And in 2004, democratic operatives in Wisconsin(one was a son of a congresswoman no less) tried to supress the vote by slashing tires of vehicles the local GOP was going to use to drive people to actually vote.

True enough, Steve, and in 2002 Republican officials arranged for the jamming of the Democratic phone banks in the US Senate election here in New Hampshire. I was trying to focus on legal shenanigans, using the legal system to gain advantage, not outright criminal acts.

J.

Excellent post, Jay.

As a voter, it just seems incorrect to not have proper names or issues listed on the ballot correctly--for either side. If time is an issue, any changes to a ballot should be visibly noted in at least one place at the polling sites (where one signs in, maybe).

Glad our pharmacies don't have the rule that once a label has been placed on a medicine bottle, it can't be changed!

"The cynic in me kind of hopes that the Democrats are right, and that the Republicans do have Diebold helping them in elections. They say it takes two thieves to make an honest deal, and vote-rigging just might help balance out the games the Democrats seem to play as a matter of course."

So political manuevering on the part of Democrats --something the Republicans do as well -- warrants vote-rigging?

"but in this case the Democrats have gone to court -- and won

The Republican answer is that stealing an election by rigging election machines to steal votes in return is a good response to the use of the courts to gain a political advantage?

Jay, next time just post that you're in favor of Republican voter fraud in Florida, and save all of the "justification" crap. The Dems going to court and winning is no justification for stealing an election.

"The cynic in me kind of hopes..."

Yeah, that's a real ringing endorsement, Lee.

Lee, when you can 1) come up with a name to put on your accusation of sock-puppetry six months ago and 2) explain how Torricelli was allowed to have a sub, but DeLay and Foley were not, then you can speak with authority. Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.

J.

So the Democratic party is taking the issues through the court system and winning their cases legally but to make things even for the Republicans you want rigged electronic machines made by companies that have heavily supported the Republican party to "even things out".......mmmmm Jay......I think you are projecting.

muirgeo, when did a court decision become the Gold Standard? It sure as hell didn't after the courts ruled in favor of Bush in Florida back in 2000...

Nor, for that matter, in the Dred Scott decision.

"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns." The Godfather wasn't just talking about money...

J.

"Lee, when you can 1) come up with a name to put on your accusation of sock-puppetry six months ago and 2) explain how Torricelli was allowed to have a sub, but DeLay and Foley were not, then you can speak with authority. Until then, kindly shut the fuck up."

1) Six months is a long time. I don't have any current sockpuppet suspects, but I'll let you know when I do.

2) One possible difference is that Toricelli was in New Jersey and Foley is in Florida. The election laws are determined on a state-by-state basis, not a national basis, Jay.

Like I said, you seem to take a really long road to get to a really short-minded conclusion - that cheating and vote-rigging is ok because the Democrats won in court - won fair and square and legally.

This isn't one of your better pieces of work, Jay.

If Jay had only one good piece, Lee, it still would one more than you have had.

Oh, come now, Lee... if this situation were reversed... if it was a Democratic candidate who was out of the race, and the Republicans went to court and barred the new Dem candidate's name from being on the ballot, or posted anywhere so people would know what was happening... you'd be screaming your fool head off about hypocracy, unjust practices, etc.

Fair is fair. I don't care what side of the political fence you're on. If the new name isn't able to be put on the ballot, then signs, or a notation SOMEWHERE should be allowed stating what is going on. I'm disgusted that a judge would do this.

Garion -- See Lorie's post on this for a more reasoned stance from the right -- note the update (emphasis added):

Update: My comment above that the ruling is absurd is not accurate. I should have said the law is absurd, as it appears the judge probably ruled within the law on this one. There should be some provision to see that voters are adequately informed in the case of a Foley-Negron situation. In other cases, such as when Democrats in New Jersey pulled their Torricelli switcheroo, Democrats have found a way around the law. Then they point at Republicans for supposedly "stealing" elections.

As a Democrat my view is that you work to change the laws you don't agree with. That's the way our system used to work anyway. Vote-rigging isn't the answer.

Voter fraud in Florida?

Presumably Lee is referring to the illegal exclusion of military absentee votes by Democrat lawyers, who argued that state law requiring postmarks on absentee ballots superceded Federal Law that absentee ballots from APO and FPO do not require postmarks.

That was definitely both fraud (state law DOES NOT supercede federal law in a national election) and disenfranchising a disfavored minority (military voters).

