Is the GOP Suppressing Democratic Votes?

[heymikey80]

Yes, I visited his site and saw what he was saying. But the only Monte Kuligowski I was able to find, is some sort of defense attorney. One listing even said he was a "traffic" attorney?

Look, I am not trying to split hairs or be mean. But the guy takes "donations" on his RenewAmerica website. Conservatives pay his salary. That would tend to undermine his credibility, no matter what kind of law he specialized in. But he probably isn't a Constitutional expert, so you have someone like this criticizing the top attorney in the entire country? Holder is the Big Kahuna - there isn't anyone above him except the Supreme Court. The President can't really tell him what to do. He applies Constitutional Law independently. If anyone is going to criticize him, it can't look as though he is saying exactly what his donors want him to. And it would help if he were also a Constitutional Law scholar, or an experienced former US Attorney or Federal Judge. Andrew Mc Carthy is really more like it:

Andrew C. McCarthy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a fellow with a conservative think tank. That's fine!

John Cornyn? Not fine!

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/weeklyag/weekly_columns_view.php?id=107

Both democrats and republicans have exchanged accusations of voting fraud recently in Wisconsin. Are both sides wrong about their problems?

How has voting changed to eliminate voting fraud on the part of poll operators? Nobody's saying word one about it.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.

The reason more constitutional lawyers aren't objecting is that they understand the lack of standing. Only thinktanks will respond, revealing the patent lack of fairness when only one side can be represented in a lawcourt. The Supreme Court has deprived every other party of any standing to bring a complaint to them about voter abuses. That's why it's being restricted by law: to close this horrific gap in defense of rights. Individuals can't bring suit. States can't bring suit. Feds can't bring suit. But states and Feds can institute law. So they do. And then some liberal appointee brings suit.

Well get ready. Because none of the states involved will sit still for it, especially when it's from someone as prejudiced as Holder.

This attorney general engages in racial discrimination when deciding issues. What other thought process would defend an issue of voter intimidation by referring to "my people" -- meaning his race?

The guy should be ousted on discriminatory grounds for violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[stamperben]

When it comes to voting, your name has to be on a government list. Only legal aged American citizens are allowed to vote, and demonstrating that you are who you say you are and meet the requirements to vote is completely logical and in no way violate your rights.

And my name HAS been on a list and the registration card I bring to the polling place with me has sufficed just fine, just as it has worked just fine to prevent voter fraud since 1965.

No, voting is not a different right than gun ownership. Both are guaranteed by the Constitution. And reasonable regulation or restriction does not necessarily mean being on a government list. Don't even try to tell us you can't see some religious behavior being subject to reasonable regulation or restriction. Polygamists might disagree with you if you do.

The 1st Amendment is right that does not require registration.
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of registration.
The 3rd Amendment ditto.
4th Amendment ditto.
Need I go on with the complete Bill of Rights?

That the states have their own laws requiring voter registration in no way calls for overly restrictive compliance. With firearms there are indeed restrictions for concealed carrying, but unless I'm wrong there is no requirement for ownership of legal weapons anywhere. My hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns are legal for me to own without you or any governmental agency knowing I possess them.

 

[oliverb]

The 1st Amendment is right that does not require registration.
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of registration.
The 3rd Amendment ditto.
4th Amendment ditto.
Need I go on with the complete Bill of Rights?

No, you don't need to go on, but you really ought to pay attention to what's been written. I talked of reasonable regulation or restriction of rights, not registration. Your rant seems to have missed it's mark.

 

[heymikey80]

And my name HAS been on a list and the registration card I bring to the polling place with me has sufficed just fine, just as it has worked just fine to prevent voter fraud since 1965.

Ah, just one problem. It hasn't.

The 1st Amendment is right that does not require registration.
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of registration.
The 3rd Amendment ditto.
4th Amendment ditto.
Need I go on with the complete Bill of Rights?

That the states have their own laws requiring voter registration in no way calls for overly restrictive compliance. With firearms there are indeed restrictions for concealed carrying, but unless I'm wrong there is no requirement for ownership of legal weapons anywhere. My hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns are legal for me to own without you or any governmental agency knowing I possess them.

So you want the reliability of voter registration to be worse than say, driving, or your address verification, or ... y'know, just how important is it to accurately tally votes?

 

[Assuredcw]

John Cornyn? Not fine!

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/weeklyag/weekly_columns_view.php?id=107

Both democrats and republicans have exchanged accusations of voting fraud recently in Wisconsin. Are both sides wrong about their problems?

