MJ: Virginia Republicans Change Vote-Counting Rules While Counting Votes

[JMS]

Synopsis:   The Virginia attorney general election winner has not yet been  announced.   Fewer than two hundred votes at times have separated the Republican and Democrat candidates.    In what appears to be a bold and successful attempt to disenfranchise democratic voters  the Republicans dominated state Electoral Board and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who had just lost the governors race; decided to change the rules for counting provisional ballots from the rules which have been in effect for decades;  but only in democratic strong hold Fairfax County.    The rule change made on Friday  effected the provisional ballot count which occurred on Saturday.

 

In previous years if someone objected to a provisional ballot as not coming from a valid virginia voter;  a county elected representative could answer the protest and present evidence the voter was indeed a legal voter.   Under the new rules the voter in question must be present at the meeting and defend against the spontaneous objection in person.or else no evidence can be presented to defend against the accusation and the vote is not counted.    As of Friday  fewer than 200 votes separated the two parties candidates.   On Saturday 250 votes cast in Fairfax county were nullified under this new rule or roughly half of the provisional ballots cast in Fairfax County in the previous election..

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/virginia-voter-id-attorney-general-obenshain-herring

 

Virginia Republicans Change Vote-Counting Rules While Counting Votes

 

 

 

The race to become Virginia's next attorney general remains in flux nearly a week after Election Day. Republican Mark Obenshain led Democrat Mark Herring by a little over 1,000 votes the day after the election, but that advantage whittled away to a toss-up as more exact results came in over the following days. Obenshain leads Herring by a scant 17 votes—out of over 2 million total—as of Monday morning, according to results posted on Virginia's Board of Elections website. A recount is a certainty.

Legal wrangling is a given during any recount, but Virginia Republicans got off to an early start over the weekend, potentially exploiting the state's new voter ID law to cast aside likely Democratic votes.

The vast majority of Virginia's votes had already been tabulated by the end of last week, but a swath remains outstanding in parts of Fairfax County, a string of DC suburbs in Northern Virginia. Fairfax is still tallying provisional ballots—disputed votes that were set aside on Election Day. Virginia introduced a new strict photo ID requirement for the 2014 election; voters who lacked proper identification on Election Day could cast a provisional ballot to be assessed later. Fairfax County had previously allowed a lawyer or authorized representative to advocate on behalf of counting a provisional ballot during hearings to assess those votes. But on Friday, the Republican-controlled state Board of Elections sent a memo to the county ordering an end to this practice, shifting the rules after the election and midway through counting the votes.

As local radio station WTOP put it:

That attorney general is Ken Cuccinelli, the conservative who lost Virginia's gubernatorial election last week. As AG, Cuccinelli filed one of the first legal challenges to Obamacare and asked the Supreme Court to uphold Virginia's anti-sodomy law. Now he's telling Fairfax to change its election rules mid-count.

The state Electoral Board decided Friday to change the rules that had been followed in Fairfax County and ban legal representatives from stepping in to help get the ballot counted, unless the voter him or herself is there.

County Electoral Board Secretary Brian Shoeneman says he and board chairman Seth Stark disagree with the ruling, but they have to comply. The board is voting on some provisional ballots later Saturday.

"The office of the Attorney General advised us that this was the correct reading of the statute," State Board of Elections Secretary Don Palmer says.

Election expert Rick Hasen questioned the motivations of this new order in a blog post on Sunday: "It appears the directive came out after most of the provisional ballots (outside of Democratic Fairfax and Arlington counties) have already been counted—and it is not clear if the other counties used uniform standards in counting provisional ballots," he wrote. "Further, it seems that the rule goes against both Fairfax County practice (which allowed legal representatives to argue for the counting of ballots rather than the voter in person), as well as Virginia's Board of Elections posted rules."

[Rocky21]

The Cooch is still sticking it to us. God I hate politics.

[Popeman38]

Um, the Voter ID rule says 2014. This is 2013. And no one required a photo ID where I voted, just the standard voter registration card. Provisional ballots are great for people who have moved in the last 60 days, but that shouldn't encompass more than a few individuals. A voter needs to update their registration (and in fact, are PROMPTED TO in Va when you file your change of address form with the post office).

[JMS]

As of a week ago fewer than 17 votes separate the two candidates as of ..

