Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting behind the scenes gamemanship that is effecting the rights of some Nevada Democrats to vote in the upcoming caucus... <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053210112396131.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB120053210112396131.html</a> >>Both Democrats and Republicans are good at practicing hypocrisy when they need to. But it's still breathtaking to see how some Democrats ignore that it was only last week they argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday. D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit. Mr. Taylor exploded after Bill Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit on Monday, and Hillary Clinton refused to take a stand. "This is the Clinton campaign," he said. "They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada." He later told the Journal's June Kronholz, "You'd think the Democratic Party elite would disavow this, but the silence has been deafening." (Late Tuesday the Democratic National Committee quietly filed a motion supporting the Nevada party's rules.) However, the lawsuit has created an uproar among voters. It was the No. 1 issue among 30 Nevada Democrats participating in a Fox News focus group on Tuesday night; the anger among rank-and-file voters was palpable. The left-wing Nation magazine has denounced the suit as an attempt to "suppress the vote." The case goes before a federal judge in Las Vegas this morning. Plaintiffs argue that the caucus sites on the Strip unfairly discriminate against other workers on-duty that day. Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union, insists "our only interest is fairness." But instead of seeking additional at-large locations, they want to close down the casino sites. Backers of the suit claim they didn't learn of the caucus rules until recently, although they were approved at a party convention nine months ago. Nevada Democrats are free to set their own rules for a caucus, which isn't a government-run election. And as in Iowa, the Nevada caucus is designed to be unfair to many people, including those who are out of town, sick or value a secret ballot (since all voting must be public). But the time to argue about the rules has passed. As Rob Richie, executive director of the liberal group FairVote, says, "You simply don't want to reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want people to participate." Meanwhile, Democrats will also be asking for identification at caucus sites. The nine at-large casino sites are meant only for workers who can prove they are employed within 2.5 miles of the Strip, an area that Barack Obama notes includes thousands "working at McDonald's" as well as gas stations and bodegas. Democratic leaders insist workers need only show an employee badge. If they don't have one, a party spokeswoman lamely says "we'll somehow accommodate them." The Las Vegas Review Journal notes "some Strip workers will have no alternative but to provide photo identification." For a party that compares photo ID requirements to Jim Crow poll taxes, even when state governments distribute the IDs for free, the irony is rich. And it doesn't stop there. Opponents of the Indiana photo ID law used Faye Buis-Ewing, a 72-year-old retiree who had trouble getting a state-issued ID, as a poster child for how the law would block voters. Then it was learned Ms. Buis-Ewing lives most of the year in Florida, has claimed residency there, and was illegally registered to vote in both states. Confronted with these facts, Ms. Buis-Ewing was unrepentant. "I feel like I'm a victim here," she told the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. "I never intended to do anything wrong. I know a lot of people in Florida in this same situation." She's right. But "snowbird" registrations in multiple states can swing skintight elections, and are a good reason to tighten both identification and absentee ballot laws. In Florida, where the Bush-Gore presidential election was decided by 537 votes, the New York Daily News found in 2004 that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City had voted twice in at least one recent election. Selective outrage, anyone? In 1995, Barack Obama sued Illinois over its voter registration rolls on behalf of the radical group ACORN, and he now rails against Clintonista attempts to shut down Nevada caucus sites and photo ID laws. But just last September, Oprah Winfrey held a lavish fundraiser for Mr. Obama at her California estate. None of the 1,500 guests could enter until they presented a government-issued photo ID that could be compared to a guest list. When asked about this, the Obama campaign had no comment. Republicans can also be hypocrites, pushing photo ID laws while downplaying the larger issue of fraud linked to absentee ballots, which are popular with their suburban voters. Meanwhile, voters are increasingly concerned about all kinds of ways to undermine ballot-box integrity. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 17% of Americans think large numbers of legitimate voters are prevented from voting -- and 23% believe many illegal votes are cast. After the 2000 Florida recount debacle, Congress compromised when it passed the Help America Vote Act. Sen. Chris Dodd, its Democratic co-sponsor, hailed it as both "making it easier to vote and harder to cheat." But the law's limited reach needs to be extended at both the federal and state level. Here's hoping both parties are so tired of this year's partisan wrangling that next year Congress can reach for Sen. Dodd's twin goals.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And here is the judge's ruling from this morning.... <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U7R1200&show_article=1" target="_blank">http://www.breitbart.com/artic le.php?id=D8U7R1200&show_article=1</a> >>Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip. "State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said. Nevada's Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods. The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the suit against the special precincts shortly after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit. The suit contended party rules allowing the precincts gave too much power to the casino workers and violated federal equal protection guarantees. But the judge said, "We aren't voting here, we're caucusing. That's something that parties decide." He said it is "up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them." The Democratic National Committee ratified the state party's rules in August. Opinion polls show Clinton, Obama and John Edwards in a statistical dead heat in the Nevada race. Each has made a vigorous bid for union support. Opponents of the strip precincts said they could be more valuable in the delegate count than some sparsely populated counties, giving them too much clout. The Culinary Union said the suit was an attempt to disenfranchise its members. "Backers of Hillary Clinton are suing in court to take away our right to vote in the caucuses," a union flier said. << Glad to see the judge decided to stick with what was originally agreeed to back in August.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^Actually, to me, this is a Voters Rights/ Voter Fraud issue.... I love this comment from the WSJ article... >>Democratic leaders insist workers need only show an employee badge. If they don't have one, a party spokeswoman lamely says "we'll somehow accommodate them." The Las Vegas Review Journal notes "some Strip workers will have no alternative but to provide photo identification." For a party that compares photo ID requirements to Jim Crow poll taxes, even when state governments distribute the IDs for free, the irony is rich. And it doesn't stop there. Opponents of the Indiana photo ID law used Faye Buis-Ewing, a 72-year-old retiree who had trouble getting a state-issued ID, as a poster child for how the law would block voters. Then it was learned Ms. Buis-Ewing lives most of the year in Florida, has claimed residency there, and was illegally registered to vote in both states. Confronted with these facts, Ms. Buis-Ewing was unrepentant. "I feel like I'm a victim here," she told the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. "I never intended to do anything wrong. I know a lot of people in Florida in this same situation." She's right. But "snowbird" registrations in multiple states can swing skintight elections, and are a good reason to tighten both identification and absentee ballot laws. In Florida, where the Bush-Gore presidential election was decided by 537 votes, the New York Daily News found in 2004 that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City had voted twice in at least one recent election.<< So here is the Democrats backing someone that wanted to vote twice, once in each of 2 states..... We need to clean up our voter rolls, require Identifaction to vote, and to place more controls on Absentee Voting (I would prefer more Early Voting Centers, where folks can vote a couple of weeks in advance, but have to do so in person, show ID, and then be sent to a private voting booth, to prevent someone from selling their ballot, or having to show their ballot to a controlling lover or similar situation). You can place them in major Shopping Centers and other places where a large amount of visitors each day and have easy access and parking.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Actually, to me, this is a Voters Rights/ Voter Fraud issue...." You betcha.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I don't think this was a smart move from the smart. Having a caucus in the immediate vicinity of the workplace creates an atmosphere where employers (or employee union leaders) can exert undue influence in an electoral process. How are you going to vote if your boss, who happens to be the union boss, gives you reason to believe that your vote needs to go in a certain direction to match the desires of union leadership? Are there checks and balances in place to make sure that someone who votes against the union choice doesn't find themself with reduced hours or on the graveyard shift in the days following the vote?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << We need to clean up our voter rolls, require Identifaction to vote, and to place more controls on Absentee Voting (I would prefer more Early Voting Centers, where folks can vote a couple of weeks in advance, but have to do so in person, show ID, and then be sent to a private voting booth, to prevent someone from selling their ballot, or having to show their ballot to a controlling lover or similar situation). >> You do realize that absentee ballots are rarely counted? And when they are, there is a representative from each party challenging every absentee ballot so that they all get thrown out anyway so as not to have bearing on election results. If you are concerned about voter fraud, absentee ballots should be the least of your concerns.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>You do realize that absentee ballots are rarely counted? And when they are, there is a representative from each party challenging every absentee ballot so that they all get thrown out anyway so as not to have bearing on election results. If you are concerned about voter fraud, absentee ballots should be the least of your concerns.<< Say What?? Here in California, a large percentage of total ballots cast are Absentee ballots, since California allows anyone, without any need for cause, to request one. In 2006, 41 percent of ballots cast in California were by mail. <a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_7931039" target="_blank">http://www.insidebayarea.com/o aklandtribune/localnews/ci_7931039</a> >>With less than a month before Super Tuesday, thousands of Californians have already cast their mail-in ballots, and if this year keeps up with a decade-long trend, mail-in ballots could make up almost half of all Golden State votes. In 2006, more than 41 percent of California voters mailed in ballots, compared to about 20 percent a decade earlier. "At least half of the votes cast for this election will be by mail," said San Mateo County Elections Manager David Tom. In the Nov. 6 consolidated local election, 63 percent of 75,394 voters cast their ballot through the mail. Roughly 40 percent of county voters are registered as permanent mail voters, a percentage that has grown dramatically over