Reid To Effectively Shutdown FEC?
December 19th, 2007 at 09:23pm Matt Margolis
Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, are trying to strong-arm President Bush by refusing to clear a slate of appointees to the Federal Election Commission.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just announced that the Senate will not clear four new appointees for the Federal Election Commission, meaning the panel that acts as a watchdog on political campaigns cannot function during the critical election-year period.
Reid is blaming the White House for refusing to withdraw to allow a majority vote on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the commission. Republicans want von Spakovsky approved as part of a slate of four FEC nominees or they will refuse to consider any of the nominees.
Von Spakovsky was recess appointed by President Bush to the FEC, but his term expires at the end of the year. Democrats have refused to allow his nomination to move forward, arguing that his actions while at the Justice Department disqualified him for the post. Bush, though has not backed down, and the matter has been at an impasse for the last four months.
Now, with the Senate moving toward adjournment until mid-January, Reid signalled that Democrats will not move any FEC nominations if they include von Spakovsky, meaning the commission will only have two of its required six members. Reid said he offered the GOP a straight majority vote on all the FEC nominees, including von Spakovsky, but the White House refused to accept that offer.
How convenient that the FEC could be effectively shutdown during a presidential election year. Is this merely a case of Democrats trying to flex their muscles and appease their extreme liberal base, or is it also a way to protect Democrat candidates in an election year?
Funny isn’t it, just the other day Harry Reid was complaining about Republican obstruction…
Entry Filed under: Corruption, Democrats
56 Comments
1. Uncommon | December 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Paranoid much… the conspiracy theories here have been flying out of control as of late. Hey Matt, I thought conspiracies were a liberal kook phenomena.
2. Matt Margolis | December 19th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It just seems like there could be an ulterior motive.
3. Casper | December 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I wouldn’t worry too much. Reid has a tendency to cave.
4. Rana Quijotesca | December 19th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Why is Bush afraid of an up-or-down vote?
5. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Rana, the question really is why are Reid and the Dems opposed to Spakvovky?
The reason that Reid and the Dems oppose this man is that he has been effective in reducing VOTE FRAUD!!!
And surprise surprise…that is what the FEC is supposed to do. So opposition to his re-appointment to the FEC is part of the dem strategy to steal the 2008 election with vote fraud.
6. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Ah… you mean by barring the use of tribal IDs by Native Americans and then quashing the subsequent investigation?
Or by pushing for a voter ID law in Georgia that was later found to be unconstitutional? (I am more inclined to support voter ID laws, by the way)
The reason that Bush recess appointed this guy, and the reason why Bush won’t put this guy up for actual confirmation (as opposed to lumping him in with other people) is because he is afraid that Spakovsky won’t pass the test of Senate Approval.
7. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 7:35 am
>>>Is this merely a case of Democrats trying to flex their muscles - Matt<<<<
They have to do something. They are so pathetically incompetent that at this point I think they would delight in any minor victory.
Has there ever been a more pathetic leader of the Senate?
8. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 7:39 am
And now we know:
The article noted that: “career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots
9. plainjane | December 20th, 2007 at 7:43 am
While Democrats across the nation give Congress low approval ratings for not being able to figure out how to subvert Senate Republicans obstructionism to ending the United States involvement in the off budget two trillion dollar Iraqi Civil War, it is moments like this that remind me why the Democratic victories in the 2006 election were so important.
If any wingnut has business with the Senate over the Christmas season I think you will be able to get a hearing. Senator Reid has said the Senate will be open for business just in case the President has any ideas of circumventing the Senate’s constitutional approval authority by submitting more recess appointments.
1/20/09
10. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am
plain,
Please submit the evidence of the Iraq Civil War of which you speak.
11. DM | December 20th, 2007 at 8:13 am
If the Senate leaves for their holiday vacation is that an opening for 4 recess appointments?
12. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:19 am
plain,
I hope your not advocating limiting the Presidents authority granted to him by the Constitution. Are you?
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
13. ervington | December 20th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Interesting, the Constitution seems open to interpretation here since it says that the pres can fill vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate. If a vacancy happens before the senate recesses, but the president waits until they go on recess to appoint, that could mean that the president is interpreting the constitution and therefore not a “strict constructionist” as you all like to call yourselves.
Anyway, why doesn’t the president or the Republican congress want to go to an up or down vote on the matter? Aren’t ALL issues required an up or down vote…that’s what democracy is, isn’t it?
And heaven forbid Dems oppose a man who tries to stop citizens from voting. The article calls them poor and minorities (and Dem leaning), which I know around here makes them not people, but guess what, if they were born here, they are citizens and get to vote, purple figners and all that. That’s from the Constitution as well.
PS: Have fun with your lame ass presidential candidates.
14. plainjane | December 20th, 2007 at 8:42 am
neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am
plain,
Please submit the evidence of the Iraq Civil War of which you speak.
NO! you need to do your own homework and move on. Even other Repugs are probably snickering at your comment. This issue was debated and settled two years ago. If you were in a comma at the time ask Matt to enlighten you with old post.
I did not say recess appointments were in any way illegal or the President did not have the authority to use them.
I sure hope the recess appointment of Swift boater Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium was worth it to the neocons. It absolutely pissed off Senate Democrats to the point many are willing to give up their Christmas vacation so a similar appointment will never happen again.
15. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am
ervington,
First of all, that’s the perfect femme liberal name. Secondly, why wont the Congress put the war funding bill to an up or down vote? I mean that’s what a democracy is, right?
plain,
There is no civil war in Iraq, just FYI. That’s a two year old talking point that really never gained traction.
Secondly, I have never been in a “comma”, but I often lapse into a “coma” after reading many of your brain dead posts.
And apparently you object to the free speech rights of gentleman that served with the Honorable John Francois Kerry in Cambodia at Christmas. Or was that Thailand?
16. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 10:48 am
It’s Check and Balances stupid. No one wants a White House to be unchecked. That would be suicide for a democracy.
17. TiredofLibBullShit | December 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am
MeatS…..
It’s “Checks and Balances”…….dumbass…..
So, abiding by the CONSTITUTIONAL authority granted for recess appointments is somehow bypassing CHECKS AND BALANCES?
Why was that article put in to begin with? Hmmmm?
So, what if you libs get your wildest desires - a lib president, veto-proof lib congress and a supermajority lib senate - WHERE IS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES then?
Huh, dumbass?
Indeed, you are a useful idiot.
18. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
neocon-
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.
Are you really going to argue that the fighting parties in Iraq aren’t in the same culture, society, or nationality, or that they aren’t fighting for political control?
We support Free Speech just fine, but that “gentleman” made as of now unsubstantiated claims that he can’t prove (if he could prove that Kerry made false statements in front of Congress, then he would have gone to court), and the burden is on him to prove them, not on Mr. Kerry… or have you forgotten how our legal system works?
It wouldn’t be surprising if you did…
It’s also funny how you defend Bush for blatant nepotism…
Stupid hypocrite…
19. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 11:16 am
bullshit-
The Constitutional provision on recess appointments was put in to place in case a vacancy opened up while Congress was in recess, not so the President could shirk Senate confirmation. I, for one, would love to see a Constitutional Amendment limiting the tenure of recess appointments to from the time of appointment to the time the Senate is reconvenes.
Like your mantra goes… everyone deserves an up-or-down vote…
20. TiredofLibBullShit | December 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
rana
“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
ALL vacancies, you do know what a vacancy is? You know the space between your ears.
ALL vacancies that happen during the Recess of the Senate. If there is a vacancy at the time of Senate recess, the President has the constutional power to appoint someone UNTIL THE END OF THE NEXT SESSION. It is not a permanent appointment. It is temporary so the government can keep functioning, that is the intent of the clause.
