HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » ‘Caging’ angers voters (I...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:08 PM

‘Caging’ angers voters (IA those ballots in questions were of registered Democrats)

Source: nonpareilonline.com

By Tim Rohwer

Pottawattamie County Auditor Marilyn Jo Drake has overseen many an election, but something happened this year that caught her attention.

It also created anger among some voters.

Drake said a group she couldn’t identify used a legal procedure called “caging,”

“We had people come to the counter very unhappy,” she said. “Some group in town sent out material by mail to certain houses and if those occupants didn’t return that material to the group, the group would then consider that house as vacant.”

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://www.southwestiowanews.com/council_bluffs/news/caging-angers-voters/article_6eb78d04-294f-11e2-a323-0019bb2963f4.html

46 replies, 8219 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 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply ‘Caging’ angers voters (IA those ballots in questions were of registered Democrats) (Original post)
Omaha Steve Nov 2012 OP
Shrike47 Nov 2012 #1
Fridays Child Nov 2012 #2
robinlynne Nov 2012 #8
groundloop Nov 2012 #11
robinlynne Nov 2012 #14
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #18
robinlynne Nov 2012 #20
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #30
Fridays Child Nov 2012 #37
freshwest Nov 2012 #43
billh58 Nov 2012 #22
robinlynne Nov 2012 #23
billh58 Nov 2012 #24
robinlynne Nov 2012 #25
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #45
robinlynne Nov 2012 #28
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #46
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #33
davidpdx Nov 2012 #32
McCamy Taylor Nov 2012 #3
robinlynne Nov 2012 #16
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #19
robinlynne Nov 2012 #21
billh58 Nov 2012 #26
robinlynne Nov 2012 #29
billh58 Nov 2012 #35
robinlynne Nov 2012 #39
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #34
ThoughtCriminal Nov 2012 #4
patrice Nov 2012 #5
SharonAnn Nov 2012 #13
patrice Nov 2012 #27
patrice Nov 2012 #31
Cha Nov 2012 #6
progressivebydesign Nov 2012 #7
ItsTheMediaStupid Nov 2012 #10
ItsTheMediaStupid Nov 2012 #9
robinlynne Nov 2012 #15
Samantha Nov 2012 #12
ItsTheMediaStupid Nov 2012 #17
Samantha Nov 2012 #40
Beartracks Nov 2012 #36
nilram Nov 2012 #38
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #41
csziggy Nov 2012 #42
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #44

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:12 PM

1. Can the voter find out the name of the person who challenged his/her vote?

I might want to pay that person a call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:21 PM

2. Caging should be illegal by federal statute. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fridays Child (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:47 PM

8. I believe it is!!!! We just don't have a Pres or AG who does anything about election fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:54 PM

11. doesn't do anything about election fraud, are you for real????

Surely you remember the lawsuits in several states over voter id laws. And the BS in Ohio restricting early voting.

I think the problem is that one person simply can't keep up with all the schemes to suppress voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:05 PM

14. very very much for real. What lawsuits were prosecuted by Eric Holder, or on his behalf?

Regular citizens,and election protection advocates stopped the "BS" in Ohio. not Obama. not Holder. Remember Holder's investigation in FLorida? one lawsuit? no. none.
But several brought by citizens in Florida. any action from Holder in Florida? anything? nope.
not even when the media cried out about it.

Did Obama done anything on a federal level to stop the voter ID laws?
He has not even named any commissioners to the EAC. or the FEC for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:40 PM

18. Beware people who don't know what they're talking about! Here's a partial list of suits by DOJ&Obama

The DOJ sued FL over voter purge, sued SC over voter ID, investigated PA voter ID, sued TX....over its voter ID (and stopped it), sued Wisconsin, and Iowa. The Obama Campaign and the DNC sued OH.

I'm sure there are others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:45 PM

20. where is the suit in FL over voter purge? I looked for it every day. Never saw a word anywhere

about anything done in Florida. Please show us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:46 PM

30. I just did a Google search. It's all there.

So I think there are probably others I didn't spend the time to look for.

