Since this Clark County voter registration scandal is the topic of the day—everywhere but in the MSM—let's note a few related articles on the bigger picture of US voting this election season. From an editorial by the dean of UC-Berkley Law, Christopher Edley, Jr.:
[O]nly weeks before the election of 2004, thousands of ballots in minority communities are at risk of going up in smoke, as they did in the presidential election of 2000.And from a noteworthy New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Toobin on voting rights enforcement:The cure for chad-phobia was a surge nationwide in voting technology investments, but funding evaporates when it comes to training poll workers and educating voters. This produces confusion, breakdowns and frustrated efforts to cast ballots by voters who actually care enough to show up. At the rate we are going, unavoidably high numbers of ballots again will be spoiled - generally by voting twice for the same office or unintentionally failing to vote for an office.
The single greatest voting rights threat, revealed in 2000, is the huge difference in rates at which ballots are tossed out in predominantly poor and minority communities, as compared with others. In Florida, some minority precincts had more than one in five of their ballots go uncounted as spoiled, while in precincts on the other side of the tracks it was as few as one in 200. Six states had worse records than Florida, among them Georgia, Illinois and Indiana, but of the 100 worst-performing counties nationally, 82 were in the deep south.
The Attorney General had come forward to launch the Voting Access and Integrity Initiative, whose name refers to the two main traditions in voting-rights law. Voter-access efforts, which have long been associated with Democrats, seek to remove barriers that discourage poor and minority voters; the Voting Rights Act itself is the paradigmatic voter-access policy. The voting-integrity movement, which has traditionally been favored by Republicans, targets fraud in the voting process, from voter registration to voting and ballot counting. Despite the title, Ashcroft’s proposal favored the “integrity” side of the ledger, mainly by assigning a federal prosecutor to watch for election crimes in each judicial district. These lawyers, Ashcroft said, would “deter and detect discrimination, prevent electoral corruption, and bring violators to justice.”I think that incidents like today's in Nevada would be a lot less likely if the Justice Department would make a public effort to address the actual barricades to good voter registration in America, which would seem far more likely in this day and age to involve poor and minority voter access than voter integrity. One way for the JD to start on this path would be to shut down the afore-mentioned bogus operation's other offices in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, and Nevada. (Where is the MSM on this?) It would also be appreciated if the Republican National Committee would refrain from committing fraud and tearing up Democratic voter registration cards. Posted by Kriston at October 13, 2004 5:29 PMFederal law gives the Justice Department the flexibility to focus on either voter access or voting integrity under the broad heading of voting rights, but such shifts of emphasis may have a profound impact on how votes are cast and counted. In the abstract, no one questions the goal of eliminating voting fraud, but the idea of involving federal prosecutors in election supervision troubles many civil-rights advocates, because few assistant United States attorneys have much familiarity with the laws protecting voter access. That has traditionally been the province of the lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, whose role is defined by the Voting Rights Act. In a subtle way, the Ashcroft initiative nudged some of these career civil-rights lawyers toward the sidelines.
quoth the poorman: "huh."
Posted by: matty at October 14, 2004 12:57 AMThen there's that dodgy Democratic attempt in Colorado to illegally register 6000 felons.
Posted by: j.scott barnard at October 14, 2004 1:21 PMdo you have a link for thaT? i hadn't heard about it
Posted by: catherine at October 15, 2004 9:11 AMhttp://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20041015/news/1418330.html
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004706.html
Posted by: j.scott barnard at October 15, 2004 12:36 PM"There was a lot of fraud committed," said Mac Stuart, former Miami-Dade field director for ACORN. Among his allegations -- that ACORN "quality control" workers routinely kicked back Republican voter registrations while paying for Democratic ones. "They said they had enough," he said.
Throwing away Repub registrations in FL:
http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/archives/2004_10.html#001904
OK. Turn back the clock.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/florida.election/
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch1.htm
"In Florida’s 2000 election, about 2.9 percent of all ballots cast (about 180,000 ballots out of slightly more than six million ballots cast) did not contain a vote that could be counted as a vote for president...