the past several years. "Voting by mail has grown, and we anticipate it will continue to grow," said Tom. The increase has heightened pressure on presidential campaigns, forcing them to reconsider when they need to begin courting the most delegate-rich state. "I think you want to basically approach voters with whatever messages you have before they vote," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the independent Field Poll. "Maybe as much as 20 percent of the vote will be cast prior to the final week. You don't want to miss the first 20 percent of voters." The sharp rise in popularity of mail-in ballot voting has much to do with the inception of California's permanent mail-voter status in 2002. Since then, 4.2 million have enrolled in the program. In the decade leading up to 2006, the percentage of ballots mailed in has nearly doubled. Republicans are the most likely to mail in their ballots. More than half of the party's votes this year will likely be mailed in, DiCamillo said. Democrats, on the other hand, are likely to be in the low 40 percent range. << I think about half the vote is something to worry about!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think about half the vote is something to worry about! >> The statistic you need to worry about is how many absentee ballots are challenged and never counted. In most jurisdictions, the number of absentee ballots that are thrown out is a very high percentage.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Sport Goofy, I think you are getting Absentee Ballots confused with Provisional Ballots. Here in California, the only person that processes the Absentee Ballot is a clerk of the Register of Voters, who pulls up the digital image of the signature on file, and decides whether it is the same or not, if it passes, the outer envelope is opened and the ballot is placed on a counting tray. If it fails, I believe that then it is placed in the Questionable stack, in which the after election review that includes Party officials gets involved. But there are plenty of valid ballots that are processed right at 8 PM (poll closing time) and that count is made available usually around 8:15 or 8:30 PM, as all they need to do is push the computer to start counting, as all the ballots have been lined up and in the proper trays. Provisional ballots on the other hand, such as someone who shows up at a precinct and the poll worker cannot find the person on the list of registered voters, or someone who shows up at the wrong precinct, I wouldn't doubt that many of those ballots are "thrown out" as more than like it is the voter who is mistaken, or something like the voter registration card got lost in the mail, but still, if you are not registered, then I can see them throwing out the ballot, since there is no "proof" of registration.
Originally Posted By ecdc Darkbeer, I've always been on board with your concerns over electronic voting - I think people would be shocked to aee how easy it is to hack these machines. I'm genuinely curious, how did you get so interested in the topic and how do you know so much about it (like the absentee process)?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Hold the presses - I'm going to agree with DB on this one. I think it's a shifty political maneuver on the part of the clinton campaign, and they're trying to couch it in dubious claims of unevenly weighted caucus votes. The truth is the clinton campaign is concerned that these 'casino caucuses' will trend heavily toward obama, and they want to thwart the process any way they can - legally. They're not entirely without their point though. The caucus process is very public already, and having it at your place of work, with the people you work with, and for - opens the door for undue pressure to be placed on the employees from either side - whether it's management or union - to vote as they're instructed. If it were a secret ballot cast within the privacy of a booth, I'd feel better. The caucus process creates "group-think" where individual expression is diminished. And while I see this as a bare-knuckled political tactic on the part of the clinton campaign, they are working within the system - meaning they're NOT working to suppress votes, deny voters rights or do anything illegal. I've been open about the fact that I'm not supporting hillary - not yet anyway. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. In the meantime, I'd rather not.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << They're not entirely without their point though. The caucus process is very public already, and having it at your place of work, with the people you work with, and for - opens the door for undue pressure to be placed on the employees from either side - whether it's management or union - to vote as they're instructed.>> Actually, that is not the real point of the lawsuit. The lawsuit mainly constests the caucus rules that would overweight the number of delegates assigned to these at-large caucus sites on the casino strip. Essentially, these sites are going to generate a number of delegates that is disproportionate to the delegates assigned to the rest of the voting sites in Nevada. Essentially, it give the casino workers a more influential vote than the rest of the Nevada population.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And the clintons were fine with that arrangement, right up until the unions endorsed obama. Now suddenly it's terribly unfair - six days before the caucuses are set to occur. My guess (and that's all it is) is that the clinton camp's crystal ball is telling them that obama is going to win nevada, and this was a last ditch effort to try and swing the results. It didn't work.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Hold the presses - I'm going to agree with DB on this one. I think it's a shifty political maneuver on the part of the clinton campaign, and they're trying to couch it in dubious claims of unevenly weighted caucus votes.> I agree too. Although, to be fair, a better title for the thread would have been "Clinton playing games..." rather than "Democrats playing games..." From what I can suss, it was the Dem. party of Nevada who rejected the Clinton proposal and kept the rules as they were.
