September 2010 - Posts

More States Fail to Send Military Ballots
Thu, Sep 30 2010 3:10 PM

The ongoing saga over states sending overseas military ballots to soldiers overseas took a disturbing turn this week. A study by the Military Voting Project shows that several states and counties around the country have failed to meet the deadline for those ballots to be sent.

The Military Voter Protection project has identified seven other states with noncompliance with the 45 day requirement to send ballots overseas to military voters.  How does the MVP know what apparently the Department of Justice doesn't?  Because MVP has a top flight operation to detect and flag failure to comply with Federal law - the sort of thing that the DOJ is supposed to, but doesn't.  An article at Pajamas Media describes the Keystone Cops Routine inside the DOJ to detect and litigate military voting problems.

What's worse is how the Department of Justice is handling this issue (and the yelling that is coming from Capitol Hill) The following nugget comes from what Hill staffers have said to DOJ    

On Monday afternoon, Justice Department officials met with Judiciary Committee staffers and others to address concerns about MOVE Act disenfranchisement. Sources said when staffers asked specifically about the contents of MVP Project's letter to Holder, Justice Department personnel simply said they would handle it, and that they had 20 staffers working on MOVE Act related issues. 

Will keep you posted as this story continues to unravel and also see if Holder will do anything to ensure that our military men and women are given the opportunity to have their voices heard in this critical election.

Share |
RNLA Member’s Op-Ed on America’s Vote Fraud Epidemic
Tue, Sep 21 2010 9:05 AM

RNLA Member James J. Woodruff, a Florida attorney and law professor, had an opinion piece published at The Hill's Congress Blog yesterday. Woodruff surveys instances of vote fraud over the past several years and notes, "regardless of the criminal penalties the practice is alive and well in the 21st century." Please click here to read Woodruff's piece.

Woodruff's editorial comes on the heels of  South Florida's Sun-Sentinel's much discussed story that "Florida's voter registration rolls still include thousands of dead people and felons who by law should have been removed."

Share |
Philly Needs to Get Serious About Election Fraud
Tue, Sep 14 2010 3:37 PM

RNLA Member, and Philadelphia Attorney, Linda Kerns has an Op Ed posted at the Daily Caller laying out the case for why Philadelphia needs to get serious about fighting election fraud. Here is part of the Op Ed from the Daily Caller.

That Election Day, the poll watchers stationed inside the polling place noted that several Panthers, who were caught on tape, had been outside for at least an hour before finally being removed by the police. Poll watchers later testified that voters approaching the polls immediately reversed course and left upon seeing the Panthers out front.

The New Black Panther incident, as well as other voting place shenanigans, cannot be lightly dismissed as a partisan issue. In fact, Bartle Bull, a civil rights lawyer and lifelong Democratic activist who worked for the campaigns of Democrats Jimmy Carter and the late Bobby Kennedy, filed an affidavit in connection with the New Black Panther case based on his observations that day and stated that the behavior he witnessed was "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life" and "was a racially motivated effort to intimidate those poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree." Bull can hardly be described as a Republican plant.

Most remarkably, what those who want to scapegoat the "right-wing" seem to forget is that charges were filed against the New Black Panthers with the Justice Department. The Panthers, perhaps feeling that they were above the law, ignored the complaint and the United States obtained a default judgment. A default judgment is the legal equivalent of a forfeit. It basically means you win because the other side did not show up. But as a court was ready to enter a judgment in favor of the United States and against the Panthers, the Obama Justice Department ordered the prosecutors to dismiss the case. This is akin to the Yankees failing to show up for a game against the Phillies, and then the Yankees being declared the winners. The Justice Department's pass is nothing short of outrageous.  Panther apologists, however, magnanimously provide excuse after excuse for the Obamaadministration. Jerry Jackson, Jr., the taller Panther in the video, is still an official Philadelphia election worker — a duly elected Democratic committeeman.

[…]
More recently, on May 18, 2010, the day Pennsylvania held its 2010 primaries, I represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in Philadelphia's own Election Court. What many Philadelphians may not realize is that our county has a dedicated Election Court, which is open and fully staffed on election days, purportedly so that voters and candidates can seek immediate redress of infringements on their rights in a town where Election Day lawbreaking is all too commonplace. This year, I participated in a case captioned Citizens for Jonathan Ramos v. the Committee to Re-Elect Angel Cruz, et al, which involved a race between two Democratic primary candidates running for a seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Witnesses testified to such irregularities as "people going into the booths two or three at a time and pushing the button for them," the candidate going into the polling booth with voters to "assist" them, and the candidate threatening poll workers who questioned his actions, saying "I'll get you guys fired. You'll never work in this town."

Check out the Daily Caller for the entire Op Ed.


 

Share |
Inspector General to Investigate Voting Rights Section
Tue, Sep 14 2010 8:37 AM

In a letter send to Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Frank Wolfe (R-VA), the Inspector General of the Justice Department Glenn Fine indicated that he would open an investigation into "the enforcement of civil rights laws by the Voting Section of the Department's Civil Rights Division". The investigation stems from the actions of DOJ officials following the now infamous voter intimidation case of members of the New Black Panther Party standing outside of a Philadelphia polling location. The original case was decided by a summary judgment when the defendants failed to appear in court, only to have the case withdrawn by Obama Administration officials. RNLA Member and former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams resigned to become a whistleblower in the case.

Here is what the letter had to say on why the IG was opening the investigation (a scan of the full letter can be found here).

From the letter:

"This review will examine, among other issues, the types of cases brought by the Voting Section and any changes in these types of cases over time; any changes in Voting Section enforcement policies or procedures over time; whether the Voting Section has enforced the civil rights laws in a non-discriminatory manner; and whether any Voting Section employees have been harassed for participating in the investigation or prosecution of particular matters."

The Office of Inspector General was unable to investigate the section previously because the Justice Department's handling of the NBPP falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of Professional Responsibility. Now that the OPR's investigation is coming to a close and being drafted into a report, according to Fine, the OIG can look into the "broader issues that go beyond the Department's handling of the New Black Panther Party litigation."

An investigation would finally shed light on whether the Voting Rights Section has systematically ignored cases in which reverse discrimination could be a factor, as many conservative critics have alleged.

Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, had the following statement on the investigation.

In response, Smith issued a statement saying he was "pleased" to learn that Justice Department investigators will be looking into the issue.

"Recent allegations of politicization within the Justice Department raise serious concerns," he said. "In order to preserve equality under the law, we must ensure that the Justice Department enforces the law without prejudice. I look forward to seeing the results of Inspector General Fine's review of this matter."


The Washington Times, in an article published on page A1 above the fold, offered the following on why this investigation, while not only looking at the Philadelphia NBPP directly, is important and long overdue.

For months, Mr. Wolf implored Mr. Fine to investigate the Black Panther scandal. For months, Mr. Fine said it was out of his jurisdiction. Yet it turns out that while he claims no legal authority to review a specific prosecutorial decision, the inspector general asserts he may by law "conduct the broader program review."

This is the same sort of review, from outside the department, that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been attempting, despite an utter and lawless lack of cooperation from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The poignant point about Mr. Fine's change of heart is that the New Black Panther case was never merely about two menacing thugs standing outside a single polling place. The overdue need for an investigation centers on the broader question of whether the Obama-Holder Justice Department enforces civil rights laws equally in defense of whites and Asians as it does on behalf of blacks or Hispanics. Ample anecdotal and strong circumstantial evidence indicates it doesn't.

We'll be following this investigation and will have more as the investigation commences and of course once the report is released.

 

 


 

Share |
DOJ Undermines Pentagon, Allows Wisconsin To Ignore Military Voting Protections
Fri, Sep 10 2010 3:09 PM

Well, the Holder Department of Justice is at it again.  After it was reported that the DOJ was encouraging states to apply for a waiver from the requirements of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, it appears DOJ is continuing to assist states in skirting statutorily mandated provisions aimed at ensuring that the votes of our Military members are counted.  Today, the Holder DOJ struck a deal with the State of Wisconsin, allowing it to mail ballots to overseas military voters only 32 days before Election Day, instead of the statutorily mandated 45 days.  This comes after the Pentagon denied Wisconsin’s application for a waiver from the 45-day requirement.  “The states granted waivers presented thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military and overseas voters,” Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a statement. 