“everyone deserves an up-or-down vote” yep as long as it’s not a judicial nominee, where a supermajority is required but a simple majority is authorized by the Constitution.
Damn, that Constitution gets in the libs way everytime.
21. Joe | December 20th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Tired…
I think that would be “Where ARE the checks and balances…”
See how annoying that is to have someone correct your spelling and grammar?
To answer your question…
It would be the same thing the Repubs held up until 2006. See how you like it.
22. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Busllshit… read your own writing sometimes….
Now… if a vacancy occurs during session, it doesn’t occur during a recess…. or are you just stupid?
23. sleepygene | December 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Matt and or Mark-
Any news on your FEC complaint against Senator Clinton? You haven’t kept us updated. Vote Fraud seems to me to be a minor issue in an election and largely a myth. Sure if it truly happens it should be prosecuted. The threat of voter fraud is used to suppress votes of usually poor people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032801969.html
24. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I don’t want a Congress and White House that is controlled by one party. No one, democrat or republican, should want this because in theory when checks and balances are removed we The People are screwed every time.
But, I can’t trust the Republicans. I can’t trust some of the Democrats. I can’t trust the President and his cabinet. I can’t trust most of the mainstream media and conservative media is disgraceful in regards to journalistic integrity.
25. Sadly, No! » Silent&hellip | December 20th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
[...] With Jonah sucking so much dumb out of the atmosphere, we’re worried as to whether there’s still enough dumb for Blogs For Victory (formerly Blogs For Bush). Let’s go check their vital signs. Reid To Effectively Shutdown FEC? [...]
26. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
ToLBS: Indeed, you are a useful idiot.
There seems to be a lot of that going around.
I don’t mean that personally, by the way. But it seems to me the theme of this post is that if the Reps obstruct something, the Dems are to blame. And if the Dems obstruct something, the Dems are to blame. It doesn’t seem to matter much what the particular issue is. In this particular case, I doubt that most people on either side (including me) know very much about von Spakovsky’s record (there may be some exceptions there), how the FEC works, or how his appointment is likely to affect the FEC. Perhaps a more pointed question is: what motivation do the Dems have for letting this issue pass without a fight? If they don’t block von Spakovsky’s nomination they’ll hear it from their base. And if the GOP continues to demand that the nominations be passed in batch rather than individually, thus effectively gutting the FEC, why should the Dems care? Whatever fallout results will occur AFTER the elections. And even then they can claim plausible deniability.
There is also a bigger question here: why should FEC nominees be considered as a batch? Because it’s traditional? Are there any guidelines other than that? I suspect that in this case, as in so many other cases, it is a question of tradition. And the tradition is based on the assumption of comity — people are supposed to get along. Unfortunately, they can’t. The system is broken. That, to me, is the underlying issue here.
As bad as it is now, I suspect we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I suspect that the Dems have spent the last year highlighting scandals more than legislation. This coming year I expect them to make the GOP to actively filibuster bills they think are popular, rather than just accepting no cloture votes.
Or, the more pithy version is: prepare for fireworks. Many people on both sides assume the Dems have caved because that’s just the way they are. I don’t buy it. Rather, I think they’ve been keeping their powder dry. And if you look at Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s polls, the Dems have him running scared — and Reid’s not running this year. Time will tell, I guess.
27. js | December 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Its pretty much a conflict of interest, letting the criminals appoint the prosecuting attorney you could say, to allow congress to have so much sway over the FEC.
No wonder we get sucha half axx system that doesnt do the job its supposed to do. If it did, Reid and Pelosi would both be serving prison terms.
28. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Oh waaaa. And what would charges be for said fantasy-land conviction with prison term sentencing?
29. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
>>>>Are you really going to argue that the fighting parties in Iraq aren’t in the same culture, society, or nationality, or that they aren’t fighting for political control? - Rana<<<<<
Well currently in Iraq we have a concerted effort between the Sunni and Shi’a to drive out AQ with the support of the US Military, and those same two factions working together to bring unity in the Iraqi government.
