Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Giffords ACLU Board Opens Voting to Illegals

We are wondering what is taking so long for Giffords to issue a statement regarding the 9th Circuit's stay against enforcing Proposition 200's citizenship requirement that prevents illegals from voting. Considering that she opposed Prop 200 in the first place, that she is a board member of the ACLU in Southern Arizona that supported the lawsuit, and she is involved with open border groups, perhaps a statement from her is unnecessary.

The ACLU claims that requiring proof of citizenship and identification "disenfranchises voters and hinders voter registration drives," We would like to hear Giffords response to the question of what could be wrong, or unconstitutional, about disenfranchising people who broke the law to enter the country and who now try to break the law again to sway an election.

And why would she support such a radical view at the same time running tough-on-the-border ads?

Some suggest she plans to use the 9th Circuit opinion and her open borders groups to help get illegal aliens to the polls. Unfortunately, it will be impossible to tell if she succeeds.

21 comments:

sirocco said...

TC,

As you are well aware, extremely few (if any) illegals vote in our elections. I've done some extensive searching and have yet to find a documented instance, although some (very rare) examples may exist.

The people who _would_ be disenfranchised in large numbers would include (but not limited to):

1. Elderly who don't have easy transport to get the necesary documentation.

2. Extremely rural citizens, including numerous indians in parts of the state.


It goes without saying any law which limits the ability to vote will, by design, decrease the number of people who vote. Since a representative democracy is supposed to represent all voters, decreasing voter turnout should not be a goal of the system.

We should be bending over backwards to _encourage_ people to vvote, not _discourage_ them.

sirocco said...

By the way, the view in question isn't particularly radical, nor does it at all logically conflict with her views on the border.

Regarding your last paragraph, a purely baseless allegation, and a piece of trash which is beneath you (I have seen much better, well-reasoned, thoughtful posts from you), I could just as easily say:

"Some suggest Randy Graf plans to have his supports take their guns into polling places and shoot Giffords supports on the day of the election."

... and hey! My claim would be based on just as much factual evidence as yours!

Kralmajales said...

Ok...The Committee...this is more total BS Republican spiel.

Like most Republican issues you exacerbate the size of a problem because it sounds good and all while knowing inside the halls of strategy that this issue is just that...strategic ways to mobilize voters and to slow the flow of naturlized Hispanic and Native American CITIZENS to the polls.

There IS NOT PROBLEM WITH ILLEGALS VOTING. I will just plain say it. It is hard enough to get people to vote AS IT IS. We also know that Hispanic-Americans vote in lower numbers. If we can't get citizens to vote, then REALLY...how many illegal aliens a) want to vote b) would go to the trouble to try to vote period c) would risk getting caught and deported to do so?

Realistically, if there are illegals voting the percentage is miniscule and is not worth the barriers to voting for the rest of us. You all claim efficiency, well this is inefficient at its core.

Last, I was once a Republican operative in a former life. I was taught early that class is a major behavioral correlate of voting. For a host of reasons (although you all call it lazy...and so did White Supremacists in the 50s), we knew that the most important thing to do was to make it more and more difficult to vote. Republicans, class-wise and behaviorally, are more likely to vote...it has a lot to do with income, education, nice school districts and family life. Any...and I mean any...thing we could do to put up a barrier or make it difficult (in the name of the miniscule amount of fraud we wished to correct) was a HUGE step in depressing Hispanic/minority vote. That is what you all want, that is what you all are doing and in the name of fraud.

No one will call you on it because they don't want to be label as "he favors illegals voting" in the press. We knew that two as republicans...we knew we had Demos over a barrel.

It is what the civil rights movement was all about. The smallest of barriers like making people drive to the courthouse to register were used to depress minority vote...and it did. Making people show I.D. at the polls DOES drop voter turnout...and it is not about fraud...it is about behavior.

This is about much much more to Republicans than fighting fraud. Believe me...I was one of you...I KNOW how you think because that is how I thought...and that is what makes me a dangerous, pain in your backside (smile).

Kralmajales said...

OH...by the way...this very issue is why you all hate courts so much (sometimes). You know that the average voter does not have the overall facts to look at all sides of the issue and the law (not just the law you pass but our common law). They don't know history, policy, economics, and most things that are construed as facts in a court or how law in our society has evolved from the mistakes we made in the past when power was used to suppress individual and civil rights.

When these "popular" policies are looked at closely by people who know facts and know intentions (yours to depress vote of minorities), they get beat up and beat up badly. The last thing Republicans want is their simpleton ideas to be construed by someone with some knowledge and power to correct the mistakes.

