Redstate

Do you know how many of those poll watchers are lawyers? The fastest way to get their collective backs up is to selectively quote statutes at them.

This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Go T-Mac!

Ooh, so Democrats know how to read statutes. Big deal.

Frankly, I'd be amazed if all poll watchers haven't already been briefed on the limits of the law. The very last thing anyone needs is a rogue watcher creating reasons for the media to further their "voter intimidation" story line.

I'm sure that the watchers are looking for very specific behavior, especially, seeing the same person show up repeatedly at the same polling location, or seeing one of a handful of questionable "voters" show up to participate.

At least you need ID to vote in Florida. In Massachusetts, all you need to do is be able to recite a name and street address and off you go. And, yes, there's a reason the Democrats like it that way.

Daschle's scared.

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle sued his opponent, John Thune, and the GOP in federal court tonight, accusing Republicans of intimidating Native American voters in Tuesday's election. In a complaint filed late this afternoon and obtained by the Argus Leader, Daschle asked U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol to keep 200 Republican monitors out of polling places across South Dakota tomorrow.

You just saved me some research.

Good summary here.

Yes, the judge was appointed by Dumb--eh, Daschle..But the ruling, if it goes wrong, can be apealed and will be reversed. Just another cheap shot by the demwits.

But clearly a Daschle recommendation.

I think this is really a sign of desperation. Yeah, I know that's a cliche, but the maneuver is rolling the dice. And if you're ahead, you don't roll the dice.

The Democrat party being concerned with the law.

This is probably from The Onion or Scrappleface. No sentient being seriously believes the Democrat party gives a fig about the law.

So the DNC sends out a letter making it clear what the rules are.  You would prefer that a Republican poll watcher or challenger not be clear on the rules, accidently/unintentionally break one, and make the whole party look bad?

Seems to me they're doing you a favor.

It makes clear the rules...and then threatens legal action and prosecution, if you are simply wrong in a challenge. IOW, you can't challenge something that is fishy without fear that the person may turn out to be legit and then get sued by the DNC. IOW, don't challenge anything and we won't press charges against you.

Thanks. Nice friendly reminder.

Hey guys,

Just voted in Berkley, MI. Voter turn out was HUGE. I think the whole city was there. Berkley is a small city in Oakland County which is SUPPOSED to be Republican, but has gone Dem in the past 3 elections. Moveon.org was here. I made sure to tell them they influenced my vote... To vote for Bush!

"...should a challenger make a knowingly false challenge..."  That would require that you know you're challenging someone for no reason, or an invalid reason.  Surely there's nothing wrong with that?  If you happen to know that the voter's registration information is correct (no longer at that address, etc), then make that challenge.  Otherwise, what's the basis for the challenge?

If you have information that someone's address is incorrect, but your information is simply outdated, then you've made a mistake -- but you haven't made a knowingly false challenge.

It doesn't stop them from accusing you of "knowing" and dragging you into court anyway. And knowing that the Dems have lawyers all over the place ready to pounce on anything, and in light of the other DNC memo saying to make up charges even if none exist, you still don't see why this might be considered intimidating?

Were they in the polling place? if so report it!!

Who do I report too?

What are you (No, not you.  The hypothetical poll watcher you) doing there making challenges if you don't have the proof the back it up?  Let them "drag you to court" and prove them wrong.  If you don't feel confident enough in your proof or don't think it's important enough to get dragged into court, then there's probably no basis for the challenge.  Without a basis for the challenge you're the one doing the intimidating.

It's like checks and balances.  Your goal as a poll watcher is to make sure illegal votes aren't cast.  Their goal as lawyers is to make sure poll watchers aren't overreaching into intimidation.  The courts make sure the lawyers aren't intimidating you.  Make a valid challenge and get dragged into court anyway?  The RNC will foot your legal bills, I guarantee it.

if you don't have to pay your legal bill, then it is less of a big deal. The point is that in challenging, you obviously don't have the proof in your pocket unless you happen to have a briefcase the size of a Ryder truck with you. You would be asking them for some sort of proof that they are who they say they are. If they provide it, mea culpa, carry on. You shouldn't be sued for that, nor is that intimidation on your part.

The other problem here is the DNC's double standard on the definition of intimidation. You ask for ID, "Whoa, INTIMIDATION, INTIMIDATION, DANGER WILL ROBINSON..." Pointing out that "we will sue or have criminal charges brought against you if you do challenge someone" isn't intimidation, it is notification.

But these pages have contact info. I'd start here, and also call the state Attorney General's office:

http://www.georgewbush.com/ContactUs/

http://www.gop.com/ContactUs/Default.aspx

If its a list provided by a partisan organization, rather than personal knowledge, then the challenger needs to know that there is a standing consent decree that prohibit "agents" of the RNC from using such a list.  

