…]

The official line on Hagen’s dismissal was that contracts like hers are a privilege. Rotating new people through the job each year gives more people a chance to serve.

But what happened next seems to undermine that explanation. Internal Justice Department documents obtained by NPR show that soon after Hagen was let go, two people in her office had their contracts renewed for another year.

And Hagen’s post remained vacant months after she left.

Guess who was at the bottom of this odd story? That’s right, none other than our young Liberty Law School Alum, Monica Goodling:

Justice Department e-mails obtained by NPR show that Gonzales’s senior counsel Monica Goodling had a particular interest in Hagen’s duties. A few months before Hagen was let go, according to one e-mail, Goodling removed part of Hagen’s job portfolio — the part dealing with child exploitation and abuse.

Goodling, who left the Justice Department last year, declined through her lawyer to comment on the matter.

At the height of the scandal over the fired U.S. attorneys, Goodling admitted to making personnel decisions about career Justice Department lawyers based on improper partisan considerations.

“I crossed the line of the civil service rules,” Goodling told Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) at a congressional hearing in May 2007.

Goodling’s conversation with Scott focused on whether Republican Party loyalty factored into her hiring decisions. But by all accounts, Hagen was a GOP loyalist.

So, what was Goodling’s problem with Hagen?

The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian.

As one Republican source put it, “To some people, that’s even worse than being a Democrat.”

To some people it’s worse than being a murderer.

This is another reason why I laugh out loud when I hear people say that congress must pass retroactive immunity or read stories about Michael Mukasey choking up when describing how the government needs to spy on Americans with impunity to keep the country safe. Even suggesting that the administration might have used these powers for political purposes is met with vociferous objection, as if that’s so outrageous as to be nearly delusional. Why you might as well be a Hale-Bopp cultist or a believer in the Protocols of the Elders Of Zion.

And yet we know that the Bush Department of Justice was a cesspool of political corruption emanating from the very top. They destroyed the life of a Democratic Governor in Mississippi for partisan gain. They pursued five times as many public corruption charges against Democrats than Republicans in an era of Republican political majority. They ruined the careers of honest prosecutors who refused to indict Democrats on trumped up charges of voter fraud. Evidently, they fired people for being gay as well.

To simply accept that these people skirted FISA only for the righteous purposes of chasing down terrorist operations is absurd. We already know the kinds of thing the Bush justice department did. Why in the world would we not assume they used all the powers at their disposal to spy on political opponents?

Of course they did. We’d have to be complete idiots to think otherwise.

.