Comments on: You Can't Do This To Me/Us, You Bastards

You Can't Do This To Me/Us, You Bastards

Xurando — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:15:13 -0800

The New York Times reports that tens of thousands of voters from swing states have been illegally purged from voter registration lists using social security numbers. Unsure whether your vote will count? Check here.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:18:59 -0800

They should still be able to get provisional ballots, the laws were changed after the 2000 election, when thousands of people were "mistakenly" removed by Kathrine Harris and contractors she hired.

By: grouse

grouse — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:23:51 -0800

A Republican state election official said of the news, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that voter suppression is going on in here."

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:25:47 -0800

No registrants were found with the criteria entered. Uh oh.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:28:24 -0800

Wait, if I leave out my middle name, I'm in there. Phew!

By: abulafa

abulafa — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:30:01 -0800

in...bang?

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:30:43 -0800

Previously.

By: swift

swift — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:45:14 -0800

By: uni verse

uni verse — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:45:21 -0800

In the year ending Sept. 30, election officials in Nevada, for example, used the Social Security database more than 740,000 times to check voter files or registration applications and found more than 715,000 nonmatches, federal records show. Election officials in Georgia ran more than 1.9 million checks on voter files or voter registration applications and found more than 260,000 nonmatches. Officials of the Social Security Administration, presented with those numbers, said they were far too high to be cases where names were not in state databases. I smell a rat -this is a swing state.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:53:52 -0800

I know the site is legit, but does anyone else find it funny that someone could have registered this canivote.org site specifically to do the opposite? All you need is a little checkbox asking "registered democrat or republican" and then attempt to purge all the people who checked one or the other.

By: doctorschlock

doctorschlock — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:55:59 -0800

All this Blue and Red states stuff. Swing state. It's all so confusing. Me just wanna vote and get a new president.

By: mannequito

mannequito — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:57:48 -0800

Good news for Doctorschlock : even if you sit on your ass, you'll still have a new president.

By: Saxon Kane

Saxon Kane — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:58:27 -0800

Democracy, we hardly knew ya.

By: cashman

cashman — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:59:09 -0800

I know the site is legit, but Maybe I'm missing something - when you hit the drop-down box, all it does is forward you to your local elections board page.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:01:40 -0800

From the article, for every new registration two are purged, so this might actually be helpful to Obama. If he's turning out to the vote new registrations, and old ones are purged, then in swing states McCain should be screaming. Especially if they were previously red states. Of course both candidates should be screaming. I get to vote, that's all I really care about. I stopped trying to take responsibility for others a long time ago. I'll feel bad for anyone who gets screwed over this kind of thing, but I also have checked (and double checked) that I am good to go. I changed my voter affiliation back to "none" after being forced to switch to "Democrat" in order to caucus for Obama here in Iowa (unaffiliated people can't caucaus). I did it twice. Once at the precinct level, once at the County level (I really wanted to go to the State and then National level, but didn't get selected). Anyway, I got my updated registration card in the mail yesterday. From the DB: CHRISTOPHER LYNN JORGENSEN, below is your voter registration information: You are registered to vote in Story County, Iowa. Your primary and general election polling place is SLATER CITY HALL. I'm good to go.

By: SaintCynr

SaintCynr — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:04:29 -0800

>>Good news for Doctorschlock : even if you sit on your ass, you'll still have a new president. Unless there's a "terror incident", and they cancel the election.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:06:58 -0800

Unsure whether your vote will count? Check here. Well, it'll show if you're registered. Doesn't say anything about your vote actually counting.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:07:16 -0800

I love these sites where they make it sound so easy to check your registration online. Then you pick Connecticut, and it just dumps you on the page with voter registration forms. Which need to be mailed to the local town hall, not the state. It's a mockery. No verification of registration here!

By: OolooKitty

OolooKitty — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:12:38 -0800

And re the provisional ballots, those are often not counted at all.

By: penduluum

penduluum — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:13:57 -0800

I'm getting the same thing as cashman (and, on preview, smackfu). And because I live in Florida, of all places, there's no way to check my registration at all. Now I happen to be fairly certain that I am legitimately registered, thanks to checking elsewhere, but the linked resource might not be as helpful as it seems.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:15:11 -0800

Maybe I'm missing something - when you hit the drop-down box, all it does is forward you to your local elections board page. Yeah, but that should get you to the right place eventually. San Francisco check. You Are Registered To Vote. ... Party affiliation: PEACE AND FREEDOM damn straight.

By: Cat Pie Hurts

Cat Pie Hurts — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:16:20 -0800

Just last week I checked my registration via the Obama campaign site (specifically, in MA). I entered my address, it popped up my last name and asked if it was correct (it was). Now I can't find any place online for verification. What gives?

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:19:48 -0800

whew!

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:21:06 -0800

And because I live in Florida, of all places, there's no way to check my registration at all. According to this site there is. Of course, willmyvotecount.org is 404, so I couldn't find anything actually useful. According to the Miami Herald, you should check. Actually, according to pretty much everyone.

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:23:23 -0800

Says I'm unaffiliated but I could have sworn I registered with the Keg Party.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:30:26 -0800

Are you unsure whether your credit card number has been compromised? Email me with your card number, expiry date, full name, date of birth, and security code from the back of your card, and I will tell you definitively whether your card number has been stolen.

By: mike_bling

mike_bling — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:31:02 -0800

New York Times!? BOOOOO.

By: noriyori

noriyori — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:31:46 -0800

I just checked and it said I wasn't registered. I called the office and said I WAS registered and that the database is not totally accurate. So if you find that you are not in the database call your election office and double check!

By: theora55

theora55 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:34:15 -0800

There's so much moaning about lack of voter turnout, then this crap gets pulled. When blacks got the vote in South Africa, people traveled long distances, and waited many hours to vote. Many Americans will barely cross the street to vote. Then I stood in freezing rain for an hour, then stood in line indoors for another hour, to participate in my caucus this year. It was an amazing event, and gave me a sense that maybe Change is possible. You want to screw with my vote? You better be prepared for me to fight back.

By: penduluum

penduluum — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:38:58 -0800

Thanks, mrgrimm. I've checked the no-match lists for myself and friends and relatives, and I think I'm in the clear. But I'll check that other website whenever it comes back to life. While we're talking about voting irregularities, though: my parents and I all received mail from our Supervisor of Elections with voter registration forms encouraging us to register. Weird part? It was the day after the registration deadline. Other weird part? We are all three already registered. And the cynical part of me has this sneaking suspicion that if we hadn't known better and had tried to register again, well maybe our registration would have been thrown out due to suspicious behavior, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:40:12 -0800

By: dirigibleman

dirigibleman — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:08 -0800

As a first-time Florida voter, I'm beginning to think it would have been a good idea to change my party affiliation to Republican after the primary.

By: Lesser Shrew

Lesser Shrew — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:43:50 -0800

cjorgensen - yes, from the article it might seem that for every new registration two are purged - but this is probably not great for Obama. In recent years, where Choicepoint data and other giant, inept and jacked up databases are used, the folks who are doing the purgings tend to focus on certain neighborhoods. They do fun things like compare "names" of felons to names and all the Willie Johnsons are in trouble. I think you see my point. And of course they're very sloppy about who is and is not a felon and what's just an alias someone used and who is has now paid their debt to society. Another purging trick is to have a "control" in your system such that when someone changes their address, a notice is sent to the old address - the former address - requiring that person to to reply, "Yes, yes that was me who just moved from the address you mailed this to and informed you where I am now." Voters who do not respond within a certain period are purged. Think about the population who is mostly likely to move - it's young people and people with no money. I've also heard that some clerks have moving from an address with an apt. number to another address with an apt. number is the trigger for these notices. This is one way the system was noticed - people's former housemates passed the mail along to them. Not sure if that level of refinement is really out there. This is the first google result I got, but there's plenty of stuff out there. Not good. Big numbers. If you are the playful type, you could write to Mary Mosiman, who seems to run these things for you. Ask about her office's processes and controls and what has to happen for a person to drop off the rolls.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:46:03 -0800

Are you unsure whether your credit card number has been compromised? Email me with your card number, expiry date, full name, date of birth, and security code from the back of your card, and I will tell you definitively whether your card number has been stolen. Again: The canivote site forwards you to your state's election site.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:48:10 -0800

You Can't Do This To Me/Us, You Bastards Yes. We. Can. Sincerely, The Bastards Who Done It

By: Caduceus

Caduceus — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:49:13 -0800

Ignoring intentional suppression for the moment, why it is that voting, of all things, is such a logistical and technological challenge in the United States? Is it really that hard to keep voter records, to give someone a private multiple-choice ballot, and to count ballots? It's the same reason that the health-care systems that work in the rest of the developed world can't possibly work here: we're just so fucking special. I strongly suspect it's because we're a large, geographically and culturally diverse country, filled with many overlapping and sometimes competing governmental institutions, with a long history of resenting and resisting any sort of central authority, which means all those overlapping and competing institutions have their own gradually accumulated list of rules on how voting should be done. Also, we're governed by a bunch of greedy asshole fuckfaces who like to obfuscate things for their own benefit.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:24:45 -0800

I will be honestly concerned if we see a lot of the voter fraud issues that we've seen in the last couple of elections. This one's going to be contentious, and if people are turned away, and we get another 'questionable margin of error' kind of "victory" which leads people to believe they've been cheated? Riots. Serious, city burning riots. I'm not saying that people won't try this illegal sleazy shit, just that I'm worried that if they do, this time some bad shit could happen. ('Bad shit' above and beyond a disastrous presidential country-wrecking term, that is.)

By: illiad

illiad — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:55:27 -0800

WTF America. The infrastructure required for handling a federal election is NOT complicated. Paper ballot. Pencil. Have returning officers verify your identity on the spot then cross your name off polling lists before they hand you a ballot. Go vote and drop your ballot in the fucking box. How goddamn hard can it be?

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:56:53 -0800

"Unless there's a "terror incident", and they cancel the election." & "Riots. Serious, city burning riots." Yeah, always been the Catch-22 there. If they pull a fast one and you don't go to dukes, you depend on your guy to fight the good fight (in my case he did, but) so - Gore or Kerry. And if they don't, you lose. But if you don't depend on your guy, and you do hit the streets with a torch and pitchfork - then they could claim 'civil unrest' and drop the hammer and then the suck's all on you. I think the terror thing before the fact would be the only way they'd get away with it tho. Anyone got the odds on that happening from one of those betting sites?

By: captainsohler

captainsohler — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:05:08 -0800

Theres some key swing states in play guys. This post was probably not intended to be viewed as an exercise in figuring out if your registered or not.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:16:18 -0800

Again: The canivote site forwards you to your state's election site. OTOH, the voteforchange.com site (affiliated with Obama) asks for name, email address, and full street address. Then if you aren't registered, it asks for birthday etc, and then fills out a PDF to mail in. And the privacy policy basically says they'll use the data for whatever they want with regard to the campaign. So it's best to be wary of these sites.

By: HighTechUnderpants

HighTechUnderpants — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:20:30 -0800

This is worrisome.

By: needs more cowbell

needs more cowbell — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:29:52 -0800

They should still be able to get provisional ballots. People Do Not Like those. When I worked at the polls I was always assigned to the provisional ballots table. People who got sent to that table are already upset because they weren't in the registry for some reason, and then they have to sit down and fill out a ballot by hand, *and* they're doubtful about whether their vote will count. To top it off, I was only set up to have one person vote provisionally at a time (one chair, one cardboard privacy screen) when the polling place had at least 8 voting machines. If a large percentage of people needed to vote provisionally, chaos would ensue, at least at the polling place I worked at.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:49:03 -0800

What does the person who stole the last election and the party that is trying to steal this one have to say about voting? "Let them eat pretzels."

By: Skwirl

Skwirl — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:50:02 -0800

By: Lesser Shrew

Lesser Shrew — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:53:06 -0800

Illiad, one thing you may be missing in all this hooting about ACORN - filling out a form is not a vote. Forms get kicked back. All the time. There is quality control of sort before they actually issue a registration. In most counties, when you show up to vote, the cheery poll workers look for your name in a big book and you have to sign next to your name - or fill out the dreaded provisional ballot. When I was registering people, we had a few come by who had been registered and voted in the last presidential election, had not moved since then - and yet when they checked they were not on the rolls. We were told that, although it's possible they did have a current registration, we should resubmit. Also, despite what the Republicans want you to think, submitting more than one form is not against the law in most places. For instance, if two weeks later, you suddenly wonder if you included your middle name, you are free to resubmit. Additionally, if you are such a drunk that you don't remember how many forms earnest people have asked you to fill out, that means you're a drunk, not a fraud. In most places. Now, there are some finer points such as, in states where you declare a party, there are periods during which you cannot change parties. But basically if you fill out in good faith with the same info, you are good to go most anywhere.

By: illiad

illiad — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:18:50 -0800

Thanks for the info, Lesser Shrew. But I still don't understand the reason for the kerfuffle. Maybe you can help me understand? Of course there's quality control required, we do that too in Canada. But I don't understand why it seems so difficult, and why registration forms are constantly kicked back. Registering with Elections Canada is very straightforward. I just recently moved and I switched ridings (what Americans would call electoral districts) so I had to visit my local Elections Canada office to update my info. I sat in front of an EC officer, she pulled up my existing info and updated it in front of me after verifying who I was. It took maybe 5 minutes, including the wait. A week later, I walked into my local advance polling station, gave them my EC reg card (they mail them out weeks prior), showed them my driver's license, a list was checked and marked, I was handed my paper ballot, I walked over to the screen, made my X, folded the ballot up again, the returning officer tore off the ID strip and gave me the rest of the folded ballot and I dropped it in the box. Pretty simple process. And yet, the U.S. seems to have serious voter grief, election after election. Help me understand. Canada's system can't be any better than that of the U.S.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:22:01 -0800

All this difficulty for something that is theoretically a right, not a privilege? It seems it should be on the shoulders of the government to prove you aren't eligible, rather than on your shoulders to prove you are. Prior restraint and all that, you see.

By: jaduncan

jaduncan — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:33:16 -0800

Well, mental wimp. The now somewhat politicized Justice Department is the people who usually take civil rights cases to court, you see. Because the ALCU can sue, but then the area just pays compensation or formally apologizes and never thinks of it again...and the FBI is no longer what they were in the 60s for wanting to investigate.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:38:45 -0800

But I still don't understand the reason for the kerfuffle. Maybe you can help me understand? Because partisan hacks are in charge of the election process.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:04:16 -0800

Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan election monitoring and reform group in North Carolina - and one whose leaders I've had every reason to respect over the past few years - has released an angry statement criticizing the NYT report's (rather vague, it should be mentioned) accusation of improper voter purging in NC: In our experience, Social Security numbers are often provided, rather than the driver's license number, so it is not surprising that out of 700,000 new registrations in the past year in North Carolina, the Social Security administration's computers would receive a large volume to match. So what? That is how the system is supposed to work. Even if a match is not found, the new registrant in North Carolina is not "purged" but remains in the database, gets contacted by the local elections officials, and has multiple chances to provide additional information and cast a ballot that counts. Like all of us, elections officials make mistakes, but at least in North Carolina there are a number of procedures in place that minimize the chance that a person eligible to participate in an election will be denied the right to vote and have that vote counted. We have worked with state and local election officials to improve those procedures and agree with most national voting rights advocates that North Carolina is a leader in the integrity of its election administration system. The harder problem continues to be cynical rumors and false information from ill-informed, sometimes well-intended, sources, now including the New York Times (and local re-printers who failed to check the story with state elections officials). Certainly, there have been serious problems with lost ballots and election manipulation. The public should remain vigilant, and individuals with any doubts should confirm their registration status through websites like 2008ElectionConnection.com or by calling their local board of elections. What we don't need are inflammatory stories about stolen elections or cheated voters that have no basis in fact. Pretty strong stuff, from a source I generally trust. I can't speak for the other states, and certainly any officials in other states who are purging after the 90-day deadline should be thrown in jail, but on the SS # issue, which is the only issue the NYT vaguely hinted is a problem in NC, I'm going to go with the folks at Democracy North Carolina.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:36:01 -0800

That www.canivote.org site was very helpful and allayed my personal fears about being disenfranchised, but raised my personal fears about privacy. You'd think the State Elections sites that they link to would at least require an SSN, or would only return a yes/no and not other information. Just can't win, can we? I would be more concerned about SS numbers being used, because, well, if you read the article, it mentions that purging voter rolls by comparing with SS numbers is a violation of federal law. I am not sure if that also applies to simple searches, but probably so, as purges are done through database searches. Anyway, voter registration information is public record, as I understand it, so this is not a violation of privacy.

By: crossoverman

crossoverman — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:37:52 -0800

If Iraq can do it, surely Americans can go to the polls on November 4th - and dip a finger into some purple ink to prove they have voted that day. Nothing else required.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:38:15 -0800

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:51:20 -0800

If Iraq can do it, surely Americans can go to the polls on November 4th - and dip a finger into some purple ink to prove they have voted that day. Nothing else required. In a pinch, a cheap and simple verification system like that makes sense ... but we have early voting now, and the system Iraq used isn't exactly ideal.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:59:02 -0800

Riots. Serious, city burning riots. Not gonna happen, but even if it did, there's no shortage of prison camps. "See, we told you he was a terrorist."

By: oaf

oaf — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:06:02 -0800

The infrastructure required for handling a federal election is NOT complicated. No such thing here. My ballot has seven different races on it, and one proposed amendment to the state constitution.

