Disenfranchised In Nevada 250
An anonymous reader writes "If you are a Democrat and you decided to register to vote in Nevada through non-official channels, you may have gotten disenfranchised by a private voter registration company. In this news article, it appears that employees of 'Voters Outreach of America' have been busy tearing up registration forms, specifically those from Democrats. The article indicates that hundreds to thousands of voter registrations may have been trashed.
Unfortunately, the deadline to register to vote in Nevada has already passed."
!FP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:!FP? (Score:2)
Putting this story on the front page would be like posting "mafia caught runnning prostitution ring". Yawn.
Re:!FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I'm from Canada, where we have sane election laws.
You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?!
Who thought that was a good idea???
Re:!FP? (Score:4, Informative)
You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?! Who thought that was a good idea???
Historically, it was necessary to determine which primaries you were eligible to vote in: Democrats voted in Democratic primaries, Republicans in Republican primaries. A lot of states (like my own) have since gone to a system where you can register as "unenrolled," then select any (in theory; in practice, either) primary ballot at the primary. Taking a primary ballot effectively registers you in that party. What you then must do is re-register as "unenrolled" to retain your ability to select either primary ballot; but conveniently, there are registration cards at the polling places (only during primaries, and only for those who are already registered and want to change their enrollment). Nevertheless, a lot of people do still put their affiliations on their registrations, and it is possible that many states still require you to list an affiliation on your registration in order to vote in a primary.
Ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Eewww (Score:2)
Re:!FP? (Score:2)
Re:!FP? (Score:5, Informative)
WA state had also had a blanket primary for a lot longer (70 years) and that just got invalidated in the last year.
Personally, I can agree with the reasoning of the court (only members of a group should be allowed to pick that groups representatives), but I think that it caused a bad policy decision. The advantage of a blanket primary is that it keeps you enfranchised on both the state and local level if you live in a Republican region of an overwhelmingly Democratic state (or vice versa). If the local Republicans always win, and the statewide Democrats always win, then having to pick a ballot by party automatically cuts you out of having a say in one set of those races.
Also, the studies that I saw that looked at "malicious cross-over voting" (Democrats voting for the kookiest Republican, so that the Republican would be sure to lose in the general election) concluded that when that happened, it was far out-weighed by voters crossing over to vote for what they thought was the opposite, the more centrist, least-objectionable candidate. (Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates who were less beholden to the party, and less partisan.)
BTW, I think anyone who crosses over to get the opposite party to nominate a crackpot, in order to help out their "real" party is playing with fire, anyway. Once someone makes it to the general election, anything can happen.
Here in WA, everyone was so disgusted with having to only take primary ballots from one party that there is an initiative to change the system to the Louisiana-style primary system, where everyone running for an office is on the same primary ballot, and the top two votegetters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. From what I can tell, it stands a very good chance of passing. (Personally, I think it would work better than the "declaring your party" primary we have now, and not as well as the blanket primary. But we shall see.)
Crossover voting (Score:2)
Also, the studies that I saw that looked at "malicious cross-over voting" (Democrats voting for the kookiest Republican, so that the Republican would be sure to lose in the general election) concluded that when that happened, it was far out-weighed by voters crossing over to vote for what they thought was the opposite, the more centrist, least-objectionable candidate. (Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates w
Re:!FP? (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting idea. Louisiana has an open primary - top two vote getters, no matter their party, go on to runoff. Unless one vote-getter in primary gets majority, in which case there is no need for a runoff. It guarantees that the winner of any election has a majority vote, at least.
The downside is that the top two candidates tend to be...interesting. And not necessarily in a good way. Which is why we had David Duke (KKK, Nazi) running against Edwin Edwards (unconvicted, then, but well known to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg - in jail now) for Governor four elections back. "Vote for the Crook, it's important" was a popular bumper sticker during that particular election.
And, yes, the Crook won.
Re:!FP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Gah... That's precisely why you need Approval Voting for an election like that, so you choose the candidates who are most liked, and not the candidates whose votes are least split.
Re:!FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't just a normal filler news report, it contains information that people may be able to take action on and should do so if possible. The deadline to register may have passed in Nevada, but the group has also been active in Oregon and who knows where else, and in some of those locations people still may have time to correct the problem.