How has voting changed to eliminate voting fraud on the part of poll operators? Nobody's saying word one about it.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.

The reason more constitutional lawyers aren't objecting is that they understand the lack of standing. Only thinktanks will respond, revealing the patent lack of fairness when only one side can be represented in a lawcourt. The Supreme Court has deprived every other party of any standing to bring a complaint to them about voter abuses. That's why it's being restricted by law: to close this horrific gap in defense of rights. Individuals can't bring suit. States can't bring suit. Feds can't bring suit. But states and Feds can institute law. So they do. And then some liberal appointee brings suit.

Well get ready. Because none of the states involved will sit still for it, especially when it's from someone as prejudiced as Holder.

This attorney general engages in racial discrimination when deciding issues. What other thought process would defend an issue of voter intimidation by referring to "my people" -- meaning his race?

The guy should be ousted on discriminatory grounds for violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

I don't like John Cornyn either - interesting!

But as far as the Black Panthers case is concerned, it is being investigated right now. Congress is getting to the bottom of this -- they had been investigating Fast and Furious (Holder wasn't involved at all - that was in the paper on Christmas), and they are still investigating Black Panthers. I am sure they will look to see how the investigation was conducted, and who was assigned to interview the registered voters who used that as a polling place. Because there *may* not have been any voters who didn't actually vote. They may have decided to leave and come back later, for example. But the DOJ applies the law to the facts, and that's all they are supposed to do. If they've done that, there shouldn't be a problem. If we make Mr. Holder wrong before the investigation is finished, we could end up with egg on our faces.

Also, with all of the voting rules changes, the Voting Rights Act kicks in. That's not Mr. Holder's fault.

 

[stamperben]

No, you don't need to go on, but you really ought to pay attention to what's been written. I talked of reasonable regulation or restriction of rights, not registration. Your rant seems to have missed it's mark.

No Oliver, YOU missed what I said about voting and reasonable regulation that the states have required and used up until now; now that the GOP has to worry so badly about gaining control of government that it has changed the rules of the game.

 

[stamperben]

Ah, just one problem. It hasn't.

So you want the reliability of voter registration to be worse than say, driving, or your address verification, or ... y'know, just how important is it to accurately tally votes?

Oh please, PLEASE show what I am guessing you are calling voting fraud. C'mon, PLEASE? Show us how bad it is that in this day and age we have to resort to disenfranchising voters again.

 

[heymikey80]

Well, the credibility of Holder is fully in question due to his explicit testimony in defense violating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

It's funny you should mention it, the ACLJ's Friend of the Court briefings are part of the record of numerous Supreme Court cases.

And last I checked, Holder will have a much cushier job at Covington & Burling than Sekulow's. I'd advocate sending Holder back to it.

 

[Assuredcw]

BTW HeyMikey80, here's a classmate of President Obama's who is still a law Professor (Obama used to be) - his name is Paul Clement.

Quoting from this link:

Lawyer relishes tough and unpopular cases before Supreme Court - latimes.com

This year, Paul D. Clement walked away from a multimillion-dollar salary with a national law firm after some partners objected when he signed on with House Republicans to defend the law that forbids the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages....

Clement joined the George W. Bush administration in 2001 as the deputy to Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson and then held the top job as the administration's advocate before the high court between 2004 and 2008. There, he argued for Bush's military detention policy at Guantanamo Bay, but he also defended federal campaign funding laws, protections for the environment and anti-discrimination protections for disabled employees....

"If you really practice law, you can tick off everybody," Clement said when he resigned from the law firm.

I respect the independence of an attorney who is prepared to tick people off in the course of doing his job with integrity. Because the law isn't always on the side of what people are "up to," and this man clearly is not a hired gun. I don't necessarily agree with his positions, but his independence is music to my ears.

But I hear you about people not having the "standing" to openly criticize the DOJ in writing. But I would have thought that just as people are writing Editorials criticizing Justice Thomas' ethics now, such ineptitude and corruption as have been laid at Holder's doorstep needs to backed up by somebody with stature and credentials. If those people don't have "standing," then it's a shame that people like Jeffrey Kuhner don't take their lead and hold their tongues. Because the silence of the people who are Holder's peers makes them look silly.

 

[MachZer0]

I don't like John Cornyn either - interesting!

But as far as the Black Panthers case is concerned, it is being investigated right now. Congress is getting to the bottom of this --

You have to ask yourself why Eric Holder didn't get to the bottom of it. Why is Congress having to do his job?

 

[Assuredcw]

You have to ask yourself why Eric Holder didn't get to the bottom of it. Why is Congress having to do his job?

