Karl Rove's Jim Crow Voter Suppression Machine is Humming Along

Gregg Palast Interview, 2002 http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html

That voters should actually be citizens before they can vote -- for shame!

It couldn't just be that a state with a large illegal immigration problem might be trying to enforce the law...and the Federal government agrees...could it?

What I don't get is that people can get stirred up because they tie this to some Republican/Bush conspiracy to suppress votes, but they totally miss the point that apparently illegals are voting in and influencing elections in which they have no right to participate. AND, some people would actually negatively portray the fact that the goverment is trying to do something about it to forward some extremist conspiracy theory.

We could actually say that the criticism of the ruling is part of a Democrat/Liberal conspiracy to allow illegals to influence the 2008 elections in their favor. It's just as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by aubfire1:
It couldn't just be that a state with a large illegal immigration problem might be trying to enforce the law...and the Federal government agrees...could it?

What I don't get is that people can get stirred up because they tie this to some Republican/Bush conspiracy to suppress votes, but they totally miss the point that apparently illegals are voting in and influencing elections in which they have no right to participate. AND, some people would actually negatively portray the fact that the goverment is trying to do something about it to forward some extremist conspiracy theory.

We could actually say that the criticism of the ruling is part of a Democrat/Liberal conspiracy to allow illegals to influence the 2008 elections in their favor. It's just as possible.

Evidently the post was not read beyond the idea of Illegal Immigrants. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

A) To Register you have to claim citizenship. Fraudulent registration to vote is a FELONY. Always has been. To get a driver's license YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR BIRTHDATE.
The Arizona law requires proof of RESIDENCE to vote, and you have to provide TWO forms of ID. Drivers License is not enough.

quote:

It goes something like this. First, use every means possible to suppress minority and other Democractic votes. This includes passing "Jim Crow" style voting laws in the states. Secondly, employ tactics like the Florida felon purge to deny voting rights to Democrats. Thirdly, use U.S. prosecutors to magnify minor voting irregularities in Democratic areas and make it appear as if the Dems are engaging in widespread voter fraud. Fourthly, use the legal action brought by partisan GOP U.S. Attorneys to have loyalist Republicans cite them as further justification for "Jim Crow" laws at the state level.

This is what this is about. Not about fraudulent registration to vote by non citizens. That problem is MINUTE, and always has been.

quote:

94,000 people -- over half of them African American --have been on a "scrub list" in Florida, which meant they were blocked from voting in the 2000 election. Remember, Al Gore lost by "537" votes. The thing is, most of them were legally allowed to vote and were prevented from voting by Katherine Harris, former Florida Secretary of State, and Jeb Bush, in a failed attempt to root out felons.

Instead, they blocked legal voters from casting ballots and having their voices heard. Well, certainly Florida would have made sure that all those people who could legally vote, would have their constitutional freedoms restored by this Nov. 5th to vote in the election, right? Wrong.

Sorry Ed, I'm still not seeing the proof. I hardly think that the Arizona law requiring two forms of id to prove residence in order to vote represents any kind of discrimination. And while the issue you bring up is clearly not about illegal immigrants, it is about voter fraud. Illegals voting and influencing elections is just as much voter fraud in my book as anything any political group might do to influence elections. A law such as the one in Arizona should prove to be of little concern to legally registered residents of the area who wish to vote. Therefore, since it doesn't effect anyone who has the right to vote in an election, it certainly cannot be part of some vote suppression conspiracy. If a person truly is legally registered, is a resident, and has two forms of ID just like any legal voter should, I don't see it as any problem.

Furthermore, you talk about the passing of Jim Crow style voting laws in the states. Now, I admit I know nothing of this. Can you give me some examples of what laws in what states you would qualify as "Jim Crow" in nature?

I will do my research on the Katherine Harris thing in Florida, but if it was meant to root out felons I have a difficult time believing it would have kept you or I or any other law abiding citizen from voting had we lived there.

quote:

Clearly, however, one of the major impediments to black voting was the purge of the voter rolls. Florida has one of the nation's strictest laws governing restoration of felons' voting rights. Thirty-one percent of the state's black men are barred from voting because of prior felonies.

