States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal -NYT

Source: New York Times

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.

Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately. The screening and trimming of voter registration lists in the six states — Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina — could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: people who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html

voter purging in 2004.

promising they would investigate should a story develop, remember? :crazy:

to expose a big story like stealing elections. Silly me.

(Hey, sfexpat! 'Hope all is well for you in beautiful S.F.... :hug: )

Source: New York Times

Though voter registration has gone up in most states, many have MUCH FEWER REGISTERED VOTERS than in 2004.
Head of the Federal Elections Assistance program states "this could be an extremely serious problem". Court cases have been filed in some states but it is a far-reaching problem in MANY states.
Is this happening in your state? I'm originally from Michigan and I've heard about it there. Are they throwing around the ACORN story to try to counter this?

According the repugs it is central to democracy to get rid of unqualified voters. WTF??

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27093919

---

Get the word out to Obama, Olbermann, Maddow and anyone else who will listen!!! Lets not let them steal it again!!! People must confirm their registration immediately!

It makes it sound like the New York Times itself is trying to purge voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7377182&mesg_id=7377182

Direct NYTimes link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?pagewanted=1&hp

DU National Media link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1903

This information must be disseminated!

Thanks for posting.

This thing is front and center on the MSNBC.com homepage!!

provisional ballot. Show up in person and demand to be registered!

Greg Palast, Steal Back Your Vote:

http://www.gregpalast.com/steal-back-your-vote-2/

to defy regulations or the law and get his ass fired. It gives vent to your anger, makes the counter help's life difficult (usually just to make you feel good, or at least pleasurably outraged), and accomplishes little except make sure that the person behind you in line gets shoddier treatment later that s/he otherwise would have.

Smart. And truly progressive. There are better ways of actually accomplishing something other than venting your frustration on probably hapless victims, and creating problems for others.

What I'm going to write is true for New York State, but probably holds for most other states, as well. If not, the political parties should find some funding and set up this system.

If you refuse to vote by provisional/affadavit ballot and believe that you properly registered and are at the right polling place (frequently a problem, that last bit), you don't create a ruckus once you've confirmed that you're not in the poll book. It's often counterproductive; as I keep telling my 4-year-old son, getting angry when it doesn't help you is pointless, and getting angry when it only hurts you is foolish.

Instead, you go to the nearest phone and you call your local party HQ and ask if they have an elections lawyer on duty; usually there's some lawyer doing it pro bono. (Actually, given how litigious the elections have become, in some polling places you should check to see if a lawyer is present.) If there is one, talk to him. If you have evidence that you did register or that you should be in the pollbook or otherwise allowed to vote at that polling place, then they quickly draw up and present your case to a judge standing by precisely for elections cases, and they're adjudicated within minutes. If the evidence holds up and convinces the judge, he issues an order instructing the polling place to give you a regular ballot (whatever that means for that polling place) and to accept your vote as though you were in the polling book. This covers trivia, which depends on state law--change of name, moving within the electoral jurisdiction, differences in name or address between your ID and the pollbook, etc., etc., etc. If the evidence doesn't hold up or convince the judge, you're SOL. Sometimes it's easy to convince the judge; sometimes it's not so easy.

It's one reason it pays to vote early; start this process minutes before the polls close and there's simply not time to jump through the hoops. Or fix your flat or unmiss a bus connection.

I checked my yesterday through some online links.. and even though I registerd back in July when I changed over my driver's license to my new state, according to these online site that checked, my name wasn't coming up. So I downloaded the registration form and sent it in again--the deadline here in MD is 10/14/08. I wouldn't put it past someone to have purged my name from the rolls.

this election is too important to not check your status and make sure you're registed to vote.

Did you call the voter registration office to find out why your registration had not been processed?

And I did receive information on my polling place. That was in July. It's now October. Much can happen in 3 months considering the current desperate climate in which the thugs find themselves.