That is the ONLY voter fraud documented to take place in Florida in 2000. The rest is urban legend that has about as much basis as claims that the federal government, not al Qaeda terrorists, knocked down the Workd Trade Center on 9/11.

Lee, I'm guessing Jay was being sarcastic when he mentioned rigging votes-- I took it as a disgruntled comment due to frustration of the Democratic ploy of going to court to try to sabotage the election. Yes, they legally succeeded. It does not make it right, however- which was the point I was trying to make to you. You can't tell me honestly that you wouldn't be totally pissed off if the shoe were on the other foot. BTW, I did read Lorie's article before I read Jay's- maybe that's why I took Jay's with a grain of salt. Rigging elections is wrong, but so is legally preventing voters from knowing for sure where their vote is going. I'd feel this case was an injustice no matter which side it was on.

Mark, The facts are that the exclusion of military absentee votes was a legal challenge put forth by the Gore campaign, and the courts ruled against them.

That's the way it works. Through the courts. It was not "fraud" - it was a legal challenge to the law, done legally. There is a good synopsis of this fight on the St. Petersburgh Times. Get informed, Mark, it's election time.

THIS -- IS FRAUD

AG: Voter warning linked to GOP campaign

SANTA ANA, Calif. - State investigators have linked a Republican campaign to letters sent to thousands of Southern California Hispanics warning them they could go to jail or be deported if they vote next month, a spokesman for the attorney general said.

"We have identified where we believe the mailing list was obtained," said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

He declined to identify the specific Republican campaign Wednesday, citing the ongoing investigation. The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register both reported Thursday that the investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (news, bio, voting record).

Lying to legally entitled voters, telling them the law says they cannot vote and could be jailed if they do, is fraud -- and now the California Attorney General's office says it has been linked to the Republicans.

"Yes, they legally succeeded. It does not make it right, however- which was the point I was trying to make to you."

Oh, then you and I will have to disagree, Garion. I believe the fact that it was done legally -- through the courts -- does make it right. Most definitely. If the judge followed the law, and Lorie's update suggests that they did in this case, then it is "right", not "fraud".

"You can't tell me honestly that you wouldn't be totally pissed off if the shoe were on the other foot."

Disappointed? Yes. Would I go so far as to suggest that vote-rigging is a suitable response? No.

"BTW, I did read Lorie's article before I read Jay's- maybe that's why I took Jay's with a grain of salt. Rigging elections is wrong, but so is legally preventing voters from knowing for sure where their vote is going. I'd feel this case was an injustice no matter which side it was on."

Well then you must be outraged at what the California Attorney General is saying about the Republicans lying to legally naturalized US Hispanic citizens in California - see above.

Yes, he Republicans are beyond reproach when it comes to politicking.

I live in Florida, we have one of the fairest electoral system there is, despite the BS thrown at us by al Gore and the rest of the Democrat party. Not allowing a sign to tell voters there has been a change in the ballot that is not noted on the ballot is not exactly what I would call fair. Nor is rigging the election through the courts seem fair -- Hopefully a higher court will quickly overrule this travesty of justice.

Florida also has voter photo ID requirements.

If you want to know how a liberal feels about rights, ask them about the second amendment -- get the real truth.

Closer to home, here, I remember the incident where Democrat capaign workers were given access to prison populations near Philly, where they worked to get absentee votes from incarcerated felons.

Rendell also tried the military absentee ballot crap, reversed course when he took flak for it.

The thing that stands out most to my mind, though, is the rash of violence associated with the 04 election -- if I recall correctly, I counted 14 incidents where GOP election offices were shot at, vandalized, set on fire, or stormed by angry mobs (some of you may recall a staffer had a wrist/arm broken).

But, of course, "the GOP is the party of facist brownshirts". Right.

Seems someone can always find a sleazy judge to "interpet" the law in their favor.

There needs to be more accountablity in the judicial branch of the government and I would love to see some checks and balances put forth by the other two branches of the government.

This also points to the importance of winning elections. Not all judges are partisan in the way they rule, but you only need one bad apple.

Great post Jay; fighting to eliminate military votes was a certainly a low point in US election history.

Some years ago, here in Michigan, the Democratic primary featured a union candidate and another guy.

I voted, as I sometimes do, in the Democratic primary though I more often go Republican. The voting place was a UAW local and the procedure was absurd. They had union thugs as "guards" all over the place, and to vote for the non-union guy you had to return the ballot to a separate box, in a separate line, passing a gauntlet of union guys in muscle shirts wearing UAW hats.

Only the Democrats would even think of this and only a Democrat judge would bless both results and procedure.

You are right also to point out that injustice is a daily occurance in our courts and I would add that the judge who rules against his party is probably the exception not the norm.

And it is perhaps not a bad time to recall, in the insanity of that Florida election, the judges who bucked their party to rule in favor of fairness.

Democratic Judges Sanders Sauls and Charles Burton, as an election official, ruled against Gore and in favor of what they determined to be fair, in spite of extreme political pressure.

Heros they, but all too rare.

Would that the Supreme Court judges in Florida and the US have acted, and thought, with such honor.

Yes, Lee, as a matter of fact I am outraged about those letters sent to immigrants in CA. I'm absolutely disgusted.

Again, vote-rigging is not acceptable.

We will definitely agree to disagree on this. I think the Dems managed to legally rig the election. I think it's extremely unethical and unfair to the voters. I don't know you, so I obviously can't say for sure what your reaction would be. You seem to be very outspoken and stubborn here, to the point of automatically embracing all things liberal and dismissing all things conservative, no matter what the topic is. Based upon those reactions I've seen here, I figured you would have spoken out angrily had the court case been brought forth by Republicans. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Can't you just see the posts from "pucker", "mun-go-nadless" and "b'google" when a Rep. wins next month ---DIEBOLD

"I figured you would have spoken out angrily had the court case been brought forth by Republicans. If I was wrong, I apologize."

You're probably right, I'll admit it. I can be stubborn.

Lee-

If you had even an ounce of integrity, you would note that 1) Jay Tea was making a sarcastic rhetorical point with the vote rigging point and 2) That Jay has a track record of non-partisan disgust at voter fraud that you completely lack (see his timely and continued coverage of the Republican phone bank jamming.

I do not understand why you seem to take such an interest in trying to hijack threads here. I mean please elaborate on your obsession with posting when you either lack 1) the reading comprehension to understand WITW the author of the post is saying or 2) the ability to comment meaningfully on the topic at hand that you must take the thread off on a tangent.

Until you develop some reading comprehension and rudimentary manners, go back to the kiddie table and stop bugging the grownups.

A few questions here...

Why did the Democrats bring this to court in the first place? Was it just to ensure confusion and thus a better chance to win Foley's seat?

Can Foley's replacement start a campaign outside, before the election, to make people know what is going on? (Newspaper ads explaining that because the Democrats went to court, Foley's name will still be on the ballot, but a vote for Foley really is a vote for his replacement candidate, etc.?)

I obviously don't understand why the Democrats took this to court in the first place. From the outside, it looks like they're just trying to muddy the water... it gives me a bad impression of them.

Laney: "Why did the Democrats bring this to court in the first place? Was it just to ensure confusion and thus a better chance to win Foley's seat?"

My belief is that the Democrats brought the suit in response to a decision by a Florida official that posting the signs was permitted. Democrats then took the matter to court.

Brian: "I do not understand why you seem to take such an interest in trying to hijack threads here."

Each of my comments was, I believe, on topic (unlike the troll'ish commenters that follow me around each thread)-- so I'm confused by your suggestion that I "hijacked" this thread. Are you suggesting that because I took issue with what Jay wrote that I'm not entitled to state my opinion?

THat sounds rather un-American, and I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

Thanks Lee- can you or someone explain further on WHY they didn't want the signs posted? Is that what was against the law?

Laney, I don't know the FLorida Dems officially-stated reason, but I suspect

1) It's against the law, and 2) it would hurt the Democratic candidates chances in the election.

Not necessarily in that order.

This is why I'm libertarian.

The idea that the law has anything whatsoever to do with right and wrong is a childish, idiotic, belief.

Legalism is something to be *ashamed* of, Lee. It identifies you as someone who would steal from children if given a legal loop-hole to do it.

And the fact is, that the Democrats only believe in legal rulings when they favor Democrats. If they don't favor Democrats then they whine and cry for *years* and *years* about how unfair it all is and how Republicans are evil. It's a double standard and pathetic. It's all someone elses fault. Always.