The voter purge was mandated after the 1997 Miami mayoral race was overturned because votes were cast by felons and non-residents. Legislators ordered everyone off the voting rolls who did not belong. In the end, that proved to be tens of thousands of "probable felons."

The Florida felon purge was intended to PREVENT voter fraud. That fraud was proved after the 1997 Miama mayoral race. Most of the people who were "wrongly" placed on the scrub list were still felons, but they had either had their voting rights reinstated or were from other states that automatically reinstated voting rights for felons. I put wrongly in quotations because I use the term loosely. They were still felons. I agree, though, that mistakes were made with the list. Mistakes are made in every element of government bureaucracy, they don't always benefit Republicans. And, if you'll look at the statistic that 31 percent of black men in Florida were barred from voting in the 2000 election due to felonies. 31 percent. I have no doubt that a large percentage of those on the list were therefore black. Again, that proves nothing other than the fact that many black men in Florida are felons.

Also, many counties in Florida didn't even enforce the list as it was too vague and flawed. Many of the counties that did enforce it mailed certified letters to people on the list letting them know that they were banned from voting due to being a felon, and detailed the dispute process in which they could prove they were incorrectly listed.

quote:

Originally posted by aubfire1:

quote:

Clearly, however, one of the major impediments to black voting was the purge of the voter rolls. Florida has one of the nation's strictest laws governing restoration of felons' voting rights. Thirty-one percent of the state's black men are barred from voting because of prior felonies.

The voter purge was mandated after the 1997 Miami mayoral race was overturned because votes were cast by felons and non-residents. Legislators ordered everyone off the voting rolls who did not belong. In the end, that proved to be tens of thousands of "probable felons."

The Florida felon purge was intended to PREVENT voter fraud. That fraud was proved after the 1997 Miama mayoral race. Most of the people who were "wrongly" placed on the scrub list were still felons, but they had either had their voting rights reinstated or were from other states that automatically reinstated voting rights for felons. I put wrongly in quotations because I use the term loosely. They were still felons. I agree, though, that mistakes were made with the list. Mistakes are made in every element of government bureaucracy, they don't always benefit Republicans. And, if you'll look at the statistic that 31 percent of black men in Florida were barred from voting in the 2000 election due to felonies. 31 percent. I have no doubt that a large percentage of those on the list were therefore black. Again, that proves nothing other than the fact that many black men in Florida are felons.

Also, many counties in Florida didn't even enforce the list as it was too vague and flawed. Many of the counties that did enforce it mailed certified letters to people on the list letting them know that they were banned from voting due to being a felon, and detailed the dispute process in which they could prove they were incorrectly listed.

Sure was, and it effectively cut of several thousand African American Voters who WERE NOT FELONS. What you, and the rest of the apologists are saying is the same thing Bush was saying about invading Iraq. THE RISK OF ONE BAD APPLE REQUIRES THROWING OUT ALL THE APPLES.

Do you know what it means to cut off your nose to spite your face?

quote:

Originally posted by aubfire1:
Sorry Ed, I'm still not seeing the proof. I hardly think that the Arizona law requiring two forms of id to prove residence in order to vote represents any kind of discrimination. And while the issue you bring up is clearly not about illegal immigrants, it is about voter fraud. Illegals voting and influencing elections is just as much voter fraud in my book as anything any political group might do to influence elections. A law such as the one in Arizona should prove to be of little concern to legally registered residents of the area who wish to vote. Therefore, since it doesn't effect anyone who has the right to vote in an election, it certainly cannot be part of some vote suppression conspiracy. If a person truly is legally registered, is a resident, and has two forms of ID just like any legal voter should, I don't see it as any problem.

Furthermore, you talk about the passing of Jim Crow style voting laws in the states. Now, I admit I know nothing of this. Can you give me some examples of what laws in what states you would qualify as "Jim Crow" in nature?

I will do my research on the Katherine Harris thing in Florida, but if it was meant to root out felons I have a difficult time believing it would have kept you or I or any other law abiding citizen from voting had we lived there.

I live in a predominantly Democratic precinct, in a Predominantly Republican Legislative District. I went to the polls, properly registered, with a drivers license, a College Professors ID card, and took along my Electric Bill and My water Bill. My address, as printed on my drivers license was different from the address on the registration list. different by 75 yards. That's Right, 75 yards. Less if you measure from property line to property line, that is about 50 yards.
The College ID did not have an address. The voter registration list was updated WHEN I CHANGED MY ADDRESS WITH THE DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU, BUT THEY DO NOT ISSUE NEW LICENSES WHEN YOU DO THAT.

I was denied a ballot. THAT'S RIGHT, DENIED A BALLOT, Until I presented the two utility bills with the same address as the registration list.

Both addresses are in the same precinct. In fact I have to pass the old address to reach the polling place.
When you change addresses on your drivers license your voter registration is automatically updated. The sample ballot, mailed to ALL registered voters in not acceptable as proof of address, it is not first class. I have a room mate, an over the road truck driver, who votes by mail. He has the same problem, only worse, The house we lived in was wrecked by a storm. His name is on the phone bill, my on the water and electric. His license is still on the old address, and he has no other picture ID. He voted, by mail, had he gone to the polls he would have been denied a ballot.
I have been voting, and registered to vote IN ARIZONA SINCE 1963. I registered to vote by MAIL while in the US Army.
I watched 6 people cast "Provisional" ballots at my polling place because they had "inadequate" identification, and their names were on the registration list. After about an hour in the polls, one of the Election board said, "Electioneering withing 50 feet of the polls is a crime punishable by up to one year in jail" She said it to me. The third time I insisted that the regulations would accept any first class mail, including postal cards. Why did people not have a Utility bill to prove their address, They were WIVES. The Utility bills they had were in their husband's names.

Three poll watchers were in the room, me and two Republicans. Virtually EVERY provisional vote was a result of a challenge BY the Republican Poll watchers. I was the one warned that partisan challenges were a violation. I challenged ONLY the decision of the poll judge when a voter was denied. The other challenged ONLY DEMOCRATS WHO HAD BEEN PASSED.

I am not going to forget this crap. And I will not put up with a neo con trying to tell me that is is to prevent fraud. It is being used to prevent voting.

If you don't like the rules, then work to change the rules. I agree the whole voting process can be a pain in the rear. Heck, when I moved from Alabama to Tennessee 3 years ago, I almost couldn't even get a driver license. Had to have the two forms of proof of residency that could not include credit card statements, etc. Basically, it had to be a utility bill or phone bill with my name on it and the proper address. I don't even have a home phone. I had waited two hours in line just to get to the counter for them to tell me what I had wouldn't work. So, I understand the frustration. Point is, they didn't do this to me because I'm a Republican, nor would they have done it to the next guy because he is a Democrat. They were so picky about it because of the illegal immigrant problem we have here, and I will gladly suffer to keep one of them from getting a driver license.

And if what you say is true in Arizona, it sounds like partisan challenges did occur, which is a violation I am very much against. It's wrong, it's criminal, and I certainly would never support it. I do believe in fairness.

Now think about the flip side of the Florida issue. You say we shouldn't throw out all the apples because of some bad ones. According to the Washington Post, the numbers in the Florida felon purge who should have been allowed to vote but were not were likely in the hundreds, possibly thousands. There were many, many more thousands of people on the lists that actually were felons and should not have been allowed to vote. So, what about when the basket is MOSTLY bad apples? Are you going to keep them all, even though the majority is bad? If they had all been allowed to vote, then instead of 5,000 rightful voters being denied, 50,000 felons would have been allowed to vote. Which is worse? The later would have improperly influenced the election much more than the former.

Anyway, I don't consider myself a neo-conservative. All I want is justice.....for everyone. I'm beginning to believe we will never have it in this country. I guess this is where we will always disagree, but I honestly want laws enforced. I don't care what the law is. I want it enforced, and that means for everyone--no exceptions. I don't want illegals, felons, or anyone else who shouldn't be allowed a vote to influence elections. I also don't want either group harrassing people at the polls, using intimidation, or any other way of influencing elections. I just feel like you're arguing that because there are some flaws, we shouldn't enforce the law. That, to me, is unacceptable. I know the identification requirements can get ridiculous, but I honestly believe they are put in place to prevent the ones who shouldn't be voting from voting. There are surely some using those requirements to their gain, which should not be tolerated. They should be prosecuted and have their own voting rights stripped.

