Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Kansas GOP Chair Sends Party Email Boasting of Voter Caging
crooksandliars.com — Kris Kobach, chairman of the Kansas GOP, sent out a self-congratulatory litany of accomplishments. Among them was one particularly eye-catching item: “To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!” Did we mention it’s illegal? And that Kris Kobach is proud to be doing it? ...
nsareadthis- 1075 diggs
- digg it
- acroyear2, on 12/26/2007, -4/+69Here's his email: kobachk@umkc.edu
Let him know what you think... Share the holiday spirit...- PATSCRU, on 12/26/2007, -2/+41Why is the GOP so afraid of people voting?
Why email this guy when we can email the authorities?- bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -16/+2what authorities? Yeah...Digg knows about some illegal activities that the "authorities" do not. Riiight.
Pat...you have consistently shown yourself to be a ***** idiot. But thistime, you outdid yourself.- deadowl, on 12/26/2007, -3/+10Too bad we can't cage idiots. Then there wouldn't be any Republican votes.
- jpd272, on 12/26/2007, -10/+3They are afraid that illegal aliens, felons and the dead will "vote."
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6See the 1960 Presidential Election as to why they "fear" all of the previously mentioned. Or...the 2004 Presidential Election where the homeless were bussed to the polls to vote with promises of cigarettes.
It cuts both ways, but a lot of people forget that...especially the media. - jgzman, on 12/27/2007, -1/+7I am in favor of busing in the homeless to vote, as long as they are not pressured to vote for a particular candidate. (Yea, I know. Fat Chance) The homeless are people too, and deserve a voice in the running of the country.
This assumes, however, that any of us have a voice, which I sincerely doubt.
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6See the 1960 Presidential Election as to why they "fear" all of the previously mentioned. Or...the 2004 Presidential Election where the homeless were bussed to the polls to vote with promises of cigarettes.
- bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -16/+2what authorities? Yeah...Digg knows about some illegal activities that the "authorities" do not. Riiight.
- bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -29/+6how about posting your e-mail, so we can share the holiday spirit?
- bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -17/+3Do you seriously not realize how bad you make Digg look with the mob mentlaity "Let's GIT 'em!" crap? One person is already facing multiple felony charges for internet harassment because of Digg. There will certainly be more. The only reason why it isn't more already is because the victims don't know that they can press charges.
- Tilon, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6VOTE CAGING IS ILLEGAL
- acroyear2, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2His email is public and I'm not making any unfair claims about him.
- JDParshall, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Done.
- skylights, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4Demand the Kansas Democratic Party act now: http://www.ksdp.org/node/3547
Ask the Kansas Secretary of State to investigate: http://www.kssos.org/contact.html
Ask the Kansas Attorney General to investigate: http://www.ksag.org/content/page/id/45
Ask the Kansas City news media to investigate: http://www.visitkc.com/media_room/index.cfm?page=m ...
- PATSCRU, on 12/26/2007, -2/+41Why is the GOP so afraid of people voting?
- janeuner, on 12/26/2007, -2/+67For those who are new to this term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list- BurntToast, on 12/26/2007, -3/+15Ah... great, was just about to ask what "caging" meant. Thanks!
- mightydavefish, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2Next time don't ask.
Google.
Nothing is more irritating than some jackass who asks someone else to look things up for them.
- mightydavefish, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2Next time don't ask.
- BurntToast, on 12/26/2007, -3/+15Ah... great, was just about to ask what "caging" meant. Thanks!
- Spectre74, on 12/26/2007, -3/+28These people, those "elite", will do damn near anything, legal or not, to gain power. Once again, I am surprised, but far from shocked. I have lost all faith in the election process as a whole. The manipulation of minds and votes seems to have no barriers.
- omgwhat, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2I bet he was in Slytherin.
- apathysucks, on 12/26/2007, -3/+23Wow, just wow... Let's see if we can't get him put in the "cage".
- banmaster, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5So long as we can lock it and toss it into a river.
