I come against the evil of voter purges in Jesus name amen!

[ASLANSPAL]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=voter+purges


I think this is the plan to thwart the will of the people by rove...I hope that voice of Lee Atwater would haunt him...because he needs to repent.

 

[The Galatian]

It worked in Florida, after all. This is the reason we have to turn out parties when they have been in control for too long. They start to think they have a right to do things like this.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So what is your solution to the problem of voter rolls filled with people who are ineligible to vote, whether by reason of citizenship, criminal history, death, etc?

 

[TomVols]

Invoking Jesus' holy name in partisanship made me nervous when it was done against Clinton, and it makes me just as nervous to do it against a Republican. Ex 20:7 means little to so many.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, that's absolutely true, Tom. The gospel is not about politics. MacArthur made some great points about that last night on LKL and on the Pulpit website recently.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Gop Voter Intimidation Must Stop!

EMPHASIS ON RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061019/ap_on_re_us/immigration_voting_threat;_ylt=AhzOsTst42eFgZxgUY0rlfSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

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


snippet:
The two newspapers reported state investigators had found the location where the letters were printed and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County

My Comment:
Christians must pray and stand against intimidation whether it be from any party.

 

[Scott J]

No.

Christians should pray for justice and the rule of law. The last election before we moved from the Atlanta area, the AJC (hardly a conservative paper) reported that roughly 5000 dead people had voted inside the perimeter (the part of Atlanta metro that is over 70% black and a greater percentage than that Democratic). We know in the year of the Florida recount debacle that many double Dem votes were counted. People who were registered, and voted, in their northern home states and Florida.

Further, we know which party is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any type of voter identification to prevent voter fraud.

FTR from the article in question:

The letter was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

Immigrants who are adult naturalized citizens are eligible to vote. It is a federal and state crime to threaten or intimidate voters.

It said if you are "illegal or you are an immigrant" meaning a non-citizen then it is illegal for you to vote. If it is not a crime to vote in an election while a non-citizen it most certainly should be and should be enforced strictly.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

If immigrants, legal or illegal attempt to vote they should be imprisoned and then deported. The same goes for felons or others who have lost their voting status. For that matter the same goes for criminals and others who violate the law. (not that illegal immigrants are not criminals) The police should be able to arrest anyone who shows up to vote and had an outstanding warrent. You break the law, you give up your rights as a citizen. That seems simple to me.

Why is it that only one party seems concerned about getting as many criminals to the polls as possible? Oh I forgot, this is the same party that wants to make it impossible for deployed military members to vote.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Aslanspal and Galatian,

Perhaps you missed the question so I will ask it again: So what is your solution to the problem of voter rolls filled with people who are ineligible to vote, whether by reason of citizenship, criminal history, death, etc?

Do you believe people should be on the voter rolls if they are ineligible to vote? If yes, why? If no, how do you propose to get them off the rolls if you are against voter roll purging?

 

[Daisy]

If immigrants, legal or illegal attempt to vote they should be imprisoned and then deported.

Immigrants who are naturalized citizens can and should vote. It is not illegal for them, it is their duty as citizens to vote.

The same goes for felons or others who have lost their voting status.

Well, in some states felons are barred from voting, in some they are not and in some they are for a fixed length of time only.

Why is it that only one party seems concerned about getting as many criminals to the polls as possible?

You've misstated the question. That should be, "Why is it that one party is determined to disenfranchise eligible voters who are likely to vote for the other party?"

 

[The Galatian]

Larry asks:

So what is your solution to the problem of voter rolls filled with people who are ineligible to vote, whether by reason of citizenship, criminal history, death, etc?

Well, in Florida, it was traced to a Republican plan to disable the system used to identify felons, so that it would not remove Cuban felons (who tend to vote republican) from the rolls.

Corruption. The usual. Apparently, in Ohio, some precincts had more people voting republican than were registered there.

Judging from the California example, they are also very active in trying to keep qualified voters from voting. No one should be surprised by this.

 

[El_Guero]

It is scary!

Invoking Jesus' holy name in partisanship made me nervous when it was done against Clinton, and it makes me just as nervous to do it against a Republican. Ex 20:7 means little to so many.

 

[JamieinNH]

Aslanspal and Galatian,

Perhaps you missed the question so I will ask it again: So what is your solution to the problem of voter rolls filled with people who are ineligible to vote, whether by reason of citizenship, criminal history, death, etc?

Do you believe people should be on the voter rolls if they are ineligible to vote? If yes, why? If no, how do you propose to get them off the rolls if you are against voter roll purging?

I will give you my opinion of your question. I don't think either party has a solution. Besides, finding a solution isn't the point of this thread, although it would be a good thing to think of.

I think the point of this thread was to show that one party had taken steps to "fix" the problem, yet they only seem to be doing it in selected sections and districts.

If you're really looking for a solution, as you have suggested by your question, then you should be concerned that they targeted only select areas to "fix" the problem.

You should want them to open up the area they "fix" in include all areas of all parties.

 

[JamieinNH]

Immigrants who are naturalized citizens can and should vote. It is not illegal for them, it is their duty as citizens to vote.

Well, in some states felons are barred from voting, in some they are not and in some they are for a fixed length of time only.

You've misstated the question. That should be, "Why is it that one party is determined to disenfranchise eligible voters who are likely to vote for the other party?"

Thanks Daisy for clarifying that.

Now, Tentmaker, do you see where some of your points were wrong?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well, in Florida, it was traced to a Republican plan to disable the system used to identify felons, so that it would not remove Cuban felons (who tend to vote republican) from the rolls.

Corruption. The usual. Apparently, in Ohio, some precincts had more people voting republican than were registered there.

Judging from the California example, they are also very active in trying to keep qualified voters from voting. No one should be surprised by this.

Perhaps you didn't read closely, or just ignored it. My question was not about what allegedly happened (and probably did from both sides). My question is about your solution to it. HOw do you propose to prevent ineligible voters from voting?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think either party has a solution. Besides, finding a solution isn't the point of this thread, although it would be a good thing to think of.

i don't think either party has a solution either. And finding a solution wasn't hte point of this thread. The point of the thread was to bash republicans (while ignoring teh fact that democrats do the same thing).

I think the point of this thread was to show that one party had taken steps to "fix" the problem, yet they only seem to be doing it in selected sections and districts.

If they do it correctly, that is a good start. It doesn't matter where they do it, so long as they do it and do it correctly. The fact that an illegal votes somewhere does not mean that we should not try to prevent them from voting elsewhere.

If you're really looking for a solution, as you have suggested by your question, then you should be concerned that they targeted only select areas to "fix" the problem.

I am concerned that we are not fixing the problem all over, through things like voter ID (which the democrats are against).

You should want them to open up the area they "fix" in include all areas of all parties.

I do.

But my question was directed to the complainers here: Do you have a solution?

 

[El_Guero]

Perhaps you didn't read closely, or just ignored it. My question was not about what allegedly happened (and probably did from both sides). My question is about your solution to it. HOw do you propose to prevent ineligible voters from voting?

Prevent ineligible voters from voting? That is down right unconstitutional! Quick someone flame him and his heresy! How dare he put down the rights of illegals, criminals, and the dead from voting . . .

:wavey:

At the rate we are going, we might as well become a state of france, north korea, or syria . . .

:thumbs:

The first part was satirical . . .

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Special Report

Republicans are damaging the republic

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Questionable tactics in the midterms weaken the foundations of US democracy, writes Philip James[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Friday October 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

[/FONT]Racked with scandal, cowed by voter dissatisfaction and bereft of fresh ideas, Republicans are resorting to the only measure left to a party in power and desperate to cling to it: cheating, or what's more politely referred to as voter suppression.
Republican interest groups have been furiously defending strict new voter ID laws from legal challenges in states where their candidates are at risk of losing their seats in congressional elections.
The laws, requiring voters to show an official photo ID, might be sensible in an ideal world where every citizen is provided with one, but in the real world the only photo ID commonly available is a driving licence.

Those without, otherwise known as the poor and the old, make up a sizeable chunk of the Democratic base, and Republicans are determined to place as many obstacles as they can between them and a polling booth this November.

