Plan B Forum

VIVIETTE Applewhite once marched in Georgia with Martin Luther King and in 1960 she voted for the first time, helping to elect Jack Kennedy.



Although she has voted in nearly every election since, the 93-year-old Pennsylvanian may not be allowed to in November's presidential election, the victim of what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a systematic campaign of voter suppression.

"I think it stinks," Mrs Applewhite told the union.

According to a study by New York University's Brennan Justice Centre released last week, 14 Republican-controlled states have introduced laws making it harder for 5 million voters to cast ballots.

The states that have introduced the laws account for 127 electoral college votes, nearly half the 270 needed to win the presidency.

The laws began to appear after the 2010 mid-term elections, when voters angry at the recession and the bank bailout, elected Tea Party-affiliated Republicans, says Mimi Marziani, a lawyer for the Brennan Centre.

Asked if some of these politicians were changing voting regulations to secure their positions in office, Ms Marziani chooses her words carefully.

"When you look at this as a pattern it is hard to reach any other conclusion," she says.

Now civil liberties groups are battling the laws state by state.

Mrs Applewhite, a lead plaintiff in a case being brought by the ACLU against Pennsylvania, is the victim of one of the most controversial types of legislation, which calls for voters to present photo ID at the polling booth.

Mrs Applewhite does not drive, and her purse containing her identification card was stolen. About a quarter of African-Americans, 16 per cent of Hispanics and 18 per cent of Americans over 65 do not have the type of ID that the voting laws require, the Brennan Centre report says.

It found one in 10 people lacked photo ID in the states that have introduced similar laws — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

In Texas, voters will be allowed to use a gun licence to vote, but not student ID cards.

The Brennan Centre argues that some of the laws are effectively a poll tax, because of the expense of securing official documents.

"A birth certificate can be $15 to $30, a passport $135, a naturalisation certificate or certificate of citizenship $345, and a marriage licence from $5 to $40," says a Brennan Centre study released this week. "By comparison, the poll tax outlawed by the Civil Rights Act cost $10.64 in current dollars."

Those defending voter ID laws say they are needed to prevent voter fraud, but according to Ms Marziani, fraud is so rare as to be almost immeasurable, about .0003 per cent of votes.

She says the risk of jail and or deportation was sufficient deterrent. Some states have introduced laws banning convicted felons from voting even after they have served their sentences. In Florida, a state that could decide the presidential election, felons are banned from voting until they are granted clemency by the governor.

It essentially gave the governor, an elected official, the power to decide who would or would not be allowed to vote, says the report.

In the first four months of this year, Florida officials purged 7000 convicted felons from voter rolls. According to a study by The Miami Herald, Democrats were three times more likely than Republicans to be removed.

At least 13 states have introduced bills to end the highly popular election day voter registration, says the report. These are all programs that have historically benefited Democrats.

Not surprisingly, the new laws are becoming a campaign issue.

Visiting Wisconsin, where new voter laws were recently found to be unconstitutional, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, joked: "In my state we joke 'vote early and vote often', and I am afraid the other side has been doing that a bit too much in some places. I like voter ID laws by the way . . . more of them."

At the same time, Democrats have attacked the laws, most recently at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People's annual convention earlier this month, where Vice-President Joe Biden was cheered when he said: "Remember what this [the NAACP], at its core, was all about It was the franchise. It was about the right to vote. Did you think we'd be fighting these battles again?"

Witold Walczak, the ACLU's legal director in Pennsylvania, said at the news conference launching Mrs Applewhite's case: "What we're not talking about here is just any right, we're talking about the right to vote. Two hundred years ago, we actually fought a war for this right."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/civil-right ... z21K9HmptL

dgs49 wrote:The actions of Democrats in this whole matter are very telling, but the non-Fox media, being complicit, refuse to state the obvious, which is, if the Democrats would spend as much time assisting "challenged" people in the securing of appropriate voter ID as they are in fighting these laws, then everyone who legitimately should be voting would already have ID by this time. The issue is decidedly NOT restrictions of the vote of legitimate voters - it is preserving Democrats' ability to steal close elections (e.g., Illinois 1960).

dgs49 wrote:Anyone who would even utter the ridiculous statement that "there is no evidence of past voter fraud"

rubato wrote:Imaginary vote fraud?

There is no evidence that there is any significant amount of voter fraud.

Lord Jim wrote:The "myth" here is the idea that registration and voting by non-citizens is a myth. It is well documented, and widespread.:

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

Florida is not unique. Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens ille­gally registered to vote.

Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting.

Americans may disagree on many areas of immi­gration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections. Unless and until immigrants become citizens, they must respect the laws that bar non-citizen voting. To keep non-citizens from diluting citizens' votes, immigration and election officials must cooperate far more effectively than they have to date, and state and federal officials must increase their efforts to enforce the laws against non-citizen voting that are already on the books.

An Enduring Problem

Costas Bakouris, head of the Greek chapter of Transparency International, says in an interview that ending corruption is easy: enforce the law. Illegal voting by immigrants in America is noth­ing new. Almost as long as there have been elec­tions, there have been Tammany Halls trying to game the ballot box. Well into the 20th century, the political machines asserted their ascendancy on Election Day, stealing elections in the boroughs of New York and the wards of Chicago. Quite regu­larly, Irish immigrants were lined up and counted in canvasses long before the term "citizen" ever applied to them—and today it is little different.

Yet in the debates over what to do about the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens estimated to be in the United States, there has been virtually no discus­sion of how to ensure that they (and millions of legal aliens) do not register and vote in elections.

Citizenship is and should be a basic requirement for voting. Citizenship is a legal requirement to vote in federal and state elections, except for a small number of local elections in a few jurisdictions.

Some Americans argue that alien voting is a non­existent problem or dismiss reported cases of non-citizen voting as unimportant because, they claim, there are no cases in which non-citizens "intention­ally" registered to vote or voted "while knowing that they were ineligible." Even if this latter claim were true—which it is not—every vote cast by a non-citizen, whether an illegal alien or a resident alien legally in the country, dilutes or cancels the vote of a citizen and thus disenfranchises him or her. To dismiss such stolen votes because the non-citizens supposedly did not know they were acting illegally when they cast a vote debases one of the most important rights of citizens.

The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. Following a mayor's race in Compton, California, for example, aliens testi­fied under oath in court that they voted in the elec­tion. In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote. The fact that non-citizens registered and voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that it was a very close election and the in­cumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes, contested it.

Similarly, a 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting. Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Lor­etta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Com­mittee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Nat­uralization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots. The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.

The Oversight Committee pointed out the ele­phant in the room: "If there is a significant num­ber of ‘documented aliens,' aliens in INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or undocumented aliens may be regis­tered to vote in Orange County?" There is a strong possibility that, with only about 200 votes determining the winner, enough undetected aliens registered and voted to change the outcome of the election. This is particularly true since the California Secretary of State complained that the INS refused his request to check the entire Orange County voter registration file, and no complete check of all of the individuals who voted in the congressional race was ever made.

The "Quick Ticket"

Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as the alien population in the United States; but because of deficiencies in state law and the failure of federal agencies to comply with federal law, there are almost no procedures in place that allow election officials to detect, deter, and prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Instead, officials are largely dependent on an "honor sys­tem" that expects aliens to follow the law. There are numerous cases showing the failure of this honor system.

The frequent claim that illegal aliens do not reg­ister in order "to stay below the radar" misses the fact that many aliens apparently believe that the potential benefit of registering far outweighs the chances of being caught and prosecuted. Many district attorneys will not prosecute what they see as a "victimless and non-violent" crime that is not a priority.

On the benefit side of the equation, a voter regis­tration card is an easily obtainable document—they are routinely issued without any checking of identi­fication—that an illegal alien can use for many dif­ferent purposes, including obtaining a driver's license, qualifying for a job, and even voting. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, for example, requires employers to verify that all newly hired employees present documentation verifying their identity and legal authorization to work in the United States. In essence, this means that new employees have to present evidence that they are either U.S. citizens or legal aliens with a work per­mit. The federal I-9 form that employers must com­plete for all new employees provides a list of documentation that can be used to establish iden­tity—including a voter registration card.

How aliens view the importance of this benefit was illustrated by the work of a federal grand jury in 1984 that found large numbers of aliens regis­tered to vote in Chicago. As the grand jury reported, many aliens "register to vote so that they can obtain documents identifying them as U.S. citizens" and have "used their voters' cards to obtain a myriad of benefits, from social security to jobs with the De­fense Department." The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.