- bxblox, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3if it floats he's a witch and we'll burn him at the stake
- banmaster, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5So long as we can lock it and toss it into a river.
- bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -37/+13Did crooksuselessliars also mention that the democrats do it all the time too? Did they list the law that is supposedly violates?
- mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -5/+4everybody does it. the KKK even does it to black voters still in the south, though its not as obvious as it used to be
- Pake, on 12/26/2007, -16/+3They never will and people will continue to believe only one side is doing this, because they decided long ago to block out anything negative about their own party.
- greenm1981, on 12/26/2007, -2/+14It violates the Voter's Rights Act of 1965.
- DasCrackbaby, on 12/26/2007, -7/+8Republicans have cooties and stink and have bad breath and shoot babies in the face.
- Depthfunction, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7Those are all very good points. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Nonsense! Charlton Heston - excuse me, Robert Neville - had every right to shoot each member of the insane mutant "Family". After all, they were hunting him for having the audacity to use the wheel and electricity.
- jgzman, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2No, republicans shoot old men in the face, not babies.
- Ndiggnation, on 12/26/2007, -3/+16B-b-b-b-ut, DEMOCRATS!!...that makes it ok, right?
- jonmlm, on 12/26/2007, -5/+1what? can't tell if i should dig or bury you.
- kreneskyp, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Here I'll help you out: how many wrongs make a right?
- jonmlm, on 12/26/2007, -5/+1what? can't tell if i should dig or bury you.
- bulkhater, on 12/26/2007, -3/+16If you were to produce proof as obvious as this, I'm sure FOX would make it the #1 headline for the next two months.
- apeweek, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6I don't care who's doing it. If you have evidence of Democrats, Republicans, or anybody else interfering with elections, air it all out. Don't tell me it doesn't matter because 'everyone does it'. Interfering with free and fair elections is my definition of treason.
- pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -3/+43our "democracy" in action. voter caging. diebold machines. voter pruning. still we have the audacity to promote "democracy" around the world.
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4Try reading the book "Votescam". It was written before the problems of the 2000 Election and before anyone had really any thoughts about Diebold. According to that book, IBM said in the 1970s that the vote tabulation business was too ethically challenged to get involved with.
- blujupiter, on 12/26/2007, -7/+2Since caging has nothing to do with mobilizing voters as mentioned in the preceding sentence, this could be just a typo.
- jaymzdean, on 12/26/2007, -1/+9But I'm sure by "cage", he actually meant, "get all of the firemen out of the building".
- Infowarmachine, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2lol ya ;)
- Infowarmachine, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2lol ya ;)
- mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -9/+5i've never been prouder to be a Kansan!
- Ndiggnation, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10Carry on, my wayward son..
- breckinshire, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5There'll be peace when you are done.
- sj200, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5lay your weary to to rest . .
- l0k0, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4don't you cry no more...
*guitar solo* - unearth, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
I can hear them say...
C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
- breckinshire, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5There'll be peace when you are done.
- Ndiggnation, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10Carry on, my wayward son..
- scabbers, on 12/26/2007, -4/+6I'm sure they'd love to stand outside the voting booths with ak-47s.
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4An AK? How un-American. Maybe M-4's or M-16's.
- mulling, on 12/26/2007, -4/+51If there's one thing that scares Republicans, it's democracy.
- tobias1482, on 12/27/2007, -1/+0Democracy also scares Ben Franklin.
- HappyEngineer, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Is that a reference to the Dilbert episode where Ben Franklin was brought back to life? In that episode it turns out that Ben was part of a secret ruling class which picked the winning presidential candidate after voters invariably vote for Harry Ass McGee.
- tobias1482, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
This is a quote that is often attributed to Ben Franklin (it's somewhat disputed, though) that does a wonderful job of presenting why democracy doesn't work. The second sentence is the "lamb" standing up to the mob rule that a true democracy creates.
The most famous example of democracy not working though is Aristotle's The Athenian Constitution. It's a great and fun first hand history to read that actually shows some of the absurdity and Key-Stone-Cop type capers that occur under a true democracy. It's even on google books and available under Penguin Classics.