Republican-led legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Florida and Indiana pushed through photo ID laws in time for what the party knew would be a close election. In the first three cases the law has been put on hold by eleventh-hour legal challenges, but not before inflicting significant damage on the principle of universal suffrage.
In Arizona an appeals court placed a temporary injunction on the new ID law this month, one day before the deadline to register for the vote, but only after tens of thousands of applications to register had been turned down while the law was in effect.
Missouri's ID law was stopped by the state supreme court last Monday, one week after the deadline to register, and long after many thousands of non-car-owning Missourians had been deterred from their right to vote.
Georgia's Supreme Court ruled the state's version of the ID law unconstitutional after hearing that well over half a million of the state's previously eligible voters didn't have a driving licence.
Even after this decision Republican state election officials mistakenly or maliciously sent out more than 200,000 letters informing voters that they would in fact need a driving licence to vote. This week a mass mailing reversing the previous missive arrived on people's doorsteps, only adding to voter confusion. Indiana's Republican Secretary of State has successfully beaten back legal challenges to his new voter photo ID law, the absurdity of which was recently illustrated by Congresswoman Julia Carson as she tried to vote. The five-term Democrat was initially prevented from casting her ballot in May's primary election in which she was a candidate, because her Congressional photo ID lacked the expiration date needed to make it an acceptable proof of identity under the new law


Florida, the patron state of disenfranchisement in recent history, is the only other state where a photo ID is mandatory to vote. An additional measure imposing exorbitant fines on voter registration groups who miss filing deadlines was recently overturned in court, but not before Florida's League of Women suspended their drive to register voters for fear of bankruptcy.
In California, Republicans are resorting to even more questionable means to deter likely Democratic voters. Orange County Republican Tan Nguyen is under investigation for financing a mass mailing in Spanish to Latino US citizens which stated mendaciously: "You are advised that if ... you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time." US citizens, wherever they are born, are indeed entitled to vote.
The desperate lengths to which Republicans are prepared to go are a measure of their fear this election cycle. They've even stooped to exploiting natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina displaced half a million low-income residents of New Orleans, and most moved out of Louisiana into Texas.
Both states, where Republicans run the electoral machines, have been slow as molasses in ensuring this massive transient population the right to vote either in their new abode or back home by absentee ballot.
The Republicans' manoeuvres, legal or otherwise, will probably not be enough to stem the tide sweeping the House of Representatives back to Democratic control in November. The best they can hope for is to minimise the damage. They've spent the last decade obsessively remapping congressional districts to filter out Democrats, and their efforts are the reason only 50 seats are in play this year instead of 150. Under the grand design of now-indicted Tom Delay, the former Republican leader in the House, redistricting was intended to create an impregnable fortress guaranteeing a permanent Republican majority in the House. But like any building, a fortress is only as strong as its base, which this year appears to be disintegrating.


Our nation is at risk with these practices of suppression at the time of election and not thought out and implemented during off election times
this is pure evil of desperate demons who do not want to be cast out.
Christians should stand up for the poor and elderly who need user friendly ways to vote and not bueracatirc hurdles that make them feel "whats the use".

I pray it fails and that honest brokers come into power to encourage more of the vote than less of it...I pray that a 3rd party or 4th party is given a hand up and not a hand out by so called honest brokers who come into power. In Jesus name amen.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Immigrants who are naturalized citizens can and should vote. It is not illegal for them, it is their duty as citizens to vote.

Yes of course we want naturalized citizens to vote. I was thinking leagle immigrants who were still citizens of their home country. Once they become citizens they can and should vote.

Well, in some states felons are barred from voting, in some they are not and in some they are for a fixed length of time only.

Right again Daisy. In some states felons can petition to have their rights restored after a fixed period of time. I know often this includes their right to bear arms as well as their right to vote. But they should be purged off the rolls when conviceted and then added back later after they again become eligible.

You've misstated the question. That should be, "Why is it that one party is determined to disenfranchise eligible voters who are likely to vote for the other party?"

The only case I know of where either party tried to disenfranchise eligible voters is in Florida where the democratic party tried to have the overseas military absantee ballets thrown out during the infamous recount of 2002. Is that what you are referring to? The article at the start of this thread dealt only with ineligible voters.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Now, Tentmaker, do you see where some of your points were wrong?

Yes thank you very much.