PDA

View Full Version : Justice Dept. Shrugs About Potential GI Voter Disfranchisement



Odysseus
09-21-2010, 08:51 PM
Thanks to some states’ illegal lagging, soldiers abroad may lose their vote.

Imagine if five states announced that they lacked the money and manpower to ship ballots to precincts in predominantly black rural counties before the fall federal election. The Justice Department appropriately would shift into fifth gear to assure that those Americans could vote on November 2. Enforcement lawsuits would fly like pigeons fleeing a breezy schoolyard.

Now, convert those rural blacks into American GIs serving abroad. Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington State are dragging their feet on the urgent task of delivering absentee ballots to overseas service members. The response at Justice’s Voting Rights Division in Washington, D.C., echoes a Louis Armstrong tune: “It’s sleepy time down South.”

Saturday, September 18, marked 45 days before the election. According to the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act), that was the deadline by which states had to have sent unmarked ballots overseas. This period should have allowed ballots to reach GIs, from bases in Germany to trenches in Afghanistan, in time for them to be returned by election night.

However, these five states have received waivers from the MOVE Act, essentially giving them extensions on their homework. Primary elections on Tuesday, September 14, gave four of those states (Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island), along with Wisconsin, only four days to determine party nominees, print ballots, and send them off. Rather than employ this cramming-for-finals approach, election officials in these states should have scheduled primaries early enough to avoid this headache. Meanwhile, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands also previously indicated an inability to adhere to last Saturday’s deadline.

Even worse, some of the waivers went to states that never demonstrated that they were “unable” to obey the law. This is the only standard for approving waivers.

As Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) reminded Justice in a July 28 letter:


There are only three types of “undue hardship” that are an adequate excuse for a state to seek a waiver: (i) The State’s primary election date prohibits the State from complying; (ii) The State has suffered a delay in generating ballots due to a legal contest; or (iii) The State Constitution prohibits the State from complying. If none of these situations exists, then the state may not apply for a waiver, and the federal government may not grant one.

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department voting-rights attorney, wrote about this in an August 27 column for Pajamas Media (on whose Internet TV broadcasts I occasionally appear). Despite the MOVE Act’s strict language, Adams reported, Washington State got a waiver even though its primary was on August 17, which gave it plenty of time to transmit military ballots. Delaware applied for a waiver “just in case” problems arose. Rhode Island asked for and received a waiver because of the hypothetical possibility of a primary recount.

Also, the act states that waivers apply only to “an election for federal office.” They cannot be granted for multiple years or permanently.

Nevertheless, as Cornyn’s letter reported:


Unfortunately, according to the minutes of the 2010 Winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (“NASS”), the Deputy Chief of the Voting Section told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear, that the provisions of the law are “fairly general,” that it is “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state must submit to be granted a waiver, that it is unclear whether waivers, once granted, are valid only for one election or permanently, and that litigation to enforce the provisions of the MOVE Act against the states “is always the last resort.”

The Defense Department, which decides on waiver applications, asked Justice to help it prepare guidelines so that states would understand the new law’s waiver rules and other details. Last May 24, the Pentagon asked Justice to review its “interim” guidelines.

As Adams put it, “Officials in the Voting Section allowed the Pentagon draft to gather dust. In fact, the Department of Justice never replied.” (His emphasis.)

Meanwhile, Wisconsin officials told Justice they planned to mail ballots 29 days before the election. In this case, Justice negotiated a hard bargain: The ballots instead will go out 32 days before election day.

Justice routinely sues states to force them to comply with federal voting-rights laws. Such suits now sit unfiled, while fires remain unlit beneath the tails of these law-breaking states.

As reported by the mighty Quin Hillyer of the Washington Times – who watches Justice’s Voting Rights Division seemingly with night-vision goggles — DOJ’s lethargy in this matter inspired Senator Cornyn to scathe Attorney General Eric Holder anew. “Last year, Congress enacted the MOVE Act with overwhelming bipartisan support,” Cornyn wrote Holder on Thursday. “This law represented the most meaningful reform in this area in decades, but it is not going to enforce itself.”