But back to our founders and Ben Franklin... They were always very wary of democracy. That's why our country is actually defined as a republic. - Dumbledorito, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2I would contend that the "lambs" in his metaphor represents average citizens (the least powerful) and the wolves represent those in power (the most powerful). The average citizen with the ability to force the wolves to let a fair vote take place ensures democracy.
You are correct that the founding fathers thought mob rule was a bad idea (hot blood making hasty decisions, oppression of minorities and all that), but I think your metaphor and the form that fear took are pretty far off the mark. - DavidYeah, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2I don't care if you call it a republic or a democracy. As long as those in power draw their power from some sort of democratic process, it's democratic.
- tobias1482, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- HappyEngineer, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Is that a reference to the Dilbert episode where Ben Franklin was brought back to life? In that episode it turns out that Ben was part of a secret ruling class which picked the winning presidential candidate after voters invariably vote for Harry Ass McGee.
- tobias1482, on 12/27/2007, -1/+0Democracy also scares Ben Franklin.
- timla, on 12/26/2007, -7/+13I do not see how they draw the direct conclusion that it is illegal?
The Wiki linked to above talks briefly about how it may be illegal if it is racially targeted, but that does not mean it is inherently illegal. It may be immoral, it may be heinous, it may be alot of things, but so far I have not seen how this case is illegal.
To end this pretty quick, they should just employ a 3 strikes rule, In any given election once a party loses 3 challenges in any voting district they are no longer able to challenge within that district for that election.- morningmatters, on 12/26/2007, -2/+9Caging targets for the most part are minorities, and that's why the court and election officials have been rejecting it for years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A742 ...
Even if you don't have much common sense there is one simple reasons why caging should be illegal, it discriminates against the homeless who the last time I checked still have the rights to vote.- timla, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4You are assuming that what they are doing is targeting the homeless or minorities. I am simply stating that until some more information is gathered you do not know for sure. Even if I concede, which I would, that they probably are at some level targeting minorities or homeless, we do not know for sure, and therefore we cannot state that their activities are illegal off hand. crooksandliars is jumping to a conclusion, even if it is the most likely conclusion.
- morningmatters, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4I have not assumed anything, the court had reached this conclusion many times already after reviewing more evidence and heard from both sides. To be honest, if the GOP wants to waste money and gather evidence which will be rejected by election officials anyway they should try it, but bragging about it and then acting like it's legit will only backfire.
- sj200, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2hey timla. Are you entirley clueless? at the very LEAST it's morally wrong.
- timla, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4You are assuming that what they are doing is targeting the homeless or minorities. I am simply stating that until some more information is gathered you do not know for sure. Even if I concede, which I would, that they probably are at some level targeting minorities or homeless, we do not know for sure, and therefore we cannot state that their activities are illegal off hand. crooksandliars is jumping to a conclusion, even if it is the most likely conclusion.
- nsareadthis, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3The C&L post says "Depending on what methods are being used in Kobach’s admitted voter caging scheme, it may very well be illegal,"
- morningmatters, on 12/26/2007, -2/+9Caging targets for the most part are minorities, and that's why the court and election officials have been rejecting it for years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A742 ...
- nitrusoxyde, on 12/26/2007, -2/+36Just reported to WIBW Channel 13 in Topeka, KS - who informed me that they advised a producer and requested that I email them the link...which I did
- Ndiggnation, on 12/26/2007, -5/+10What he clearly meant was "engaged more voters", and of course the Outlook spell and grammer checker just didn't catch it, or something..uh uh..look over there, that guy used to be a DRUG DEALER, and his name sounds like Osama Bin Laden, and he went to a madrassa!! Look over there!!!
- enri, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Huh? I was watching a movie on my new iPhone. Did you say something?
- edbosanquet, on 12/26/2007, -22/+9Voter caging is not illegal. What is illegal is targeting based on race. Voter caging is the practice of trying to eliminate illegal voters. Eliminating illegal voters is good for democracy. crooksandliars is once again telling half a story.