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/provisional-votes-to-determine-virginia-attorney-general

 

Provisional votes could decide Virginia’s next attorney general

 

A handful of provisional ballots in Fairfax County could determine who becomes Virginia’s next attorney general, a race that has come down to an electron-thin margin of votes.

“We’ve never had an election in the country with more than two million voters where the margin has come down to less than a hundred votes,” says Dave Wasserman, U.S. House editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. ”It’s very rare that provisionals have any chance to influence the outcome of a race.”

There are currently only 17 votes separating Republican Mark Obenshain from Democrat Mark Herring, according to the Virginia state board of elections. Obenshain’s lead could easily be overtaken by the nearly 500 outstanding provisional ballots remaining in Fairfax County, a Democratic stronghold, provided those ballots are actually counted. A last minute conflict over the rules for counting provisional ballots in the state could determine who becomes the next attorney general for the state–a position used by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell as a launching pad for his successful gubernatorial campaign and by current Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as a bully pulpit for conservative causes.

 

[Popeman38]

The MSNBC article states:

There’s little evidence so far that partisan considerations are the reason for the dispute over how Fairfax County’s provisional ballots are counted, but a recount, not to mention litigation, seems likely no matter which candidate prevails.

So it doesn't seem to me that your first post, where you stated:

Synopsis:   The Virginia attorney general election winner has not yet been  announced.   Fewer than two hundred votes at times have separated the Republican and Democrat candidates.    In what appears to be a bold and successful attempt to disenfranchise democratic voters  the Republicans dominated state Electoral Board and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who had just lost the governors race; decided to change the rules for counting provisional ballots from the rules which have been in effect for decades;  but only in democratic strong hold Fairfax County.    The rule change made on Friday  effected the provisional ballot count which occurred on Saturday.

reflects what actually happened. Unless you think MSNBC is a biased, Ken Cuccinelli pulpit...

[JMS]

Um, the Voter ID rule says 2014. This is 2013. And no one required a photo ID where I voted, just the standard voter registration card. Provisional ballots are great for people who have moved in the last 60 days, but that shouldn't encompass more than a few individuals. A voter needs to update their registration (and in fact, are PROMPTED TO in Va when you file your change of address form with the post office).

Fairfax county is the most populous county in the state.   It has a greater population than  the combined populations of 80 of Virginia's 95 counties... or about 14% of the state's population...    There were about 800 provisional ballots cast in Fairfax County.

500 were denied under the new rule...   About 17 votes currently separate the two candidates for attorney general..

[Kilmer17]

A broader point is that our election system has major flaws dealing with extremely close, major elections. 

 

Election shenanigans are part of the fabric of the process anytime things get close.

[Riggo-toni]

Kilmer is right. This is all too reminiscient of 2000 when Dems started counting chads, hanging chads, double punched, etc. All of which seemed aimed at determining which criteria might swing FL over to Gore.

Now we see GOPers trying to figure out which criteria can take the election for them.

[Popeman38]

Fairfax county is the most populous county in the state.   It has a greater population than  the combined populations of 80 of Virginia's 95 counties... or about 14% of the state's population...    There were about 800 provisional ballots cast in Fairfax County.

500 were denied under the new rule...   About 17 votes currently separate the two candidates for attorney general..

Your MSNBC link says it isn't clear it is a new rule.  And the Election Law Blog posted the following (emphasis theirs, not mine):

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=56641

The key issue is whether a lawyer or representative may be present on the part of the voter at the provisional ballot meeting without the voter being present at the meeting.   The initial place to start the analysis is with the Virginia Election Code itself which states that the “voter and their representative or legal counsel” are permitted to be present.

     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.), attendance at meetings of the electoral board to determine the validity of provisional ballots shall be permitted only for the authorized representatives provided for in this subsection, for the persons whose provisional votes are being considered and their representative or legal counsel, and for appropriate staff and legal counsel for the electoral board.

There has been no change in state policy with regard to provisional meeting procedures. The voter may have his or her representative present at the meeting if the voter is also present.  The only change was when Fairfax County submitted these proposed procedures for review by the SBE.   Apparently, Fairfax had considered allowing Democrat or Republican representatives to purportedly advocate and make assertions for voters who would not be present at the meeting.  The SBE has not heard of any other jurisdiction that had implemented or even considered this new practice during the course of this or previous elections.

