Xoff's BlogCommentary on state politics by Bill Christofferson, who often uses Xofferson or Xoff to shorten his 14-letter last name.
Christofferson, a recovered journalist and ex-political reporter, has been a Democratic strategist and consultant for 20 years and is now retired. He lives in Milwaukee. |
blog advertising is good for you
West Pointers talk about Duty, Honor, Country.
John McCain's slogan is "Country First," whatever that means.
And Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's motto is "Party, Party, Party."
As in political party, not wild in the streets.
Van Hollen, putting on his vigilant attorney general hat, filed a lawsuit against his own state's Government Accountability Board -- the board created to take partisanship out of elections -- in a move that could disenfranchise -- or at least seriously hassle -- one million Wisconsin voters.
Van Hollen acted after complaints from the state Republican Party that the accountability board wasn't making it hard enough for people to vote. More of the same attempts to frighten people by yelling "fraud" while perpetrating the fraud themselves by denying people what we call the RIGHT to vote. (When we say that, we don't mean right wing.)
The GOP wanted to require every person whose information on the voter rolls doesn't exactly match their driver's license to have to prove themselves at the polls.
The board wasn't impressed by the GOP arguments, perhaps because the six member board -- all retired judges -- found that four of its members had info that didn't match when voter files and motor vehicle records were compared.
But then it was JB to the rescue, wearing his AG hat.
Van Hollen, by the way, is the top Republican elected official in the state and the co-chair of John McCain's Wisconsin campaign. But he wasn't wearing his McCain hat, Van Hollen says. It was his good government hat. Honest.
Agree? Great. Wanna buy a bridge to nowhere?
All content on this site © 2006-2008 by each individual author, All Rights Reserved. Designed, Hosted, and Published by Cruiskeen Consulting LLC
Good stuff
On first read of DOJ correspondence and complaint, I do not find any DOJ response to GAB's concern, "... about preliminary data that showed more than a fifth of voters’ data mismatched due to variations in names, differing data entry standards, or typographical errors. A check conducted of G.A.B. members’ data resulted in four of six Board members’ information mis-matching." [Sept 10 Accountability Board Replies to Attorney General’s Lawsuit
http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=14778&locid=47]
There is no mention of the issue that eligible voters may be disenfranchised, other than mere denials.
This complaint could have been written by the RNC: "Because of the defendants' inaction, properly qualified voters are at risk of having their vote diminished and diluted by the votes of unqualified, ineligible voters who are not entitled to cast ballots."
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/326371.pdf
Who and what inelgible voters?
Van Hollen writes in the DOJ PR that "I promised that I would work to restore integrity to this office and state government."
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/2008/nr091008_AG.asp
I want to see the GAB response complaint. This is a national civil rights story.
Where are Feingold, Tammy and Co? And where, excepting liberal blogs, is the outrage?
Some links:
DOJ Complaint: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/326371.pdf
DOJ site http://www.doj.state.wi.us/
August 27 Letter to the Government Accountability Board
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/085708_AG.pdf
Aug 28 Response From the Government Accountability Board
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/GAB%20Response.pdf
Sept 10 Accountability Board Replies to Attorney General’s Lawsuit
http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=14778&locid=47
good question
Indeed, where are Russ and Tammy? And others.
And it continues
More potential vote caging, courtesy of the GOP.
The definitive knockdown:
The Truth About Vote Fraud at: http://truthaboutfraud.org/
Rules of the Democratic
Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party's National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin's open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party's rules, the State's mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State's delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party's rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party's freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State's delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants, and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.
___________________
Submited by : Libros Gratis
Post new comment