- timla, on 12/26/2007, -15/+5As rabidly anti-Bush as i am, I agree completely. This source thinks were are stupid. They are just as bad as fox news or any other right-wing hack. Just because the tricks being used are being used by your side (or my side, or anyone else's side) does not make them correct.
- breckinshire, on 12/26/2007, -3/+12Making fun of crippled children is also not illegal, but I wouldn't brag about doing it.
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5"Voter caging is a practice of sending mass direct mailings to registered voters by non-forwardable mail, then compiling lists of voters, called “caging lists,” from the returned mail in order to formally challenge their right to vote on that basis alone. Other methods, such as database matching, have been used more recently to compile voter caging lists. The practice is used almost exclusively by officials or members of the Republican Party, local and national."
source:
http://projectvote.org/issues/voter-caging.html
I dont really care if it is legal or not. it directly undermines democracy and is a slimy tactic to "loophole" their way into winning elections. - Dumbledorito, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Given that the goal is eliminating voters (and I'm pretty sure Kobach didn't use GOP mailing lists) by giving them extra paperwork to do, this is most certainly dirty pool and not borne of some high ethical standards as pertains to voting. You're completely naieve or partisan if you think otherwise.
- tman84, on 12/26/2007, -16/+7selective sensational journalism and the people who buy into it is a fascinating thing. Both major political parties do this, but crooksandliars will never report that, because that would make them real journalists.
- morningmatters, on 12/26/2007, -5/+7Ah yes, and what tman84 said is true because he said so. If both major political parties are doing this wouldn't FOXNEWS at least covered the Democratic side already? Have you even tried to google the term and see what it comes up with?
- MacEnvy, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5Yes I did, and it comes up with numerous examples of the RNC doing it, and occasionally being bought to court and being bitch-slapped for trying to disenfranchise minority voters.
Did YOU Google it before typing that?
- MacEnvy, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5Yes I did, and it comes up with numerous examples of the RNC doing it, and occasionally being bought to court and being bitch-slapped for trying to disenfranchise minority voters.
- morningmatters, on 12/26/2007, -5/+7Ah yes, and what tman84 said is true because he said so. If both major political parties are doing this wouldn't FOXNEWS at least covered the Democratic side already? Have you even tried to google the term and see what it comes up with?
- oldhick, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5Has anyone ever been found guilty of caging? The wikipedia just links to some cases without conclusions... Its also unclear on exactly what law is being violated and how. I think it SHOULD be illegal and is certainly immoral, but when you claim on a blog that its illegal, I for one would like to see some documentation on this.
- crapmatic, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Kind of hard to impose law on those who are above it.
- nsareadthis, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3 As the C&L post says "Depending on what methods are being used in Kobach’s admitted voter caging scheme, it may very well be illegal,"
Thus far it's only been ruled illegal when it can be proven they targeted based on race, but Bush's politicized DOJ (read the links in the post, Voter caging played a large part in the US atty purge scandal that ran Gonzales out of office) especially the DOJ's civil rights division that is supposed to bring these cases so the courts haven't done so, so there hasn't been a case (yet) to decide if all GOP voter caging (The Dems do not do it) is illegal but as soon as bush goes bye bye it all will be. The GOP sends out letters to targeted registered democrats and if they do not reply they challenge the person's right to vote forcing their name from the voter rolls. It discriminates against anyone who doesn't receive their mail in a timely manner. college students, soldiers, poor and elderly and anyone who moves frequently/locally within their own district, etc. The GOP successfully denied tens of thousands of votes this way in 2004 in Ohio alone.- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3I don't think you have it totally correct. The GOP - and other groups - challenge the address if the letter is returned to their offices undelivered...with such terms as "forwarding order expired", "moved left no address" (MLNA), etc. The PBS program NOW ran a story on this a month or so ago...
- oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1You didn't even try to answer my question. I understand what caging is. I understand the allegations of who did the caging. I'm asking has anyone ever been found guilty of caging and what the punishment was.
- bowens44, on 12/26/2007, -5/+24Republicans can't compete in the arena of ideas , that's why they steal elections.
