?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Zer Netmouse
September 11th, 2008
05:09 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
It seems like something should be said -

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:September 15th, 2008 01:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, you know, you're right. Planning and preparing to challenge people who have recently lost ownership of their homes but are still living in the state (and maybe even in their homes while the banks figure out what to do) and insisting that those people are no longer allowed to vote, anywhere, is exactly the same thing as checking to make sure that real people are voting, under their own names only. Exactly.

[User Picture]
From:mjwise
Date:September 15th, 2008 01:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I dunno, seems to me that a foreclosed upon or abandoned house would be a ripe source for fradulent voter registrations. ACORN, which is quoted in your original article, is now known to be responsible for a number of bad registrations. I'm sure clerks caught a lot of them, but certainly not all.

Besides all of this, I actually looked up Michigan election law. It turns out that you need only be a resident of the city or township 30 days before the actual election, so if you move/lose your house/etc. in the intervening period before the election, you can still vote as if you lived there. Furthermore, election challengers cannot actually stop someone from voting if the elector affirms they meet the qualifications. Of course, if the challenged elector lies, then he or she is guilty of perjury. And election law even specifies that if there is a line and a challenge is made to someone, the other voters waiting will be processed first to avoid delays.

So what you're left with are people who moved, say, 45 days before the election, but did not update their voter registration. Yes, it's true, they would be able to be challenged successfully. But I'm of the mind that people need to be voting from their actual addresses and in accordance with the law. If you were not actually at your address 30 days before the election, then you can't vote from it.

The idea that people are going to be or can be blocked from voting because a foreclosure notice was sent out (but they still live at the address) is not supported by the law. Even if they get turned out in the 30 days before the election, they can still vote from the address.
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:September 15th, 2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But if the people with the foreclosure lists tell people they cannot vote, they might not vote. Even if they still live in their homes. Even if it's been less than 30 days since they moved. How likely are they to know the law?

To a certain extent, people will believe what they are told, even if just by a challenger and not a poll worker. How do they know the difference? It's hard to push your way through conflict and vote anyway, which I expect is something the Republican election chairman is counting on.

[User Picture]
From:mjwise
Date:September 15th, 2008 02:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Two election challengers are permitted per party per precinct.

Threatening or intimidating electors is illegal and if you observe this in the polling place, I would inform the pollworkers if they are not aware of it and/or call the police. Challengers are to challenge electors only in the manner specified in the law. I would agree with you that going up to an elector unsolicited and telling them they are not allowed to vote and/or telling them to leave would be illegal.
Netmouse on the web Powered by LiveJournal.com