Help me take down this poster from another forum.

She spews nonsense constantly. I am too tired to go searching. Although she never offers any proof she challenges anything i say that is not linked...


<<It was Blackwell's request about the paperweight.>>

While it may have been an old requirement, Blackwell followed what had been on the books for a long time. He followed what that requirement stated.



<<He also changed rules on provisionals AFTER the election.>>

How did he change rules on provisionals after the election. He only followed what were state guidelines. As do 25 other states which follow the same guidelines.



So maybe the states rules should have been changed after Congress passed HAVA, but they weren't and Blackwell followed the guidelines according to state law. It would appear that Judge Carr changed the rules, after hearing a lawsuit, not Blackwell.

is just give them a couple of these :hi:

Read it she is lame.

stop trying to refute things point by point and change the frame.

I'm not sure what a good Lakoff style reframe would be on this particular issue. How about "fairness" --

Don't you think that every American citizen should have an equal opportunity to vote? How would you feel if your registration was cancelled because of techicality?

Read Lakoff; it's mental jiujitsu for fighting with conservatives.

it "technically" was written BUT he overroad the decision when he wanted to.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092904W.shtml

i sincerely doubt there is. but regardless, his charge is to make sur ethe VOTE is protected and what he was protecting with the paper-weight issue was that a newspaper published the registrationh form and blackwell just couldn't have the great unwashed masses registering for to vote -- no, his job was to deny people the right to vote!

election, 10 years ago many absentee ballots got destroyed in the mail, and he didn't want that to happen again, and he rescinded when he found out that that mail machines were different now... (looking for transcript -- if anyone else finds it, please post).

And the Provisional ballot thing -- in the Primaries you didn't have to be at the correct poll place.... he changed that for the election.

interviewed Blackwell a couple of days later...)


http://act04.org/paperstock

(I just check it and it still worked, but, it could be because it's cached...) it has a link to this article http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/09/25/20040925-A1-02.html

I remember there being some issues with him stating AFTER the election that a birthdate was mandatory on the envelope. Also the precincts did not have supplies of sticker which were necessary for a vote to be counted. BASTARD!

I'm pretty sure it was Blackwell's doing and not some other law. I didn't hear any other states doing that.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/news/release/09-09-04.htm
----------------------------
II. VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS – PAPERWEIGHT

We have received numerous questions concerning the paperweight of the Ohio voter registration form. The form prescribed by the Secretary of State must be printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight. Any Ohio form not printed on this minimum paperweight is considered to be an application for a registration form. Your board should mail the appropriate form to the person listed on the application.

However, this office cannot dictate the paperweight of the federally prescribed voter registrations forms: the on-line Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) and the “national” form prescribed by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Both of those forms may be printed on regular weight (e.g. 20 lb) white paper.

If you have any questions on this directive, please call my Elections Division at 614-466-2585.

Sincerely,

J. Kenneth Blackwell
----------------------


Edit: Sounds to me that while some other federal vote registration forms are on 20 lb white paper he didn't want Ohio to follow suit.

If Mr. Blackwell continues with this pre-emptive purge, he will be in direct violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was passed with the express purpose of preventing exactly this kind of hide-the-ball, change-the-rules shenanigans that the "ins" use to keep the "outs" from getting to the polls. 42 U.S.C. §1971(a)(2)(B) provides that "o person acting under color of law" may deny a person the right to vote "because of an error or omission on any . . . paper relating to any . . . registration . . . if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election." Filling out a form on the wrong kind of paper is precisely the kind of "error" that "is not material" to determining whether a person is qualified to vote. It has nothing to do with the person's age, residence, or status as a convicted felon. An underweight registration form cannot be used to deny the right to vote.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/eligibility_rules08.html

That he isn't denying them the right to vote because he instructed the counties to mail the person a new voter registration form on the correct type of paper when they received a form that was of the wrong paper weight. (see my post above)

By the way, who prints the voter registration forms? Wouldn't it be the secretary of state's office? So wouldn't it be their problem if it was the wrong weight of paper? Or can you download one on the internet and print it?