Florida:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/doj-sues-florida-over-voter-purge-125996.html

Alabama, Wisconsin, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania, SC, TX:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/house-voter-id-laws/index.html

DOJ appointed an elections officer to oversee the election in Iowa because of fraud complaints and voting rights abuses:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ian/news/2012/oct_12/10_17_12_Election.html

DOJ approved VA's changed voter ID law:
The Justice Department review was needed because Virginia has a history of voter discrimination. It is is one of 16 states that must receive federal approval before changing voting laws. The states must prove to the federal government that any new statutes would not discriminate against minorities.

Virginia’s law is more moderate than many of those pushed elsewhere. It does not require that voters present a government-issued photo ID. But it does close a provision that had allowed voters to cast ballots without showing identification of any sort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-department-upholds-virginia-voter-id-law/2012/08/20/76d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html

And: Washington (CNN) - The Justice Department Friday announced that it is dispatching more than 780 federal observers and monitors to 23 states to watch for potential problems which would violate voting rights protected by federal law.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/02/justice-department-to-deploy-election-observers/

The 16 states that are required by law to get approval from the fed for voting changes, because of a history of voting rights violations are:
Section 5 affects all or part of the following 16 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas; and most of Virginia, 4 counties in California, 5 counties in Florida, 2 townships in Michigan, 10 towns in New Hampshire, 3 counties in New York, 40 counties in North Carolina, and two counties in South Dakota. A formula designed by Congress applies Section 5 to any state or county where a literacy test was used as of November 1, 1964, and where a participation rate of under 50 percent by eligible voters in the 1964 presidential election showed the test had a racially discriminatory basis. Later amendments to the Act included the years 1968 and 1972 in the coverage formula.

http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/faq.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:44 PM

37. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fridays Child (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:05 PM

43. +1. I've stopped googling for others on these subjects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:54 PM

22. You do realize

that voting laws and election procedures fall under State purview don't you? Each State is responsible for regulating and providing the framework for voting, and any violations would first be handled by the State AG.

Yes, there are Federal election laws, but the actual mechanics of printing ballots, establishing polling places, determining voting days and times, etc. are up to each State's election laws and agencies. President Obama and Eric Holder can only address violations of Federal voting laws for the most part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:59 PM

23. Where is the lawsuit the poster said Eric Holder did In Florida this year?

there was so much press about Holder's investigation. Where is it? He did NOTHING. It was absolutely in his purvey. There was a federal investigation. supposedly several months ago. Where is the lawsuit? Why can't he find the fraud when average citizens find it so easily?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:28 PM

24. I am not familiar with

that particular investigation, but the Federal Government can only investigate and prosecute violations of Federal statutes such as Civil Rights or Federal Election laws. If Holder did hold an investigation in Florida, you should be able to find information about it online.

All I'm asking is please don't be too quick to judge either President Obama or Eric Holder until you have all of the facts. Also, please realize that there 50 State Attorneys General standing between Eric Holder and "swift" justice when State law is involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:35 PM

25. There is no information online. i looked every day for 6 or 8 weeks. Holder did not come through as

promised. it was left to us, to citizens to take care of democracy. Holder put 150 agents in LA to find marijuana right as he promised the country, he would investigate the fraud in Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:15 PM

45. How could you look every day for 8 wks & not find what I found in 30 seconds?

You didn't know the DOJ had filed suits in FL, TX, SC, and numerous other states? After searching every day for 8 weeks.

