Obama campaign files suit over "voter-foreclosure" plans

Hobbes

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4463/obama-campaign-files-suit-over-foreclosure-lists

Bauer called the GOP plan to use foreclosure lists “a new and especially repellent version of caging.” Caging is a technique of challenging voters where they take lists of addresses, mail to them with a “do not forward” marking and if for whatever reason those mailings are returned, they use this as a basis for claiming that the voter no longer lives at the address at which they are registered.

What is interesting is this came out in a phone conversation which the GOP denies, but the same person they are denying it is defending the usage to deny people the right to vote.

BenjAii

The GOP has a shameful history of using every trick in the book to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters under the pretense of stopping voter fraud.

But it works for them; its unlikely Bush would have won the 2000 election without Republican vote rigging in Florida.

It's shameful that more decent conservatives aren't disgusted by it.

Black Swan

BenjAii wrote: »

But it works for them; its unlikely Bush would have won the 2000 election without Republican vote rigging in Florida.

Do you mean to suggest that George W. Bush's brother Jeb Bush, then Republican governor (and responsible for the conduct of the Florida 2000 election), would ever put family or Republican party interests ahead of his duties of office? That somehow those 500 or so dimpled chad votes in Dade County Florida that gave George W. Bush the presidency were suspect?

BenjAii

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Do you mean to suggest that George W. Bush's brother Jeb Bush, then Republican governor (and responsible for the conduct of the Florida 2000 election), would ever put family or Republican party interests ahead of his duties of office? That somehow those 500 or so dimpled chad votes in Dade County Florida that gave George W. Bush the presidency were suspect?

Actually I wasn't referring to the infamous hanging-chads. I was referring to attempts to stop black people voting prior to the election.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/ING2976LG61.DTL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30

In the interests of balance the SF Gate article points out that these tactics have been used by The Democrats too.

norbert64

Don't shoot me, but I guess to play devils advocate, you can't legally vote without a valid current address, right?

so while they may be unethical, immoral muppets trying to game the system for there own ends, they're actually going by the law.

Hobbes

norbert64 wrote: »

So while they may be unethical, immoral muppets trying to game the system for there own ends, they're actually going by the law.

True but the point is you pick a president on who is best for the country. Not one best at screwing the system to get the position.

sink

norbert64 wrote: »

Don't shoot me, but I guess to play devils advocate, you can't legally vote without a valid current address, right?

Afaik you have to have an address to register which is not the same thing. Once you've registered you can vote even if you no longer live at that address i.e. it is not illegal. But you can legally be removed from the register if you are found to no longer reside at the stated address and you can't re-register without a new address. Thus people who have recently become homeless due to a foreclosure as a consequence of the credit crunch can be legally disenfranchised. These people are more likely to vote against the incumbent party and there is an incentive for the incumbents supporters to see these people disenfranchised.

BenjAii

You can bet the Republicans who seem to love enforcing these rules when they conveniently disenfranchise Democratic voters will find a solution to McCain not being registered on the Texas ballot papers in time !