I went ahead and sent in the form 2 days ago. Will call on Friday to check status.

...to use provisional ballots.

I'm not doubting you, just wanting to know the facts.

Thanks!

"The Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, said in court papers that she believes the Republicans are seeking grounds to challenge voters and get them removed from the rolls.

Considering that in the past year the state received nearly 290,000 nonmatches, such a plan could have significant impact at the polls."

First, does anyone know whether registrations can be legally purged after the registration deadline? I'm kind of curious about that.

Also, where's a good source on the ACORN story? I heard that one mentioned earlier this evening, but that's the first I'd ever heard. Where can I get the facts on it?

up to 90 days before the election.

Here's one of many links on ACORN:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/125219/772/638/622801

Anything? I bet they aren't!

And I bet nobody here can come up with a good reason why not.

If this is how the GOP wants to play then so be it. The Democrats need to go into states like Texas and Florida and challenge every registered Republican. When they get a taste of their own medicine then maybe this crap will stop.

"Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately". Yes this may explain why new registrations would not be accepted, but is that the same as 'purging' voters. I don't think it is. Of course election officials should be checking new applications to make sure they are valid and I have no problem with that as long as they are rejecting applications for valid reasons. The voter purges on the other hand are attempts to remove voters who have previously voted from the voter rolls. I would think any method of trying to do this would be fraught with problems unless you actually went to the address and verified who did or didn't live there. The Republicans use one method of mailing a 'do not forward' letter to an address and if it is not returned using that to challenge a persons right to vote. Number one, if I received something that was identified as being from the Republican party I would certainly just throw it away. Number two, if it didn't identify its source why would I feel obligated to return it. In the case of the purges from reports I have read they seem to disproportionately occur in areas with a large Democratic base. The Republicans don't even deny that part of their strategy is to suppress Democratic voting. Of course, they always claim they are trying to stop 'voter fraud' even when data from previous elections shows that fraud of that kind is minimal.

And with our tax money!

to be the next President,

BUT, we need to make sure that everyone who wants to and is eligible to is not wrongfully denied. Above all else really, ensuring voters are registered should be the #1 priority at this moment.

She registered a few weeks ago but when checked, shows up voter not found.

...having challenged voters sign an affadavit at the polling place swearing to their eligibility. This put the burden of proof on the challenger instead of the prospective voters and their votes were counted like any other instead of using provisional ballots.

I'd like to have something like this when I pollwatch so that I can help people who get challenged.

They are provisional ballots under HAVA, but were around long before HAVA. They still have to be checked by somebody at the BOE, nobody's going to take the signer's word for it that they registered when it's not all that difficult to confirm it.

I'd guess NH is similar.

Have to look into that one.

She picked up a stack of them and then used them when a Republican challenged the residency of some voters who registered on election day. Without the affadavits, those voters would have had to cast provisional ballots. With them, their ballots counted with all the others. This situation was probably unique to NH but it may be something to look into in your state. Your local Democratic party may be have legal counsel that can determine whether that can be done.

That should be the headline.

"Republicans said in the motion that it is central to American democracy that nonqualified voters be forbidden from voting."

In fact, these various voter registration schemes were developed specifically to keep eligible voters from voting. It is "central to American democracy" only if by that we understand racism and the most narrow kind of partisanship to be "central to American democracy."

Voter Purges
Publications

By Myrna Pérez
– 09/30/08

Findings


(see introduction)


This report provides one of the first systematic examinations of the chaotic and largely unseen world of voter purges. In a detailed study focusing on twelve states, we identified three problematic practices with voter purges across the country:

Purges rely on error-ridden lists. States regularly attempt to purge voter lists of ineligible voters or duplicate registration records, but the lists that states use as the basis for purging are often riddled with errors. For example, some states purge their voter lists based on the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, a database that even the Social Security Administration admits includes people who are still alive. Even though Hilde Stafford, a Wappingers Falls, NY resident, was still alive and voted, the master death index lists her date of death as June 15, 1997. As another example, when a member of a household files a change of address for herself in the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, it sometimes has the effect of changing the addresses of all members of that household. Voters who are eligible to vote are wrongly stricken from the rolls because of problems with underlying source lists.