When the SBE became aware of the proposed plan outside the practice of local electoral boards and SBE’s interpretation of the Code, it provided a reminder of statewide guidance to ensure uniformity on the issue.  SBE only became aware of the issue when Fairfax submitted their proposed procedures for the provisional meeting to the SBE and others.   SBE immediately responded with guidance to Fairfax and the greater election community as a number of jurisdictions were holding their final provisional ballot meetings after the noon deadline for ID submissions.  A large number of jurisdictions had already concluded their provisional ballot meetings without the proposed Fairfax procedure.  After uniform practice throughout the Commonwealth, to allow Fairfax to implement a different procedure unlike the other 132 jurisdictions (and outside the parameters of the Code) would raise fundamental fairness issues.  Due to its large numbers, Fairfax has usually been one of the last jurisdictions to hold and complete its required provisional meetings.

Voters have always been permitted to be present at the provisional meeting if they wished to address the local electoral board.  If voters cannot be present after notice of the meeting, they are permitted to provide statements or other evidence to the electoral board.  In many instances, the ballot may count without the voter providing any additional information, either in person or in writing.  In some cases, no additional information or advocacy in-person will assist the voter’s qualification to vote.  The determination is based on the facts and circumstances of the provisional ballot and the appearance of the voter is not usually determinative.  To clear up any misconceptions, the election staff does extensive research on the information on the provisional envelopes, provisional logs, interviews with officers of elections or voters and then provide these reports and recommendations to the local electoral board.  In the case of provisional ballots associated with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the SBE provides research and audit trails to the local electoral boards.  In the case of ID provisionals, the law allows the voters to provide evidence by means of fax, email, mail or in-person delivery of a copy of proper ID.

So to make clear: No voter is required to appear as a prerequisite to have his or her provisional ballot count.

The General Assembly revised the procedure in the 2012 session.  One change in the process was made in July 2012 when the General Assembly clarified the role of the representative in the provisional ballot meeting:  See http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB63.  Before this legislation, only the voter and party representatives had a right to attend the provisional ballot meeting.  With its enactment, the General Assembly clearly inserted the right of the voter to have a representative or legal counsel with them at the provisional meeting.  Before this change, it was unclear that a legal representative could even be in the provisional meeting at all, voter or no voter.

Some in Fairfax assert that this is a practice they allowed in the past.  Based on the information available to SBE, no other locality in the Commonwealth or Fairfax had a procedure to allow lawyers or political party representatives to represent voters without the voter being present at the meeting.  In discussions after the reminder guidance, some informed SBE that they believed that the Fairfax electoral board had considered a policy to allow the party representatives to advocate or make general arguments on behalf of provisional voters in 2012.  However, no voters attended the provisional meeting and the issue became a moot point.  While the past actions in Fairfax are unclear on this point, the Fairfax County Electoral Board should never have allowed party representatives or lawyers to represent voters at electoral board meetings without the voter being present. SBE provisional ballot guidance has never allowed for a party or lawyer to be present and advocate without the voter present.  The SBE interpretation of the code was carefully considered by staff and leadership and this interpretation was affirmed as a correct reading of the statute by a career Senior Assistant Attorney General, counsel to the Board.

[JMS]

The MSNBC article states:

So it doesn't seem to me that your first post, where you stated:

reflects what actually happened. ..

 

So what's your alternative explanation of why Ken and his other Republicans felt the need change the ballot county rules mid- election;  and when the rule change would only effect democratic strong hold Fairfax County?    

 

This is why I don't call myself a republican anymore.   Decisions like this demonstrate Republicans have no morals or scruples.   Republicans like Ken Cuccinelli would be much more comfortable in a monarchy or a dictatorship.   They somehow think if they are in a position to invent what is legal, then they will retrofit what is right and wrong to fit their invention.  On there part; It's short sighted,  fundamentally dishonest,  and really establishes themselves as folks who aren't a viable alternative even if one were unhappy with Democratic rule.

 

It's episodes like this why Mitt Romney lost the general election against a fatally flawed Democratic incumbent.    It's because a large segment of the population didn't consider him a viable alternative even though they didn't really like Obama all that much.

 

Republicans need to rebuild their brand, and not be seen as the party of stupid,  the dishonest party,   they party which demonizes intelligence and sells out the majority in favor of the few who control their bank.

Kilmer is right. This is all too reminiscient of 2000 when Dems started counting chads, hanging chads, double punched, etc. All of which seemed aimed at determining which criteria might swing FL over to Gore.

Now we see GOPers trying to figure out which criteria can take the election for them.

 

The only problem with that analysis is that Al Gore won the popular vote in the country that year,  he also won the recount in Florida.

But it was the Republicans who controlled that stat's electoral college votes and this took the election..   So who really pulled the fast one in 2000 Florida?    The guys who lost but who history records as the winner?   Or the guys who won, who held the governorship, and control of the attorney general's office which presided over the recount; but who history records as the looser of the race.

[Kilmer17]

So what's your alternative explanation of why Ken and his other Republicans felt the need change the ballot county rules mid- election;  and when the rule change would only effect democratic strong hold Fairfax County?    

 

This is why I don't call myself a republican anymore.   Decisions like this demonstrate Republicans have no morals or scruples.   Republicans like Ken Cuccinelli would be much more comfortable in a monarchy or a dictatorship.   They somehow think if they are in a position to invent what is legal, then they will retrofit what is right and wrong to fit their invention.  On there part; It's short sighted,  fundamentally dishonest,  and really establishes themselves as folks who aren't a viable alternative even if one were unhappy with Democratic rule.

 

It's episodes like this why Mitt Romney lost the general election against a fatally flawed Democratic incumbent.    It's because a large segment of the population didn't consider him a viable alternative even though they didn't really like Obama all that much.

 

Republicans need to rebuild their brand, and not be seen as the party of stupid,  the dishonest party,   they party which demonizes intelligence and sells out the majority in favor of the few who control their bank.

 

The only problem with that analysis is that Al Gore won the popular vote in the country that year,  he also won the recount in Florida.

But it was the Republicans who controlled that stat's electoral college votes and this took the election..   So who really pulled the fast one in 2000 Florida?    The guys who lost but who history records as the winner?   Or the guys who won, who held the governorship, and control of the attorney general's office which presided over the recount; but who history records as the looser of the race.

The fact that Gore "won the popular vote" is meaningless.  Gore did NOT win the recount in Florida.  That's an ongoing lie that the left clings to and always tries to claim.

 

I think what RT is alluding to is the request by Gore and his campaign, which was NOT a full recount, but only a limitted recount of specific counties where he thought he would gain votes, while ignoring other parts of the state where he could lose votes.  It also attempted to change how overvotes etc were addressed in another attempt to add votes to Gores tally.

 

Similar to what the GOP is doing here by only addressing this issue in Fairfax County, where they hope to limit the votes for the Democrat candidate.

[JMS]

Your MSNBC link says it isn't clear it is a new rule.  And the Election Law Blog posted the following (emphasis theirs, not mine):

 

Your "blog post" contradicts itself and the record......    The State election board with the support of Ken Cuccinelli changed the counties provisional ballot count procedures on the eve of the county count mid election and successfully disenfranchised 500 voters over the objection of the County Election board.      Their policy change did not effect republican stronghold counties in rural Virginia.

Just the more populous Democratic strong hold districts of Northern Virginia...

 

I'm also very interested why Virignia went away from electronic ballots we have used since the 70's in favor of paper ballots for the first time in my voting memory.

 

This just makes the Republicans look anti democratic,  untrustworthy and unAmerican.    When are the sane Republcans going to take back their party from the Ken Cucinelli's of this world.

[Popeman38]

The only problem with that analysis is that Al Gore won the popular vote in the country that year,  he also won the recount in Florida.

But it was the Republicans who controlled that stat's electoral college votes and this took the election..   So who really pulled the fast one in 2000 Florida?    The guys who lost but who history records as the winner?   Or the guys who won, who held the governorship, and control of the attorney general's office which presided over the recount; but who history records as the looser of the race.

Come again? Analysis has been done over and over and Bush would have won a recount:

 

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

This was from a USA Today story in May 2001

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 “undervote” ballots that were at the center of Florida’s disputed presidential election.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93642 Vote Analysis: Bush Wins, Again

April 4

 

 

 

 

George W. Bush still would have gotten more votes than Al Gore even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't halted the manual recount in Florida, according to a comprehensive analysis of uncounted ballots.

In fact, Bush's 537-vote margin of victory would have increased to 1,665 under the ballot-counting standards Gore's supporters had advocated, according to a review conducted by The Miami Herald, its parent company Knight Ridder, and USA Today.

The analysis, which looked at 64,248 uncounted ballots in all 67 of Florida's counties, has Republican Bush winning under most scenarios.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

FULL ANSWER

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

Your "blog post" contradicts itself and the record......    The State election board with the support of Ken Cuccinelli changed the counties provisional ballot count procedures on the eve of the county count mid election and successfully disenfranchised 500 voters over the objection of the County Election board.      Their policy change did not effect republican stronghold counties in rural Virginia.

Just the more populous Democratic strong hold districts of Northern Virginia...

 

I'm also very interested why Virignia went away from electronic ballots we have used since the 70's in favor of paper ballots for the first time in my voting memory.

 

This just makes the Republicans look anti democratic,  untrustworthy and unAmerican.    When are the sane Republcans going to take back their party from the Ken Cucinelli's of this world.

My blog post? I used a link from your MSNBC link to avoid this very scenario where I am called partisan.  

 

 

 

Whether that was a rule change or a clarification of existing rules is disputed, but what it means is that in some cases voters will have to show up to the Fairfax County Election Board in order to have their votes counted, and that attorneys or representatives cannot argue for ballots being counted in the voter’s stead. That makes it likely that more provisional ballots will be disqualified–and perhaps more likely that the Republican candidate prevails. According to Wasserman, both sides campaign workers have been going door to door soliciting voters who case provisional ballots to show up at the Fairfax County Board of Elections to ensure their votes get counted.

THAT link is the one I used to get to the Election Law Blog. 

 

 

Some in Fairfax assert that this is a practice they allowed in the past.  Based on the information available to SBE, no other locality in the Commonwealth or Fairfax had a procedure to allow lawyers or political party representatives to represent voters without the voter being present at the meeting.  In discussions after the reminder guidance, some informed SBE that they believed that the Fairfax electoral board had considered a policy to allow the party representatives to advocate or make general arguments on behalf of provisional voters in 2012.  However, no voters attended the provisional meeting and the issue became a moot point.  While the past actions in Fairfax are unclear on this point, the Fairfax County Electoral Board should never have allowed party representatives or lawyers to represent voters at electoral board meetings without the voter being present. SBE provisional ballot guidance has never allowed for a party or lawyer to be present and advocate without the voter present.  The SBE interpretation of the code was carefully considered by staff and leadership and this interpretation was affirmed as a correct reading of the statute by a career Senior Assistant Attorney General, counsel to the Board.

Emphasis mine. 

[The Evil Genius]

From another source.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/09/virginia-attorney-general-race_n_4247571.html

 

 

According to a report by WTOP radio, the Virginia State Board Of Elections decidedFriday to change rules relevant to Fairfax County, banning legal representatives from helping count votes, unless the associated voter was actually present. The board changing the rules is dominated by Republicans.

 

Fairfax County's Electoral Board said Saturday that the modification affects hundreds of voters, and WTOP added that both Secretary Brian Schoeneman and Board Chairman Seth Stark expressed disagreement with the ruling. 

 

 

 

http://www.wtop.com/41/3501230/Provisional-ballot-voters-in-Va-face-new-obstacle

[The Evil Genius]

From this outsider, it looks as if the GOP dominated Virginia Board of Elections tried to limit the provisional ballots from being county in the heavily Dem dominated large population on Fairfax County by first saying only Fairfax county had the new process (which stated that the voters themselves and not legal counsel representing them had to show up to get their provisional ballot counted) and then, a few days later, reversed course after it realized the ****storm that would and should be coming it's way.

[nonniey]

is

From another source.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/09/virginia-attorney-general-race_n_4247571.html

 

http://www.wtop.com/41/3501230/Provisional-ballot-voters-in-Va-face-new-obstacle

According to what MSNBC reported (posted above) it seems like this "rule change" isn't a rule change at all just enforcing common standards across all counties. Fairfax wanted to count using a more liberal standard than the rest fo the state. Seems to me that JMS is protesting this action action that stops the Democrats from cheating.

[The Evil Genius]

According to what MSNBC reported (posted above) it seems like this "rule change" isn't a rule change at all just enforcing common standards across all counties. Fairfax wanted to count using a more liberal standard than the rest fo the state. Seems to me that JMS is protesting this action action that stops the Democrats from cheating.

 

From what I've read, I don't think that is true at all.

 

To me, it looks like the Va BOE attempted to change the rules midstream (after some counties provisional ballots had already been counted) so that only those people who showed up to fight for their provisional ballot would be counted. 