And Jay Tea is right on about projection. Whine, whine, whine about how Republicans steal elections. But when blatant electoral fraud is brought to light... fall back to legalism. Justify disenfranchising SOLDIERS. But the *letter* of the law was followed! WE follow the law! But when we recount yet again we have to determine, not what vote was made but what vote the person *intended* to make, or it's not fair! Don't you *dare* disqualify anyone because you might accidentally disqualify someone with the same name, but *we* can accept all the felon votes we can get! More votes than voters in the county? Hey, the Democrat won so shut your vote stealing mouths you dasterdly Republican vote stealing, dibold rigging scum buckets. No you can NOT recount and validate the county to find out where hundreds of extra votes came from because the DEMOCRAT won. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

Freaking projection is right.

Synova:

Wow. You "projected" yourself right out of libertarian" and right into "right wing republican."

Is it funny that the democrats fight the one thing that would take 99% of the voter fraud out of every election. A strickly controlled 'photo' voter ID. Mine isn't a photo ID but a Card issued when you register, no card, Name automatically checked against voter registration rolls by poll watchers from both parties. Very little if any voter fraud takes place when this procedure is used.
Why don't the democ'rat party want this procedure. 175 year old Civil war veterans and criminal aliens wouldn't be able to vote several times.

What? Because I don't think the Republicans are guilty and the Democrats innocent?

In 2000 I had no favorite. I liked Gore for president every bit as much as Bush who I wasn't even slightly impressed with. I don't know if you could have found anyone more neutral than I was about who won that race.

The charges of vote fraud in Florida were insane. People like me were sitting back watching it all, utterly dumbfounded at the Democratic insistance to recount until they came out on top, no matter what. And the charges that Republicans had "disenfranchised" voters by doing things like using paper ballots that little old ladies couldn't pop the chads out of, or the layout of the ballot was confusing, as though the Republicans were singularly responsible for designing ballots. No one said, "If the voter screws up we have to count the vote they actually made." Nope. Disenfranchisment was anything that confused shut-ins and senior citizens. Yet the *intentions* of soldiers, then fairness goes out the window and who cares if our soldiers overseas are disenfranchised, it's just following the rules and so someone screwed up, we can't count those ballots.

And it was disgusting. It was disgusting how the Democrats tore away trust in the process without a single care about it. And then when it finally didn't go their way they cried about how mean the Republicans were when anyone with even a smidgen of objectivity could see that the Democrats had tried every possible thing they could to force the results to be what they wanted. It wasn't that Bush "stole" the election, it's that Gore failed to steal the election. There was no high ground on the Democratic side.

Here's a moderate, uninteresting, Republican candidate and nothing much to worry about in the world, and he won and the news starts reporting people who have become so despondant that there is a surge in psychological treatment.

I liked Gore. I thought it was just fine if the Democrats won. Clinton wasn't great but we got through it and would get through it again. Certainly there was *nothing* to prefer in Bush. I liked every one of the Republican candidates better than I liked him. And then Florida happened, and the psychological breakdown of despondant Gore supporters and all of this in the pre-9/11 political climate.

Obviously we all wanted to avoid the Florida problems. Solving those problems should have been bi-partisan, a common cause for fair and accurate reporting of votes, making sure to count all of them. So suggestions were made. Mostly by Republicans as far as I could tell. And the predictable response was "you're trying to disenfranchise voters! How dare you suggest voters have an ID!" Paper ballots and chad pregnancies were an issue but try to solve that and "you're trying to disenfranchise voters!"

Anything done to try to get an accurate count of legal voters would disqualify some people. Asking for accuracy was bad bad bad, but what solutions were Democrats pushing? Somehow I missed them doing anything at all.

Then 2004 came. Somehow, no progress or improvements were made in 4 years. The biggest scandals, such as in Ohio where the "disenfranchisment" was the horror of election observers wearing suits (cuz Black people just get all jiggly and scared inside when they see a person in a business suit) and a severe lack of voting machines in a district with a Democrat leading the election board and in charge of things like voting machines... and somehow the Republicans stole the election *again*.

The other "big event" in 2004 was in Washington... Kings county, I believe, where the incompetencies were beyond blatant and clearly favored the Democrat who "won"... and hey, that's okay.

Show me where the Democrats have done anything to reform the voting process that was about fairness and accuracy rather than their own advantage. Maybe it just never made the news.

Scrappy said: "Is it funny that the democrats fight the one thing that would take 99% of the voter fraud out of every election."
{sni