The grand jury's report resulted in a limited cleanup of the voter registration rolls in Chicago, but just one year later, INS District Director A. D. Moyer testified before a state legislative task force that 25,000 illegal and 40,000 legal aliens remained on the rolls in Chicago. Moyer told the Illinois Senate that non-citizens registered so they could get a voter registration card for identification, adding that the card was "a quick ticket into the unemployment compensation system." An alien from Belize, for example, testified that he and his two sisters were able to register easily because they were not asked for any identification or proof of citizenship and lied about where they were born. After securing registration, he voted in Chicago.

Once such aliens are registered, of course, they receive the same encouragement to vote from campaigns' and parties' get-out-the-vote programs and advertisements that all other registered voters receive. Political actors have no way to distinguish between individuals who are properly registered and non-citizens who are illegally registered.

A Failure to Cooperate

Obtaining an accurate assessment of the size of this problem is difficult. There is no systematic review of voter registration rolls by states to find non-citizens, and the relevant federal agencies—in direct violation of federal law—refuse to cooperate with state election officials seeking to verify the citi­zenship status of registered voters. Federal immigra­tion law requires these agencies to "respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose autho­rized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information," regardless of any other pro­vision of federal law, such as the Privacy Act. However, examples of refusal to cooperate are legion:

-- In declining to cooperate with a request by Maryland to check the citizenship status of individuals registered to vote there, a spokes­man for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) mistakenly declared that the agency could not release that information because "it is important to safeguard the confidentiality of each legal immigrant, especially in light of the federal Privacy Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act."

One surprising result of this policy: In 2004, a guilty verdict in a murder trial in Maryland was jeopardized because a non-citizen was discov­ered on the jury—which had been chosen from the voter rolls.

-- In 2005, Sam Reed, the Secretary of State of Washington, asked the CIS to check the immi­gration status of registered voters in Washing­ton; the agency refused to cooperate.

-- A request from the Fulton County, Georgia, Board of Registration and Elections in 1998 to the old Immigration and Naturalization Service to check the immigration status of 775 regis­tered voters was likewise refused for want of a notarized consent from each voter because of "federal privacy act" concerns.

-- In 1997, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office in Dallas were investigating voting by non-citi­zens. They sent a computerized tape of the names of individuals who had voted to the INS requesting a check against INS records, but the INS refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation. An INS official was quoted as saying that the INS bureaucracy did not "want to open a Pandora's Box…. If word got out that this is a substantial problem, it could tie up all sorts of manpower. There might be a few thou­sand [illegal voters] in Dallas, for example, but there could be tens of thousands in places like New York, Chicago or Miami."

These incidents show that the CIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the successor agencies to the INS, are either igno­rant of federal legal requirements or deliberately ignoring them. An inquiry by a state or local election official regarding voter eligibility based on citizenship falls squarely within their statu­tory authority.

To be sure, CIS and ICE databases are not comprehensive; they contain information only about legal immigrants who have applied for the documentation necessary to be in the United States and illegal immigrants who have been detained. But even access to that information would be a big step forward for election officials in their attempts to try to clean up registration lists and find those aliens who are illegally registered and voting in elections.

The Honor System

The refusal of federal agencies to obey the law compels local election officials to rely almost en­tirely on the "honor system" to keep non-citizens from the polls. As Maryland's state election adminis­trator has complained, "There is no way of check­ing…. We have no access to any information about who is in the United States legally or otherwise."

Most discoveries of non-citizens on the registra­tion rolls are therefore accidental. Though the Department of Justice has no procedures in place for a systematic investigation of these types of crim­inal violations, in just a three year period, it prose­cuted and convicted more than a dozen non-citizens who registered and voted in federal elec­tions in Alaska, Florida, the District of Columbia, and Colorado. Among them was an alien in southern Florida, Rafael Velasquez, who not only voted, but even ran for the state legislature. Eight of the 19 September 11 hijackers were registered to vote in either Virginia or Florida—registrations that were probably obtained when they applied for driver's licenses.

In 1994, Mario Aburto Martinez, a Mexican national and the assassin of Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio, was found to have registered twice to vote in California. A random sample of just 10 percent of the 3,000 Hispanics registered to vote in California's 39th Assembly District by an independent group "revealed phony addresses and large numbers of registrants who admitted they were not U.S. citi­zens." This problem may be partially explained by the testimony of a Hispanic member of the Los Angeles Police Department who had been a volun­teer for the California-based Southwest Voter Reg­istration Education Project. When she reported to her supervisor that her fellow volunteers were not asking potential voters whether they were citizens, she was reprimanded "and told that she was not to ask that question…only whether the person wished to register to vote." Similarly, the Dor­nan–Sanchez investigation produced an affidavit from a non-citizen stating that the Sanchez cam­paign's field director, an elected member of the Anaheim Board of Education, told him that it "didn't matter" that he was not a U.S. citizen—he should register and vote anyway.

