232 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 43 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing Summarizing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

ACLU Stops Illegal Voter Purges in Michigan

By       (Page 2 of 3 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   6 comments

Michael Collins
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Michael Collins
Become a Fan
  (120 fans)

The court noted that the 5,500 voters affected would hardly represent any level of voter confusion.  Then the court shut the door on defendant's argument by stating that "this argument ignores Michigan law, which allows for some provisional ballots to go uncounted.  In fact, in the 2006 elections, only 19.1% of all provisional ballots cast in Michigan were counted."

Judge Moore then noted that there would be no harm to voters or the general public by upholding the federal district court's injunction.  The Judge allowed for expedited review by a higher court.

Michigan ACLU Legal Director Steinberg remarked:

"There are lawmakers in Michigan and elsewhere who purposely make it difficult for students to vote.  This victory reaffirms the principle that states are not free to ignore federal laws that prevent disenfranchisement."

Michigan's Former One Stop Voter Caging Program

Republican partisans use voter caging to challenge and remove legitimate voters from the registration rolls.  Project Vote defines voter caging succinctly:

"Voter caging is a practice of sending mass direct mailings to registered voters by non-forwardable mail, then compiling lists of voters, called "caging lists," from the returned mail in order to formally challenge their right to vote on that basis alone. Other methods, such as database matching, have been used more recently to compile voter caging lists. The practice is used almost exclusively by officials or members of the Republican Party, local and national." Project Vote

Voter caging programs target poor and predominantly minority voters who typically favor for Democrats by large margins.

There are clear similarities between Secretary Land's operation and voter caging conducted for political purposes.  They both rely on mailings to registered voters to establish the validity of the registration based on the voter's original address in the state registration files.  They both rely on the use of returned envelopes ("unforwardable") as sufficient proof that the intended recipient is not qualified to vote.

In the case of the Michigan Secretary of State's outlawed behavior, the simple event of the state receiving a returned voter registration envelope triggered the immediate removal of the voter from the rolls.  Republican partisans engaged in voter caging travel a more involved path to stealing the vote from legitimate voters.  They must go to the polls on Election Day to challenge voters or submit their voter lists based on unforwardable mail to local or state election official with a request that named voters be removed from the voting rolls.

The state of Michigan was a de facto and de jure one stop voter caging operation

The Michigan law and practices by elections officials were a clear violation of the National Voting Rights Act of 1993.  The language of the act is crystal clear.  It protects voters against "discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities" (NVRA of 1993).  State officials should have known better.  Perhaps they did.

The unlawful treatment of voter registration in Michigan is part of a broader disregard for federal voting rights and election law.  After a 2007 federal court request for ballots from the 2004 presidential election, 56 out of 88 Ohio county election boards destroyed some of all of the 2004 presidential ballots.  These were to be retained according to both state and local law and a federal court order mandating retention of the ballots until further notice from the court.  There was no action taken against the Ohio elections officials for their flagrant disregard for the law and a federal court order.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 2   Valuable 2   Well Said 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Michael Collins Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter

Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ukraine President Once Agent for U.S. State Department

Worst President Ever - Barack H. Obama

It's official! You're on your own

Rigged Elections for Romney?

Real Unemployment at 23% - Dampening the Excitement

Humiliation And Death As A Tool Of National Policy

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend