Splicetoday
Splice Archive
Politics & Media
Sep 12, 2008, 08:22AM

Michigan GOP: No house, no vote.

Eartha Jane Melver, Michigan Messenger

Michigan, one of worst economies in the country, has a large number of foreclosed homes—mostly owned by African Americans. The GOP will attempt to bar as many would-be voters from the polls if their house has been foreclosed. Not only possibly illegal, this is simply evil.

UPDATE: at least Mississippi Republicans have been stopped in their tracks to disenfranchise voters

2539334956 87cef7e457.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

respres

The Macomb GOP’s plans are another indication of how John McCain’s campaign stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state. McCain’s regional headquarters are housed in the office building of foreclosure specialists Trott & Trott. The firm’s founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Republican nominee.

The Macomb County party’s plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans — the most likely kind of loan to go into default — were made to African-Americans in Michigan, according to a report issued last year by the state’s Department of Labor and Economic Growth.
Older Politics & Media
Newer Politics & Media
Discussion
  • Missing sm

    dtdowntown

    commented

    Unfortunately, what they are doing is legal, and unless the people are properly educated they will get fucked. It is legal to challenge a vote on the grounds of residency and legal to use foreclosure lists to do it. However, it is the right of the voter to fill our a provisional ballot anyway, they should have the right to prove their current address is in the same district or ward, they should have the right to prove that they still live in their foreclosed home and they should have time to do so (not necessarily same day only). Unfortunately, many voters and poll workers won't know this, they won't be able to vote at all and their votes will be lost. Also, as the article mentions, there will be long lines that will discourage other voters. This will likely be illegal when: Foreclosure lists are only used in targeted areas and not uniformly throughout the state, especially if other areas of the state have high foreclosure rates. People are stricken from the list of eligible voters and not allowed to vote. The key here is that the voters are believed to be registered but the claim is that they are registered in the wrong place--this is very similar to the ballot shenanigans that took place in the 2004 election in Ohio, where people were unfairly and inaccurately put on ineligible lists and, illegally, weren't allowed to vote. (Ironically, that year Ohio had sued over disenfranchisement due to the uneven use of voting machine types. They won that suit, with the resolution of, "but we can't do anything about it now, because the election is over...but it was illegal...our bad") If that is the case, they should be able to vote anyway, but that vote will have a "challenge" on it and may not be counted if conditions warrant. In all, this is an absolute disaster. If this is implemented widespread it will be a brutal blow to democracy in this country and even if it is found to be illegal, we'll get another Ohio case, with a ruling that states, "yeah, it was illegal, but there was nothing we can do about it now. It's illegal from now on though." Great. That's really reassuring.

    Responses to this comment
  • Missing sm

    Christian

    commented

    And don't forget the weird ruling in Indiana, where voters have to show a government issued picture i.d., meaning a passport or driver's license, which a ton of people, disproportionately African Americans, don't have.

    Responses to this comment
  • Missing sm

    dtdowntown

    commented

    That's actually not a very weird ruling and is becoming widely popular among those concerned with "voter fraud" who are actually trying to disenfranchise low-income individuals, african americans and the elderly. However, these have come into question legally when no provisions have been made to accommodate those individuals, like offering free government IDs to low income individuals, or using multiple documents like a lease or paystub to prove residence. Its a tough situation, because on the one hand, you only want eligible voters (e.g. those registered to vote) at the polls and you want to make sure that nobody is impersonating someone else. On the other hand, many people don't have drivers licenses or photo-identification and even if the government offered Free ID, wouldn't be able to take the time off of work to get their Photo ID taken during normal business hours or would have no means of transportation to get to a government office to get their ID. These regulations vary on a state by state basis, with egregious violations being ruled unconstitutional, but for the most part these are viewed as reasonable methods for ensuring the sanctity of the vote and people who don't have a government ID are just part of the "price we pay for a secure democracy." Boy, am I sick of hearing that.

    Responses to this comment
  • Images 10 03 25.jpeg?ixlib=rails 2.1

    Spartan

    commented

    Let's remember that voter "fraud" is bipartisan, as the 1960 election showed. Nixon had a valid case against Mayor Daley's machine in Chicago producing ballots of "dead men" for JFK, but Nixon didn't press it because of his own irregularities. And today, in many big cities, where lines are long, people are just waved through without producing *any* i.d. It's only since Florida in 2000 that a lot of this has gotten widespread attention.

    Responses to this comment
  • Missing sm

    dtdowntown

    commented

    @ Spartan: A few quick points. 1. Voter Fraud is not the issue, disenfranchisement is the issue and many Republican-sponsored bills are disenfranchising people under the guise of preventing voter fraud, and therefore gaining widespread support. It's devious. 2. Forget cities, many states do not require *any* ID--your name just has to be on the registered voter list and can only be used once. As some places ad voter ID laws they ignore the potential disenfranchisement of thousands who don't have an ID and they provide no alternatives. 3. This is even more egregious, as it targets LEGALLY REGISTERED VOTERS and challenges their right to vote based on foreclosure. If this gets pulled off and the election is close, expect another national embarrassment.

    Responses to this comment
  • Images 10 03 25.jpeg?ixlib=rails 2.1

    Spartan

    commented

    I understand your outrage as a Democrat, but I simply want to point out that Voter Fraud IS an issue, and it hurts both Democratic and Republican candidates. Surely you're not so partisan that you can deny that Democratic operatives can be just as devious as their Republican counterparts.

    Responses to this comment
  • Photo0081.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

    asamsky

    commented

    Have any of you actually seen any news reporting recently on voter fraud coming from the democratic party? I don't think it's a partisan matter when there's ample documentation on republican fraud and nothing that I have ever heard of on the other side. I would be very interested to learn about democratic tampering in the past two presidential elections (seriously).

    Responses to this comment
  • Images 10 03 25.jpeg?ixlib=rails 2.1

    Spartan

    commented

    What about the Democrats who voted in both New York and Florida in both the 2000 and 2004 elections? That was in The New York Times. What is the "ample" documentation of GOP fraud in the past two presidential elections, aside from complaints by Democrats?

    Responses to this comment
  • Missing sm

    dtdowntown

    commented

    You are missing the point. Voter fraud is a very serious issue. Tampering is inexcusable and if either party illegally tampers with votes they should be severely punished. But that is not the point of THIS article, which is about preventing legally registered voters with the right to cast a vote. That is disenfranchisement and it violates the constitution. Tampering is illegal and wrong, but it is a different issue--it is also not voter fraud in the same sense. The "fraud" that, in this case Republicans, has nothing to do with the party, it has to do with them worrying about impersonation, or illegally casting a vote. There is no greater injustice in democracy than denying an eligible person the right to vote and that is exactly what is happening. How are you failing to grasp this?

    Responses to this comment
  • Photo0081.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

    asamsky

    commented

    Well put, Dtdowntown. To Spartan, this oldish Paul Krugman column brings together some pretty ample documentation of Republican vote tampering - it's also from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?scp=3&sq=florida%20voting%20fraud%202000&st=cse

    Responses to this comment
Register or Login to leave a comment