HELP!

[Just Me]

I believe an individual, in a government position, is being discrimated against for political affiliation. That individual's position is being eliminated while five others in similar positions remain intact.

How do I ascertain those other five individuals' political affiliation? Is there a site to search their registration?

Thanks, in advance!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Ask the ALCU what to do

[Just Me]

13. What I want to know is whether voter registration is public or not.

There must be a means of accessing this info since I've witnessed repeated reports on that information on individuals otherwise unknown (until they do something impactful or outrageous). I want to know where they get it.

[cry baby]

2. That's a tough one...I would agree with GreenPartyVoter - ACLU

might have an answer.

[JuniperLea]

3. If they made political donations

you might find something on opensecrets.org


Otherwise, I will echo the sentiments of the previous posters... call the ACLU!

[WestHoustonDem]

4. Some states (like Texas) have a voter database

but it can be difficult to get access to it.

[Just Me]

5. THAT'S what I'm looking (before referring the matter to the ACLU).

Just trying to do some basic research. Is there a national database of registered voted accessible to the public?

[Just Me]

6. That's the question: is there a national database of registered voters,...

,...I can access?

Anyone know?

[WestHoustonDem]

7. Voter records are kept by the counties and states

What state are you referring to?

[Just Me]

10. Which states maintain a public database of voter records?

Do you know, per chance,...or could you refer me to a site which has that info?

Thanks in advance!!! :hug:

[Just Me]

11. I'm researching while responding, simultaneously. I may come up,...

,...with an answer, here,...given additional search terms by others' responses. Thanks.

[WestHoustonDem]

12. I only know about Texas

[Breeze54]

8. Here's something that might help!

Supreme Court collection
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1872.ZD.html

881872 & 882074DISSENT v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS

Nos. 881872 and 882074

CYNTHIA RUTAN, et al., PETITIONERSv.881872

FRECH, et al., PETITIONERSv.882074

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit



Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join,
and with whom Justice O'Connor joins as to Parts II and III, dissenting.

Today the Court establishes the constitutional principle that party membership
is not a permissible factor in the dispensation of government jobs,
except those jobs for the performance of which party affiliation is an
"appropriate requirement."
Ante, at 1. It is hard to say precisely (or even generally) what that exception means,
but if there is any category of jobs for whose performance party affiliation is not an
appropriate requirement, it is the job of being a judge,
where partisanship is not only unneeded but positively undesirable.
It is, however, rare that a federal administration of one party will appoint a judge
from another party. And it has always been rare.
See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
Thus, the new principle that the Court today announces will be enforced by a corps of
judges (the Members of this Court included) who overwhelmingly owe their office to its
violation.
Something must be wrong here, and I suggest it is the Court.

The merit principle for government employment is probably the most favored in modern America,
having been widely adopted by civil-service legislation at both the state and federal levels.

But there is another point of view, described in characteristically Jacksonian fashion by an
eminent practitioner of the patronage system,
George Washington Plunkitt of Tammany Hall:
"I ain't up on sillygisms, but I can give you some arguments that nobody can answer.

snip-->
"With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished
for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983).

Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state
employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason.

Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947);
CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973);
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616617 (1973).<--snip

:shrug:

[Just Me]

9. No open political speech pertaining to the office is involved.

As a matter of fact, no comment pertaining to the office has ever been made. Just did the job in a non-partisan matter, as required.