The Justice Department is also investigating it, but I didn't think that would be at all reassuring to HeyMikey80, which is why I didn't volunteer that.

 

[heymikey80]

Oh please, PLEASE show what I am guessing you are calling voting fraud. C'mon, PLEASE? Show us how bad it is that in this day and age we have to resort to disenfranchising voters again.

First, you haven't demonstrated any disenfranchisement of voters. In point of fact, a similar Michigan law goes into effect January 1, 2012. See any DOJ case against it? Hm? No? Then it's not disenfranchising anybody, and Holder doesn't want to get entangled anywhere except where his own prejudices apply.

If a Fraudulent Vote Falls in the Woods . . .

Oh, and btw, liberals alleged voting fraud in both Bush elections. So retractions now don't make sense for then.

I for one think a consistent amount of voter fraud happens in every election, and I would want it to stop nullifying votes based on who's the more corrupt.

Kennedy's vote-buying tactics in West Virginia come to mind: Amazon.com: West Virginia Tough Boys: Vote Buying, Fist Fighting and a President Named JFK (9780972486729): Keith F. Davis: Books

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...565219AC.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3260864

http://brennan.3cdn.net/52cdaf4251969e2042_vnm6ivu54.pdf

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf

Of course the Brennan Center is ridiculously biased, and demonstrates its wildly liberal position pretty readily through its website. But also its strategy in this particular case:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...npersuasive-case-against-voter-identification

 

[oliverb]

No Oliver, YOU missed what I said about voting and reasonable regulation that the states have required and used up until now; now that the GOP has to worry so badly about gaining control of government that it has changed the rules of the game.

I haven't missed anything you've said, though much of it has received well deserved disregard.

 

[MachZer0]

The Justice Department is also investigating it, but I didn't think that would be at all reassuring to HeyMikey80, which is why I didn't volunteer that.

Why are they investigating it now when it was a done deal before. That would seem to be the height of incompetence

 

[Assuredcw]

Why are they investigating it now when it was a done deal before. That would seem to be the height of incompetence

The controversy surrounding the case led the Justice Dept to investigate themselves, of course. They then released a detailed report with their findings to Rep Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee in March of this year.

Anyway, the Justice Dept's internal investigation has been concluded - I just found out when I did a search. But the "Inspector General's" investigation is "ongoing" - whatever that means:

Report clears Justice Department in Black Panther case - The Washington Post

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has concluded an investigation finding that politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, which sparked a racially charged political fight.
After reviewing thousands of pages of internal e-mails and notes and conducting 44 interviews with department staff members, the OPR reported that “department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment” and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on “a good faith assessment of the law” and “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

....An investigation by Justice’s inspector general is ongoing.

But never fear - Congress is investigating it too. Click on the link and see if it answers your questions. I think I'll just wait for "Justice's inspector general" and Congress, to see if anything else comes out of this. But I'm suspicious that there don't appear to be any intimidated voters, just other people who aren't even in Philadelphia causing an uproar. Hmmm...

 

[Blackwater Babe]

A 93-year-old Tennessee woman who cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years, including the governor’s office, says she won’t be able to vote for the first time in decades after being told this week that her old state ID failed to meet new voter ID regulations.
Thelma Mitchell was even accused of being an undocumented immigrant because she couldn’t produce a birth certificate [...]

A spokesman for the House Republican Caucus insisted that Mitchell was given bad information and should’ve been allowed to vote, even with an expired state ID.

The incident is the just latest in a series of reports of senior citizens being denied their constitutional right to vote under restrictive new voter ID laws pushed by Republican governors and legislatures. These laws are a transparent attempt to target Democrat constituencies who are less likely to have photo ID’s, and disproportionately affect seniors, college students, the poor and minorities.

As ThinkProgress reported, one 96-year-old Tennessee woman was denied a voter ID because she didn’t have her marriage license. Another senior citizen in Tennessee, 91-year-old Virginia Lasater, couldn’t get the ID she needed to vote because she wasn’t able to stand in a long line at the DMV. A Tennessee agency even told a 86-year-old World War II veteran that he had to pay an unconstitutional poll tax if he wanted to obtain an ID.

93-Year-Old Tennessee Woman Who Cleaned State Capitol For 30 Years Denied Voter ID | ThinkProgress

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The controversy surrounding the case led the Justice Dept to investigate themselves, of course. They then released a detailed report with their findings to Rep Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee in March of this year.

Anyway, the Justice Dept's internal investigation has been concluded - I just found out when I did a search. But the "Inspector General's" investigation is "ongoing" - whatever that means:

Report clears Justice Department in Black Panther case - The Washington Post

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has concluded an investigation finding that politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, which sparked a racially charged political fight.
After reviewing thousands of pages of internal e-mails and notes and conducting 44 interviews with department staff members, the OPR reported that “department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment” and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on “a good faith assessment of the law” and “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

....An investigation by Justice’s inspector general is ongoing.

But never fear - Congress is investigating it too. Click on the link and see if it answers your questions. I think I'll just wait for "Justice's inspector general" and Congress, to see if anything else comes out of this. But I'm suspicious that there don't appear to be any intimidated voters, just other people who aren't even in Philadelphia causing an uproar. Hmmm...

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that the justice department's investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the justice department.

 

[stamperben]

First, you haven't demonstrated any disenfranchisement of voters. In point of fact, a similar Michigan law goes into effect January 1, 2012. See any DOJ case against it? Hm? No? Then it's not disenfranchising anybody, and Holder doesn't want to get entangled anywhere except where his own prejudices apply.

If a Fraudulent Vote Falls in the Woods . . .

Oh, and btw, liberals alleged voting fraud in both Bush elections. So retractions now don't make sense for then.

I for one think a consistent amount of voter fraud happens in every election, and I would want it to stop nullifying votes based on who's the more corrupt.

Kennedy's vote-buying tactics in West Virginia come to mind: Amazon.com: West Virginia Tough Boys: Vote Buying, Fist Fighting and a President Named JFK (9780972486729): Keith F. Davis: Books

Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract

http://brennan.3cdn.net/52cdaf4251969e2042_vnm6ivu54.pdf

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf

Of course the Brennan Center is ridiculously biased, and demonstrates its wildly liberal position pretty readily through its website. But also its strategy in this particular case:

Case Against Voter Identification Is Not Persuasive

So it all basically boils down to this -

Laws relaxing voter-registration requirements may have allowed groups like ACORN to stuff the rolls with names of fictitious people, which could then have been used to cast votes without any identification.

MAY have allowed...
Where are the prosecutions? Where are the convictions for all this illegal voter fraud? You are not supplying that concrete evidence.

I haven't missed anything you've said, though much of it has received well deserved disregard.

Ah yes, THAT'S the spirit of debate at work Oliver! Good work!

 

[heymikey80]

So it all basically boils down to this - MAY have allowed...
Where are the prosecutions? Where are the convictions for all this illegal voter fraud? You are not supplying that concrete evidence.

Prosecutions require evidence, and the laws are so lax that evidence normally can't be generated from the information collected at the voting booth.

If there were enough evidence and traceability, there wouldn't be a need for tighter regulations.

Because voting itself requires untraceability to the specific vote, there's a serious problem with relaxing voter laws prior to voting -- allowing criminal activity in registration and presentation for voting.

For instance: an actual candidate for election in Fairfax County voted in a precinct he was not a member of a few years ago. He wasn't charged. No one could tell if he voted twice: there was no way to determine whether he had voted at his actual precinct. After that, paper tracking records check-off what voters have presented themselves to the precinct. But of course, if you can't verify for certain whether the person is who he says he is, this paper track can cause denial of service to the real voters.

In other words -- photo ID is an attempt to improve service to voters by removing the possibility of impersonation fraud.

It would be very interesting to trace back from death records to whether people voted in a prior election. The reason I say this is, my parents have worked at clearing voter records in their home precincts and have noted that people who had died long before the prior election had an interesting knack for voting in it.

Authorities have charged four Wake County residents with voter fraud in connection with the last presidential election.

Twenty-six-year-old Kierra Fontae Leache of Pheiffer Drive in Raleigh, 46-year-old Shelia “Sheilia” Romona Hodges, also of Pheiffer Drive in Raleigh, and 25-year-old Brandon Earl McLean of Bethune Drive in Raleigh, allegedly cast two ballot votes in 2008.

There're other significant problems underlying the vote process and denying integrity to the voting process: Virginia's Voting Glitches

 

[stamperben]

In other words -- photo ID is an attempt to improve service to voters by removing the possibility of impersonation fraud.

And yet photo ID, along with the other restrictions in early voting changes and registration drives, put in place by these GOP led states, will prevent or make it extremely difficult for an estimated five million citizens to vote this year. Source here

The simple question is "Why?" On a very small scale fraud has been shown to be a minute problem in this country since the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The obvious answer to the question is to disenfranchise voters who are likely to vote for the opposition to the GOP.