Administration tried to curb election turnout in key states
Campaign against alleged voter fraud sought to bolster the GOP
By Greg Gordon
McClatchy-Tribune
April 19, 2007
WASHINGTON -- For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates, according to former department lawyers and a review of written records.
The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.
Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Questions about the administration's campaign against alleged voter fraud have helped fuel the political tempest over the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, several of whom were ousted in part because they failed to bring voter fraud cases important to Republican politicians. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could shed more light on the reasons for those firings when he appears today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Civil rights advocates contend that the administration's policies were intended to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats, and by filing state and federal lawsuits, civil rights groups have won court rulings blocking some of its actions.
(Continued here.)
By Greg Gordon
McClatchy-Tribune
April 19, 2007
WASHINGTON -- For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates, according to former department lawyers and a review of written records.
The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.
Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Questions about the administration's campaign against alleged voter fraud have helped fuel the political tempest over the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, several of whom were ousted in part because they failed to bring voter fraud cases important to Republican politicians. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could shed more light on the reasons for those firings when he appears today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Civil rights advocates contend that the administration's policies were intended to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats, and by filing state and federal lawsuits, civil rights groups have won court rulings blocking some of its actions.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
3 Comments:
HAHA! What a headline! But, if you read the article, the Bush Admin only sought to toughen voter id requirements, not to curb election turnout. The headline makes it sound like there were Bush Administration goon squads outside of every voting booth with clubs and chains. Now, if you are a biased member of the media (how dare I say that!) you probably could easily equate the two as this piece does.
Now, it is well documented that Karl Rove is the mastermind of the Bush Doctrine which is to go in to every corner of the country and get closet Republican votes. When I lived in St Paul, it was not until the 2000 election that me and other identified Republican voters began getting calls asking us to go out and vote. Many of us though 'what's the point voting Republican in St Paul?', but Rove and the Bush Doctrine sought as many votes across the country as they could find. That is the real reason Rove is reviled so much on the left - that he had the effrontery to go in to traditionally Democrat areas and pluck Republican votes.
But, regardless of how you look at voter fraud, we still have crackpots such as our own Phyllis Khan - DFL Mpls - who wants 16 year-olds to vote as well as permanent non-citizen immigrants. Of course, allowing these groups to vote wouldn't open up voter fraud, right? As an election judge, I could only imagine the chaos of allowing different groups to vote in different elections and the fall out of ever having to turn any of them away because they are not allowed to vote in this election or that election.
The reality of voter fraud is that is devalues legitimate votes. Just as counterfeit money devalues real money, the same is true with fraudulent votes, thereby disinfranchising legitimate votes. We must be vigilant that all votes count the same and only allow legitimate votes to be counted. To do otherwise is to disenfrachise everyone making the system a contest of who can cheat the best to win. Now, is there legitimate voter fraud? I guess that all depends on your political persuasion. I don't doubt that in Minnesota, with our very lax voter laws and same day registration, we have voter fraud. Has this affected the outcome of elections? No way to tell. I have seen it with my own eyes at my precinct, though, but I can only log a complaint and hope the county follows up investigating my concerns. To my knowledge, such follow ups have not occurred by Ramsey County.
As for disenfranchising poor or minority votes, I was an election judge at Margaret Rec Center in east St Paul in 2004 - one of the poorest areas of St Paul. Joe Mansky, cheif of Ramsey County Elections, announced at a University of Minnesota panel a few weeks before the election that he had evidence the Republican Party was out to suppress votes in at-risk/minority/poor areas of St Paul and Minneapolis such as Margaret. The election turned out to be one of the highest in state history. Margaret had the highest turnout in its history - nearly 60%, if I recall correctly. Remarkable considering Margaret rarely exceeded 30% in any election in recent years.
I asked Mansky for his 'evidence' after the election, but he did not provide his 'evidence' to me, which has made me suspicious of his judgement as well as his credibility ever since.
Those of us who take seriously our oath to be election judges in at-risk areas do not see the evidence suppressed voter turn-out. I personally have seen the contrary in the six years I have been a judge in St Paul. And while some accuse the Bush Admin of suppressing the vote in certain parts of the country, there are plenty of players on the other side actively engaging false accusations or trying to enact legislation that would definitely make voter fraud much easier.
Hmmm, maybe it's time to publish my essay about term limits on my blog!
the reality of voter fraud is that the Justice Department has been unable to find a great deal of evidence for it in the past 5 years. Given this, why do they feel the need to enforce more restrictive voter id requirements? Please answer.
Dear KSH
That's a great question and I can only speculate that the only way to keep irregularities to a minimum is have people prove they are who they say they are. Advocacy groups claim voter fraud when the exit polling doesn't match the official results as we saw in 2004. So, the admin is sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they didn't find evidence of voter fraud, but on the other hand in order to placate the voter fraud crowd they offer a minimal uniformity statute of proving who you are in order to vote. I found it somewhat amusing that the same groups who claimed voter fraud in 2004 when early exit polls had Kerry a landslide winner made no claims of voter fraud in 2006. Just goes to show that statistics don't lie, people do.
In Minnesota, you don't have to show your ID to vote. You have to show your ID to register or have a registered voter in your precinct vouch for you when you register. Once you are registered, you really only have to state your name and sign the roster book in order to get your ballot to vote.
Where fraud can come in to play is when you have same day registration and that is what I have become suspicious of as an election judge in Minnesota. Last year, I had several students from Concordia University in St Paul come to vote with no ID, no statement from the school, no utility bill, nothing at all to identify who there were or where they lived. They came back later with someone to vouch for them and they voted. Now, if that is not suspicious, then I don't know what is. Now, do you see why it is important to have to have some form of ID? The voucher law was intended for homeless people or people who for whatever reason were not able to get an ID. I find it hard to believe that a student at Concordia University, a school that costs $20,000 a year to attend, doesn't have an ID of any kind to show in order to vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home