Again, I feel your pain, but I would rather experience some hassle and enforce the laws than just let everyone come in and vote with no question. JMO.

quote:

Sure was, and it effectively cut of several thousand African American Voters who WERE NOT FELONS. What you, and the rest of the apologists are saying is the same thing Bush was saying about invading Iraq. THE RISK OF ONE BAD APPLE REQUIRES THROWING OUT ALL THE APPLES.

It is also not the "risk" of one bad apple. That risk is guaranteed. There were many bad apples in the felon purge. I don't believe in denying anyone their right to vote, but I certainly do not believe we should let tens of thousands of felons vote freely just to prevent denying the few who were on the list by mistake. I also don't believe that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think it is a small compromise to achieve the better of two evils.

I have argued this same principle with one of my best friends who is a liberal until I am blue in the face. He would have us sacrifice the good of a thousand people for the good of one. I would gladly sacrifice the good of one for the good of a thousand. Obviously we would all rather do what is good for all, but that is just not always possible. I would gladly prevent several thousand qualified citizens from voting, rather than allow tens of thousands of unqualified ones to vote. Neither is perfect, but which is worse?

quote:

Originally posted by aubfire1:

quote:

Sure was, and it effectively cut of several thousand African American Voters who WERE NOT FELONS. What you, and the rest of the apologists are saying is the same thing Bush was saying about invading Iraq. THE RISK OF ONE BAD APPLE REQUIRES THROWING OUT ALL THE APPLES.

It is also not the "risk" of one bad apple. That risk is guaranteed. There were many bad apples in the felon purge. I don't believe in denying anyone their right to vote, but I certainly do not believe we should let tens of thousands of felons vote freely just to prevent denying the few who were on the list by mistake. I also don't believe that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think it is a small compromise to achieve the better of two evils.

I have argued this same principle with one of my best friends who is a liberal until I am blue in the face. He would have us sacrifice the good of a thousand people for the good of one. I would gladly sacrifice the good of one for the good of a thousand. Obviously we would all rather do what is good for all, but that is just not always possible. I would gladly prevent several thousand qualified citizens from voting, rather than allow tens of thousands of unqualified ones to vote. Neither is perfect, but which is worse?

You need to look at the data. FOR EACH ACTUAL FELON, THERE WERE SIX TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE PURGED. That is an estimate, and it may be exaggerated, but it is not exaggerated by a factor of six, and that would mean that for each FELON there was one Non Felon.
You are an apologist. There is no other word for you, and it is a pretty serious insult. You are apologizing for the CRIMES OF OTHER PEOPLE. Do you agree with the idea of Alabama apologizing for Slavery?

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by aubfire1:

quote:

Sure was, and it effectively cut of several thousand African American Voters who WERE NOT FELONS. What you, and the rest of the apologists are saying is the same thing Bush was saying about invading Iraq. THE RISK OF ONE BAD APPLE REQUIRES THROWING OUT ALL THE APPLES.

It is also not the "risk" of one bad apple. That risk is guaranteed. There were many bad apples in the felon purge. I don't believe in denying anyone their right to vote, but I certainly do not believe we should let tens of thousands of felons vote freely just to prevent denying the few who were on the list by mistake. I also don't believe that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think it is a small compromise to achieve the better of two evils.

I have argued this same principle with one of my best friends who is a liberal until I am blue in the face. He would have us sacrifice the good of a thousand people for the good of one. I would gladly sacrifice the good of one for the good of a thousand. Obviously we would all rather do what is good for all, but that is just not always possible. I would gladly prevent several thousand qualified citizens from voting, rather than allow tens of thousands of unqualified ones to vote. Neither is perfect, but which is worse?

You need to look at the data. FOR EACH ACTUAL FELON, THERE WERE SIX TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE PURGED. That is an estimate, and it may be exaggerated, but it is not exaggerated by a factor of six, and that would mean that for each FELON there was one Non Felon.
You are an apologist. There is no other word for you, and it is a pretty serious insult. You are apologizing for the CRIMES OF OTHER PEOPLE. Do you agree with the idea of Alabama apologizing for Slavery?