And insofar as there is a very close relationship between the RNC and state organizations (especially the fact that the RNC is paying thousands of lawyers to travel to DIFFERENT states to be on hand to deal with legal challenges) a challenger could easily be considered an "agent" of the RNC.

that you are complaining about the RNC hiring lawyers when the DNC has hired thousands of lawyers and have INSTRUCTED them to make up charges even if none exist. I have no doubt the DNC lawyers would make up accusations of the presence of a list used by the poll watcher if they thought it would help their cause.

I guess it's just an issue of standards of evidence then.  I think you should have proof before issuing a challenge.  You seem to think you can base a challenge on something else.  What, exactly, would make you decide to challenge an individual without evidence is what I'm unsure of.  The law appears to be very clear on this -- don't challenge a voter without proof.  Otherwise, you're making stuff up.

First a Soldier THEN a Senator? Make up your mind, John.  Clean Air AND Water? Which is it, John?



Kerry/Edwards: Bad for Billionaires, Bad For America

That could obviously take on different forms. Not having a card, not having a photo ID, not being on the rolls, etc. could be reason to challenge the person. It depends on the local laws and the situation. Seeing the person multiple times, etc.

If there aren't legitimate challenges that could be made, then the law allowing poll watchers and challenges is pointless.

The way our system works is that it is incumbent on the voter to prove he is a registered and legitimate voter. That is why people have to bring their card, maybe ID (depending on state), etc. It isn't "vote until proven dead, convict, non-citizen, etc."

do you put this: "we will sue or have criminal charges brought against you if you do challenge someone" in quotes when this sentence appears nowhere in the document?

Coming from the DNC to Republican poll watchers, a document that issues the threat of criminal charges and oher lawsuits, and coming from the same DNC that issued the memo saying to make up lawsuits even if you see no wrong doing as a "preemptive action", can you not connect the dots?

IOW, we will sue you if you clearly do something wrong, but even if you don't, we might make something up anyway...

I don't think it's "making stuff up" to challenge a person who comes in, claims their name is "Donald Duck," and tries to vote.  I'd say that's a legit challenge, even if you don't have documented evidence that no one named "Donald Duck" lives in that precinct.

So someone's not on the rolls.  Issue a challenge.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Of course, if the person is actually on the rolls, and the poll watcher knew that but challenged on that basis anyway, then he'd be in trouble.

So we're back to the beginning.  The DNC is reminding poll watchers of the law.  The law states that voters are not to be challenged on a deliberately false basis.  So there must be some proof or evidence.  I think you and I agree on what would constitute that evidence.

Don't have the evidence?  Don't challenge.  That's a reminder, not intimidation.  Now if the DNC's lawyers were sitting there hovering over the watchers, waiting for them to just open their mouths before slapping them with an injunction -- then I think this post would have a point.  But I don't see it that way.  It's a general reminder of the law, with no direct, individual threats.  Poll watchers of both parties should be grateful for the help.

In that case, the poll watcher should not feel threatened by this memo, as he or she is well within the bounds of the law.  This memo does not say "Thou shalt not challenge", it says "Thou shalt not challenge without proof."

the whole "the dems were instructed to make up charges" stuff is nonsense...

the dems instruction was to make sure that people were aware of the potential for voter harrassment, not "make things up"

And the fact is that the Democratic party lawyers/operatives are NOT being given lists of people to challenge...the lawyers are there to help voters who have been challenged by RNC operatives.

The Dem lawyers are there to make sure the Daffy Duck, The Green Lantern, and Spongebob Squarepants all get to vote. After all, the Dems are the party that wants every [illegal] vote to count...unless you are in the military--then the instructions to the Dem lawyers is to try to find a way to make sure our soldiers votes won't be counted.

The DNC also didn't issue that memo instructing pre-emptive strikes to be made...

The directive in question states:

"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet launch a "pre-emptive strike."

Certainly sounds like it's making things up if you are launching a strike against something that isn't there.

"the instructions to the Dem lawyers is to try to find a way to make sure our soldiers votes won't be counted"

Where did that come from?  Link?

to the attempts in FL 2000 to get rid of the military vote and the attempts in PA in 2004 to not extend the deadline for military votes (though the ballots went out late). Not a reference to any inside inof about specific instructions.

The point being that the mantra of counting all votes rings hollow when you consider contrary attempts to disenfranchise the military vote.

I don't think so.  They were outside mine handing out donut "bribes".  Is that illegal?  Sort of sounds like a Putin tactic.  

What's the date for the extension?  I wish these inept election officials could get their act together and get the ballots out on time.  

Also:  If the Pentagon had simple rules about having a witness sign and date absentee ballots (to circumvent their crappy mailing system which can be slow and frequently doesn't use post marks with dates) it would save everyone a lot of grief.  

In 2002 my cousin in Afghanistan got his absentee ballot a day before the election.  

The reason they were late in sending out the ballots was because of a late lawsuit by the Dems to get Nader off the ballot. With the ballot itself in question, they couldn't send them until the suit was settled. Finally they caved and extended the deadline. I don't recall the new deadline, but it has been moved.

no matter how you twist it.  As the original post asked, can't you just hear the Dems howl about intimidation if the RNC had sent out such a document to poll workers?