That's clearly not true. What are you trying to accomplish? What's your goal in being untruthful and trying to make people think that the DOJ didn't take care of this business? Just to make trouble, or...what? Or maybe you're upset about something and not thinking clearly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:40 PM

28. the poster claims that Obama and Holder are on it. that there are federal lawsuits all over the pla

place against election fraud. i know that obama never even put anyone in charge of the EAC. 4 presidentially appointed commissioners oversee all of th voting machines. In four years, he left 2 GOP appointees, and 2 empty seats. The poster says Obama has acted, through many lawsuits. Show us.

there was a very public outcry in Florida about 2 or 3 months ago. Holder promised ot investigate. People believed he would. jsut like this poster, my cousin said don't worry Obama/Holder will end this fraud. no. he did not.
Instead private citizens took action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:19 PM

46. The DOJ filed upwards of 20 lawsuits, and sent out over 700 election monitors...

in addition to other acts.

Those are facts.

The DOJ did in fact file suit against FL. That is a fact. It is a lie when you infer that Holder did not investigate as he "promised." (Where is the link to his statement that he promises to investigate, BTW?)

Where is your link to support your contention that private citizens stopped the purging and not the DOJ?

That citizens took action IN ADDITION to the government may be the case. But that does not change the fact that the DOJ took legal action.

These are simple facts. Chill. The government filed numerous lawsuits....and won, wheree the law was on its side. I'm in TX. The DOJ stopped the photo ID requirement for this election. It cannot legally stop it for future elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:52 PM

33. I did a post above with links referencing the NUMEROUS lawsuits. Also, 16 states MUST get approval

from the fed before changing voter requirements, because of a history of voting rights violations. That's in my post, as well. The 16 states might surprise you. It includes California and South Dakota.

Besides that, I remember hearing about the DOJ-FL legal fight in the news. I'm in TX, so I can personally tell you that the DOJ stopped the effecting of the changed voting requirement laws for THIS election (photo ID requirement). But I included a link for that lawsuit, also.

The DOJ was very active in this matter, once the Republicans started changing the voting requirements across the country, the DOJ followed along, filing suit and/or legally investigating, sending monitors out to monitor the election process in 23 states, etc. The DOJ was very active in this matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:51 PM

32. What is the penalty for being caught?

I'm sure it's not near enough. At the very minimum it should be 10 years in federal prison and $100,000 fine for each count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:26 PM

3. I hope the DOJ is paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:06 PM

16. good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:42 PM

19. They're on top of these things. Look @ my list in above post of lawsuits by DOJ & Obama.

I'm sure you've noticed by now that Obama's campaign and the DOJ know how to protect the interests of its voting block.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:50 PM

21. Please show us. Especially FLorida which was so very public and promised by Holder. Obma did a huge

get out the vote. I'm thrilled he won, but that (getting out the vote) does not protect the democratic process from fraud in any way.
Acknowledging the existence of fraud would be step one. Understanding that private corporations should not be running our elections (hello?) would be a great place to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to billh58 (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:43 PM

29. YES! and where is the result? there was NO result. So citizens took over and made a fuss until the

purge stopped. An election official in one [precinct stood up and refused to purge. then another. then another. ordinary citizens. Holder did NOT take care of it. he did NOT stop it. yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:55 PM

35. I can't answer the question

and I am sorry that you are so angry. I suspect that since the suit has been filed against the Florida election officials, that it must run its legal course for a definite resolution.

From an objective point-of-view, however, Florida elections have been suspect and shoddily run for many election cycles. No Federal Agency under the past few administrations has been able to do much to curtail the Republican-dominated government's Jim Crow election laws in Florida, or in any of the other Red States for that matter. That's not an excuse, but it is a fact.

On the bright side, in spite of their bullshit, it turns out that we didn't need Florida to win, but it went our way anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:36 AM

39. because they did not try! Of course they can if it is a priority. That is exactly what I am saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:54 PM

34. Thank the DOJ and Obama for being on top of this matter, allowing him to win the election.

It's the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:28 PM

4. "Some group"

Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:35 PM

5. America beware! See this proof; these are people who think, TTE, "If you can get away with it,

it's okay."

Do we want people such as these making decision about our elders? the disabled? the poor? the disadvantaged?