In 2006, Paul Bettencourt, Voter Registrar for Harris County, Texas, testified before the U.S. Com­mittee on House Administration that the extent of illegal voting by foreign citizens in Harris County was impossible to determine but "that it has and will continue to occur." Twenty-two percent of county residents, he explained, were born outside of the United States, and more than 500,000 were non-citizens. Bettencourt noted that he cancelled the registration of a Brazilian citizen in 1996 after she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a U.S. citizen. Despite that cancellation, how­ever, "She then reapplied in 1997, again claiming to be a U.S. citizen, and was again given a voter card, which was again cancelled. Records show she was able to vote at least four times in general and primary elections."

In 2005, Bettencourt's office turned up at least 35 cases in which foreign nationals applied for or received voter cards, and he pointed out that Harris County regularly had "elections decided by one, two, or just a handful of votes." In fact, a Norwe­gian citizen was discovered to have voted in a state legislative race in Harris County that was decided by only 33 votes. Nor is this problem unique to Harris County. Recent reports indicate that hun­dreds of illegal aliens registered to vote in Bexar County, Texas, and that at least 41 of them have voted, some several times, in a dozen local, state, and federal elections.

In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires anyone registering to vote to provide "sat­isfactory evidence of United States citizenship," such as a driver's license, a birth certificate, a pass­port, naturalization documents, or any other docu­ments accepted by the federal government to prove citizenship for employment purposes. The state issues a "Type F" driver's license to individuals who are legally present in the United States but are not citizens. Since Proposition 200 took effect, 2,177 non-citizens applying for such licenses have attempted to register to vote. Another 30,000 have been denied registration because they could not produce evidence of citizenship.

The constitutionality of Arizona's requirement is currently being litigated in federal court. The dis­trict court hearing the case refused to issue a pre­liminary injunction against enforcement of the law, and the Supreme Court vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Trial is scheduled for July 2008. The plaintiffs will have to convince the presiding judge that the very same proof of citizenship required by the federal government before an individual can work is somehow unlawful when imposed by a state before a person can vote.

Some non-citizen registrations can be detected through the jury process. The vast majority of state and federal courts draw their jury pools from voter registration lists, and the jury questionnaires used by court clerks ask potential jurors whether they are U.S. citizens. In most states, however, and throughout the federal court system, court clerks rarely notify local election officials that potential jurors have sworn under oath that they are not U.S. citizens. In jurisdictions that share that informa­tion, election officials routinely discover non-citi­zens on the voter rolls. For example, the district attorney in Maricopa County, Arizona, testified that after receiving a list of potential jurors who admit­ted they were not citizens, he indicted 10 who had registered to vote. (All had sworn on their registra­tion forms that they were U.S. citizens.) Four had actually voted in elections. The district attorney was investigating 149 other cases.

The county recorder in Maricopa County had also received inquiries from aliens seeking verifica­tion, for their citizenship applications, that they had not registered or voted. Thirty-seven of those aliens had registered to vote, and 15 of them had actually voted. As the county's district attorney explained, these numbers come "from a relatively small universe of individuals—legal immigrants who seek to become citizens…. These numbers do not tell us how many illegal immigrants have regis­tered and voted." Even these small numbers, though, could have been enough to sway an elec­tion. A 2004 Arizona primary election, explained the district attorney, was determined by just 13 votes. Clearly, non-citizens who illegally registered and voted in Maricopa County could have deter­mined the outcome of the election.

These numbers become more alarming when one considers that only a very small percentage of regis­tered voters are called for jury duty in most jurisdic­tions. The California Secretary of State reported in 1998 that 2,000 to 3,000 of the individuals sum­moned for jury duty in Orange County each month claimed an exemption from jury service because they were not U.S. citizens, and 85 percent to 90 percent of those individuals were summoned from the voter registration list, rather than Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records. While some of those individuals may have simply committed per­jury to avoid jury service, this represents a signifi­cant number of potentially illegal voters: 20,400 to 30,600 non-citizens summoned from the voter reg­istration list over a one-year period.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

And what's recorded here is obviously just the tip of the iceberg, given the way the Feds have tried to block and derail every serious effort to investigate this in a systematic way.