What a joke.

regularjoe

what are they hiding?

" Secretary Blackwell notes that the voter registration form "prescribed" by the Secretary of State must be "printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight. Any Ohio form not printed on this minimum paperweight is considered to be an application for a registration form.

One of the problems with this directive, of course, is that paperweight information is not widely known, and does not appear, for example, on the numerous county board of elections websites that advise voters to download, print, complete, and mail back registration forms. Most or all of these websites do not indicate that "underweighted" registration forms are not registration forms but merely applications to register.

So another words this wasn't considered an application to register.

she usually acts like she is deaf, dumb and a few crayons short of a box. But what she spews unless clarified contrary is believed.

...whomever it is.

Peace.

is different from real life etiquette. Just ignore it. That is the polite way to handle stuff you do not like.

decided I am not gonna let them win by taking up my time answering. Too many good people to interact to waste my time with the ones who just want to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

It happened after the 29th of September because that's when I wrote my letter to Tavis with the ACT link. I've gone through the October Archives and he's not listed... he's only listed after the election... Odd? Or typical? it's the first time I tried to search a show like that -- AND -- it could be that it was so brief it's not only the list... cause they did run out of time at the end of it... yeah, that's got to be it....

In September 2004, Blackwell came under fire when his office directed Ohio's county election boards to strictly enforce a rule that requires voter registration cards to be printed on a certain weight of paper. Cards printed on lighter paper, such as newsprint or typing paper, are to be considered applications for a registration and a card is to be sent to that voter to be filled out again and resubmitted.

Democrats alleged that this rule was outdated in the era of computerization and served only to disenfranchise new voters. Blackwell also announced that persons who appeared at a polling place to vote but whose registrations could not be confirmed would be given provisional ballots (as required by the federal Help America Vote Act) if they applied for a provisional ballot in the correct precinct.

On Oct. 21, 2004, a U.S. District Court judge, who was adjudicating a complaint regarding Blackwell's decisions on provisional ballots, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot) stated in an order rejecting Blackwell's policy that "Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell

Kenneth Blackwell has been accused of state-wide voter suppression in Ohio, including:

Failure to process voter registrations
Uneven voting machine allocation
Arbitrary and unreasonable exclusionary procedures in provisional ballot counting
(See 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression)
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary has asked Kenneth Blackwell to explain irregularities in the Ohio election in two letters (pdf) (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellltr12204.pdf) (pdf) (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellfollowupltr12304.pdf), and requested his presence at a Public Congressional Hearing (pdf) (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohvotinghrgadvisory12304.pdf). He did not attend the hearing, and he responded to the first letter, refusing to cooperate. (pdf) (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellresp121404.pdf)

Kenneth Blackwell has been asked to recuse himself from the recount process in Ohio by:

Black Box Voting (http://www.blackboxvoting.org)
Common Cause
Alliance for Democracy (http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org)
Move On (http://www.moveon.org)
Jesse Jackson
Thousands of U.S. citizens (http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=251779&en=muKRK1PNLiJQI3PQIcLNK4MKJlI4JhOUIkLUJbO2IyG)
The People for the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org) foundation has filed a lawsuit against Kenneth Blackwell accusing him of implementing arbitrary and unreasonable procedures for the counting of provisional ballots. <1> (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17471) 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry has started a petition in support of this cause (http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/ballot.php).

2004 presidential candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, represented by the National Voter Rights Institute (http://www.nvri.org), have filed a lawsuit against Kenneth Blackwell accusing him of stalling the Ohio recount and abusing his authority. <2> (http://www.votecobb.org/press/2004/dec/pr2004-12-02.php)

Keith Olbermann has interviewed Kenneth Blackwell regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy. (video) (http://video.lisarein.com/election2004/msnbc/11-29-04/)

He has also been asked a number of questions by reporters. (video, rm) (http://easylink.d2productions.net/votecobb/votecobb03.rm)

On December 11, 2004, Kenneth Blackwell was accused by volunteer election researchers/observers Joan Quinn and Eve Robertson of interfering with the transparent election process by illegally ordering the Greene County Board of Elections to "lock-down" all election records and remove them from the public domain, in direct violation of Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26, which provides for all election records to be made available for public inspection. ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any Board of Elections employee to interfere with the public inspection of such records, and ORC Sec 3599.42 states that a violation of these provisions of the ORC shall constitute a prima facie case of election fraud. <3> (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121404Z.shtml) <4> (http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/OhioVoteFraudBattleHeatsUp.html)

On December 17, 2004, Senator John Kerry's and Senator John Edwards' state counsel for Ohio issued a letter to Kenneth Blackwell demanding an official investigation into voting machine tampering in Hocking County. (story) (http://rawstory.com/exclusives/kerry_1216.php) (letter, pdf) (http://www.miamedia.com/news/2004-12-15.mctigue.balckwell.letter.pdf)

On December 27, 2004, Kenneth Blackwell requested a protective order to prevent him from being interviewed as part of a court challenge of the presidential vote; fought a subpoena. (AP) (http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/4027481/detail.html) (AP) (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002132450_ohiovote28.html)(freepress) (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1046)


List of legal suits
Moss v. Bush <5> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-recounts.html#moss)
Beacon Journal Publishing Company, Inc. and Charlene Nevada v. J. Kenneth Blackwell and the Board of Elections <6> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-abc.html#beacon)
Lucas County Democratic Party et al v. Blackwell <7> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/eligibility_rules_lucas.html)
The Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell <8> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/provisional-sandusky.html)
The Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell <9> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/provisional-sandusky-app.html)
The League of Women Voters of Ohio et al v. Blackwell <10> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/provisional-lowv.html)
State ex rel. Essig et al. v. Blackwell (pdf) (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-5586.pdf)
Miller et al v. Blackwell et al <11> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/eligibility_rules_lucas.html)
Spencer v. Blackwell <12> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-spencer.html)
Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee et al v. Blackwell et al <13> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-summit.html)
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. et al v. Blackwell <14> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-abc.html)
State of Ohio Ex Rel. Matthew Wolf, et al. v. Blackwell <15> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-wolf.htm)
Sarah White v. J. Kenneth Blackwell and the Board of Elections of Lucas County, Ohio <16> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-white.htm)
Nader et al v. Blackwell <17> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation.html#nader)
Schering v. Blackwell <18> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-litigation.html#schering)
Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell <19> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-litigation.html#schering)
Anita Rios et al v. Blackwell <20> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-recounts.html)
State ex. rel David Yost et al v. National Voting Rights Institute et al <21> (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-recounts.html)

See Also
Election Results, U.S. Representative from Ohio, 1st District.
2004 U.S. presidential election controversy
2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell#Involvement_in_the_2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy

brainless woman made me stay up all night again.


Again ******, please post LINKS. You have seen most of this before. Obviously it does not concern you, or you simply do not read it. I am posting this for people who are unaware that it was more then simply standing in the rain for a few hours.


>>>If Mr. Blackwell continues with this pre-emptive purge, he will be in direct violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was passed with the express purpose of preventing exactly this kind of hide-the-ball, change-the-rules shenanigans that the "ins" use to keep the "outs" from getting to the polls. 42 U.S.C. §1971(a)(2)(B) provides that "o person acting under color of law" may deny a person the right to vote "because of an error or omission on any . . . paper relating to any . . . registration . . . if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election." Filling out a form on the wrong kind of paper is precisely the kind of "error" that "is not material" to determining whether a person is qualified to vote. It has nothing to do with the person's age, residence, or status as a convicted felon. An underweight registration form cannot be used to deny the right to vote.<<

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/eligibility_rules08.html


>>>II. VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS – PAPERWEIGHT

We have received numerous questions concerning the paperweight of the Ohio voter registration form. The form prescribed by the Secretary of State must be printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight. Any Ohio form not printed on this minimum paperweight is considered to be an application for a registration form. Your board should mail the appropriate form to the person listed on the application.