By: Lesser Shrew

Lesser Shrew — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:50:29 -0800

illiad - in theory we walk into our local advance polling station, show the card(they mail them out weeks prior, and in some cases they last years), show ID, sign the list, get a little something which may or may not work as a receipt if we have questions about the quality of our voting machines, and march into the booth. As Oaf says, one X is not going to cut it. We have a bus-load of offices to fill (school district/county/city/state/etc.), various initiatives, amendments, propositions, bond issues, cream or sugar and so forth to vote on. So there's that. And you hear a lot about the "two-party system" but many states let any candidate who qualifies run so you can have as many as five or six people running for some of the smaller local offices. "What's the Matter With Kansas" covers blue/red arguments, but that state has other parties on the ballot. But, yeah, a lot of the problem is inigo2's partisan hacks. Part of it that the clerk/auditor whatever is trying to suck up to the higher powers in city and state politics, and you know how cheap and sleazy the kind of person who only rates as a clerk but wants to be somebody can be. If not, check out our current republican VP insanely hopeful.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:09:20 -0800

We have a bus-load of offices to fill (school district/county/city/state/etc.), various initiatives, amendments, propositions, bond issues, cream or sugar and so forth to vote on. The goofy thing to those of us who came to this system as adults is that nobody thinks it's ridiculous to be throwing those county dog-catcher positions in there with a freaking Presidential Election that might be, you know, sort of important? A Presidential Election should be that, that, and that only. Get your other crap out of there. Priorities, people!

By: PontifexPrimus

PontifexPrimus — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:10:50 -0800

rokusan: "A Presidential Election should be that, that, and that only. Get your other crap out of there. Priorities, people!" I don't know if that's a snide remark on my part but to me as an outsider that seems to be a hallmark of American politics: the conflation of stuff that does not really belong together. It's also noticeable in those riders that get attached to important bills to muddy the waters and connect completely unrelated issues. Couldn't you just, you know, separate all your important stuff and get it done one item at a time? And if you're saying that there's not enough hours in the day to do so - well, that's really the point of having elected representatives, isn't it? They should have to worry about the small stuff!

By: Dreama

Dreama — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:19:07 -0800

I've always been of the understanding that local elections happen at the same time as federal elections for the sake of simplicity: one election day, one set of workers, one day when locations are needed (and the normal operations of those locations have to be affected), one set of ballots to be made, etc. If elections (not campaigns, but the actual running of polling places, collection of ballots, etc.) were free, then separating the presidential election from all the other stuff would be ideal. But that's not going to happen.

By: Orb

Orb — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:31:14 -0800

Another reason for having the city/county/state things on the ballots, at least around here, is for voter turnout. On the occasions when we have votes for things and the ballot doesn't include something federal and "big" ... no one shows up. Sad, but true.

By: doctorschlock

doctorschlock — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:45:19 -0800

How can you not sit on your ass?

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:49:56 -0800

A Presidential Election should be that, that, and that only. Get your other crap out of there. Some of that is fundamentally impossible without amending the constitution. All of the US Representatives have elections every two years, and a third of the Senators are up every two years. They all need electin'. I suppose if we really wanted to we could have the House elections in August and the Senate elections in September and the Presidential in November, but... geez. Combine that with primaries, and we're talking about having six elections in the course of a single year. Otherwise, your idea ignores the long-standing criticism that elections are already too common and frequent in the US, and that having so many elections over the course of four years is one of the factors that drive down turnout. In any case, Virginia and New Jersey come as close as you can get to what you ask for; they hold their state-level elections in odd-numbered years. This has not caused VA and NJ to be obviously better-governed than the rest of the United States.

By: Mayor West

Mayor West — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:28 -0800

There is no constitutional right to vote, as such. what

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:58:01 -0800

There is no constitutional right to vote, as such. From the website U.S. Constitution Online

The Right To Vote The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

I think you're following the logic of this website. It's a little like saying that the Bible never says God exists. Sure he talks to people, has a kid, sets down rules, but the Bible never contains the words "God exists". You would be hard pressed to make an argument that a document that forbids taking away the right to vote doesn't mandate the right to vote. Unless, of course, you had some nefarious purpose of, say, taking away that right to vote...which it forbids. Can you cite some rulings (currently in force) that hold the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote?

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:06:20 -0800

Duh, of course, Bush v Gore. It is long-standing conservative doctrine that is often used to back up voter suppression. If, for example, one party in control of the secretary of state's office decided to summarily remove everyone registered to the other party, recourse by the other party could not be denial of the right to vote in a presidential election, because our current SCOTUS doesn't recognize such a right. There may be other recourse, but the election would stand under their current philosophy. Nice.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:40:08 -0800

The Gist of the ACORN Story McCain Camp Tying Obama To ACORN

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:30:34 -0800

Our town elections here are 6 months off from the state and federal elections, on the first Tuesday in May. It cuts down on the clutter a lot, because we're actually a borough and elect 7 burgesses out of around 15 choices.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:57:29 -0800

WHY Are Republicans Accusing ACORN Of Voter Fraud?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:46:13 -0800

The Fraud Of Fraud

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:06:38 -0800

Voter Suppression and Disenfranchisement, Not Fraud, Are the Real Issues