DOJ Whistleblower and RNLA Member, J. Christian Adams wrote: “Wisconsin’s waiver application didn’t even come close to compliance with the MOVE Act. They wanted to send ballots only 29 days before the election. The folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request.” 

Adams went on to explain:

 

 

Instead of aggressively suing Wisconsin immediately after the waiver denial, the DOJ engaged in secret negotiations. An immediate lawsuit would have strengthened the negotiating position of the DOJ as well as preserved various equitable legal arguments, including the argument DOJ waited too long to commence litigation. Instead of doing the right thing, the DOJ did the easy thing and reached a settlement with Wisconsin that undermined the Pentagon’s denial of Wisconsin’s waiver request.

 

The tough negotiating stance of the Holder DOJ extracted a whopping additional three days out of Wisconsin. Ballots will mail 32 days before the election instead of 29. A consent decree filed Friday will reflect this quisling agreement.

 

This is a disgrace, plain and simple. Military voters, their families and veterans organizations should be outraged at the Holder DOJ.

 

Read the full story here. 

 

 

 

 

Share |
Philly Voter Rolls Filled with Hundreds of Ineligible Names
Tue, Sep 7 2010 12:58 PM

Nicole S. Marrone, a former attorney at the Department of Justice, has a great post up at Pajamas Media on the problems with the Philadelphia voter rolls. Here is just an example of what she found when looking at the rolls following the 2004 election.

The city of Philadelphia is known for many things: The Liberty Bell, cheesesteaks, water ice, and Santa Claus-booing Eagles fans. But if research that I conducted in 2006 is still accurate today, Philadelphia should also be known for all-inclusive voting — that is, voting regardless of whether one has a pulse or is otherwise eligible to cast a vote.

Every two years, states are required to provide data to the Election Assistance Commission regarding their compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (the section of that statute which ensures voter lists are up-to-date and free of ineligible voters). In 2005, their data collection for Pennsylvania revealed that 102.5% of the citizen voting age population was registered to vote on Election Day 2004.

One might reasonably wonder how it was possible that more people were registered to vote than existed. My 2006 analysis of the city of Philadelphia's voter list provided some possible answers to that question.

In the spring of 2006, I reviewed portions of the city of Philadelphia's 2005 voting list. I found that underaged voters, deceased voters, and incarcerated felons were registered to vote and had remained on the voting list, despite the fact that none of them were eligible to vote in Pennsylvania (or, in most cases, anywhere else).

Here is why this is important and is an issue for a free and open elections, and what DOJ is doing to ensure that the voting rolls are the best they can be and as free from fraud as possible.:

Leaving names on the official voter list of ineligible voters invites fraud. While I did not witness this, a reliable person "on the ground" during the 2004 presidential election told me that he saw the signatures in the poll books of these same 12 incarcerated felons — indicating that they actually voted on Election Day.

My sampling of just a small portion of one city's data from the 2005 official voting list uncovered 408 definite or highly likely ineligible voters. And that number does not account for all of the voters who may have been ineligible due to a change in residence. The true number of ineligible voters could easily be in the thousands — just from this small sample.

Assume that there were just 400 or so ineligible voters from all of Philadelphia, and not just from a small sample. Philadelphia is just one of 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If every county had 400 or more ineligible voters on their lists for any given election, and those voters actually voted, roughly 26,800 votes would be ineligible. Multiply that by 50 states and one would be hard-pressed to successfully argue that a problem doesn't exist when relevant portions of the National Voter Registration Act, such as Section 8, are not enforced — as the DOJ's Julie Fernandes instructed.

This issue was also the topic of a Washington Times editorial pointing out DOJ's inaction to enforce the law in Philadelphia or elsewhere.

The dead voters may be forced back into their graves. The biggest scandal emerging from the infamous New Black Panther voter- intimidation case didn't even involve the Black Panthers. Instead, it came when whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that top Justice Department official Julie Fernandes had openly refused to enforce laws that require states to remove ineligible names - dead people, felons, people who have moved - from voter rolls.  

"We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law," Ms. Fernandes reportedly told a roomful of employees of the department's Voting Section in November. "It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."  

It will be interesting to see how this will play out in the coming weeks as Election Day rolls around.

Share |