HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Riverside County GOP regi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:34 PM

Riverside County GOP registration surge raises questions of fraud

Source: LA Times

At least 133 residents of a state Senate district there have filed formal complaints with the state, saying they were added to GOP rolls without their knowledge.
...
More than 27,700 residents of the legislative district have become Republicans since January, according to the California secretary of state's office — erasing a registration edge long held by Democrats.
...
The problem has also raised anew the question of whether the state should ban firms that pay workers for each voter they register or signature they secure on a petition rather than paying them an hourly rate. Workers have an incentive to cut corners under such arrangements, according to Assemblyman Richard Pan (D-Natomas), who has proposed barring the practice in a bill that is on the governor's desk.
...
Many of those who were registered said they signed documents they thought were petitions for ballot measures to legalize marijuana or create jobs in California. Reyes said she was told that for her signature to be counted she would also have to fill out a registration form.
She did so, without checking a box for a political party because she was already registered as a Democrat. She was surprised to receive a notice in the mail later saying she had been registered as a Republican.
"It's really disturbing," said the 20-year-old criminal justice major, who has since re-registered as a Democrat.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-riverside-voters-20120930,0,7018210.story



Voter fraud certainly is prevalent just like the GOP says.
And they should know because they are behind all of it.

19 replies, 5164 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Riverside County GOP registration surge raises questions of fraud (Original post)
Kablooie Sep 2012 OP
TheDebbieDee Sep 2012 #1
DWinNJ Sep 2012 #2
tblue37 Sep 2012 #7
robinlynne Sep 2012 #17
allan01 Sep 2012 #3
SunSeeker Sep 2012 #4
msongs Sep 2012 #5
fearnobush Sep 2012 #6
progree Sep 2012 #8
SunSeeker Sep 2012 #12
progree Sep 2012 #14
SunSeeker Sep 2012 #16
progree Oct 2012 #18
SemperEadem Sep 2012 #9
daybranch Sep 2012 #10
SemperEadem Oct 2012 #19
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #11
Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #13
progree Sep 2012 #15

Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:45 PM

1. I guess the requirements must vary from state to state and may be even from

county to county but in Jackson County, Missouri there is not even a block on the voter registration application form that asks for party affiliation information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:55 PM

2. On the upside

1) It doesn’t affect who you can vote for in the general election
2) You are less likely to have some clown try to have you knocked off the voter rolls
3) People don’t generally know how you are registered so you don’t have to be embarrassed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWinNJ (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:00 AM

7. On the downside, it can cover up election theft. When they hack the vote counts, they can

point to the "fact" that the voting district is heavily Republican--at least according to the party most voters are registered for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWinNJ (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:35 PM

17. You can not vote in the primaries. It affects redistricting!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if they also put your address wrong you can not vote.

They do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:06 PM

3. re:Riverside County GOP registration surge raises questions of fraudRiverside County GOP registratio

all i can say is , BUSTED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:09 PM

4. Riverside County is very red.

If just one of the teavangelical churches that are all over Riverside got their entire flock to register to vote, that could produce 20,000 registrants right there. I'm surprised Dems had a registration edge in Riverside. However, Riverside has got to be getting close to majority latino it it isn't already. If we could just get all those folks registered, the Dems would easily have the registration edge. I've never understood why the Catholic churches in Southern California don't push their parishioners to vote like the teavangelical churches do. Especially since it is pretty clear no one is going after churches' tax exempt status for politicking. Exhibit A: the Mormon church and Prop. 8.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:04 AM

5. its not that red, went for obama AND clinton, just areas are red nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:37 AM

6. Team Bush went after liberal churches with a vengeance

In 2004. Meanwhile, many born again church's displayed man sized car board cut outs of their Bush deity during in house registration drives with entire precincts showing 100% voter turnout, all republican votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:36 AM

8. Churches are allowed to preach & advocate on the issues. But not for or against a specific candidate

So a church may speak out for civil rights (e.g. black churches) or for or against gay marriage or socialism or deficit spending or free birth control pills or any other generic issue. But not for or against any candidate or political party.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/13/good-question-are-churches-allowed-to-say-vote-yes-or-vote-no/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SunSeeker (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:55 PM

14. I was commenting on your Exhibit A- The Mormon Church advocating against gay marriage is not illegal

or in violation of any IRS regulations.