 

The old process was that legal counsel could attend for the voters (from what I can tell albeit Pope has info that states otherwise, but I have read the former was allowed).

 

The new process appears to me as an attempt (and subsequent backtrack a few days later) at vote suppression against a rather large & heavily Dem centric county in Virginia.

 

Am I missing something?

[MEANDWARF]

I thought Florida only screw up elections. Congrats Virginia.

[LadySkinsFan]

Um, the Voter ID rule says 2014. This is 2013. And no one required a photo ID where I voted, just the standard voter registration card. Provisional ballots are great for people who have moved in the last 60 days, but that shouldn't encompass more than a few individuals. A voter needs to update their registration (and in fact, are PROMPTED TO in Va when you file your change of address form with the post office).

 

I live in FFX County and I didn't receive a state-issued voter ID card as in years past.  It's the first time I didn't receive one in all the years I've been registered in FFX County.  I was asked to present an ID with a picture, so I presented my drivers license since I didn't have the state-issued voter ID card for this year.  I received one last year for the Federal elections. 

 

I've been registered for over 8 years this time around.  I was previously registered in a couple of other states where I was domiciled.  I first registered to vote when I was over 21 because that was before the voting age was lowered to 18.  So I was registered to vote in FFX County from 1972 until 1984 and again from 2005 to now.

 

Republicans are the people committing voter fraud.

[btfoom]

The MSNBC article states:

So it doesn't seem to me that your first post, where you stated:

reflects what actually happened. Unless you think MSNBC is a biased, Ken Cuccinelli pulpit...

And that is MSNBC, hardly the bastion of conservatives.

 

This is a non-story, cooked up by a partisan writer who uses innuendos to try to make something of nothing.

 

Besides, we all know the Democrats are always the ones 'fixing' elections. 

[Popeman38]

I live in FFX County and I didn't receive a state-issued voter ID card as in years past.  It's the first time I didn't receive one in all the years I've been registered in FFX County.  I was asked to present an ID with a picture, so I presented my drivers license since I didn't have the state-issued voter ID card for this year.  I received one last year for the Federal elections. 

 

I've been registered for over 8 years this time around.  I was previously registered in a couple of other states where I was domiciled.  I first registered to vote when I was over 21 because that was before the voting age was lowered to 18.  So I was registered to vote in FFX County from 1972 until 1984 and again from 2005 to now.

So you still got to vote? I was unaware that the voter registartion card expires. I was under the impression that unless your voting place changes, or your address changes, that the same voter ID will work for multiple elections. In fact, until I moved in August I had used the same voter ID for the last 7 years.

Republicans are the people committing voter fraud.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Reps are committing voter fraud?

[Burgold]

This thread feels like another my team versus your team thread. If the parties were reversed and the actions the same how many posts would flip.?

You don't change the rules mid game and only for one part of the field. Imagine if Goodell said that holding was now legal, but only inside Fed Ex field when the Redskins were on offense.

[skinsmarydu]

This is why I don't call myself a republican anymore.   Decisions like this demonstrate Republicans have no morals or scruples.   Republicans like Ken Cuccinelli would be much more comfortable in a monarchy or a dictatorship.   They somehow think if they are in a position to invent what is legal, then they will retrofit what is right and wrong to fit their invention.  On there part; It's short sighted,  fundamentally dishonest,  and really establishes themselves as folks who aren't a viable alternative even if one were unhappy with Democratic rule.

 

It's episodes like this why Mitt Romney lost the general election against a fatally flawed Democratic incumbent.    It's because a large segment of the population didn't consider him a viable alternative even though they didn't really like Obama all that much.

 

Republicans need to rebuild their brand, and not be seen as the party of stupid,  the dishonest party,   they party which demonizes intelligence and sells out the majority in favor of the few who control their bank.

 

The only problem with that analysis is that Al Gore won the popular vote in the country that year,  he also won the recount in Florida.

But it was the Republicans who controlled that stat's electoral college votes and this took the election..   So who really pulled the fast one in 2000 Florida?    The guys who lost but who history records as the winner?   Or the guys who won, who held the governorship, and control of the attorney general's office which presided over the recount; but who history records as the looser of the race.

Trust me, I'm not happy, but I think Gore ended up losing by about 200 votes. I may be wrong, tho.

And you're right...dictatorship is almost a primary goal of the GOP. But it's what we liberals are accused of wanting.