The Kurds up north are currently having their challenges with the Turkey military.
So maybe you can enlighten us all on this Civil War of which you speak.
30. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
neocon: Well currently in Iraq we have a concerted effort between the Sunni and Shi’a to drive out AQ with the support of the US Military, and those same two factions working together to bring unity in the Iraqi government.
If that’s how you truly see it, I have no recourse than to seriously consider you profoundly uninformed.
That being said, I don’t think that’s how you truly see it. I suspect your opinion is more nuanced than you let on.
31. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
>>>US Senior officials in Iraq attribute the decline in violence to the surge, to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, to a ceasefire by a key Shiite militia and to what is called ‘The Awakening,’ a decision by Sunni tribal sheikhs in Anbar Province to reject al-Qaida and cooperate with the coalition and the Iraqi government.<<<<>>>>We support Free Speech just fine, but that “gentleman” made as of now unsubstantiated claims that he can’t prove - Rana<<<<
Sam Fox never made any claims. He merely contributed money to the Swift Boat gentlemans cause. So:
A. You lied, or are ignorant (probably both)
B. You now want to dictate who people can contribute their money to.
Awfully fascist of you. But I don’t expect anything less.
32. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Rico,
I try and read as many accounts of the situation as I can, rather than getting my information from the DailyKos. The following is just one account:
Sunni and Shia sheiks were meeting to work and find a way to be cooperative in the fight against the insurgency.
Of course that begs the question still of who makes up the insurgency. Although the bulk of the fighters have always been Iraqis, the leadership, organization, and/or logistical support is almost all foreign at this point.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is quickly receding into past tense. Although they initially attracted Iraqi foot soldiers, their leadership, funding, and organization was always foreign led.
http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2007/10/sunni-and-shia-getting-along-getting.html
33. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
neocon, you neglected to mention the very first sentence in the citation you offered (whoever Badgers Forward are): Iraq is incredibly complicated.
I think they got that part right. But they also mention (on their masthead): “The views expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect the views of the US Government, the US Department of Defense, the US Army, or any other official agency. I think they got that part right, too.
More importantly, you also neglected to mention this passage: Rogue Shiite militiamen were holding hostage a group of Sunni and Shiite tribal sheiks who had joined a revolt against al-Qaeda in Iraq. For the Iraqi government and its U.S. backers, the seven men represented a rare symbol of national unity.
The emphasis is mine. Then again, if you listen to the MNF-I, or any other comments offered in more MSN sources, that’s what they’re all saying — the symbols of national unity are rare.
That’s the fundamental issue. One side tries to paper over it. The other tries to over-emphasize it. But that’s it. So… what do you think is going to happen in the spring? Do you even know why the spring is important?
34. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Oh poo.. I forgot to turn the italics off. Sorry about that.
35. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Do you even recognize the concerted efforts the civil and peaceful members of those two tribal factions are making? Did you even acknowledge that there are reconciliation efforts being made?
Do you care?
Or are you searching and hoping for more unrest to bolster your premise that Iraqis are just incapable of unifying?
There still remain many hurdles to overcome, but there are many members of both factions doing their best to accomplish that, and the denigration of those efforts from our keyboard pessimists is shameful.
36. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“Vote Fraud seems to me to be a minor issue in an election and largely a myth.” Sleepy
It would seem that way if you are a leftists.
“Sure if it truly happens it should be prosecuted. The threat of voter fraud is used to suppress votes of usually poor people”
And what if there was evidence of it and the Federal Attorneys refused to investigate and prosecute? Would you support them being fired? You would only do so if they weren’t working for the Justice Department during the term of a Republican President. Right?
37. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
So leftists, tell us again why you are against photo ID voter registration cards. I always enjoy the convoluted logic that this discussion elicits from you supporters of the right of EVERYONE to vote, including felons and illegal aliens…oooops undocumented guests.
