If this happened, this is a federal crime.  One may not pose as another and vote in a federal election.  The Troy Record editorial argues that voter identification requirements would not have allowed this to happen:

“A Troy voter, Paul Worobey, went to the polling place this past Election Day and noticed someone signed his wife’s name but knew it wasn’t his wife’s signature because, in addition to it not being her handwriting, she didn’t vote on that Election Day or any other for that matter.”

Lets see if the FBI contacts Paul Worobey, or Troy election officials, to follow up on this report.  Maybe they don’t know about it.  Perhaps someone will call the FBI in Albany to report it at 518-465-7551.  Or, perhaps someone will call the Election Crimes Branch in Washington D.C. at 202-514-1421 and report this, or ask if they already know about it.

Someone better also alert Tova Wang, let her know her report about the absence of voter fraud on November 2 might need to be updated also.

The South Dakota Attorney General has announced there will be no charges of offering something of value in a plan on indian reservations to give away chili.  The Argus Leader:

“Republicans filed a formal complaint with Jackley after Democrats held early-vote chili feeds on three reservations in mid-October. They alleged that offering food in exchange to vote violated federal and state laws.”

This is a state level determination.  The Department of Justice could also look into federal charges of offering something of value to vote.

Captain Sam Wright writes  at Pajamas Media that one solution to the military voting mess of 2010 is to amend the statute to include a private right of action.  That way, soldiers and sailors won’t have to rely on the Department of Justice to bring timely lawsuits.  That seems to be a view gaining traction in Congress.  Multiple committees (and subs) are looking toward hearings about the 2010 mess  that was supposed to cure the 2008 mess.

The problem with the law, as written, is that it gives the Eric Holder Justice Department monopoly authority over protecting military voters.  That doesn’t work for a variety of reasons about which Congress will be fully informed.  And surely the DOJ wouldn’t oppose expanding the rights of military voters to bring their own lawsuits, would they?  Wait and see. If they do, they will do so at their own public relations peril.  It would be smarter not to object lest the details of the 2010 mess be revealed even more vividly.  January will be here before we know it.

 Drudge is reporting. Fox 29 has more.  This is Jerry Jackson.  He was not enjoined in the case. 

The Justice Department has injected itself in the Connecticut race for US Senate.  Here is the letter.

This letter has caused concern  among unpredictable quarters.  The Professor wrote “So I was surprised when DOJ sent this warning letter to WWE. I wonder whether others have gotten such a letter.”
 
Normally, a law enforcement agency, especially the DOJ, would not inject it self with criminal threats so close to the election.  Would welcome other thoughts on this one. 

IBD’s editorial on the military voting saga of 2010.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Vote

The president’s home state gets a pass from the Justice Department on ensuring its soldiers overseas can vote. An administration obsessed with gays in the military doesn’t care about voting rights for GIs.

Kristen Clarke of the NAACP LDF has no idea what she is talking about. In a CBS interview she states:

“Kristen Clarke, Co-Director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Political Participation Group, said in an interview with Hotsheet that ‘there doesn’t seem to be a color blind approach to many of these so called ballot integrity efforts and poll watching initiatives that are underway.  The reports that we are hearing about are very troubling,’ she said, suggesting that poll watchers are being ‘largely assigned to monitor African American and Latino voters.'”

This is false.  And she should know better.  Sadly, it’s not unexpected from her.

First of all, this is the sort of preposterous and ill informed statement that flirts with defamation, and perhaps it is time that some folks in Houston return the favor. Clarke’s argument that minority areas are being targeted, particularly in Houston, is a bald faced lie. It is defamatory, and if she is speaking for her organizations, both she and the LDF should be held to account.

Second, this is the same Kristen Clarke that testified under oath multiple times that she did not know who “C.C.” was at the voting section in a deposition with the Civil Rights Commission investigating the New Black Panther dismissal. She denied knowing who C.C. was despite working along side “Christopher Coates” on Section 2 cases in places like Kentucky and other parts of the country. She knew full well who C.C. was and her claims to the contrary are not to be believed.

Third, this is the same Kristen Clarke that seemed keenly interested in having a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers dismissed. While working for the NAACP LDF, she asked voting section lawyers if the case had yet been dismissed. Clarke is famously obsessed with disparaging race neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws. She never wants the voting rights act to protect white voters. She stated this position to numerous people on numerous occasions. One example was meeting with leadership of the Civil Rights Division in 2008, when she made her views perfectly clear.

Reporters should ask Kristen Clarke in future interviews if she supports race neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws. They should ask her if she opposed the New Black Panther case. They should ask her if she supported the case against Noxubee MS political boss Ike Brown, who was found liable for violating the voting rights of whites. Clarke is a notorious opponent of equal enforcement of the law. She has no warrant to falsely criticize groups who are monitoring the election. The only person in this debate who views the law with a racially suspect lens is Clarke.

Pajamas Media, where I am a contributor, has launched a project to collect  information about servicemembers who have received ballots late, not at all, or, encountered other problems with participation in the elections.   Maybe you contacted election officials and it solved the problem; maybe not.  Maybe you contacted the DOJ to complain and you then obtained a ballot; maybe not.  Maybe you got your ballot in time to use the express mail seven day option; or not. 

Either way,  Congress will be examining what went wrong in 2010 with military ballots.  Changes to the law may be forthcoming.

Here’s how military members, and military families, can make a difference. 

Pajamas Media wants to hear your stories.  My latest piece at Pajamas Media explains some of the problems, and tells you how you can get involved to make the system better for 2012.  Click here for more information.

Spectator.
“And members of the New Black Panther Party were busy in New York this week, dining with Iranian goofball Ahmadinejad.

Finally, all of this puts the spotlight on Civil RIghts Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom. She has repeatedly said that if Mr. Coates or others provided evidence of such a broad pattern of hostility, she would agree the situation would be of major importance. Well, now the evidence is overwhelming. Ms. Thernstrom therefore has a duty to act, by publicly demanding a major change at Justice.”

At Pajamas Media.