It's obvious the GOP is enacting VOTER SUPPRESSION as a campaign tactic...

[mod mom]

can anyone explain to me why the DoJ is allowing states to implement such laws? We have federal elections and yet states can pick & choose who can vote? Where is AG Holder fighting for equal protection for all voters despite income levels, age & ease of access? It truly appears the Democrats would rather the GOP have their way than allow an angry populous uprising.

HERE IS WHAT I JUST RECEIVED FROM THE OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY:


"If you can't win, change the rules."

That's the motto Republicans adhere to as they seek to suppress voter turnout in Ohio with bills in the legislature this week.

It's a simple fact: Republicans know that the more they restrict access to voting, the better their chances in 2012. This is simply too important to us as Democrats: Voting rights are civil rights, and we must fight against anything that threatens them.

Join us in the fight.

First, sign our petition HERE to tell John Kasich and Republican legislators you are against their plots to restrict voting rights. Then, click here to sign up to come to Columbus to voice your opposition to two bills in the legislature, which will make voting harder by...

Shortening the early voting window, which disproportionately affects working people
Abolishing the most popular in-person early voting days, discouraging turnout and making Election Day lines longer and longer
Requiring photo ID that thousands upon thousands of Ohioans do not have, essentially creating a poll tax on students and minorities
Take a stand with us to defeat these bills that weaken the very foundation of our democracy – every person's equal right to vote. Sign the petition here.

Sincerely,
The Ohio Democratic Party

HERE IS EJ DIONNE'S LATEST PIECE:


Rigging the 2012 Election



Posted on Jun 19, 2011


Bill S (CC-BY-ND)
By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

An attack on the right to vote is under way across the country through laws designed to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. If this were happening in an emerging democracy, we’d condemn it as election-rigging. But it’s happening here, so there’s barely a whimper.

The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.” But study after study has shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem—and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, such as those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African-Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008—or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.

Again, think of what this would look like to a dispassionate observer. A party wins an election, as the GOP did in 2010. Then it changes the election laws in ways that benefit itself. In a democracy, the electorate is supposed to pick the politicians. With these laws, politicians are shaping their electorates.

-snip
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/6329-rigging-the-2012-election


FROM THE NYT:

They Want to Make Voting Harder?
Published: June 5, 2011


One of the most promising recent trends in expanding political participation has been allowing people to vote in the weeks before Election Day, either in person or by mail. Early voting, which enables people to skip long lines and vote at more convenient times, has been increasingly popular over the last 15 years. It skyrocketed to a third of the vote in 2008, rising particularly in the South and among black voters supporting Barack Obama.

And that, of course, is why Republican lawmakers in the South are trying desperately to cut it back. Two states in the region have already reduced early-voting periods, and lawmakers in others are considering doing so. It is the latest element of a well-coordinated effort by Republican state legislators across the country to disenfranchise voters who tend to support Democrats, particularly minorities and young people.

The biggest part of that effort, imposing cumbersome requirements that voters have a government ID, has been painted as a response to voter fraud, an essentially nonexistent problem. But Republican lawmakers also have taken a good look at voting patterns, realized that early voting might have played a role in Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory, and now want to reduce that possibility in 2012.

-snip

Republicans said the measure would save money, a claim as phony as saying widespread fraud necessitates ID cards. The North Carolina elections board, and many county boards, said it would actually cost more money, because they would have to open more voting sites and have less flexibility allocating staff members. Black lawmakers called it what it is: a modern whiff of Jim Crow.

-snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06mon1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Voter%20suppresssion&st=cse

FROM LAW SCHOOLS:

CHALLENGES, CAGING & VOTE SUPPRESSION

State Legislatures Work to Restrict Voting Rights
By Nhu-Y Ngo – 05/26/11

The Big Picture

We’ve written much about the various voter ID battles in the states, but recent legislative attacks on voting rights go far beyond introducing restrictive voter identification requirements.

In fact, legislators around the country have been pushing bills that make sweeping changes to their election codes to limit the voting rights of students and movers, reduce early voting days, and restrict voter registration and “get-out-the-vote” mobilization efforts.