Voters are purged secretly and without notice. None of the states investigated in this report statutorily require election officials to provide advance public notice of a systematic purge. Additionally, with the exception of registrants believed to have changed addresses, many states do not notify individual voters before purging them. In large part, states that do provide individualized notice do not provide such notice for all classes of purge candidates. For example, our research revealed that it is rare for states to provide notice when a registrant is believed to be deceased. Without proper notice to affected individuals, an erroneously purged voter will likely not be able to correct the error before Election Day. Without public notice of an impending purge, the public will not be able to detect improper purges or to hold their election officials accountable for more accurate voter list maintenance.

Bad “matching” criteria leaves voters vulnerable to manipulated purges. Many voter purges are conducted with problematic techniques that leave ample room for abuse and manipulation. State statutes rely on the discretion of election officials to identify registrants for removal. Far too often, election officials believe they have “matched” two voters, when they are actually looking at the records of two distinct individuals with similar identifying information. These cases of mistaken identity cause eligible voters to be wrongly removed from the rolls. The infamous Florida purge of 2000—conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000—was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of persons with criminal convictions. Those wrongly purged included Reverend Willie D. Whiting Jr., who, under the match ing criteria, was considered the same person as Willie J. Whiting. Without specific guidelines for or limitations on the authority of election officials conducting purges, eligible voters are regularly made unnecessarily vulnerable.

Insufficient oversight leaves voters vulnerable to manipulated purges. Insufficient oversight permeates the purge process beyond just the issue of matching. For example, state statutes often rely on the discretion of election officials to identify registrants for removal and to initiate removal procedures. In Washington, the failure to deliver a number of delineated mailings, including precinct reassignment notices, ballot applications, and registration acknowledgment notices, triggers the mailing of address confirmation notices, which then sets in motion the process for removal on account of change of address. Two Washington counties and the Secretary of State, however, reported that address confirmation notices were sent when any mail was returned as undeliverable, not just those delineated in state statute. Since these statutes rarely tend to specify limitations on the authority of election officials to purge registrants, insufficient oversight leaves room for election officials to deviate from what the state law provides and may make voters vulnerable to poor, lax, or irresponsible decision-making.


more: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_purges


Think of this:

In fact, thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million voters from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006.
Eight years since Florida 2000. We still haven't fixed this.

Gee, NYT: this story would have been a bit more welcome a month ago, before the deadline to register to vote had passed in most of these states, and when Democrats might have actually been able to do something about it!

Here's hoping the AGs in these states step in and stop the purges that are, clearly, illegal.

These are Palast's top 3 recommendations to protect your vote.


1. Early voting is essential. That way, if there is a problem with your registration or picture/signature ID, there is time to correct it.


2. If you are voting by absentee, hand-deliver it to your precinct/supervisor of elections office. Do not depend on the mail service to deliver your ballot.


3. Do not accept a provisional ballot on election day. These ballots have a very high rate of being thrown out, as you are not there to defend your vote.


4. Use hotline number for rapid access to election protection lawyer if you have a problem voting at polls. (Number in Palast's Investigative Comic Book at link below) This is a nonpartisan comic book, so it can be taken into the voting booth.


www.stealbackyourvote.com


5. Check to see if your registration is in order, NOW, by contacting your county Supervisor of Elections office.




Spread the word to everyone.

HAVA has basically been marred by BushCo to make it so people they don't like can't vote.

...legislation was passed to FIX election problems. Who was behind that legislation? Just curious... :7

I've been bugging the custodian at one of the buildings I work at to verify that he is still registed to vote (he moved last year). FINALLY, he did... he was not... but now he is!