For example, Gadsden County, which had the highest [ballot] spoilage rate of 12.4 percent, also has the largest African American population, at 63 percent. Indeed, considering the top 10 counties with the highest percentage of African American residents, or the top 10 counties with the highest percentage of African American voters, nine out of 10 of the counties have spoilage rates higher than the Florida average of 2.93 percent."
Posted by: R™ at October 15, 2004 2:53 PMOK. Turn back the clock!
In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
http://www.badboyart.com/civil_rights_myth.htm
Should we keep going back? Please...let's look at the here and now and the future. --s
Bring it. Let's look at that historically. Most of those "Democrats" were southern "dixiecrats," Scott. Dramatically different in many respects to their northern counterparts. And it were the southern "Dixiecrats" who voted unanimously against civil rights legislation everytime.
So, I suggest you go back and analyze those statistics a little further. Regarding your Bush-like comment to stay focused on the future and ignore our errors- the past is our future Scott. If we refuse to analyze the mistakes and misjudgements of our history, how can we expect to make informed and sound decisions for the future.
Posted by: R™ at October 15, 2004 4:17 PMFurthermore, I totally agree that voter fraud perpetrated against the populace, regardless of party affiliation is egregious. But I'd be more comfortable with a justly elected President, rather than one who gained an edge via the dissenfranchisement of certain groups of voters due in part to their socio-economic condition- or perhaps worse, their race. Regardless of who they may vote for.
The point I take from the post is that neither the Feds, nor the States have made a concerted and coherent effort to clean up voting problems in this country.
Posted by: R™ at October 15, 2004 4:29 PMRaymond, Dixiecrats...please.
You ever been to Boston, say in the 70's when they were trying to integrate busing? Those weren't Republicans spitting on the black kids. Take your self-righteousness and shove it up your ass.
--s
Posted by: j.scott barnard at October 16, 2004 1:18 PMWow. That was really civil. Do you feel better now, Scott or do you need a hug from mommy?
Posted by: R™ at October 16, 2004 2:30 PMI could use the hug.
When you say "an elected President, rather than one who gained an edge via the dissenfranchisement of certain groups of voters due in part to their ... their race. " Even with your "perhaps", you're suggesting that the party intentionally sought to throw away african-american ballots. It demonstrates that you have no credibility to comment on the issue. My mother's ballot was one of the many thousands that were thrown out here in Duval County. I can personally attest that it had nothing to do with race.
You feel the need to perpetuate racial myths and stereotypes to make yourself feel better about voting Democratic. Wait, let me just say "perhaps" you feel the need... Go ahead, but don't expect others to sit by and let it go unnoticed.
The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln. And Bush's cabinet and government looks more like America than any previous administration. And with the fearmongering by Kerry, shouting "Jim Crow will return!" and repeating myths like the one you display in your comments, it's no wonder Republicans continue to have difficulties gaining additional African-american support. You, and Kerry, should be ashamed. --s
pbbbbbbt....
suuuuure.
Posted by: matty at October 19, 2004 12:58 AM"Suuuure", what, Matty? You don't believe John Kerry said Bush was "going to bring back the era of Jim Crow?" Feel uncomfortable knowing that your party is race-baiting, do you?
Posted by: j.scott barnard at October 19, 2004 12:14 PMYour Blog is so sweet! Your posts give me ideas and I start really thinking. Thank you!
Posted by: Arletta Luse at March 27, 2011 5:31 AMWe are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your web site offered us with valuable information to get the job done on. You have done a formidable job and our whole community will be grateful to you.
Posted by: Milind at May 5, 2011 10:54 PMI love reading your post! Great information and it is also very well written. I will bookmark and comeback soon.
Posted by: Cory Vieweg at June 27, 2011 12:09 AMI love reading your post! Great information and it is also very well written. I will bookmark and comeback soon.
Posted by: Jaimee Baczewski at June 30, 2011 6:28 AMhello!,I like your writing very a lot! percentage we be in contact more about your post on AOL? I require a specialist in this area to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Looking forward to see you.
Posted by: architektura wnętrz at August 1, 2011 11:51 AM