Lost Home ≠ Lost Vote

In 2008, a scary, inaccurate adage made the rounds: Lose your house, lose your vote. It spread after the Michigan Messenger, a publication that described itself as “a coalition of long-time progressive bloggers, freelance writers and professional journalists,” reported that a local Republican group was planning to use lists of foreclosed homes to keep people from voting.

The local Republican chairman quoted in the article denied the plot in the aftermath, but the Obama campaign filed suit to block the party from using foreclosures lists regardless. The case was eventually dismissed in October 2008 with an agreement from both the RNC and DNC that foreclosed homes would not be used as a means of challenging voter eligibility. But at least one legal group, and some liberal strategists, have raised the concern that the presence of new political players could mean a resurgence of old tactics—those new players mainly being Tea Party-ers, of course.

Wendy Weiser, deputy director of the democracy program at NYU law school’s Brennan Center for Justice, was part of a panel at the National Press Club in D.C. that recently discussed various threats to the vote. Considering the historically high foreclosure rates, she says, this “incredibly heartless and unfair” act is “something to be looking out for” because it’s the “first time we’ve seen widespread ballot security operations organized by people who are not the major parties.”

“Ballot security” is a phrase the Republican party has long used to refer to their battle against voter fraud but which has also come to connote plans of voter intimidation, especially toward minority groups. The seminal case is from the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, in which the RNC was accused, amongst other things, of “posting off-duty sheriffs and policemen – some of whom were wearing equipment normally associated with law enforcement personnel such as two-way radios and firearms – at polling places in minority precincts,” according to court documents. “The officers involved in the program wore armbands emblazoned with a seemingly official title:  ‘National Ballot Security Task Force.’”

Despite some allegations, so far there’s only been solid evidence of the Tea Party-ers holding voter challenger training, not of them using it for nefarious purposes. And training people to monitor the polls, though that can be a cover for schemes, is no scheme itself. “We need folks to watch what happens at the polls on Nov. 2nd and make sure there’s no shenanigans by Acorn, etc.,” wrote one Tea Party group alongside their advertisement for training. “We have to be prepared for hi-jinks and trickery this election as some races are so very close,” wrote another.

Both the worries about and from the Tea Party about various misbehavior at this point seem to be fear-mongering (or overzealous hand-wringing) more than anything. That said, with one out of every 371 homes receiving a foreclosure filing in September, this alarm-ringing can serve as a good reminder that while rules vary a bit from state to state, the best creed is that losing your home doesn’t mean losing your vote. And that people should presume they are empowered to cast their ballot no matter what obstacles they encounter at the polls.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • nflfoghorn

    “’…The officers involved in the program wore armbands emblazoned with a seemingly official title: “National Ballot Security Task Force.”‘”
    .
    But unlike the New Black Panther Party, this group is JUST PLAIN EVIL! Right, Freep?

  • blossom38

    I am the precinct officer in a university town in California. Every election cycle there is a contingent of “townies” who think students should not be allowed to vote on city issues and who are trying to get all city elections to take place during the times students are not here. I end up with some of this type working as election workers since the largest amount of election workers come from the pool of retirees in our very conservative town. I discovered last election that there are a fair amount of tea-partiers working in the two precincts where I am officer.

    I made it clear then and now that there will be no “electioneering,” i.e. no discussion of politics, opinions about candidates or the President, political movements, etc. Some of these workers seem to believe that since they are working an election as a conservative retiree then everyone in the room must be the same as they so it’s o.k. to make political comments. Definitely NOT o.k. If they’re bored, they can read, knit, do a crossword puzzle, chatter about the garden or their grandchildren, but absolutely no talk about politics.

    I’ve also made it clear that if anyone–worker, observer, whomever–wants to challenge any voter, he/she better be prepared to show me in the State of California election guide published by the Secretary of State EXACTLY what is the basis for the challenge.
    If any precinct worker continuously challenges voters, that person had better be ready for me to advise him or her that he or she can “work” the rest of the election as a member of their political group~~sans county pay.

    Somehow these folks have convinced themselves that just because they are doing a civic duty (although for pay), that they are automatically the “good Americans” and anyone who looks like them are greeted nicely, treated well, and assumptions made about their political party. This is opposed to their treatment of voters who are non-white, non-upper class, non-Republican, non-traditional. They have had to be reminded that they are here to serve ALL voters and unless there is some serious violation of the election code they had best treat every voter with the same amount of respect.

    At any rate, any issue with any voter is easy to solve since the change in election law after 2000: I just have the person vote provisionally and let the Elections office determine later if that person is eligible.

    In all of this I have the full support of the Registrar of Voters who has notified law enforcement to remove anyone who is interfering with citizens’ right to vote. This will not happen on my watch with anyone who I supervise.

    Patriotic and honest election workers do not allow themselves to be frightened by any outsiders’ lies and intimidation under the guise of “election fraud” and “election security.” Call it by its true name: “election theft.” And use that provisional ballot if there are any issues!!

    (BTW, I think it would be great to get Election Day back to a holiday the way it was in the good ol’ days. More voter turn-out and a more diverse group of election workers.)

  • herby002

    blossom,

    Thanks for your post. Your approach is the right one, no matter whether you’re dealing with left- or right- propogandists.

    I’m curious, though, about the “holiday election day”. I can’t remember any election days other than Tuesdays. Maybe there were some special elections on holidays, but I don’t know of any.

    Care to elaborate?

blog comments powered by Disqus