Why is the normally hyperactive Obama administration somewhere between drowsy and counterproductive on this matter? Could it have anything to do with the fact that military voters lean more Republican than Democratic? An April 8–11 Gallup poll found that Americans overall are 26 percent Republican, 29 percent Democratic, and 42 percent independent. Meanwhile, a survey of 1,800 active-duty troops in the April 11 Military Times discovered that these GIs were 41 percent Republican, 27 percent Democratic, and 32 percent independent. Since military voters are likelier to support Republican candidates and causes, perhaps President Obama’s Justice Department just isn’t that into defending the voting rights of overseas combatants.

Missed deadlines and other administrative snafus reportedly disfranchised some 17,000 military voters in 2008. These ballots might have tipped close elections, such as Minnesota’s skin-tight contest that eventually made Democrat comedian Al Franken a U.S. senator.

America’s uniformed men and women dodge — and sometimes absorb — bullets so that the rest of us can debate peacefully about taxes and mosques. They should expect to have a voice in choosing the leaders who might deploy them into combat — or suddenly call them home.

President Obama’s Justice Department should wake up, sue negligent states, and ensure that every military vote counts on election night.

– Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There are lots of things that this administration should do that they won't. This is just a bit more blatant than most.

NJCardFan
09-21-2010, 11:32 PM
Once again, if members of the military were rabid liberals, this wouldn't be a problem. But it's funny, they're falling all over themselves trying to legalize illegal aliens so they can vote but people who are protecting this country they could give 2 shits about. Obama can fuck a duck.

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 10:38 AM
Once again, if members of the military were rabid liberals, this wouldn't be a problem. But it's funny, they're falling all over themselves trying to legalize illegal aliens so they can vote but people who are protecting this country they could give 2 shits about. Obama can fuck a duck.

Maybe they can send the New Black Panther Party to count absentee ballots.

Remember how Gore's lawyers went to Florida to demand that every vote be counted, and then distributed a memo on how to disqualify military absentee ballots? Maybe the reason that we vote Republican is because we know that Democrats loathe us.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 10:40 AM
I bet there are some rural blacks in the military.

Just a thought.

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 10:57 AM
I bet there are some rural blacks in the military.

Just a thought.

And some rural whites, urban Latinos, suburban Zoroastrians and exurban Shintos. Your point?

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 11:15 AM
And some rural whites, urban Latinos, suburban Zoroastrians and exurban Shintos. Your point?

The author of the piece is race baiting and playing on imaginary white victimization.

djones520
09-22-2010, 11:33 AM
The author of the piece is race baiting and playing on imaginary white victimization.

You're full of shit.

Why don't you discuss the topic of the story though. The Justice Department is fucking us over. Whats your response?

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 11:48 AM
The author of the piece is race baiting and playing on imaginary white victimization.

Allow me to introduce the author of the piece, Deroy Murdock.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Deroy_Murdock_PR_photo_-_Scripps_Howard.jpg/220px-Deroy_Murdock_PR_photo_-_Scripps_Howard.jpg

And it isn't whites who are being victimized, it's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, who are deployed to a combat zone, and who are sworn to fight for the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, including the right to vote. Or don't we deserve that right?

AmPat
09-22-2010, 11:53 AM
I bet there are some rural blacks in the military.

Just a thought.I bet you just missed the point Wide Left,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,again.

AmPat
09-22-2010, 11:54 AM
Allow me to introduce the author of the piece, Deroy Murdock.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Deroy_Murdock_PR_photo_-_Scripps_Howard.jpg/220px-Deroy_Murdock_PR_photo_-_Scripps_Howard.jpg

And it isn't whites who are being victimized, it's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, who are deployed to a combat zone, and who are sworn to fight for the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, including the right to vote. Or don't we deserve that right?

OUCH!

GAME



SET



MATCH!:D

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 12:00 PM
Allow me to introduce the author of the piece, Deroy Murdock.

And?


And it isn't whites who are being victimized,

Then why the juxtapostion with the rural black scenario? Why is race brought into the mix at all? Wouldn't any rural area satisfy his point? Or urban area for that matter?

And to show how effective his race baiting was, I think the wholly manufactured New Black Panther Party Boogen was introduced by someone.

Three cheers!


it's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, who are deployed to a combat zone, and who are sworn to fight for the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, including the right to vote.

If he has that as a point, then rural blacks need not enter the discussion. He chose his own rhetorical flair and guess what, I can dismiss that for what it is.


Or don't we deserve that right?

Yes. Even those serving that are rural blacks.

djones520
09-22-2010, 12:04 PM
Straw man, and you know it. You've always struck me as being to smart to pull stupid stunts like this. :rolleyes:

Answer this. Do you think his statement is wrong?

AmPat
09-22-2010, 12:04 PM
And?
If he has that as a point, then rural blacks need not enter the discussion. He chose his own rhetorical flair and guess what, I can dismiss that for what it is.

Yes. Even those serving that are rural blacks.
He lines up, The snap,
The Kick,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



Misses WIDE LEFT- Again!

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 12:25 PM
And?
You're playing the race card, but you're shuffling from the wrong deck.

Then why the juxtapostion with the rural black scenario? Why is race brought into the mix at all? Wouldn't any rural area satisfy his point? Or urban area for that matter?
He was making the point that liberals, like yourself, would be outraged, if the federal government acted to deliberately disenfranchise a minority. He picked rural blacks because he is black, and because he knew that it would resonate with liberals. It did. So much so that you felt the need to sputter about race-bating instead of dealing with the issue.


And to show how effective his race baiting was, I think the wholly manufactured New Black Panther Party Boogen was introduced by someone.

Three cheers!
You consider the DOJ's refusal to prosecute a group of armed thugs who blocked access to a polling station due to racist animus to be a manufactured controversy? Just who manufactured that? Acme Racial Incidents Fabrication, Inc.?


If he has that as a point, then rural blacks need not enter the discussion. He chose his own rhetorical flair and guess what, I can dismiss that for what it is.
And what it is is an accurate analogy.

Yes. Even those serving that are rural blacks.
Oh, thank you kind sir, for your consideration. Allow me to touch my forelock as I bow my way out of the room. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 12:42 PM
You're playing the race card, but you're shuffling from the wrong deck.

The race card was played by the author of the piece in an attempt to appeal to his target audience.


He was making the point that liberals, like yourself, would be outraged, if the federal government acted to deliberately disenfranchise a minority. He picked rural blacks because he is black, and because he knew that it would resonate with liberals.

It appears he was successful.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 12:52 PM
And?



Then why the juxtapostion with the rural black scenario? Why is race brought into the mix at all? Wouldn't any rural area satisfy his point? Or urban area for that matter?

And to show how effective his race baiting was, I think the wholly manufactured New Black Panther Party Boogen was introduced by someone.

Three cheers!



If he has that as a point, then rural blacks need not enter the discussion. He chose his own rhetorical flair and guess what, I can dismiss that for what it is.



Yes. Even those serving that are rural blacks.


That whole forest and trees thing is a problem for you isn't it?

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 04:25 PM
The race card was played by the author of the piece in an attempt to appeal to his target audience.
But, he wasn't playing the race card. He pointed out a situation which would cause outrage if it were perpetrated against an ethnic or religious minority, and to make the point, he created a hypothetical. If this were happening to this group, it would be an outrage among liberals. Because it is happening to another group, it's okay with liberals.

It appears he was successful.
Apparently so. You've completely blown off the substance of the article to fixate on the hypothetical in the first paragraph. Did you read any further than this, or did you decide that you could stop there and then try to turn this into a race-baiting issue instead of an issue regarding the deliberate disenfranchisement of military personnel? I realize that you're more comfortable calling people racists than you are discussing substantive issues, but you really do need to move past it, as the left's promiscuous use of racism as an attack has rendered it all but meaningless, and therefore ineffectual.

Zathras
09-22-2010, 07:54 PM
You've always struck me as being too smart to pull stupid stunts like this. :rolleyes:

To quote Adam Savage from the Mythbusters...."Well, there's your problem."

NJCardFan
09-22-2010, 08:14 PM
He lines up, The snap,
The Kick,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



Misses WIDE LEFT- Again!
I think A-Dub needs to change his name to Neil Rackers.

Zathras
09-22-2010, 08:40 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/9/13/d2a250b3-fa38-4c74-a021-47f1b2aa46a9.gif

fixed.