Especially since it is pretty clear no one is going after churches' tax exempt status for politicking. Exhibit A: the Mormon church and Prop. 8.


I don't doubt that there are many blatant examples of churches / preachers advocating for or against a specific candidate which is illegal. And yes, there's very little enforcement. And yes, your Exhibit B is an example of illegal politicing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:32 PM

16. We're getting off topic, but the point I was trying to make was religion defining marriage violates

the separation of Church and State. Here's a scholarly article that says it much more eloquently than I can.

http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/87/307


And I get your point and I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:04 AM

18. You and I may think it violates church-state separation, but currently its not illegal for churches

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)

with tax-exempt status to advocate for or against any political cause.

Yes, this is off-topic relative to the OP. I'm just alerting fellow DUers, that, according to IRS regulation and case law, churches may advocate for political causes, as long as they don't advocate for candidates or political parties.

If a church can't advocate for or against gay marriage, then what cause can they advocate for or against? I just don't see anything anywhere that laws defining marriage are somehow causes that churches may not advocate for or against, but that they can advocate for or against other causes without violating church-state separation.

Do you think the Minnesota Council For Nonprofits is wrong? http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/13/good-question-are-churches-allowed-to-say-vote-yes-or-vote-no/

“If a church posts a political sign endorsing or opposing a political candidate they are in violation of their tax exempt status. What if they post a sign either for or against the proposed marriage amendment?” wrote Kristen Ryan from Minneapolis.

“These really are some of the big issues in society, the fact that institutions have an opinion is not surprising, and, in fact, it’s entirely allowed,” said Susie Brown, public policy director at Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. The council helps educate and train nonprofits about the laws that would govern their tax-exempt status.

... The IRS allows churches to preach on the issues of the day, and they’re allowed to lobby on behalf of issues as well. They can puts signs up on church grounds and preach from the pulpit, without jeopardizing their nonprofit status.

“Institutions in the community, whether churches or nonprofits, have principles and values and a vision, and talking about policy positions in a way that’s aligned with that makes good sense,” Brown said.

So churches cannot post a “Vote for Obama” or “Vote For Romney” sign, but “Vote Yes” and “Vote No” signs are perfectly OK.


I may not like it, you may not like it, but it is not illegal at present. Some would argue that black churches were politicing advocating for civil rights and against voter photo ID and other modern-day Jim Crow laws are violating separation of church and state, and they may be right, but under current law it is not illegal. I was in a black church in an anti-voter-photo-ID presentation and rally about 3 weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:27 AM

9. that's the main reason why I refuse to sign petitions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:00 PM

10. Huh?

What is? being registered as a member of a party you do not belong to? You do not have to sign a new registration form to sign petitions to my knowledge, so what do you mean??
Petition and referendum is a great progressive mechanism and is critical in giving the country back to the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 07:27 PM

19. what do you mean "what do you mean"?


]Many of those who were registered said they signed documents they thought were petitions for ballot measures to legalize marijuana or create jobs in California.


THIS is what I was talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:53 PM

11. so much for integrity from the gop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:55 PM

13. Please not that this is not voter fraud but rather registration fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:04 PM

15. Great point. And I'd add as an example it's not something a voter photo ID will fix

The RepubliCONs are talking about all kinds of voter fraud and registration fraud (if they make the distinction from "voter fraud") and then offer as a cure the mandatory voter photo ID. But the photo ID solves only one problem -- voter impersonation -- pretending to be another voter.

Where I vote, Minnesota, I declare my name and address and then I sign the voter roll right next to my name and address. If someone else came before or after me claiming to be me, there would be an obvious something wrong (whoever came later is claiming to be somebody who has already signed in on that name/address). But this NEVER happens as that would lead to prosecution of somebody but nobody has been prosecuted for voter impersonation in Minnesota. Never ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread