Monthly Archives: November 2011

Two dozen Sheriff deputies allegedly cast illegal votes in St. Bernard Parish Sheriff race

At the link, the saga continues in Louisiana as a St. Bernard sheriff candidate questions the votes of hundreds of alleged non-residents, including two dozen deputies.  The last line of the story explains it all:  “There can’t be any confusion when over two dozen deputies that don’t live in St. Bernard are voting in St. Bernard.” 

To the rest of the story: 

A candidate in the runoff race for St. Bernard sheriff is claiming widespread voter fraud in the early voting for this Saturday’s election.  Wayne Landry is disputing hundreds of ballots from voters he claims no longer live in the parish.

His opponent, Jimmy Pohlmann, said the vote challenge is a desperate act by Landry to get votes this last week of the campaign. “It’s a sad day in St. Bernard,” Landry said.  Landry held a late afternoon new conference to reveal what he called new evidence of voter fraud during the early balloting for Saturday’s parishwide election.  Tuesday, he filed more than 1300 challenges contesting the validity of the early ballots.


He claims his campaign found more evidence Wednesday of people voting in the St. Bernard election who no longer live here. “1400 more people have been identified who don’t have addresses in St. Bernard,” he said.


Pohlmann responded, saying, “To paint this with a broad brush and say that everybody outside St. Bernard Parish that’s been displaced is committing voter fraud is absurd.”  Pohlmann points to Louisiana’s displaced voters act. It says that if you were displaced by hurricanes Katrina or Rita, you may remain registered to vote in your pre-hurricane address as long as you do not register to vote in another parish or state.


“I think what you see Landry doing is just another desperate act to try and cause some chaos in the election,” Pohlmann said. “This election people have a right to vote, the law says that. Let them vote.”  Landry points to another section of Louisiana law that states if a person claims a homestead exemption, he shall register to vote in the precinct in which the residence is located.


“There can’t be any confusion when over two dozen deputies that don’t live in St. Bernard are voting in St. Bernard.”

United Nations Human Rights Day to Kick Off Voter ID Fight

A coalition of groups have gathered to opposed Voter ID, including the NAACP and a variety of voter fraud denying organizations.  They have chosen December 10 to launch their campaign.  Why?  The South Florida Times:

A coalition of nearly 20 organizations, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, announced they have launched a “Stand for Freedom” voting rights campaign and also a major mobilization on Dec. 10— United Nations Human Rights Day — to protest what they say is an attack on voting rights throughout the country. . . .

The announcement came at New York City’s City Hall earlier this month. Other top leaders present for the occasion included Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League; the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Council; Lillian Rodríguez López, president of the Hispanic Federation; Margaret Fung, executive director, Asian-American Legal Defense & Education Fund; Michael Mulgrew, president, United Federation of Teachers; George Gresham, president of Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and Donna Lieberman, president, New York Civil Liberties Union.

Texas Voter ID in Big Trouble

As I and many others have predicted, the new Voter ID law in Texas has hit a snag.  The Department of Justice is reviewing the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and has made a “more information” request.  This is usually the first overt sign that an objection is coming.  (Actually, the first sign an objection is coming is when the NAACP and other voter fraud denying groups, with their direct access into the DOJ, start making it their number one issue.) 

Texas should immediately withdraw the submission from DOJ and file in Federal District Court before DOJ gets a chance to object to the law.  If DOJ objects to the law, it will be forever tainted in the media, and even to the court in practical terms, if Texas ends up filing with the court for approval.  Florida withdrew a submission from DOJ after strange and troubling discussions with certain DOJ lawyers about a law that merely moved early voting dates and shrunk time to turn in third party voter registration forms. 

Academics have suggested that filing a submission with DOJ is faster and cheaper.  Like the spider to the fly, they claim it is a perfectly friendly forum in the web of the DOJ.  In reality, as Texas may soon find out, it may be fatal to their Voter ID law.  Because Texas will not be back in session, the more information requests adds months before a final objection might be forthcoming, and thereby making it less likely that Voter ID will be used in the 2012 elections in Texas. 

It was an avoidable mistake to submit this law to DOJ, a big avoidable mistake.

The solution?  Withdraw the submission immediately.  Do not turn over a scrap of information to DOJ.  Force them to obtain it in discovery, subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pentagon blasts New York’s absentee ballot plan for troops

At the link, the Wall Street Journal reports on the denial of a waiver request from New York to comply with the MOVE Act for a series of federal elections in 2012. 

In denying New York’s request for a waiver Wednesday, the Defense Department said the state’s election plan for 2012 “provides no concrete solution to the problems that arose in 2010 from the state’s overly-compressed schedule for preparing and transmitting ballots.”

It’s an outrage that New York is even asking for a waiver.

Investor’s Business Daily: Democrats for Election Fraud

“We’re used to Democrats’ trotting out the Republicans-are-racists trope
whenever they want to score a political point. But even we can’t believe
they’re doing it to block reasonable protections against election
fraud.

This week, Maryland’s Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the
House, claimed that “we are witnessing a concerted effort to place new
obstacles in front of minorities, low-income families and young people
who seek to exercise their right to vote.” Earlier in the month, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous declared that
“this is the greatest assault on voting rights, happening right now,
that we have seen since the dawn of Jim Crow.”

It all sounds so menacing. Except that these liberals are excoriating
Republicans for supporting what the vast majority of Americans agree is
a perfectly reasonable requirement for voters — that they show a photo
ID before casting a ballot.

This year, three states enacted photo ID laws, and three others
toughened their existing laws, according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures. In all, 31 states now require voters to show some
sort of ID, with 15 requiring a photo ID.

The requirement is hugely popular with the public — a Rasmussen
survey this June found that 75% of likely voters back photo ID laws,
including 63% of Democrats — which is hardly surprising given that
citizens routinely have to produce a picture ID to board a plane, buy
alcohol and any number of other mundane tasks.

Plus, the states offer free photo IDs to those who can’t afford them
and let people cast provisional ballots if they don’t bring their IDs on
Election Day.

Does this strike anyone as unreasonable?

Well, to liberals intent on politicizing everything under the sun these
days, voter ID laws are merely a Republican ploy to suppress turnout
among those most likely to vote Democratic — namely blacks, Hispanics
and the poor.”

Read the whole thing at the link

Democrats catch another break on redistricting in Colorado

courtesy of the federal judiciary.  It is a bit unseemly when a federal judge unilaterally attempts to change the partisan make-up of a swing state’s congressional delegation and one of the political parties (and their communications team at the Washington Post) break down in celebration at the early Christmas gift that will just keep giving for 10 years.  Of course, the judge could have provided a status quo map that did no harm to either side and refused to play “I know best.”  But that didn’t happen, did it.

Perhaps other federal judges will exhibit more self-control.