good question.

[fox]

my brother says: "I can't help wondering how it feels to be in a party whose ground operation is centered on keeping people from voting. Wouldn't that feel wrong, somehow?"

what he's talking about:

all newly-registered voters in lake county, ohio received a letter not from the board of elections saying, substantially, that a large number of people had been invalidly registered by the kerry campaign, or by moveon.org, or by americans coming together, and that anyone registered wrong who attempts to vote will be breaking the law. good language to use to scare off poorer or minority-group or inner-city voters.

the rule in ohio had been that each party could register one challenger per polling place. the democrats did this; the republicans, in many districts, registered one challenger per precinct, i.e. several challengers per polling place. the deadline having passed, the (republican) secretary of state decided the one-per-precinct limit would stand -- but of course it was too late for the democrats to register more challengers. a judge told blackwell this was "unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconscionable", and ordered him to revert to the previous rule or be held in contempt of court (for all the good that would do).

it seems that the rule has been set back to one challenger per polling place; but if nine republican challengers arrive at a polling place with nine precincts in it, who will send eight of them away? election officials will have the first go at this, but if the challengers won't leave, the police will be called. a clever little plan: send along multiple challengers who happen to be minorities. that way, voters who are already in doubt as to the validity of their registration may arrive to see minorities being hauled away by the cops. niiice.

to say nothing of the "ballot security" people planning to harass voters on their way in to the polling place, posing as election workers (without actually identifying themselves as such, so no, they're not actively impersonating anyone) and telling people they may not be registered, may be breaking the law, etc., and past whom voters will have to be led, as if they were scared young women on their way into an abortion clinic, with assurances that they don't have to listen to them if they don't want.

this is not to suggest that there is one side that's squeaky-clean and one that's up to its ears in filth. no matter who wins, the losing side is going to be utterly convinced it's because the winners cheated. that's not the issue here. the issue is, the republicans are actively trying to prevent citizens from voting.

in what way is this okay?!

republican readers are invited to respond.

[eta: responses so far:

(1) the letter is valid (i don't agree, but there's not going to be a lot of mind-changing on that one);
(2) source it (which i have done);
(3) that's conjecture (it's apparently among the plans, in the toledo area);
(4) scare tactics! bah!
with a running motif of well, there have been cases of early republican voters being intimidated, too, so it's coming from both sides.

none of which actually answers the question: in what way is this okay? i say it's not okay coming from either side, but that it's coming faster and harder from the right than from the left. is the other position that it is okay as long as everybody's doing it?]

Comments

[orange852.livejournal.com]

Now let me ask: In what way is it okay to paint a whole party as lying, cheating bastards because of the actions of a pathetic few? Or are 50% of the American people really out to rig elections?

So, if only the handful necessary to stop an election and turn it over to the Bush-appointed courts are lying, cheating bastards, no one should be complaining?

I don't see Fox and her brother tarring all Republicans with the same brush; just the people engaging in intimidation tactics.

I'm tarring every Republican who doesn't question this rigorously with the stinkiest brush I can find. Frankly, you're the first to say so much as "it's not me doing it." Every other self-identified Republican I've spoken with flatly denies anyone is doing anything hinky or did anything hinky in 2000.

In fact, I would love to see some sort of test administered to voters to ascertain if they have even a basic understanding of our system of government before allowing them to vote, but of course that would never fly.

It most certainly flew long enough to become part of the Jim Crow laws struck down by Civil Rights legislation. Poll taxes, literacy tests and any number of "legal" barriers were tried in the post-bellum South.

Didn't work then, won't work now. That hat you're wearing is a little out of fashion.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

>>Didn't work then, won't work now. That hat you're wearing is a little out of fashion. <<

Yeah, I kind of know that. :-)

Doesn't mean I'm not right.

And by the way, while I'm reforming the election process, let's get rid of the electoral college. It disenfranchises everyone except the people in the swing states.