However, this office cannot dictate the paperweight of the federally prescribed voter registrations forms:<\i> the on-line Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) and the “national” form prescribed by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Both of those forms may be printed on regular weight (e.g. 20 lb) white paper.

If you have any questions on this directive, please call my Elections Division at 614-466-2585.

Sincerely,

J. Kenneth Blackwell<<<


http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/news/release/09-09-04.htm

http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/10/24/20041024-A1-02.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/states/oh1104pre.html


>>>Published Sunday, October 24, 2004
Appeals Court Rules On Provisional Ballots

By JOE KAY
The Associated Press

CINCINNATI -- A federal appeals court ruled Saturday that provisional ballots Ohio voters cast outside their own precincts should not be counted, throwing out a lower-court decision that said such ballots are valid as long as they are cast in the correct county.

The ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supports an order issued by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Democrats contend the Republican official's rules are too restrictive and allege they are intended to suppress the vote.<<<

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041024/NEWS/410240447/-1/ELECTIONS20

A new rule for counting provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was implemented on Tuesday, November 9 at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, issued by blackwell that changed the rules of acceptable ballot proceedure on election day. See the document.

http://www.freepress.org/images/columns/lovegren_docs.pdf

The issue of the precincts is bothersome because people were told, sometimes by the board of elections, to go to the WRONG precints. This as you know makes their ballots invalid. There is a reason Ohio had the NATIONS HIGHEST NUMBER OF DISCARDED BALLOTS.

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/01/images/WhatWentWronginOhio.pdf

The following charts machine allocation on election day. Notice where there is a higher percentage Kerry vote there are ALWAYS LESS MACHINES per no. of voters. Interesting no?






http://copperas.com/machinery/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/71935/724

39 machines went unused in Franklin Co.

http://www.votecobb.org/lib/downloads/newsclips/news2004-12-11.pdf

Some counts put it as high as 125

>>>Pacifica reporter Evan Davis reported that a county purchasing official who was on the line with Ward Moving and Storage Company, documented only 2,741 voting machines delivered through the November 2 election day. The county’s own documents reveal that they had 2,866 “Machines Available” on Election Day. This would mean that amid the two to seven hour waits in the inner city of Columbus, at least 125 machines remained unused on Election Day. Ward holds the exclusive three-year contract to deliver voting machines in Franklin County.<<<


Read the following article. They obviously knew there would be a significantly higher turnout then in previous years.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1096191056165960.xml

The following is from MSNBC

>>>In Cleveland, poorly trained poll workers apparently gave faulty instructions to voters that led to the disqualification of thousands of provisional ballots and misdirected several hundred votes to third-party candidates. In Youngstown, 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of votes for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Bush column.<<<

>>>Franklin County election officials -- evenly split between Republicans and Democrats -- say they allocated machines based on past voting patterns and their best estimate of where more were needed. But they acknowledge having too few machines to cope with an additional 102,000 registered voters.<<<

>>>Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who was co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Ohio, decided to strictly interpret a state law governing provisional ballots. He ruled that voters must cast provisional ballots not merely in the county but in the precise precinct where they reside. For cities such as Cleveland and Cincinnati, where officials long accepted provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, the ruling promised to disqualify many voters. "It is a headache to take those ballots, but the alternative is disenfranchisement," said Michael Vu, director of the Cuyahoga Board of Elections, which includes Cleveland.<<<

>>>On Election Day, more than 5.7 million Ohioans voted, 900,000 more voters than in 2000<<<

>>>Some regular voters filed affidavits stating that their registrations had been expunged. "I'm 52, and I've voted in every single election," Kathy Janoski of Columbus said. "They kept telling me, 'You must be mistaken about your precinct.' I told them this is where I've always voted. I felt like I'd been scrubbed off the rolls."<<<

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/6714782/

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/lowv/doc8g.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_voting_controversies,_Ohio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_voting_controversies,_Ohio#Voting_machines_in_Ohio

http://www.votewatch.us/Members/StevenHertzberg/report.2004-12-15.2641756478/report_contents_file/
"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."
Gracie Allen