Thursday, November 02, 2006

Giffords/ACLU Oppose Voter Fraud Solution

Where have all the flowers gone? To dead people still voting?

Wednesday's Investor's Business Daily reported that "over 181,000 dead people were still on the voter rolls of six swing states in the 2004 general election, including almost 65,000 in Florida, according to the bipartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform. Also in 2004, thousands on voter rolls had moved out of state or, as convicted felons, had lost the right to vote."

They also cite the Loretta Sanchez upset of Republican Bob Dornan in California as an example where it was widely known that illegal aliens were voting for Sanchez and "at least 547 noncitizens were known to have voted" in the election.

Gabrielle Giffords opposition to voter ID at the polls puts her at odds with those seeking to end this type of voter fraud and further drives her into the Grijalva open borders camp, an image she is desperately trying to shed for the election.

7 comments:

Kralmajales said...

This is still just total BS....Bob Dornan lost because he was BOB DORNAN...extreme, right wing.

There is no shred of evidence that illegals voted in that election or in big enough numbers to swing the election.

This is all total nonsense. The costs of these measures you trumpet come from real tax dollars AND they have few benefits other than to stir up republican voters...for nothing.

Why don't you all try to use government to solve some real problems in America. Like getting people OFF drugs, providing affordable healthcare, giving small businesses a chance to succeed, R and D money for stem cell research, alternative fuels research, etc.

All of these are preferable over the impact of these expensive, costly measures that are designed to provide hatred...yes...I said it...hatred for Mexican-Americans.

You may not believe that yourself, the committee, but that is exactly what this argument does and, frankly, intends to do.

The Committee said...

The numbers came from the Bipartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform and the state of California. If you follow local elections around the country, you will find this to be fairly common. Cleaning up the voter roles is an ongoing and tedious process that some counties do more diligently than others, but it is a very important one in order to maintain the integrity of the process.

That illegals have voted is not in dispute. Regardless of anyone's politics, Sanchez was declared the winner in California because the number of illegal votes identified as such were several hundred less than Dornan could make up if they were thrown out.

For me, any illegal vote is too many. To others, it's not an issue worth addressing unless it reaches some threshold. Regardless of who wins an election, I feel strongly about the need to maintain civil debate on the issues through various forums including this one, and as pure and unadulterated a voting process as we can possibly get. If either of these breaks down, I think our democracy is in trouble even more so than by who is in power because if we maintain the integrity of the process, we the people can choose who is in power. We must support the system even when the system doesn't give us what we want.

sirocco said...

I agree with you any illegal vote is one too many.

Having said that, any legal voter who's vote is not allowed (as, for example, happened to 1000's in Florida 2000) is a far greater concern of mine.

Liza said...

BTW, how is that certified nutcase crazy b**** Katherine Harris doing these days?

Vandy said...

So someone is a b**** because she does her job as the state constitution requires her to? Is that the way it goes? Let me guess, Ken Blackwell is an a-hole for doing his job in Ohio the way he was supposed to.

And I suppose JFKs victory was completely on the up and up after the "vote early, vote often" affair in Cook county in 1960?

Liza said...

Gee, I guess I didn't know that disenfrachising tens of thousands of people was in the job description of the Secretary of State of Florida.

The Committee said...

The media hype over the Florida "disenfranchisement" took advantage of the majority of citizens who are ignorant of the voting processes controlled by the county and local political parties. Knowledgeable party activists in both parties understand how the process works and have major difficulty assigning "problems" to the Secretary of State.

Regardless of the outcome in Florida, the smartest thing the state could have done would have been to kick out the attorneys who represented the candidates and sealed off the counties in question so they could do their jobs. County officials (who happened to be Democrats) and designated local party officials (from both parties) who supervised the process knew what to do and would have been fine without the outside interference attempted by the national parties.