You call them activist judges for this reason. You can't pull the wool over their eyes.

The Committee said...

My information sources are Hispanic-Americans living in Grajalva's district citing numerous first-hand examples of illegal aliens holding voter cards and voting in elections. Pre-Prop 200 one did not have to prove citizenship to register, so it would be nearly impossible to tell if illegals had voted unless witnessed first-hand. Ann Rodriguez has no way of controlling this.

The concerns expressed by these individuals may be unreasonable, but not baseless. They were expressed by many when the 9th Circuit decision was announced. I believe the fears expressed were mostly driven by Giffords positions on the illegal immigration issue and her association with Grijalva who interprets illegal alien rights quite liberally. I don't argue that it may have been an over-reaction, but it did occur. Perhaps I could have been more clear about that. Your reaction suggests you have lived in places where voting fraud is virtually unknown. Having lived elsewhere in the U.S. where such activity was more common, and almost accepted, I have probably become a little desensitized...and maybe more suspicious.

Proving citizenship is a one time event that only applies to new registrations. The citizens who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship are probably far outnumbered by the number of illegal immigrants in our country. Still, your point that it could be inconvenient for some is well taken. I, too, believe in making it as easy as possible for people to vote. Unfortunately, I have that suspicious thing going on as well.

The Giffords campaign would probably benefit from a public statement on this issue.

Bruce P. Murchison said...

Terry Goddard, Arizona's current AG, is asking the Supreme Court to issue a Stay on the 9th Circuit's ruling. Justice Kennedy, who ovesees the 9th Circuit, will decide whether to issue the stay or not. Stay tuned.

Kralmajales said...

The Committee:

Those "numerous" examples are enormously small. Behavior suggests that it just doesn't happen and on not wide enough scale to justify this effort or laws that breed inefficiency, lower turnout among legitimate registrants, and even hatred. The costs and benefits don't add up.

Where voting fraud COULD matter is in the way large numbers of votes are counted and processed. The effort should be placed on voting machines, transportation of ballots, and legitimate counting of ballots. THAT is were elections can be stolen from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Voter fraud, I know, is a non-issue with illegals. They fear even reporting crimes against themselves and their families, let alone getting up on a fall day, walking to a polling place (transportation issues right) and being able to walk in and pretend to be someone else. That is a LOT of effort and it rarely happens.

But until people learn and smarten up, your rhetoric of "illegals are voting" and "Giffords is trying to turn out illegals" will work and it is a dangerous misperception that looks like a lie.

Framer said...

Just a few quick things:

1. The claim of disenfranchisement for people needing ID to vote is hyperventalating just as much as "illegals are voting." We just had a test run in the primary and there were no such claims proven or I believe even made under the current system.

2. It would be a lot easier to accept Democratic claims of "voting integrety" if the were not, albiet indirectly, trying to turn the franchise into a lottery.

3. It would also be easier to accept Democratic claims of trust in the system if they weren't spouting off conspiracy theories about Diebold in Ohio.

4. Giffords holds a prominant position in a group that worked to overturn the will of the people in CD-8. This at least deserves some clarification on her part. Had the Minutemen overturned a voter initative, Randy would be on the hook for that both by the media, and most of the local liberal bloggers.

Kralmajales said...

1. Not hyperventilating. This was an issue in the civil rights era in the south. It was viewed as making it more difficult to vote...and for what...so ya'll can rally against all those illegal voters...demonize them...even though they just don't exist.

2. Osterloh is kook. One of the biggest opponents to this idiot idea is a democrat. Don't use this isolated example to turn on what you all have been doing for years. Trying to make it more and more difficult to vote because you know the predominant correlates of voting...socio-economic status being the greatest...and that laws can slice off voters that you all would really not like to turn out.

3. There is much more to be concerned about with voting count irregularities and fraud then people turning out illegally. Laws to stiffen how votes are counted, delivered, and processed do more to prevent fraud than this ridiculous mantra of "Giffords is trying to turn out illegals."

4. A group that worked to overturn the will of the people??? HOLY SMOKE...since when does the fervor of the people trump basic civil rights and liberties. It was the will of the people in the segregation era that closed down schools so that they didn't have to send their children to school with blacks. That will of the people also placed voting restriction and barriers...anything they could do to make it more difficult behaviorally for people to vote.

Our framers created an independent judiciary to prevent the fervid and rabid will of the people from treading on the rights and liberties that make us better than the Taliban and the terrorists. These rights fought for by soldiers are also fought for by advocates of civil rights and liberaties.

So, when you right stupid stupid laws that violate other laws (Civil Rights Act and the Constitutions) you bet that we will overturn the will of the people.

Cheers!

Framer said...

So we can expect a Giffords statement with that same wording or something close to it?

SOmething close to "when you idiot voters pass idiotic laws that I don't agree with. I will go around you and cry to my fellow libs on the 9th circuit!"

I bet that will be happening. Opposition to prop 200 worked soooo well for Janet and co.

And I would hardly hold the 9th circuit as a shining example of fairness and magniminity, or for that matter even a fair representative of the United States Judiciary.

They will get overturned. It's just a question of how much damage they will cause before this happens.

And Ostorloh is not as far on the Democratic Party fringes as you would like to believe. But that is no skin off your nose. You are an Independant :)

sirocco said...

Framer,

Well-known voter depression drives and conduct have certainly limited voter turnout by orders of magnitude when compared to the number of illegals who may have voted.

Second, there is a _lot_ more to be concerned about in regard to electronic voting, the potential for fraud or simple accidental error, and the need for verifiable ballots, than there is to be concerned with illegals voting.

No matter how much you want to magnify the issue, it's hard to see illegals voting in sufficient numbers to actually change the outcome of a race. On the other hand, it's quite easy to see situations where computer malfeasance (either accidental or intentional) can change the outcome of a race.

gabby's car accident said...

Do you guys have any info about this rumor that Gabby got in a car accident and tried to cover it up?

sirocco said...

First I have heard about it ...

IF we assume it's true (big if) ... unless she really smacked the guy (totaled his car, or he had to go to the hospital) or there was some other circumstance (speeding, say), why would it be an issue? Standard fender-benders happen 100's of times a day.

I've twice had people hit me and we dealt with it without police involvement.

Anonymous said...

According to public record Gabby was charged on 8-21-006 with Speed Greater than Reasonable and Prudent. Case number M-1041-TR-6061570.

sirocco said...

Made some phone calls, here is what I came up with.

Gabby was at a stop sign, behind a gentleman (who was Asian). While waiting she starts digging in her purse for something, lets the car creep forward, and bumps him. Supposedly, neither car suffered so much as a fender dent, but I wasn't a witness.

Anyhow, Gabby was ticketed (see Anonymous' post above, it's public record), and she did traffic school a couple weeks ago to have the points removed.

Not sure where the big story is in that, but have fun with it.

Liza said...

"My information sources are Hispanic-Americans living in Grajalva's district citing numerous first-hand examples of illegal aliens holding voter cards and voting in elections."

This kind of anecdotal evidence has as much validity as conservative talk radio. If you Republicans want to entertain each other, fine, but stop trying to take it to the next level as though no one will notice that you have nothing factual to support your statements.

I'm so sick and tired of this. God knows it's getting harder and harder to learn the truth about anything anymore. Why are we adding to the problem by making statements that are unsubstantiated except for "my information sources."

It isn't even worth talking about. ht

Randall Holdridge said...

The reason we have courts and appellate courts and the supreme courts is so that people can test facts and protect or advance their interests in an orderly way. The right to sue and to appeal are key constitutional provisions to settle torts and to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of authorities, majorities, or overbearing individuals, groups, and entities like corporations.

In this case, people who object to Prop. 200 are exercising their rights to an appeal to our regional circuit court. The Prop 200 majority will be represented at taxpayer expense by the Attorney General of Arizona and his staff.

Pending the gathering of evidence, the submission of briefs, and the presentation of evidence and arguments, the circuit court has issued a stay which protects the rights of all parties to the legal dispute.

The Attorney General, an elected official of Arizona (and a Democratic) is doing the bidding of the electoral majority which approved Prop. 200 by requesting that the Supreme Court of the U.S., put aside the stay for purposes of the Nov. 7 election, still anticipating that the case will be heard at the bar in the circuit court.

This is no longer a legislative matter nor can a legislator or legislative candidate comment on it usefully.

As for using the ACLU as a whipping boy, I can only say as an ACLU member that I find attacks on what is an organization devoted to protecting the rights and liberties under law of all Americans, regardless of their politcal persuasions, to be short-sighted and expedient. Sure, they take cases I wouldn't take if I were a lawyer; but I'm glad to know they're around, in case the governments at any level try to deprive of my civil and legal rights. In fact, I'm damned glad!

Liza said...

Very well said, Randall. For a minute there, I thought you WERE a lawyer.

The Committee said...

Apparently, we're not in Chicago anymore, Dorothy.

Kralmajales said...

A car accident is a non-issue except for us people who are so close to the ball that we only see the stitches.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you need to tell that to Tedski over at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.