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -3/+3See Bill Clinton. Embraced welfare reform, balanced budgets, the Line Item Veto, NAFTA, and strengthening law enforcement. All of those positions were "Republican". Kinda hard to compete when the other side steals your side's playbook.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5BUT BUT CLINTON!!!
- Mark6569, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Bill Clinton turned out more to be Republican Lite than he was Democratic...very much like his wife. They are both neo-cons, part of the NWO, part of the system, they just aren't LOUDMOUTH about it, which is what makes a true Repub...loud, obnoxious, and in your face. It's time for a change in the entire process....a revolution, if you will....maybe it's already happening, but it's not on Fox News...so therefore, if a revolution happens and it's not on Fox, does it really happen?
- Dumbledorito, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Issues can't be "stolen." If one party has a different or more palatable solution/idea/whatever for, say, social security, and the voters go for it, then it obviously wasn't the other party's issue to control, now was it?
It's like saying if I come up with a better mousetrap, I "stole" the idea of a mousetrap.
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -3/+3See Bill Clinton. Embraced welfare reform, balanced budgets, the Line Item Veto, NAFTA, and strengthening law enforcement. All of those positions were "Republican". Kinda hard to compete when the other side steals your side's playbook.
- xen0blue, on 12/26/2007, -17/+4wow, crooksandliars and the submitter once again twist a story to make it fit their agenda. i'm completly suprised.
- jonmlm, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7seriously?
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3nicely played! Straight from the Republican Playbook. Attack the source and or the messenger whilst COMPLETELY AVOIDING THE TOPIC.
- jpd272, on 12/26/2007, -12/+4Much needed to keep democrats from enrolling felons and the dead to "vote."
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1yeah republicans keep getting caught doing that. I would hate to see the dems think its safe to do and try it someday.
- pyronik, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2are you kidding... umm chicago?
- cherwilco, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1are YOU kidding?? how about the 2000 and 2004 elections? Oh yeah like the republicans showed the world such a shining example of democracy in action during those 2 tiny little examples. so um what happened in Chicago again? (seriously the mentioning of a random us city isn't really ringin any bells here)
- pyronik, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2are you kidding... umm chicago?
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1yeah republicans keep getting caught doing that. I would hate to see the dems think its safe to do and try it someday.
- IanLacy, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4I'm from Kansas and this cage is cold... and lonely....
- maxx77, on 12/26/2007, -14/+5Not illegal, kids, it's legit and actually is a good thing. This happens in every state every few years. It's how they clean up the voter rolls, which cuts down on paper costs and deflates the databases. Most voters never inform their previous county or state when they move, so they stay on file indefinitely. Sending out a mailing is one way to find out if people have moved. Where you live determines who you can vote for. It's not a good thing to have someone's name show up on multiple poll books.
This only seems bad because legitimate voters could have their names pulled from the poll books. That doesn't prevent you from casting a vote though. You can always cast a vote at the polls regardless of whether you're on the voter roll. You just have to jump through a few extra hoops. If the county and/or state agrees that your name should have been on the poll book all along, then your vote winds up being counted. Otherwise, you need to go vote in the precinct you actually live in, or vote via absentee ballot if you're overseas.- neognostic, on 12/26/2007, -4/+11Jumping through a few extra hoops is exactly why this is illegal. The poor and disadvantaged, who still have the right to vote, don't have access or accessibility to jump through those few extra hoops. That is why it is discriminatory. SInce caging is done primarily in southern states, where a disaportianate majority of the poor are minorities makes this illegal.
- maxx77, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3You're "jumping" to a whole lot of conclusions. I work in voter registration in my state, and I assure you it's not how you're imagining it. If you want to vote at the polls and you're not on the poll book for some reason, you fill out a VRG 4-12 form right there at the polls. That's about the extent of it. The registration clerks then do the research to find out why your name wasn't on the poll book. If your name was taken off because you moved and didn't tell anyone (whose fault is that?), then your vote may or may not be counted. It just depends on the circumstance and the local laws for your state. Nothing illegal or discriminatory is going on here, and it's the voter registration employees who wind up having to do a bunch of work, not the voter.
