Here.

From the Press of Atlantic City:

“Ernest Storr, 44, was one of 14 people arrested in September on various voter fraud charges involving Councilman Small’s failed 2009 mayoral bid.  . . . Storr not only admitted to instructing a Small campaign worker on how to tamper with absentee ballots, but said he previously committed the crime in 2008, while working on Evans’ campaign during a special mayoral election. . . . Storr is the second Small campaign worker to plead guilty. In October, Ronald Harris, 24, of Atlantic City, admitted to third-degree conspiracy to commit absentee ballot fraud . . . Colon told the two men that most of the Hispanic voters are older and are unaware of who the candidates are.  ‘Just get the ballot and have them sign it,’ Storr replied.  Then Martin Crumble allegedly warned, ‘Make sure you don’t let nobody see you.'”

An article from the Denver Post highlighting Colorado’s waiver request reveals that the supposed lack of time between the Colorado primary and General election to send ballots to overseas voters is not actually the impediment to enfranchising remote military voters.  In fact, the article states, “Colorado’s Aug. 10 primary leaves 84 days to comply. However, under Colorado law, election officials can wait until 32 days before the election to deliver ballots to election offices.”  

So despite a fairly early Primary and plenty of time to hand-draw the ballots and print every single ballot with a laser printer, the Colorado SOS and election officials will simply wait… and wait… for 84 days until day 30 or so to send the ballots and wonder aloud why hundreds or even thousands of Colorado overseas military voters are disenfranchised when they come back late.  One can almost imagine some ignoring the problem, as they did in Minnesota – “isn’t that a shame” and then “move right along, there is nothing to see here!” 

It appears that Colorado is more than able to meet the 45 day deadline with room to spare.  Perhaps Colorado believes its state law reigns supreme over the federal MOVE Act or that they can wait out a potential DOJ lawsuit until they decide to find the political will to change the law.  Perhaps at the February NASS meeting, the Colorado SOS interpreted DOJ’s “out of context” comments and subsequently failed to convey the importance of the military voting issue to the Legislature.  Certainly, Colorado must believe that with DOJ on the sideline, this 84 day period just may somehow qualify under the “undue hardship” exemption.  While the Colorado Legislature found the issue of medical marijuana regulation a top priority to deal with in 2010, they apparently failed to conform their state law to the 45 days mailing time for absentee ballots 

Also noteworthy in the article:  “Bob Carey, federal voting assistance program director for the Department of Defense, said waiver requests have been received from Washington, New York, Hawaii, Alaska, the Virgin Islands, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.  The Military Postal Service Agency urges military voters in Iraq and Afghanistan to send ballots back at least 28 days before an election, and voters at other overseas military installations at least 21 days in advance.”

 Colorado is sending its ballots 30 days prior to the election.  Director Carey has stated that experts have concluded that takes 28 days one way, each way, for military voters in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq and 21 days each way for overseas installations.  In spite of these facts, Colorado has submitted a waiver indicating that sufficient time has been provided for its overseas military voters to receive and return the ballots in only 30 days.  Under the scenario above with the timelines articulated by the Federal Voting Assistance Program itself, these voters will have just 2-9 days to return the ballot despite an estimated return time of 21-28 days.  And if the thousands of members serving in the Armed Forces from Colorado don’t get their ballot back in time, we will have repeated the disaster of 17,000 cancelled overseas votes as in 2008.  

Add Colorado to the list of states seeking to shirk their obligation to protect the rights of military voters.  Today Colorado filed for a waiver from the protections of the MOVE Act which requires ballots to be sent overseas at least 45 days in advance.  And what of all those serving our nation overseas from Colorado?  Too bad:  Secretary of State “Spokesman Rich Coolidge said the ballots will still be mailed, but some soldiers in remote battlefields might not have enough time to mail them back, even though the state will give them an extra seven days after the election.”

Thankfully the Pentagon can reject the waiver.  DOJ should be immediately opening an investigation into Colorado’s admitted inability to comply with the MOVE Act.   Families of those serving in the armed forces can ask the Colorado Secretary of State to withdraw the waiver application and to comply with the MOVE Act at:

Secretary of State Bernie Beuscher
Suite 200
303-894-2200 ext. 6307
303-869-4861 (FAX)
elections@sos.state.co.us

We will shortly post the email and contact information for other government officials who can prevent Colorado and other states from disenfranchising military voters.