BTW: Can we at least call them univited guests?
38. sleepygene | December 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
phnx-
If prosecutors failed to prosecute legitimate vote fraud cases then sure they should be fired. But can you give me an example of large scale vote fraud occurring in federal or statewide elections in the past ten years? I would be ineterested in what you find.
I have no problem with photo id.
39. plainjane | December 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
17. TiredofLibBullShit | December 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Why was that article put in to begin with? Hmmmm?
That Hmmmm at the end tells me I am dealing with an Oxymoron Limbaugh ditto head, so I will have to type slow. Back in the day before planes, trains and automobiles, Congress was out of session for months. They would go home to tend to their families and slaves. As stated before. this clause was put in to keep agencies functioning. Today while still practical in some cases it should be used with care. Failures in recess appointments without Senate oversight can lead to horse trainers appointed head of a Federal Emergency Management Agency. Lack of proper training for this type of job can lead to people drowning in a hurricane.
40. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
neocon: Do you even recognize the concerted efforts the civil and peaceful members of those two tribal factions are making? Did you even acknowledge that there are reconciliation efforts being made?
Upon who’s authority should I take my talking points? But Petraeus and Odierno, the #1 and #2 military guys on the ground, have recently indicated (”recently” meaning within the past week) that the situation on the ground is tenuous, and VERY MUCH dependent on what happens, or doesn’t happen, within the central Iraqi government.
Unfortunately, I find myself incapable of providing links in order to document what I say. Every time I do my comments end up “awaiting moderation”. Apparently that means almost perpetually — the blogosphere equivalent of purgatory, lol!
41. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
PJ, were you were equally incensed when Bill Clinton used the recess appointment provision 140 times during his term in office?
42. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Sleepy,
Before I answer please clarify your post, should an attorney be fired for not investigating and prosecuting election fraud, or large scale election fraud?
And while you are at it, please define “large scale”. How many votes constitutes that?
What if it were only a handful of votes and that was enough to change the election result?
43. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“The reason that Reid and the Dems oppose this man is that he has been effective in reducing VOTE FRAUD!!!”
I think you mean he’s been effectie at COMITTING election fraud.
This of course would be the man that lied before a Senate comittee, pushed to have voters purged off of the voter roles simply because there addresses didn’t match the ones on their drivers license, and pushed for voter ID laws that one Federal Judge described as a “Jim Crow era poll tax”.
Von Spakovsky’s been good at one thing, and that suppressing minority votes, or at least trying to.
44. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“The article noted that: “career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots”
So you admit that Von Spakovsky’s sole goal was to suppress democratic leaning poor and minority voters?
Wow, a rare moment of honesty from Mr. Knee Jerk himself.
45. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“So leftists, tell us again why you are against photo ID voter registration cards.”
In terms of the Georgia ID law,
A) If there hasn’t been a proven case of voter fraud in nearly a decade, then what exactly do you need to pass a law that is certain to suppress minority, and poor turnout?
B) The state already had an adequate ID law.
C) It would force people who didn’t have money to jump through beurecratic hoops in order to get an ID card.
D) You would essentially have to pay, in order to vote.
If there were rampant voter fraud you might have an argument. But the reality is that this law had nothing to do with stopping vote fraud. It had everything to do with suppressing democratic voter turnout.
46. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
plant,
Why are you assuming that only the poor and minority Democrats, who would’ve voted Democrat, were suppressed?
47. TiredofLibBullShit | December 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
rana……..
“Now… if a vacancy occurs during session, it doesn’t occur during a recess…. or are you just stupid?”
you naive imbecile…….take a look at the real world and not the lib fantasy land you live in……
Apparently, you have no clue as to what is written and what is practiced. Historically, all vacancies before or during Senate recess have been filled by these appointments. Reality and fact and not the fantasy and fiction you desire.
What you desire for your lib buddies in the Senate and reality are two different things.
Now useful idiot, go fill that void between your ears, then maybe you would understand what really happens.
48. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
wow (expletive deleted)… where to start…
First of all, I indicated that I wanted a change from that status quo (the Constitutional Amendment idea). That, of course, indicates that I see reality, and I see that I want something different, and an Amendment would be the proper way to do such a thing…
Now… you would see that if your head wasn’t so far up your own ass…
I would call you a useful idiot, but you have proven yourself to be anything but “useful.”
49. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
“do such a thing” should refer to a way of obtaining what I want… I should proofread…
50. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Faceplant, your arguments are all tired and bogus memes designed to fascilitate vote fraud. A photo ID is required to board a plane, cash a check, and open a bank account. Its even required to get welfare benefits. So much for your bogus bullsh*t.
Leftist lie:
Voter IDs are designed to disenfranchise poor and minority voters.
Fact: After Indiana instituted their mandatory Photo ID for voting election turnout INCREASED by 2%.
Leftist lie:
GA voter ID law is unconstitutional
Fact:The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported this week (sep 07) that a judge who previously overturned a voter ID requirement has now upheld a revised version of the same law.
[U.S. District Court Judge Harold] Murphy noted that his previous injunction hinged in large part on the fact that many voters who lacked a photo ID had no real notice of the requirement or knew how to get one or vote absentee. But the judge said recent evidence showed the state “made exceptional efforts” to contact voters in the 23 counties planning to hold local elections this month.
It is not surprising that in states where election fraud has been alledged, ie New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Washington, the laws are apparently easy to circumvent.
For example in New Mexico, no photo ID is necessary, and all the voter need do is sign and affidavit that he is legally permitted to vote.
Don’t think there is rampant vote fraud perpetrated by the left?
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-13-2004/0002275937&EDATE=
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/26/acorn-falls-again-the-worst-case-of-voter-registration-fraud-in-washington-state-history/
Face it… a segment of leftists just want to subvert our democracy…you apparently are one of them.
51. phnx | December 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
BTW sleepy, the Federal Attorney refused to investigater the voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, even though local prosecutors have.
That’s the answer to your question. Now please answer mine.
52. Faceplant | December 21st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“Why are you assuming that only the poor and minority Democrats, who would’ve voted Democrat, were suppressed?”
First of all nobody claimed that it was ONLY poor, and minority democratic voters that would be affected. Only that that demographic of voters would be dispraportionately affected by the Voter ID laws.
A study done in November of 2006 by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York School of Law found that,
“…as many as 11 percent of Americans—more than 21 million individuals—do not have a current, government-issued photo ID. Elderly, poor and minority Americans are more likely to lack government-issued ID. Polling results suggest six million elderly Americans do not possess a government-issued photo ID, 15 percent of voting-age citizens earning under $35,000 a year do not possess such ID and fully 25 percent of voting-age African Americans do not possess this ID.”
The elderly, the poor, and the minority historically are Democratic voters. And I won’t get into right now, but we know from real data that these voters turn out LESS in states that have restrictive voter ID laws.
Combine that with the fact that there has never been a widespread problem of voter fraud the law is a naked attempt to supress minority, and poor voter turnout.
Of course, in the end your question is pretty pointless. Does it really matter who is being supressed? Voter supression IS voter fraud. Nobody’s vote should be supressed.
phnx,
“It is not surprising that in states where election fraud has been alledged, ie New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Washington, the laws are apparently easy to circumvent.”
Really? Well then why don’t you show me where a real prosecutable case of voter fraud would have been prevented if we passed voter ID laws. Because the reality is that the type of fraud that voter ID laws would prevent, largely, doesn’t exist.
“Face it… a segment of leftists just want to subvert our democracy…you apparently are one of them.”
Yet, all you can come up with is the ACORN incidents. Incidents in which ACORN registered fake voters. Fake voters that can’t vote. Because they don’t exist.
Because in case you didn’t notice. You kind of actually have to exist in order to go to the polls.
The ACORN workers were making up peoples names so they could get paid more, not so they could rig an election.
This is nothing more than a Republican attempt at hyping voter fraud, that simply doesn’t exist on any meaningful scale.
53. Faceplant | December 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
“BTW sleepy, the Federal Attorney refused to investigater the voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, even though local prosecutors have.”
I can’t speak for New Mexico, but I live in Washington State, and I can say without a doubt that your assertion that the US Attorney’s office in WA didn’t investigate allegations of voter fraud is demonstrably false.
Here is what US Attorney John McKay had to say on the subject a hearing before the House of Representatives.
“McKAY: It is very true that the controversy surrounding the 2004 governor’s election was one that had a lot of public debate. I was aware that I was receiving criticism for not proceeding with a criminal investigation. And, frankly, it didn’t matter to me what people thought. Like my colleagues, we work on evidence, and there was no evidence of voter fraud or election fraud. And, therefore, we took nothing to the grand jury.”
Furthermore the Seattle Times reported that,
“McKay insists that top prosecutors in his office and agents from the FBI conducted a ‘very active’ review of allegations of fraud during the election but filed no charge and did not convene a federal grand jury because ‘we never found any evidence of criminal conduct.’ ” The Times also reported: “McKay also wanted to make it clear that he pressed ahead with a preliminary investigation, despite the hesitation of Craig Donsanto, the longtime chief of the Election Crimes branch of the Department of Justice, who ultimately concurred with McKay that no federal crimes had been committed in the election.”
In fact the US Attorney’s office in WA DID investigate allegations of voter fraud, and came to the conclusion that there was NO evidence of it.
Quite simply put, they didn’t prosecute voter fraud, because it didn’t happen. And thats true no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.
54. Faceplant | December 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“A photo ID is required to board a plane, cash a check, and open a bank account. Its even required to get welfare benefits. So much for your bogus bullsh*t.”
Last time I checked boarding a plane, cashing a check, or opening a bank account was a privelege. Voting is a right. In other words, if you actually think these things are comparable… you are an idiot.
Second, what isn’t bullshit are the real numbers. Numbers like this.
“The Eagleton Institute research is supported by findings from a poll conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law in November 2006. Their poll, “Citizens without Proof,” found that as many as 11 percent of Americans—more than 21 million individuals—do not have a current, government-issued photo ID. Elderly, poor and minority Americans are more likely to lack government-issued ID. Polling results suggest six million elderly Americans do not possess a government-issued photo ID, 15 percent of voting-age citizens earning under $35,000 a year do not possess such ID and fully 25 percent of voting-age African Americans do not possess this ID.”
And this,
“Just last month, the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University presented new research findings to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that suggest Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans are less likely to vote as a result of increasingly restrictive voter ID requirements. The Eagleton study examined the 2004 election and concluded that in states requiring voters to present an ID at the polls, voters were 2.7 percent less likely to vote than in states where voters were merely required to state their names. Latinos were 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian-Americans 8.5 percent less likely to vote and African Americans 5.7 percent less likely to vote. Since the research depended on the November 2004 Current Population Survey (CPS), a data set that has been criticized for its small sample size of minorities, it may actually understate the impact of ID requirement on minority voters.”
Combine that with the fact that the type of fraud that voter ID laws would prevent, really doesn’t exist on any kind of meaningful scale, the law does much more harm than good. But that’s really the point isn’t it?
When all you’ve got to use as evidence is the ACORN Non-Scandal (which is fraud on the same scale as petty shoplifting) then you know you don’t have much.
55. uaydvkub&hellip | December 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am
uaydvkub
uaydvkub
56. Part Time Job Vacancy&hellip | March 11th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Financial Freedom & The Time To Enjoy It! Part 1 – The Right Mindset
Developing a positive mindset is essential when starting your work from home business.