- neognostic, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4Please only site your local situation. What happens in your local area is not representative of the entire nation, or there wouldn't be multiple lawsuits against this practice. I've lived in the South for 30 years, and trust me, the local registration clerks "research" involves "sorry, can't halp you here, etc." Last time I voted they couldn't even point me to the correct machine to vote on until I told them it was incorrect.
- Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1And there's also the concept that if you make something too easy, the target audience won't appreciate it. Look how few people vote in the Western World (not just the USA). It can be argued that as a society, we take the system for granted because it is too damn easy when compared to say in Iraq where people had to brave car bombings to actually vote. Look at legal immigrants to our country. To vote and to receive citizenship, they actually have to study and take a test to prove that they have a general understanding of this nation's laws and history. Realistically, everyone wanting to vote should have to pass such a test. After all, you have to pass a driver's test to receive a driver's license. But no, if we were to do something like that, there'd be more than one pressure group protesting loudly against this because it would "disenfranchise" their constituencies. The Clinton Administration ram-rodded the Motor-Voter Bill through, which made it easy to register to vote when one changes their automobile registration at the DMV. There are voter registration paperwork at every Post Office. How much more do we have to dumb-down our system? Hold the next Presidential Election during American Idol with 1-900 telephone numbers?
- maxx77, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3You're "jumping" to a whole lot of conclusions. I work in voter registration in my state, and I assure you it's not how you're imagining it. If you want to vote at the polls and you're not on the poll book for some reason, you fill out a VRG 4-12 form right there at the polls. That's about the extent of it. The registration clerks then do the research to find out why your name wasn't on the poll book. If your name was taken off because you moved and didn't tell anyone (whose fault is that?), then your vote may or may not be counted. It just depends on the circumstance and the local laws for your state. Nothing illegal or discriminatory is going on here, and it's the voter registration employees who wind up having to do a bunch of work, not the voter.
- maxx77, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4Neo, here's a good analogy that sums it up really well. Imagine if your phone book always contained the same names every year. Instead of taking names out of the book each year when people move, switch numbers, or die, everyone's name and number always stays in. Imagine how huge that book would be in just a few years. That's basically what happens if voters are left in the system. You have to eliminate the overhead somehow.
Preventing someone from voting can be illegal. Removing someone from a poll book when there's good reason to believe that they don't belong on it isn't. You're always going to be given the chance to vote and you're always going to be given the benefit of the doubt.- neognostic, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3I have no problem with that if it wasn't politically motivated. Let the elected, appointed by the agency in charge of the voting do it instead of a political party focusing on those that don't have the resources to respond is my issue, not bloated lists.
- nsareadthis, on 12/26/2007, -4/+5So just because it hasn't been ruled illegal (yet) except when it can be proven that they targeted race, it's ok with you that the GOP (btw, the democrats don't do this. Never have.) caging suppresses the votes of the poor, the deployed, and college students, and anyone else who doesn't reply to junk mail. I travel in my job and am only home about 1/3 of the time. For this reason I bank online and do not accept snail mail anymore. I haven't opened or sent a letter in years. My home does not have a mailbox because I have no reason to receive snail mail. Not one. Except for some asshole who thinks because I don't accept snail mail I shouldn't be able to vote. This ***** will be illegal as soon as Bush's politicized DOJ gets kicked to the curb.
- maxx77, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3This is the last reply I'm making on this, as there's nothing left for me to explain. In my state, the Department of Justice did the mailing, not any of the political parties, so drop the partisan argument. It was a postcard that was sent out that basically said "are you still living at this address?" If you didn't reply, you didn't get canceled. You might have had your status changed to "inactive" for not having replied. You still show up on the poll books when you're inactive. If you don't vote, update your registration, or reply to any mailings for several years, THEN your status is changed to canceled. You can re-activate your registration at any time, it's not difficult.