Give it up Ed. You entered a battle of whits unarmed and got your ass kicked. You're down to calling names which means you know you lost the debate. Why don't you go take a nap now... you sound exhausted. I personnally will fix a drink and have a toast to aubfire1.

Thank you Southern Patriot. I think I'll have myself a bourbon and water, now that you mentioned it.

Ed, I'm not apologizing for anything. Your right, though, that I haven't done anything wrong, and it doesn't appear anyone in Florida did except for 31% of black men who committed crimes.....or illegal immigrants in Arizona trying to vote. I'm an apologist; that's rididculous. And I don't take the insult very seriously at all, coming from someone who can apparently only resort to name calling and extremist conspiracy theories--the only proof of which is the government trying to enforce laws. I thought you were much better at this than that.

And please, let us know where you got the six non-felons for every one felon data. I have done extensive reading since you brought this topic up, mostly from liberal sources which should help your cause, and I haven't seen any numbers even close to what you are claiming. Nor did I see any close to the original 94,000 you claimed were on the list. The estimates I used came directly from the Washington Post.

AND, since you accused me a while back of getting off topic with illegal immigration, and not seeing the true point of the post (i.e. voter suppression conspiracy), I will now question what you really want to talk about. Do you want to discuss the inconvenience of Arizona voting regulations? Do you want to discuss Florida law enforcement? Or do you want to discuss Alabama's apology for slavery, which to answer your previous question is a huge waste of time and money so politicians can buy a few votes?

Maybe you want to discuss the fact that it rained on my golf game today, cook up some left-wing liberal consipiracy theory that Rove and Bush were behind it, and it was designed to inconvenience some illegal immigrant, minority, or Democrat on the next tee?

Sorry, I couldn't resist a little humor.

Between the two of you I got the same non answer twice. Florida's felon purge was camouflage for denial of voting rights. It was so horribly mismanaged that more NON felons were purged than felons.

Now SP you can call me unarmed in a battle of wits, and then accuse me of name calling. It looks like you are the one name calling.

Enjoy you mint julep. It should be easy for you to Muddle the mint.

quote:

Originally posted by aubfire1:
Thank you Southern Patriot. I think I'll have myself a bourbon and water, now that you mentioned it.

Ed, I'm not apologizing for anything. Your right, though, that I haven't done anything wrong, and it doesn't appear anyone in Florida did except for 31% of black men who committed crimes.....or illegal immigrants in Arizona trying to vote. I'm an apologist; that's rididculous. And I don't take the insult very seriously at all, coming from someone who can apparently only resort to name calling and extremist conspiracy theories--the only proof of which is the government trying to enforce laws. I thought you were much better at this than that.

And please, let us know where you got the six non-felons for every one felon data. I have done extensive reading since you brought this topic up, mostly from liberal sources which should help your cause, and I haven't seen any numbers even close to what you are claiming. Nor did I see any close to the original 94,000 you claimed were on the list. The estimates I used came directly from the Washington Post.

AND, since you accused me a while back of getting off topic with illegal immigration, and not seeing the true point of the post (i.e. voter suppression conspiracy), I will now question what you really want to talk about. Do you want to discuss the inconvenience of Arizona voting regulations? Do you want to discuss Florida law enforcement? Or do you want to discuss Alabama's apology for slavery, which to answer your previous question is a huge waste of time and money so politicians can buy a few votes?

Maybe you want to discuss the fact that it rained on my golf game today, cook up some left-wing liberal consipiracy theory that Rove and Bush were behind it, and it was designed to inconvenience some illegal immigrant, minority, or Democrat on the next tee?

Sorry, I couldn't resist a little humor.

I don't recall the data about illegal aliens trying to vote, or registering to vote in Arizona, but To register to vote in Arizona you must be a citizen. I think I recall reading that a total of less than 25 people were charged with fraudulent registration in Arizona in the year leading up to the 2006 election.
I know the number was minute in relation to the number of registered voters.

from what I've read in this thread, all felons are democrats.