Rather than making efforts to improve and modernize our election system and ensure that all eligible voters are able to vote, some lawmakers are instead trying to make voter registration and voting more difficult by effectively penalizing civic engagement.

Common characteristics of these bills, proposed by legislators in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, respectively, are that they are long, dense, and cover a wide variety of topics affecting access to the polls. In Texas, the legislative attack on voting has been done through a series of bills, which is bound to confuse citizens who must sift through a pile of proposed laws

-snip
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/category/challenges

Ohio's New Disenfranchisement Bill
Daniel P. Tokaji
Professor of Law; Senior Fellow, Election Law @ Moritz
Moritz College of Law
In 2004, Ohio became infamous for making it difficult to vote and have one’s vote counted. Much of the criticism was directed at then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Remember his directive to reject registration forms on less than 80-pound paper weight?

Now, Ohio House Republicans are attempting to go further than Blackwell ever dared. In an obvious attempt to gain an advantage in the 2012 presidential election, they are attempting to rush through a bill (HB 159) that would make it more difficult for eligible citizens to have their votes counted. Ohio already has a tough voter ID law, but the proposed bill would make the burden on eligible citizens more onerous, requiring that in-person voters present one of four specified forms of government-issued photo identification.

“Disenfranchisement” isn’t a word to be used lightly. But it is necessary to capture this bill’s purpose and impact. Passage of this bill would restore our state’s unfortunate reputation as the nation’s capital of vote suppression. Yet so far, it has gone completely under the radar. This comment provides background on the problem, debunks the arguments in favor of the bill, and anticipates the lawsuits that can be expected to follow if it passes.

The Problem

What’s so bad about voter ID? The basic problem is that many eligible citizens don’t have the types of ID that the bill would require. While it’s hard to say exactly how many will be discouraged from voting, we do know that some segments of the population will be especially hard hit – particularly young, elderly, disabled, and minority voters. These groups are much less likely to have the types of ID that Ohio’s new bill would mandate.

-snip
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/index.php?ID=8199


It's obvious that the GOP has adopted tactics aimed at suppressing the vote, & disenfranchising certain segments of the population that predominately vote Democratic-Af Ams, students, Latinos, and the elderly. Where is the action to stop politicizing our elections by our justice department? Why would they allow this to happen?

:mad:

[brooklynite]

1. Why is it illegal?

Is it oppressive? Yes. Is is politically self-benefiting? Yes. But I can't see how demanding identification in general or Government ID in particular is illegal UNLESS there is no way to get the ID without cost.

[liberal N proud]

4. Forcing people to have an ID is like having a poll tax

Obtaining a government ID has a cost, hence the poll tax.

Some states have even suggested requiring voters to have a passport, what does a passport cost? over $100!

Just to vote?

[KittyWampus]

6. No, requiring an ID is not necessarily like a poll tax. The problem is the types of ID required.

Also, the lack of flexibility in allowing people w/o ID to cast a provisional ballot in person.

[liberal N proud]

7. Do you know where you can get an ID for free?

Otherwise, if you only need the ID to vote, it cost you to vote. Maybe only $20 bucks but it still cost you.

[KittyWampus]

8. In Ohio, you bring ID that showed your name/address AND allowed those w/o to cast provisional votes

From the article:

"Specifically, it required in-person voters to present either photo ID or nonphoto ID with their name and current address. While there wasn’t much evidence that these requirements were needed, its vote-suppressive impact appears to have been modest. That’s because the vast majority of citizens have one of the permitted forms of ID, and because the law included an exception for the few who don’t."

[Scuba]

2. More, in Wisconsin...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1332820


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1335094

[liberal N proud]

3. The republican party has always been about disenfranchising voters

If they didn't, they wouldn't stand a chance in elections with their platforms.

[KittyWampus]

5. Important- new Bill won't allow provisional ballots for those w/o ID and also excludes student ID.

A close look at the bill’s specifics paints an even uglier picture. The bill would require those who vote in person on election day to present one of four forms of government-issued ID: a driver’s license, a state ID issued by the registrar of motor vehicles, a military ID, or a U.S. passport.

Absentee voters are not bound by this requirement, with one big exception: Those who cast absentee ballots in person (which other states refer to as early voting) are required to present one of the required forms of ID. Students of election fraud will recognize that this is exactly backwards. While voting fraud is rare, most documented incidents involve mail-in absentee ballots. Of course, the real motivation for going after in-person voters is obvious. Democrats are more likely to cast in-person absentee ballots, rather than vote by mail, and those are the votes that the bill’s sponsors are seeking to suppress.

The Impact

The bill’s supporters claim that eight other states require photo ID, but that’s misleading. They’re apparently relying on the National Conference of State Legislatures website of states that require or request photo ID. A close look at those laws reveals that only two states – Indiana and Georgia – refuse to count the votes of those who lack photo ID, as Ohio’s bill appears to require. The other states allow voters to sign an affidavit declaring their eligibility and, absent contrary evidence, will count their ballots.

It’s difficult to say precisely how great a vote-suppressive impact this bill will have, if enacted. The many factors that affect turnout make it hard to pin down the precise impact of comparable laws in Georgia and Indiana. But the available evidence makes clear that its burden will not fall evenly on all citizens. Rather, it will strike hardest against those groups who are already underrepresented in the electorate – specifically, minority voters, people with disabilities, those who are elderly, and poorer citizens.

Studies from Georgia and Wisconsin have documented that African American and Latino voters are much less likely to have a driver’s license than White voters. This is probably because members of these groups, statistically speaking, are less likely to drive or own a car. Of course, these groups also tend to vote Democratic.

It’s also worth emphasizing the negative impact that this bill will have on younger voters. Ohio’s bill conspicuously leaves out student ID – even from a state university – as an acceptable form of voter identification. Again, the reason is self-evident: College students are more likely to vote Democratic, and these are among the votes that the bill’s sponsors are seeking to suppress.

[wordpix]

9. MD just indicted top repugs for voter suppression

Republican ‘doctrine’ on suppressing black vote is key to Md. case, and maybe to 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/republican-doctrine-on-suppressing-black-vote-is-key-to-md-case-and-maybe-to-2012/2011/06/17/AGKPaSZH_story.html


By Aaron C. Davis, Published: June 17

In a room last summer, the brain trust behind the only Republican governor to lead Maryland since Spiro Agnew sat thumbing through a campaign strategy to suppress turnout among the state’s black voters.

It was a document that could have seemed like a relic, more likely to be found in a campaign office during the time of Agnew and the 1960s civil rights movement than during a campaign in 2010 to reelect former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

( Karl Merton Ferron / Battimore Sun ) - Julius Henson, owner of Universal Elections, is accused of being involved in \"robo-call\" that played erroneous information to at least 50,000 potential voters on Election Day. He is to be arraigned July 18.

More on this Story

* Listen to the robo-call here
* Ehrlich aide, consultant accused of trying to suppress black vote
* Republican ‘doctrine’ on suppressing black vote is key to Md. case, and maybe to 2012
* Nov. 10, 2010: Gansler files complaint over robocalls

View all Items in this Story

* Nov. 6, 2010: Robocalls linked to Ehrlich’s campaign
* Nov. 5, 2010: Election-night robocalls tied to company working on Ehrlich campaign
* Nov. 6, 2010: Ehrlich thanks supporters, doesn’t address robocalls
* Nov. 2, 2010: O’Malley campaign says calls urge Democrats to stay home

Now, the document in the hands of the Office of the Maryland State Prosecutor. It constitutes the centerpiece of indictments issued this week that that accuse one of Ehrlich’s most trusted aides, as well as a campaign consultant, of conspiring to suppress the black vote last year.

For the defense, the document is no less important. The voter suppression strategy was flatly rejected by those present at the meeting last summer, according to an attorney for Paul Schurick, Ehrlich’s de facto campaign manager, and the apparent inspiration for the document’s namesake, “The Schurick Doctrine.”

[Wilms]

10. As always...

Thanks, Mom.

[tpsbmam]

11. Happy to be the 5th rec....

This is just the tip of the iceberg. They'll turn to every dirty trick in the book and they're busy writing a whole new book of dirty tricks. Vile.