For the postcards that came back as being undeliverable, those voters were also made inactive. If you were already inactive and enough mailings have come back as being undelivered, you're switched to canceled. Should the state waste postage, paper, and ink because you can't be bothered to open your mail or show up to vote? These people are only trying to help you and help everyone else who can legitimately vote.
I'm the same as you, I don't open 99% of my snail mail. I do open anything that comes from the government though. I'm not trying to rile you up, but that's just common sense. If you're ignoring your mail, you're risking several things, like being in contempt of court for not showing up to jury duty. - Lynxpro, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2The deployed? I seem to recall the issue with deployed servicemen absentee ballots being challenged was the work of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party.
As for not accepting Snail Mail, then you should take up the issue with your elected officials. The State of California - via the Secretary of State's Office - circa 1998 had a pilot program of sending e-copies of the voter guides and paid a few cents to the "beta testers" for saving the State the cost of postage to snail mail the traditional materials to them. - CourtesyFlush, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3"So just because it hasn't been ruled illegal (yet) except when it can be proven that they targeted race, it's ok with you that the GOP...."
Let's stop right there.
The problem here is that an article has clearly reported it as being illegal. The problem here is that Crooks and Liars has printed a blatant falsehood.......and THAT is ok since it is about the GOP.
The shoe is actually on the other foot, junior. Let's not pretend it isn't.- nsareadthis, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1From the C&L post "Depending on what methods are being used in Kobach’s admitted voter caging scheme, it may very well be illegal,"
You're dumping on C&L for a quote from another blog, which C&L tempered.C&L didn't report a falsehood. You did about C&L.
- nsareadthis, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1From the C&L post "Depending on what methods are being used in Kobach’s admitted voter caging scheme, it may very well be illegal,"
- maxx77, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3This is the last reply I'm making on this, as there's nothing left for me to explain. In my state, the Department of Justice did the mailing, not any of the political parties, so drop the partisan argument. It was a postcard that was sent out that basically said "are you still living at this address?" If you didn't reply, you didn't get canceled. You might have had your status changed to "inactive" for not having replied. You still show up on the poll books when you're inactive. If you don't vote, update your registration, or reply to any mailings for several years, THEN your status is changed to canceled. You can re-activate your registration at any time, it's not difficult.
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1it would be a good thing IF... there where not exploitable loopholes that are constantly used (almost exclusively by republicans) to suppress the votes of democrats.
- neognostic, on 12/26/2007, -4/+11Jumping through a few extra hoops is exactly why this is illegal. The poor and disadvantaged, who still have the right to vote, don't have access or accessibility to jump through those few extra hoops. That is why it is discriminatory. SInce caging is done primarily in southern states, where a disaportianate majority of the poor are minorities makes this illegal.
- hawkeye17, on 12/26/2007, -6/+5It's illegal and he should be disbarred at the very least. And to the fringe folks who don't think this is criminal or wrong, ask yourselves this....How would you react if this guy was a Democrat and caging Republicans? Be honest if you can.
- fotbr, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1It MIGHT be illegal. As for right vs wrong, I don't give a damn. Also wouldn't give a damn if it was a Democrat "caging" Republicans. Nothing is going to change the game that is politics. Both groups are equally corrupt, and any belief that one side is superior is founded entirely in fantasy and delusion.
- bsmang, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2But you forget that the republicans claim Bush. So other parties literally are superior at this point in time. At least measurably if not terribly significantly.
- fotbr, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1It MIGHT be illegal. As for right vs wrong, I don't give a damn. Also wouldn't give a damn if it was a Democrat "caging" Republicans. Nothing is going to change the game that is politics. Both groups are equally corrupt, and any belief that one side is superior is founded entirely in fantasy and delusion.
- jizzatch, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Kobach teaches Constitutional Law and supports Rudy Giuliani for President. Giuliani's law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani has been tied to the Trans-Texas Corridor, as the firm represents Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A, one of the investment firms involved in the financing of the project. The network, as planned, would be composed of a 4,000-mile (6,000 km) network of supercorridors up to 1,200 feet (370 m) wide to carry parallel links of tollways, rails, and utility lines. Republican Party presidential candidate Ron Paul has voiced major opposition to the project, calling it the "NAFTA Superhighway" and saying the road would lead towards a North American Union.[14] Jerome R. Corsi an American author and conservative activist vehemently opposes the Corridor and has written a book called "The Late Great USA, the coming merger with Mexico and Canada" [15] which outlines many of the Trans-Texas Corridor's more intimate and less public details. [16]
- keraneuology, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Anybody who says that the GOPers are the only ones who use dirty tricks and underhanded tactics in elections is either an idiot or a liar. Shall we speak of the undeniable campaign funding illegalities? The open fraud in registering as many illegal immigrants as possible? Want to scare the crap out of a Democrat? Propose that people dip their fingers in ink after voting so they can't vote more than once.
- wheresjim, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1The ink thing is a good idea, you could tell the Bush voters by their ink-stained nostrils. Sorry, that was way beneath me, stupid and unkind, I just couldn't resist.
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Project Vote has a very informative write up about voter caging and how its exploited outside of its original intended purpose.
http://projectvote.org/issues/voter-caging.html - sj200, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3Everyone should email this toilet seat scum and let him know how all of us "regular law abiding folks" feel. kobachk@umkc.edu
- WhiteRaven, on 12/27/2007, -4/+4Claiming that caging is illegal is not only inaccurate, it's nonsensical. "Caging" means you challenge a voter registration's validity in accordance with a given state's own voter laws. It's really not possible to do it "illegally". Either the challenge succeeds or it doesn't.
It seems to me that when selfish interests of political parties are directed towards helping to police the voter rolls, that's a good thing.- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2it would be a good thing if it wasn't exploited to suppress votes. if there is a loophole that can screw over the democratic process then it should be fixed. the methods of using caging you describe are indeed the intended original use but the methods it is widely used for today are slimy and underhanded.
- pyronik, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2if the dems wouldn't be registering the dead and illegals then there wouldnt be anything to challenge...as it is there is something to challenge
- cherwilco, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1my point was that we do need a system like this, but one without exploitable loopholes. now considering my opening statement was it WOULD be a good thing if.... do you have any other points to make?
- pyronik, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2if the dems wouldn't be registering the dead and illegals then there wouldnt be anything to challenge...as it is there is something to challenge
- cherwilco, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2it would be a good thing if it wasn't exploited to suppress votes. if there is a loophole that can screw over the democratic process then it should be fixed. the methods of using caging you describe are indeed the intended original use but the methods it is widely used for today are slimy and underhanded.
- smotpoker1, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3have that man arrested and all involved investigated and fired.
- xonahuia, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1yeah, and we should waterboard him just for the fun of it
- fakekevinrose, on 12/27/2007, -2/+5can the republicans just go 1 week without a scandal
- cherwilco, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2nope
- Pilot85, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1When (if) Dems take power, I think we'll see just as many scandals, sadly enough.
- Maddoktor2, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Ron Paul should seriously consider changing his party affiliation.
- Scanner, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Soo, other than the quoted line do any of these "biased" web sites have any REAL proof? I can make up a quote and attribute it to anyone and get it splashed all over digg. Tell me dems, when did you stop beating your wife?
- bshock, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Granted, an admission of guilt isn't absolute proof, but it's enough to warrant a criminal investigation.
- bshock, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Wow. For once a member of the GOP actually admitted to criminal fraud. It almost seems a shame to jail someone over such rare candor. But only almost.
- Timetheos, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1http://timetheos.blogspot.com/2007/05/stealing-ele ...
Days after his wife of four decades died of liver cancer, Robert Holmgren came home to find her absentee ballot. He filled in Charlette Holmgren's intended votes for Dino Rossi and George W. Bush, forged her signature, and mailed her ballot along with his.
"I know by the law it wasn't right, but it felt right in my heart," he said. "I wasn't trying to defraud anybody. I was just going with my wife's last wishes."
What??? Republicans voting illegally?
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by