While Alaska, Maryland, Hawaii , Colorado, Washington, New York and Delaware seek to avoid new federal protections for military voters, the Georgia Secretary of State reminds us that some states did what was necessary to come into compliance with federal law.  Other states with September primaries also got the job done, including Florida.  Vermont is another notable example of a state that did what it took to get the job done to comply with MOVE.  Keep this in mind when states like New York groan that they need a waiver from the new federal law:

“Military voters have had difficult times voting in local and national elections simply because of time and distance. While many states have been dragging their feet on compliance with the MOVE Act, The Secretary of State’s office and the Georgia Legislature have allowed no grass to grow under their feet on this issue.”

I’ll be on WTKK-FM, Boston’s Talk, with Michael Graham at 1:10 p.m. today talking about my latest Pajamas Media piece and military voting rights.

Once upon a time you could count on the Washington Post to be accurate, even if everyone knew they were biased.   Greg Sargent of the Washington Post proves today that is no longer true.  For his latest piece has both bias and inaccuracy.  Mr. Sargent’s lack of accuracy demonstrates why the Post doesn’t have a rosy future – bias and inaccuracy are the death knell of dead-trees journalism.  The cost structure doesn’t have enough of a market that enjoys both bias and inaccuracy in their product.

For starters, he reports that no states have applied for waivers from military voting protections for the November 2010 election.  One can’t help but wonder whether he is parroting an inaccurate DOJ spin, whether he making this up on his own, or whether he is parroting a DOJ spin and never bothered to check his facts.  Of course if he read Election Law Center he would know that five states (now at least six with the addition today of Colorado) have applied for waivers from the new MOVE Act. 

He might actually read the Fox news story he cites and read the quote from the Pentagon spokeswoman:  

Defense Department spokeswoman Major April Cunningham told FoxNews.com that New York, Delaware, Maryland, Alaska and Virgin Islands had also applied for waivers. (Cornyn’s co-sponsor for the MOVE Act was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.)

“All waivers are currently under review. The Defense Department must respond, under the law, after consultation with the Department of Justice, no later than 65 days before the election, which is August 29, 2010,” said Robert Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

Or Mr. Sargent might look here or here  or here  or here .  Frankly, his failure to do the most basic research on the issue is astonishing.

Sargent also can’t help making this about me or the Black Panthers or something other than the failure of DOJ to aggressively protect military voters.  (See for example the belated updating of their website until attention was cast on their inactivity.)  He also inaccurately asserts: these claims are “based largely on claims made by former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams.”  Wrong again Mr. Sargent.  My article on Pajamas Media did not come out until 4 days after Eric Eversole of the Military Voting Protection Project and the Washington Times had similar articles.   It might be tempting to blame me for the sudden Senatorial scrutiny of the issue, but it isn’t accurate.  It’s interesting how Mr. Sargent fails entirely to note that 17,000 votes were tossed from military and overseas voters in the 2008 election because the ballots were not sent in time.  I suppose defending DOJ is a higher priority than military voters to Mr. Sargent.

One suspects Mr. Sargent’s glee in attacking me and reporting inaccurate facts is because his own ombudsman scolded the reporters  for ignoring an important story relating to voting.  Since that ombudsman scolding, the Post reporters, never a fan of being told they messed up, have made it perfectly obvious where their biases lie. The bottom line is that DOJ dropped the ball in 2008 and 17,000 votes were trashed. 

A bureaucrat’s first instinct is to deny that anything is wrong.  It’s a shame, because there are states which could be sued right now because their state laws don’t permit compliance with MOVE, but they aren’t being sued.  If Senator Cornyn ever gets that state by state breakdown, I wonder what it will show for Alabama.  I and other experts on this issue will be watching closely over the next few weeks at what DOJ does, or doesn’t do, regarding military voters.

Perhaps I am missing something, but this is one of the most bizarre Voting Rights Act lawsuits I’ve ever seen.  It seems a plaintiff (who also seems to have found a lawyer to put his signature on a complaint) is alleging that Alabama’s raids on gambling operations violates the Voting Rights Act.  More here.   Again, perhaps I am missing something obvious, but I sure would not want to be the attorney walking into court on this theory. (One Ed Still).

A discussion about this circumstance here.

If you missed it (and are interested) here is my appearance on Fox and Friends this morning discussing military voting issues.  Click here.