Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > Politics

Politics Step up and make your case on all manner of political topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-09-2008, 07:20 PM   #1
Ought Six
Dismember
 
Ought Six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 35,164
Blog Entries: 15
Thanks: 171
Thanked 389 Times in 325 Posts
Arrow Voter roll purges claimed by NY Times, denied by election officials

Elections officials deny illegally purging voters


The Associated Press, via Google News
October 9, 2008


NEW YORK — A newspaper report Thursday said tens of thousands of eligible voters have been removed from rolls or blocked from registering in at least six swing states, but election officials quickly lined up to defend their registration procedures and said they had done nothing wrong.

The New York Times based its findings on reviews of state records and Social Security data, and said it had identified apparent problems in Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina.

The Times said voters appear to have been purged by mistake and not because of any intentional violations by election officials or coordinated efforts by any party. It says that some states are improperly using Social Security data to verify new voters' registration applications, and that others might have broken rules that govern removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

Elections officials in several states disputed that any voters were illegally removed from rolls. Michigan elections director Chris Thomas said the state removed only people who have died, notified authorities of a move or who were declared unfit to vote, which is well within the parameters of the law. Thomas said only 11,000 voters were removed from Michigan rolls in August — not 33,000, the figure cited in the report.

"There is no illegal purging going on," Thomas told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Colorado, however, said it would review its practices of "canceling" voters who had moved, died or were deemed otherwise ineligible. Secretary of State Mike Coffman said he asked lawyers to determine if the state's protocols violated a federal ban on "systematic" purging close to an election, but said because people, not computers, were doing the reviews, he believed they were sound. He said nearly 2,500 voters may be restored if the procedure is found to have violated law.

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by removing the names of voters who should no longer be listed. But for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, the Times' review of the records found.

States appear to have violated federal law in one of two ways, according to the newspaper report. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state or have been declared unfit to vote, The Times said.

And some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters, the newspaper reported.

Under the Help America Vote Act, many states have an agreement with the Social Security Administration requiring them to submit the last four digits of a new voter's Social Security number for verification if the person does not have a valid state-issued ID, such as a license.

Last week, amid concerns about an uptick in the number of requests for verification, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue sent a letter to officials in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio seeking to verify that the checks were run only on new voters who don't have acceptable identification. States have said the increase in checks is due partly to a stream of new voters coming in to register.

In Georgia, federal officials say some 2 million checks have been completed, but only 406,000 new voters registered. The Department of Justice has questioned the checks, and state officials say they are trying to determine how federal authorities arrived at that figure.

North Carolina elections watchdog Bob Hall, who heads the advocacy group Democracy North Carolina, defended the state's elections board. Hall said he has found that many registration forms are incomplete or partly illegible and that many prospective voters provide Social Security numbers instead of driver's licenses. Because of that, he said it's not surprising that the state would need to run so many verifications.

Indiana also defended its procedures. "Using all available appropriate technology is our best way to combat voter fraud that we know exists in this state and across the country," Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita said in a statement Thursday.

If voters were wrongfully removed from rolls, the concern is that on Election Day, voters who have been removed from the rolls could show up and be challenged by political party officials or election workers. And because Democrats have more aggressively registered voters, any discrepancy could disproportionately affect them.
Ought Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 07:54 PM   #2
Flint
Member Level 5
 
Flint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 805
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ought Six:

This issue was the topic of a fairly length thread a while back. And a gnarly topic it is.

On one side, we have the threat of outright voter fraud. This is known to be a real threat just from sheer weight of historical experience with ballot box stuffing, entire cemeteries voting (all for the same person), ballot boxes being "lost" in some single-party counties or precincts, electronic voting machines mysteriously zeroed out, etc.

The actual incidence of people casting more than one vote is historically very rare, and most reasonable voting protocols make that very difficult.

On the other side, voting challenges are not necessarily quick to resolve. You show up to vote, your name isn't on the rolls. Why not? You registered. Must be some mistake, we need to resolve this while everyone waits. The result can be very long lines, longer than many working clock-puncher type people can afford to stand around. If there are too many challenges, the effective result is a denial-of-service attack on the polling place.

So the question is, is it better to err on the side of lenience, letting such people just go ahead and vote? Or is it better to err on the side of precision, sending perhaps hundreds of eligible voters away without voting to ensure that not one person votes twice, or votes in the wrong district, etc?

I think in places where there have been large-scale registration-list purges, special procedures should be set up to handle what are sure to be plenty of unhappy voters whose names somehow vanished from the rolls, without inconveniencing anyone else.
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 07:56 PM   #3
Ramius31
I'm with stupid and THEY made me do it
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 915
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
Ought Six:

This issue was the topic of a fairly length thread a while back. And a gnarly topic it is.

On one side, we have the threat of outright voter fraud. This is known to be a real threat just from sheer weight of historical experience with ballot box stuffing, entire cemeteries voting (all for the same person), ballot boxes being "lost" in some single-party counties or precincts, electronic voting machines mysteriously zeroed out, etc.

The actual incidence of people casting more than one vote is historically very rare, and most reasonable voting protocols make that very difficult.

On the other side, voting challenges are not necessarily quick to resolve. You show up to vote, your name isn't on the rolls. Why not? You registered. Must be some mistake, we need to resolve this while everyone waits. The result can be very long lines, longer than many working clock-puncher type people can afford to stand around. If there are too many challenges, the effective result is a denial-of-service attack on the polling place.

So the question is, is it better to err on the side of lenience, letting such people just go ahead and vote? Or is it better to err on the side of precision, sending perhaps hundreds of eligible voters away without voting to ensure that not one person votes twice, or votes in the wrong district, etc?

I think in places where there have been large-scale registration-list purges, special procedures should be set up to handle what are sure to be plenty of unhappy voters whose names somehow vanished from the rolls, without inconveniencing anyone else.


You must have missed all the news regarding voter registration fraud today.
Ramius31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 08:15 PM   #4
Flint
Member Level 5
 
Flint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 805
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
You must have missed all the news regarding voter registration fraud today.
You're right, I haven't seen it. Does it invalidate the discussion and summary I just presented? If so, how?

I don't approve of ANY voter fraud, of any kind. I'm also realistic enough to know that it's very common, and no matter the voting mechanism there are always plenty of creative people who try to game it in their favor.

I hope the issues in the OP get resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 08:18 PM   #5
Ramius31
I'm with stupid and THEY made me do it
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 915
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
You're right, I haven't seen it. Does it invalidate the discussion and summary I just presented? If so, how?

I don't approve of ANY voter fraud, of any kind. I'm also realistic enough to know that it's very common, and no matter the voting mechanism there are always plenty of creative people who try to game it in their favor.

I hope the issues in the OP get resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Acorn has been accused by tons of states of voter registration fraud today... don't have time for links, but I'm sure google will work just fine for ya.
Ramius31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 08:28 PM   #6
Flint
Member Level 5
 
Flint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 805
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Acorn has been accused by tons of states of voter registration fraud today
But that fraud was unrelated to the issues raised in the OP, to which I was responding.

I think anyone at ACORN who committed fraud should get the book thrown at them.
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
claimed, denied, election, officials, purges, roll, times, voter

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.