Every year they run short on flu shots and every year there are news stories about where you can go to still get shots. Every year there are new outbreaks of west nile virus and every year there are news stories about what signs to watch for and who you should call if you see dead birds lying about. Every few months or years some area has accidental contamination of their water supply and the news runs stories on what areas are affected and for how long.
It doesn't matter how often or regularly such events happen, if there is a specific case going on at the moment the news has a responsibility to try and inform those people who might be affected so they can take appropriate action.
Re:!FP? (Score:2)
No, "the news" doesn't have a responsibility to do anything. The only reason media companies do things is because there's a profit in it. Every media outlet wants to gather more eyeballs to their magazine, newspaper, TV station, etc. The more eyeballs they have, the more adve
!LP? (Score:2)
Re:!FP? (Score:2)
All we know is two guys claimed it happened. If it is reasonable to think this group might have been destroying voter registrations, why is it not reasonable to think these two guys were themselves taking those registrations and shredding them to frame this group? It's not like that sort of thing would be unprecedented, in this history of political dirty tricks.
Re:!FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is incorrect. As the article makes clear, the physical evidence that the "two guys" provided backs up their story.
You may not be convinced, but don't overstate your case. The article may not be proven yet, but it is clearly substantiated.
Re:!FP? (Score:2)
No, it does not. It backs up the story that these particular registrations were not entered, NOT that the company in question had anything to do with it.
Re:!FP? (Score:2)
It's starting to pick up steam. For everyone's sake, I hope this is all piss and wind but it's starting to look pretty legitimate.
Naive paranoia? (Score:2)
Re:Naive paranoia? (Score:2)
And the fact that you think the GOP did evil things in 2000 where the Democrats did not is probably why you ignorantly think it is one-sided in 2004, too.
Re:Naive paranoia? (Score:2)
Re:Naive paranoia? (Score:3, Interesting)
Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution. Why does every jurisdiction have to do things in so many different ways. We have California, who has done everything they can but offer free beer to get illegal immigrants to vote. We have Florida that uses all those weird voting machines (which ironically don't see to be a problem in other states). We have millions being spent on electronic voting that's about as secure as Al Sharpton at a KKK meeting.
I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved (regardless of the shameless fear-mongering to the contrary).
I would think the richest and most powerful country in the world could do better.
Re:Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
So would you fill out a credit card application that someone on the street shoved in your face? I'm thinking that it's just silliness that people trusted someone to do the right thing here...
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
Like on hundreds of college campuses around the nation?
Now, I agree -- trusting credit card companies is dumb.
But it happens a lot.
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
I was not aware that strangers give strangers credit card applications then take them back to return them to the credit card company. That is, indeed, just as foolish as trusting a stranger to file your voter registeration.
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
I get credit card applications in my mailbox placed there by a carrier I don't know and rarely see from companies I have never contacted and have no business relationship with? And most people seem to place a lower value on their voter registration than their credit history.
Re:Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
seeing as how the guy who runs the company behind these shenanigans is funded by the RNC (and is the ex-head of a state republican committee), i'd look at the situation a little deeper.
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
Well, it depends on whether you want that simple, single, standard solution to be right!
How do we know that if we standardized that it would be correct?
Diversity is both a strength and a weakness. The right methods will, over time, prevail. The wrong methods won't. If we have 50 different methods then we increase the chance that one of those 50 methods will be right; and over time it means we speed up the process of finding the right answer.
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
What would be the most fair system? It's quite simple.
(1) You register by presenting to an official documents that prove that you are a citizen of the United States. This means a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers. These are photocopied and archived.
(2) You are issued a voter passport with
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
Your method might be overkill, but I agree with you that it would be more secure than some (or all) of the systems they have now.
The thing is, the more thorough the system is, the more likely someone who is (or should be) eligible to vote cannot vote, and then all of a sudden you are accused of "disenfranchisin
Re:Standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you wish to wait until election day like most people do (instead of casting an absentee ballot at the local post office), you go to the designated polling place with your voter card and a photo ID, take a ballot with your candidate's/party's name on it (we normally have around ten different parties of which 5-6 or so make it into the parliament), put it in an envelope behind a screen, seal it and give it to the voting official who puts it in a strongbox while two of his colleagues (these are all local guys from different parties) watch. They then strike your name off the voter list and you're done. It's all very serious and very proper. Counting is done in parallell - again with three officials present at all times. We normally get the first solid results within hours after the last polling place closes with some of the absentee and overseas ballots being counted up to a week later.
If you want to vote in a different polling place, that's fine. If you want to vote from overseas - no problem. One person, one vote. No problems, no cheating, no confusion and we consistently get turnouts in the 80-90% range for our parliament elections.
To a Swede, it's inconcievable that the USA, one of the proudest democracies in the world, is unable to hold a general election that stands up to any kind of standard regarding voter integrity... Register for voting? 4711 different voting methods? Insane. You might as well use a pair of crooked dice to select the President.
There has to be a federal database of every citizen in the US, right? Use it for some good for once. Automatically remove all under-aged and other criteria you may want (taking away the opportunity for Jeb Bush to get rid of a bunch of left-wing hippie voters) and send voter cards to the rest. If you wish you can include ballots for all parties that got more than 1% in the last election in that letter and let the rest of the ballots be available at the polling place. Do not register party affiliation anywhere. Do not pass Go. Do not let anyone except a federally appointed multi-partisan voting commission interfere with this process, at any level at all.
It's just basic checks and balances, it's not like it's rocket science.
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
1. You have to present appropriate ID to vote. It seems to me this is a reasonable alternative to present acceptable ID (Driver's License/ID Card, SS card, etc).
2. I don't think anyone is implying the vote itself isn't secret. That's a basic facet of our American system. But once you step out from behind the curtain, surely someone can watch that ballot as it is delivered to the box, and beyond.
3. I agree with you 100% here. The system Virginia has used for several yea
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
I guess what I'm saying is tha
Non-party affiliated registration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-party affiliated registration (Score:2)
Rob
Re:Non-party affiliated registration (Score:3, Insightful)
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255
It's nothing personal. I just don't know why politicians or legislatures can ethically keep these restrictions.
Re:Non-party affiliated registration (Score:2)
Re:Non-party affiliated registration (Score:2)
I assume by "Republicans" and "Democrats" you mean "eligible voters that can vote only once per race" ;-)
Although I live in a state with an open primary, a voter cannot cross parties on the same ballot. Although I do not like this restriction, it is better than the alternative of a closed primary.
As squiggleslash said http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255 2 0 [slashdot.org]
Re:Non-party affiliated registration (Score:2)
parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.
I agree that this is the case in some states. I do not understand how the people that make the decisions to exclude non-party members from their primaries can consider themselves doing what is the "right thing." I realize that some voters may cross pa
Re:Non-party affiliated registration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Same old dirty tricks (Score:2)
Re:Same old dirty tricks (Score:2)
Different America Votes (Score:2, Interesting)
Thankfully not here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thankfully not here... (Score:2)
Re:Thankfully not here... (Score:2)
Heck, I just found out at the last minute that I'm going to be shipped far far away for election day by my employer. And it's too late to order an absentee ballot. No worries, I can just go down to the courthouse and fill out an absentee ballot in person, right there.
Re:Thankfully not here... (Score:2)
Re:How do you guys still have open primaries? (Score:2)
Re:Thankfully not here... (Score:2)
Well, nothing aside from your own morals would stop you on election day. However, to do so you'd have make fradulent documents to prove residency in each location. Then, you'd have the law show up at your door eventually when they figured it out. It would be much easier (theoretically - don't do this!!) to pretend to be someone else who is legally registered.
Re:Thankfully not here... (Score:2)
treason (Score:4, Insightful)
This is another area where there needs to be a paper trail. These companies should be bonded and some sort of receipt should be issued to the voter that would allow one to either vote or allow them to file a protest and cast a vote after the fact. Any company found in fraud (anything above a normal error level) would loose their bond plus face criminal charges.
apparently oregon too (Score:5, Informative)
Why is such identification given? (Score:2)
Without that, I recommend that Democrats who believe this is happening claim they are Republicans. Republicans who believe the opposite should claim they are Democrats. That will also completely mess up all the predictions and polls and maybe make the election more interesting, too!
election day voter registration (Score:5, Insightful)
HAVA is going to require every state to maintain a centralized voter reg database. with such a system on-demand voting could mean:
1) no more voter reg deadlines. show up give them your name and you vote
2) vote from any poll site. can't make it back to your home before 9? just vote at the most convenient site. a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district
3) no over-voting. everyone gets one vote, no voting in two districts. in ny it is possible, though illegal, to register in many different counties, since they all keep their own records and dont share (at least not well enough).
Voting more important, can't use retail sales ... (Score:2)
The retail sale analogies are foolish. A vote is a one time event, non-repairable, non-replacable. Your stolen credit card can be replaced, you liability for fraudulent purchases is minimal, lost or missing legitimate purchases are almost always easily replacable. The error/fraud rate of online purchases is offset by the convenience. Voting is a completel
Re:Voting more important, can't use retail sales . (Score:2)
Well one reason may be that access to info like felony convictions is restricted and it would be inappropriate to allow remote terminals at registration sites to access that info, even indirectly. Some ACLU lawyer would probably sue if you could attempt to register under someone else's name and immediately be declined, invasion of privacy. They could require ID to register and thereby avoid
Re:Voting more important, can't use retail sales . (Score:2, Interesting)
1)HAVA requires all first time registrants to show id. (i dont really agree with this, but it's the law) this should be in effect for all 50 states by nov 2. or at least the states that dont want to pass up on the millions of dollars that HAVA compliance promises.
2) some states already have election day registration. so they must have some system.
3) voting (or attempting) with someone elses name is a felony. so it's not the aclu you have to worry about. do it too often and you'll wind up on that list
Re:election day voter registration (Score:2)
Wow -- that sounds like a
See a pattern? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Democratic forms get tossed in the trash, but not Republican forms...
-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...
-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...
-Flordia 2000 -- Black voters are disenfranchised by the thousands. Guess which way they lean?
Try as I might, I can only think of one example of such behavior from Democrats: Micheal Moore. However, Sinclair's decision eclipses Fahrenheit because Sony didn't tell all of it's theaters to pre-empt I,Robot to show Fahrenheit.
Now, I'm willing to concede I'm biased and that I just don't notice the deciept and trickery the left puts on. Can anyone reply to my post with a corresponding list of things Dems have done?
(No, rhetoric doesn't count- *every* candidate is full of hyperbolic BS)
Re:See a pattern? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
Of course, that is pretty sad, but it is indicative of how important poilitics is in the real world.
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
Try as I might, I can only think of one example of such behavior from Democrats
I do not think that you looked hard enough. Voter fraud is worked on both sides of the aisle. Consider mayor Richard Daley's 'vote early and vote often' campaign that many consider gave JFK the presidency over Richard M. Nixon in 1960.
Or how about the 1948 Texas Senate race that gave LBJ the victory by a scant 87, yes only 87, votes. Most people believe that thousands of those votes were bought in so
Re:See a pattern? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:See a pattern? (Score:4, Informative)
Sure:
-Republican forms get tossed in the trash [twincities.com] but not Republican forms [floridatoday.com]...
- Democratic registration for completely fictional people [enquirer.com]...
- Fraudulent [enquirer.com], forged Democratic registrations [9news.com] as well dumping a full years worth of paperwork on the registrars lap in the last minute to ensure they weren't looked at [palmbeachpost.com] and INTENTIONALLY putting down false information for Republicans [pottstownmercury.com] or simply not turning them in [floridatoday.com].
- Texas Democrats who Gerrymandered in their redistricting efforts... (The recent successful Republican effort was tit for tat revenge for the 1990 redistricting that The Almanac for American Politics called "The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation." and "the shrewdest gerrymander" of it's time. A gerrymander that resulted in a house delegation that was 17 to 15 Democratic despite 56% of the voters at the polls voting for a Republican congressman.
- CBS (as partisan as Sinclair or Fox) doing it's traditional 60 Minutes week-before-the-election hit piece early this year using obvious forgeries and giving the Kerry campaign advanced notice so they could exploit it with their operation "Fortunate Son"
-Florida 1998 -- Massive voter fraud uncovered that eventually leads to the election being overturned [csmonitor.com]. The efforts during the next cycle (2000) all efforts to prevent fraud demagogued as "disenfranchising black voters" by the EXACT same people who had perpetuated the fraud.
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
That's what I get for just skimming the preview
Re:See a pattern? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
Well actually, there was no gerrymandering in Texas ten years ago. The legislature could never agree on a redisticting plan, so the courts had to step in and draw the districts. Something had to be done, because the old districts violated the election laws because they relied on the old population distribution.
That was the flimsy rational DeLay used for an unprecidented mid-decade redistricting
Re:See a pattern? (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Can you even name one?
When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship.
No. We called them uncredible bald-faced liars, because that's what they are.
you have to register for a party? (Score:2, Interesting)
Furthermore the last time I voted (I did not pre-register), all I did was show up to the voting location in my area, provide several pieces of ID confirming my identity and my current address (driver's licence, pay stub, etc) and I get a ballot. I vote. End of story.
Nowhere, I mean NOWHERE, do I EVER have to declare any party affiliati
As someone who is not an American.... (Score:2)
Re:As someone who is not an American.... (Score:2)
Its a felony (Score:2)
Some other cases of voter registration fraud (Score:3, Informative)
Colorado [9news.com]
Ohio [enquirer.com]
Pennsylvania [pottstownmercury.com]
Florida [theledger.com]
Tennessee [nashvillecitypaper.com]
Michigan [freep.com]
West Virginia [wowktv.com]
Wisconsin [jsonline.com]
Fundamentally Different (Score:2)
No, what the case in Nevada is, is a case of tricking people into thinking they are registered, tricking
How ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that when people read this story they feel sorry for disenfranchised citizens, not a political party that doesn't work to help all Americans retain their right to vote. This is not a reason to vote Republican nor is it a reason to vote Democrat. It's a reason to question the motivations of both major American political parties.
Re:How ironic. (Score:2)
Re:How ironic. (Score:2)
A curious lack of recall... (Score:2)
I can name the supervisors I've had for nearly the past 20 years, and this guy can't name his supervisor from a couple of months ago? Color me dubious.
Re:A curious lack of recall... (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
I've registered voters as a GOP volunteer... (Score:3, Informative)
That way we can't be accused of anything like this.
Now granted, something less than 100% will drop the thing in a mailbox, even though it's postage paid by the California Secretary of State. But that ain't our fault.
(I'm a Libertarian-leaning Republican, member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.)
Re:Republicans comdemn this (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that will pound reality just a tad more into the skulls of idiot populace of this nation.
Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
"Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"
Oh, the irony.
Republicans PAID FOR IT (Score:2)
Re:Republicans comdemn this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Republicans comdemn this (Score:2)
2000. Florida. Tossing out as many military absentee ballots as possible. (military voters being presumably somewhat right-leaning)
Re:Republicans comdemn this (Score:2, Informative)
One out of five isn't so bad, I guess. But I am not sure how some duplicate registrations in Denver are even in the sa
More than one America votes? (Score:2, Informative)
Portland Communique [portland.or.us] also mentions that they're seeing something similar in Portland.
Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (Score:5, Informative)
link 1 [klas-tv.com]
link 2 [mailtribune.com]
Text:
(Oct. 12) -- Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.
Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.
The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at Democrats. The focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.
The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.
Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.
"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.
Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.
So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else.
The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same suspicions when she worked there.
It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you really are registered.
Call the Clark County Election Department at 455-VOTE orclick here to see if you are registered.
The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate.
Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (Score:5, Informative)
Just when you thought the story couldn't get any scummier...
Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (Score:2)
Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (Score:2)
It's just the Dems are better at hiding it. If I am wrong please tell me what the GOP is doing that is worse than what the DEMS are doing.
Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (Score:2, Informative)
Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (Score:4, Informative)
The devil is in the details. This is an ENTIRELY different organization, "Voters Outreach of America" has been misrepresenting itself as "America Votes" to accomplish it's goals. The article doesn't point out this fact, but others do, here's ONE:
Portland Communique [tinyurl.com]
Re:It's what you get... (Score:2)
Blame the victim usually comes in the form of, "She was asking for it by wearing that short skirt and flirting." Interesting variation you've got there, please don't ever do jury duty.