Look at their presidential candidate & how they change the voting process. All of it is proof positive that these are people who evaluate their own behaviors in terms of whether they can avoid consequences, which makes WHATEVER they do okay, and they evaluate other people's behavior solely in terms of the consequences they can impose upon them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:58 PM

13. The end does NOT justify the means. Lesson 1 in my Catholic school.

One is expected to behave according to a "well-formed" conscience. That means thoughtful understanding of what is right, moral, and Christian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:36 PM

27. You know? THAT's a very useful thing to talk about. It used to be much more widely

recognized as a basic ethical question, but I think it may be a mistake to think it a very common understanding anymore. Some of us older types may be taking that kind of understanding for granted and that would be a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:46 PM

31. I remember there being research by a guy named Lawrence Kohlberg that described moral

reasoning, as a parallel to cognitive development as it was described by Jean Piaget. Kohlberg found that the most common level of achieved moral reasoning was/is that the ends does justify the means, which basically translates to "if you can get away with it (or if it's allowed), it's okay." & that morality is all about avoiding punishment and/or acquiring rewards. There's probably more current stuff to be read on the topic now, but I remember being attracted to this research because, rather than assuming morality is something that comes to us through some external agency, it is the result of one's own abilities to understand and identify with right and wrong through human experience. I think it was also a line of research that was inspired by Stanley Milgram's famous work in the late '50s (?), when in response to discussion about what the Nazis had done in WWII, he set about finding out how much and how severely people will shock others when told to do so by an "authority" figure in what was supposed to be research on learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:40 PM

6. KNR..thanks Steve!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:42 PM

7. No wonder the champagne was on ice, and the fireworks ready in Boston Tuesday..

they were SURE that all of their little schemes would suppress enough of the Democratic vote, to push romney over the top. It didn't work. We voted in such numbers that even their 1,000 little schemed could not shut us down.

They simply could never win again if we actually standardized elections, and removed all of these avenues to cheat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:51 PM

10. If our people come out in numbers with determination

We are hard to beat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:50 PM

9. We need a 21st Century Reincarnation of the Voting Rights Act to end this shit

If you are the elections supervisor and in your area of responsibilty, minority neighborhoods have to wait six hours to votes and in white neighborhoods, people vote in 15 minutes, you should go to jail.

Purge minorities from the registered voter rolls, go to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:06 PM

15. agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:56 PM

12. I wonder if it is possible to track the sender through a postal permit

This is a common practice Republicans initiate. If an organization is big enough, sometimes they arrange for postage permits through PO. If this group did that, and any recipient still has an envelope, it might be possible to determine the sender. Remote, I know, but worth checking into.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:11 PM

17. Why is it even possible for my company to take you off the voter rolls?

One of the dozens of variations of voter suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:59 AM

40. I have been wondering about that as well

But evidently, it is legal to challenge a voter's right to cast a ballot. One just needs a reason to allege that person is not eligible to vote. But what happens is that these people simple aiming to suppress the vote create that reason. This is disturbing.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:36 PM

36. OMG, I guess I'd better return that offer for the condo re-fi right away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:27 AM

38. "Strangely or not so strangely, all of those ballots in questions were of registered Democrats,"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:10 AM

41. No one other then town officials should be allowed to submit any list like that

or to even mail out material like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:32 AM

42. So if I toss UNOFFICIAL mail from an unidentified group

My voter registration can be challenged?

I routinely THROW AWAY crap from non-governmental entities that I have not prior relationship. I have NO RESPONSIBILITY to answer their crap and not answering it should NOT give them the right to claim I am no longer at my legal address!

Election officials should NOT allow this. If my Supervisor of Elections let any random, unnamed group to remove people from the voter rolls, I would be advocating for his impeachment for malfeasance!

Rant over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:10 PM

44. I always thought that "caging" meant a first class "do not forward" mailing to an individual and

if it came back it meant the address on the voter registration form was not correct and thus the validity of the registration in question. There is no legal requirement to respond to a mailing to maintain voter registration as far as I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread