If you can't win yourself, at least help someone you know win. The SBE and the Cooch's office are ensuring that as many provisional ballots as are possible are not going to get counted. Props to FFXUer Brian Shoeneman for expressing his displeasure at the situation.

http://wtop.com/120/3501230/Provisional-ballot-voters-face-obstacles

Rather than any state-wide "change," it sounds more like a case where Fairfax had in the past applied a more permissive interpretation of the law which doesn't actually conform to it.

As far as who can be present, the law limits it ONLY to 3 groups, (1) reps from the parties, (2) the voter and their rep, and (3) the board and its counsel.

For the voter, it specifically says "the persons whose provisional votes are being considered AND their representative or legal counsel. Not OR their representative. Nor does it provide for any other third-party representation.

You can like the law or not, but looks like the correct interpretation to me.

The "and" restricting the lawyer to only being able to represent their client before a fact-finding tribunal just doesn't make a lot of sense. I may be tired, but I can't come up with any other situation where a lawyer can only represent their client in front of any kind of public entity while their client present. Reading the law so narrowly also doesn't make sense considering that all we are trying to do is obtain information as to why a voter had to vote provisionally. We would accept a writing from the attorney given by the voter outside the meeting, so it doesn't make sense for us to bar the attorney from speaking in the meeting.

In the end, I would read the law broadly, because Supreme Court precedent, particularly Reynold v. Sims, one of the landmark election law cases, points out that the right to vote is fundamental and that in decisions that potentially affect the rights of a voter all deference should be given to the voter.

Anyway, this is just a couple of lawyers arguing over what the word "and" means. It's not that big a deal.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Anyway, this is just a couple of lawyers arguing
> over what the word "and" means. It's not that big
> a deal.


Given the timing, its very hard to see this as anything other than voter suppression - which is becoming a GOP speciality to their shame (if they had any left)

walks like a duck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Anyway, this is just a couple of lawyers
> arguing
> > over what the word "and" means. It's not that
> big
> > a deal.
>
>
> Given the timing, its very hard to see this as
> anything other than voter suppression - which is
> becoming a GOP speciality to their shame (if they
> had any left)

Theyd have to get much better than that at it to offset illegal votes and ballot stuffing.

Out of curiosity when exactly did you think fairfax county misapplying the law should be an issue? Were you expecting it to come off when no election happened given that it is an election law?

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "and" restricting the lawyer to only being
> able to represent their client before a
> fact-finding tribunal just doesn't make a lot of
> sense. I may be tired, but I can't come up with
> any other situation where a lawyer can only
> represent their client in front of any kind of
> public entity while their client present. Reading
> the law so narrowly also doesn't make sense
> considering that all we are trying to do is obtain
> information as to why a voter had to vote
> provisionally. We would accept a writing from the
> attorney given by the voter outside the meeting,
> so it doesn't make sense for us to bar the
> attorney from speaking in the meeting.
>
> In the end, I would read the law broadly, because
> Supreme Court precedent, particularly Reynold v.
> Sims, one of the landmark election law cases,
> points out that the right to vote is fundamental
> and that in decisions that potentially affect the
> rights of a voter all deference should be given to
> the voter.
>
> Anyway, this is just a couple of lawyers arguing
> over what the word "and" means. It's not that big
> a deal.


I might agree more generally but that fairly clearly is what it says. Whether that makes complete sense beyond that in light of other aspects is kind of a separate matter and more related to how the law SHOULD be written versus what it now says. There's really not a lot of interpretation required as it stands.

I don't know what was intended (or even if it received that much thought) but considering it now I can see where an "or"reading might cause some complications. If I'm there as a voter with my rep, then it's clear that they validly represent me. If I'm not, then how do we know that they are a valid representative, does that need to be confirmed in some way and, if so, how? Are they permitted to represent individuals without necessarily requiring their direct knowledge? Represent blocks of voters? Etc., etc., through a range of possibilities which don't exist when the principal is present.

walks like a duck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Anyway, this is just a couple of lawyers
> arguing
> > over what the word "and" means. It's not that
> big
> > a deal.
>
>
> Given the timing, its very hard to see this as
> anything other than voter suppression - which is
> becoming a GOP speciality to their shame (if they
> had any left)

It's not voter suppression. Whether a voter shows up to give us information about a provisional vote just helps us determine what happened. We still research every provisional, regardless of whether they come in. Most voters who came in today had simple issues that took less than 5 minutes to explain and the staff already knew what had caused the provisional. It was nice that they came in, but it wasn't necessary or required.

Strict Reading Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The "and" restricting the lawyer to only being
> > able to represent their client before a
> > fact-finding tribunal just doesn't make a lot
> of
> > sense. I may be tired, but I can't come up with
> > any other situation where a lawyer can only
> > represent their client in front of any kind of
> > public entity while their client present.
> Reading
> > the law so narrowly also doesn't make sense
> > considering that all we are trying to do is
> obtain
> > information as to why a voter had to vote
> > provisionally. We would accept a writing from
> the
> > attorney given by the voter outside the
> meeting,
> > so it doesn't make sense for us to bar the
> > attorney from speaking in the meeting.
> >
> > In the end, I would read the law broadly,
> because
> > Supreme Court precedent, particularly Reynold
> v.
> > Sims, one of the landmark election law cases,
> > points out that the right to vote is
> fundamental
> > and that in decisions that potentially affect
> the
> > rights of a voter all deference should be given
> to
> > the voter.
> >
> > Anyway, this is just a couple of lawyers
> arguing
> > over what the word "and" means. It's not that
> big
> > a deal.
>
>
> I might agree more generally but that fairly
> clearly is what it says. Whether that makes
> complete sense beyond that in light of other
> aspects is kind of a separate matter and more
> related to how the law SHOULD be written versus
> what it now says. There's really not a lot of
> interpretation required as it stands.
>
> I don't know what was intended (or even if it
> received that much thought) but considering it now
> I can see where an "or"reading might cause some
> complications. If I'm there as a voter with my
> rep, then it's clear that they validly represent
> me. If I'm not, then how do we know that they are
> a valid representative, does that need to be
> confirmed in some way and, if so, how? Are they
> permitted to represent individuals without
> necessarily requiring their direct knowledge?
> Represent blocks of voters? Etc., etc., through a
> range of possibilities which don't exist when the
> principal is present.

We require any attorneys who claim to be representing voters provide us with a written, signed authorization from the voter that they are being represented by the attorney who is claiming the representation.

Any lawyer who fraudulently claims to represent a client is subject to bar discipline, I won't hesitate to file a complaint if that were to happen.

We aren't going to allow anybody without some demonstrable way of associating them with a voter present information on the voters behalf in closed session. But if the attorney has the form and has information - often it's just a written statement from the voter anyway - there's not much reason to narrowly interpret the law.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> We require any attorneys who claim to be
> representing voters provide us with a written,
> signed authorization from the voter that they are
> being represented by the attorney who is claiming
> the representation.
>
> Any lawyer who fraudulently claims to represent a
> client is subject to bar discipline, I won't
> hesitate to file a complaint if that were to
> happen.
>
> We aren't going to allow anybody without some
> demonstrable way of associating them with a voter
> present information on the voters behalf in closed
> session. But if the attorney has the form and has
> information - often it's just a written statement
> from the voter anyway - there's not much reason to
> narrowly interpret the law.


Obviously, you know the context and reality better than I do. I'm just thinking along the lines of potential for abuse. Given the nature of contested elections, it's a fair bet that somebody somewhere will try to take advantage of whatever basis might exist to include/exclude votes. Which I suppose this matter itself kind of shows.

But that's how such things are clarified. If people want it changed now they can work on trying to make the language read better as it should.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We aren't going to allow anybody without some
> demonstrable way of associating them with a voter
> present information on the voters behalf in closed
> session. But if the attorney has the form and has
> information - often it's just a written statement
> from the voter anyway - there's not much reason to
> narrowly interpret the law.


Which of course there would be no actual follow up to make sure that was actually the voters hand writing or anything of that nature. Yes if you found out youd report them to the bar, but my point is the chances of ever finding out would be slim to none. The person wouldnt even know they voted or any of this happened in the first place which is why physical confirmation is in fact a good idea

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > We aren't going to allow anybody without some
> > demonstrable way of associating them with a
> voter
> > present information on the voters behalf in
> closed
> > session. But if the attorney has the form and
> has
> > information - often it's just a written
> statement
> > from the voter anyway - there's not much reason
> to
> > narrowly interpret the law.
>
>
> Which of course there would be no actual follow up
> to make sure that was actually the voters hand
> writing or anything of that nature. Yes if you
> found out youd report them to the bar, but my
> point is the chances of ever finding out would be
> slim to none. The person wouldnt even know they
> voted or any of this happened in the first place
> which is why physical confirmation is in fact a
> good idea

No, no. The person had to know they voted because they filled out the provisional and were given the information about what to do next. They had to take that with them when they left the polling place.

If the lawyer lies and presents us with information that contradicts what we have on file, it will be pretty apparent, since he doesn't know the reason the voter voted provisionally in the first place - that's confidential and unreleased information.

If he claims that he's representing X and X voted provisionally because they received an AB but didn't mail it back, but we know that X voted provisionally because they weren't registered by the deadline, that's pretty clear evidence that the lawyer is a liar.

Just to further understand this:

How do you know the person that voted was actually the one they say they were? If people were sent out to vote for others, they might have also been given an excuse to use. The lawyer might also have been given this excuse to use. How do you prevent that? Do you have to show id when you vote provisionally? If so, is if a photo id?

Really1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to further understand this:
>
> How do you know the person that voted was actually
> the one they say they were? If people were sent
> out to vote for others, they might have also been
> given an excuse to use. The lawyer might also
> have been given this excuse to use. How do you
> prevent that? Do you have to show id when you vote
> provisionally? If so, is if a photo id?

All of the same requirements - ID and the like - are required to vote provisional as they are required to vote normally. They vote the provisional under penalty of perjury.

Photo ID isn't required until after July 1, 2014. That's when the photo ID law kicks in.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just to further understand this:
> >
> > How do you know the person that voted was
> actually
> > the one they say they were? If people were
> sent
> > out to vote for others, they might have also
> been
> > given an excuse to use. The lawyer might also
> > have been given this excuse to use. How do you
> > prevent that? Do you have to show id when you
> vote
> > provisionally? If so, is if a photo id?
>
> All of the same requirements - ID and the like -
> are required to vote provisional as they are
> required to vote normally. They vote the
> provisional under penalty of perjury.
>
> Photo ID isn't required until after July 1, 2014.
> That's when the photo ID law kicks in.

The other poster was basically making my point. You dont have to show a photo ID so if you pick off a bill from the mail and have your story straight theres not much of a chance theyd ever get caught. The person who "voted" is never really contacted to verify. Making them be there as well makes it harder to run a scam.

Exactly. He didn't answer my main question.

You guys are jumping onto a level of speculation I really can't answer.

Thanks for answering.

So basically no one does any sort of check which is why it makes sense to require them to show up.

The sad fact is its just not that hard to commit voting fraud in our current system.

It would appear that it would be possible to commit voter fraud this way. I agree one would be less likely to commit voter fraud if they had show up in person.

Law seems pretty clear to me. Last I checked, my attorney can't vote on my behalf...

It's almost impossible to commit voter fraud this way. The ballots were already cast and all the same requirements for voting were followed including requiring ID. You fill out the information on the ballot envelope under penalties for making a false statement and the ballots aren't cast - they're segregated from those cast on the machine on election day. Coming in and providing us with information isn't the only way to get your vote counted - the facts and the law have to fit too.

The chances of someone successfully committing voter fraud this way are exceedingly low.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2013 02:52PM by BrianSchoeneman.

Brian,


Given that you are an elections official who obviously knows more about the system & it's checks and balances on voting requirements, I have a question for you:


Why is it that Republicans seem so fixated on the notion that there is active voter fraud going on in every election and that there must be excessive, drastic stakes taken to try to tackle this rampant voter fraud... even when there really isn't any proof of any voter fraud occuring?

Is there anything you can do/say to your fellow Republicans that would help them move past this obssessive-compulsive need to alienate or deny voters?

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why is it that Republicans seem so fixated on the
> notion that there is active voter fraud going on
> in every election and that there must be
> excessive, drastic stakes taken to try to tackle
> this rampant voter fraud... even when there really
> isn't any proof of any voter fraud occuring?

Well lets see we had a Senate seat sold by the govenor of Illinois, Hitler voting for Obama in Ohio as well as numerous people including an election poll worker there who voted for their friends for him as well, Jim Morans son and ACORN telling people how to commit fraud and one party fighting simply requiring an ID to vote tooth and nail. That doesnt even get into the illegals or dead voting.

Lets see why would someone not want people to have to show their ID to vote, theres only one reason which is it makes it harder for you to cheat.

As for Brian I understand why hes saying its not an issue, admitting it would encourage it among other things. It happens in most if not all elections though and just isnt mentioned until no ones paying attention anymore. Simply signing something under purjury means nothing to someone whose trying to rig elections in the first place. So they get disbarred and end up getting a cushy job from a big donor for taking one for the team.

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian,
>
>
> Given that you are an elections official who
> obviously knows more about the system & it's
> checks and balances on voting requirements, I have
> a question for you:
>
>
> Why is it that Republicans seem so fixated on the
> notion that there is active voter fraud going on
> in every election and that there must be
> excessive, drastic stakes taken to try to tackle
> this rampant voter fraud... even when there really
> isn't any proof of any voter fraud occuring?
>
> Is there anything you can do/say to your fellow
> Republicans that would help them move past this
> obssessive-compulsive need to alienate or deny
> voters?

What I try to say to folks is simple: the system, as we've designed it, is pretty good at stopping and detering most voter fraud. That's why it's so uncommon to see anybody actually prosecuted for it. It's not non-existent, but it's not endemic either. You design the tightest systems you can that prevent and deter fraud but don't suppress the vote. The problem is it's a fine line between the two and you've got to get it right or bad things happen (on either side).

Unfortunately, it's all too easy to get caught up in boogeyman politics, and folks on my side have a number of boogeymen we're always designing systems around to stop. This is one of the issues between primaries and conventions - conventions are an awful way to nominate people but the boogeymen of Democrats crossing over and voting in primaries scares so many in the party we're stuck with conventions.
In the end, most of the things we're so afraid of don't really happen all that often. And governing by worst case scenario is a bad way to govern.

What was the final decision? Did lawyers get to represent the provisional voter without the voter actually being present or did the voter have to be present?

We followed the State Board guidance, so the voter did have to be present for the lawyer to advocate. We only had a handful of situations where this happened, and each time it was one of the party observers (who is also an attorney) who filled this role. No one else brought outside counsel.

Thanks for answering and thanks for your service. You must be exhausted.

The adrenaline is starting to wear off, so yeah. Getting ready to cook some steaks. Haven't had non-junk food or take out in a week.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We followed the State Board guidance, so the voter
> did have to be present for the lawyer to advocate.
> We only had a handful of situations where this
> happened, and each time it was one of the party
> observers (who is also an attorney) who filled
> this role. No one else brought outside counsel.


You were ordered by the republican state board, AFTER the election, at the insistence of the AG Office who, lost the election, right?

In other words, you were just following orders............

The SBE interpretation ignores 500 years of Anglo-American common law that gives attorneys the ability to act on their client's behalf without the physical presence of the client.

Any interpretation of State Code must conform to that higher standard. And SBE's interpretation doesn't do that.

SBE's ex post facto reinterpretation of the law was directly aimed at crippling FCDC's voting rights protection program.

These "win at all costs" tactics violate Virginians' sense of fair play and understanding of the mechanics of government.

Brian- is this true? I also found this stated in a Washington Post Opinion today at 7:16 pm. They suggest it will end up in court.

Trouble is that Fairfax & Richmond allowed MORE time for provisional ballots to be counted than the rest of the state. They allowed counting until yesterday, while the rest of the state had to cut-off last Friday.

In the recount, either they are going to have to allow extra time to count the provisional ballots from the rest of the state - or disallow those from Fairfax and Richmond that were allowed to be counted up to Monday ...

Not Tom Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The SBE interpretation ignores 500 years of
> Anglo-American common law that gives attorneys the
> ability to act on their client's behalf without
> the physical presence of the client.

I hate to shatter your world but the US isnt that old. The only thing that matters to US law is US law.

Or would you like to discuss how gay marriage violates 2000 years of human law history and any law must conform to that "higher standard"?

Oh right you only pick and choose when you want to say human history law matters.

We were given a guidance by SBE as to what they believe Virginia Code Section 24.2-653 means when it says: "[A]ttendance at meetings of the electoral board to determine the validity of provisional ballots shall be permitted only for the authorized representatives provided for in this subsection, for the persons whose provisional votes are being considered and their representative or legal counsel, and for appropriate staff and legal counsel for the electoral board."

I think the "and" in "and their representative or legal counsel" should be broad enough to allow the legal counsel to present information on their behalf if they cannot do so or choose not to do so. SBE disagreed, and an AG office lawyer (a non-political appointee) agreed. I don't.

I agree with Not Tom Davis that the SBE's reading of the law contradicts one of the bedrock principles of American jurisprudence, and that's the primary reason why I disagreed with the guidance.

For the record, the rest of the state didn't have to cut-off on Friday. The only cut-off in the Code is in Section 24.2-653 which provides a noon-Friday ("no later than noon on the third day after the election") for voters who cast a provisional ballot because of no ID to get their ID to us.

As I have been saying, the Code provides in 653 that "f the board is unable to determine the validity of all the provisional ballots offered in the election, or has granted any voter who has offered a provisional ballot an extension to the following day as provided in subsection A, the meeting shall stand adjourned from day to day, not to exceed seven calendar days from the date of the election, until the board has determined the validity of all provisional ballots offered in the election."

We didn't feel we were able to determine the validity of all provisional ballots until we had heard from the voters themselves, and that's why we waited. In other localities that had only a handful of provisionals, they could get done sooner. We 489 and that took time to research and adjudicate.

Further, we can give extensions to voters to get information to us explicitly, as the Code gives us authority to do so: "The electoral board shall have the authority to grant such extensions which it deems reasonable to determine the status of a provisional vote."

Given the posturing, it's clear there will be a recount, and the court can order what it chooses to order, but short of an election contest, they can't go back and reexamine the qualifications of any voter. It would be, in my experience, unprecedented for a court to disallow every provisional in any jurisdiction after they've been accepted and I would argue that would be a serious 14th amendment issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2013 09:43PM by BrianSchoeneman.

I have no idea why the italics are in there.

Did the other localities that only had a handful of provisional ballots not require the voter to show up in person to defend her/his ballots?

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no idea why the italics are in there.


Brian, question for you...

I saw that you (or someone) had posted a summary of the number of provisional ballots cast, number who showed up to support their ballot, number who did not, number accepted/not, etc.

Is there any similar information available regarding the basis for the provisionals? i.e., number of provisional ballots issued due to lack of ID, wrong location, etc.? And the same for those who appeared/did not and disposition?

Also, not looking for it above but are these considered publicly available records? I'm guessing possibly so since the campaigns had access to know who to call to bug to get to appear.

TIA

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not Tom Davis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The SBE interpretation ignores 500 years of
> > Anglo-American common law that gives attorneys
> the
> > ability to act on their client's behalf without
> > the physical presence of the client.
>
> I hate to shatter your world but the US isnt that
> old. The only thing that matters to US law is US
> law.
>
> Or would you like to discuss how gay marriage
> violates 2000 years of human law history and any
> law must conform to that "higher standard"?
>
> Oh right you only pick and choose when you want to
> say human history law matters.


All of US law derives from English law. Some derives from Roman, Babylonian and Greek law.

SBE's interpretation is the first time that any agency has claimed that the right to have a representative appear in one's sted is somehow not applicable to the most fundamental right in a democracy, the right to vote.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>an AG office lawyer (a non-political appointee)<

Stop it!

The AG office lawyer is a hack who was hired by Kook and then "burrowed."

He has the independent judgment of a muppet.

Hanging Chad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have no idea why the italics are in there.
>
>
> Brian, question for you...
>
> I saw that you (or someone) had posted a summary
> of the number of provisional ballots cast, number
> who showed up to support their ballot, number who
> did not, number accepted/not, etc.
>
> Is there any similar information available
> regarding the basis for the provisionals? i.e.,
> number of provisional ballots issued due to lack
> of ID, wrong location, etc.? And the same for
> those who appeared/did not and disposition?
>
> Also, not looking for it above but are these
> considered publicly available records? I'm
> guessing possibly so since the campaigns had
> access to know who to call to bug to get to
> appear.
>
> TIA

No. The reasons for the ballot and the adjudication are confidential.

The parties had contact info, but not the reasons for their voting provisional.

Not Ayn Rand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> All of US law derives from English law. Some
> derives from Roman, Babylonian and Greek law.

Yet none of those laws have anything to do with current US laws and their interpretation. Write a legal brief arguing this is how the Romans or Greeks did it and let me know how it works out.

> SBE's interpretation is the first time that any
> agency has claimed that the right to have a
> representative appear in one's sted is somehow not
> applicable to the most fundamental right in a
> democracy, the right to vote.

The right to know whose voting comes first. FFC had been doing it wrong from how the law was written, its that simple.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hanging Chad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I have no idea why the italics are in there.
> >
> >
> > Brian, question for you...
> >
> > I saw that you (or someone) had posted a
> summary
> > of the number of provisional ballots cast,
> number
> > who showed up to support their ballot, number
> who
> > did not, number accepted/not, etc.
> >
> > Is there any similar information available
> > regarding the basis for the provisionals?
> i.e.,
> > number of provisional ballots issued due to
> lack
> > of ID, wrong location, etc.? And the same for
> > those who appeared/did not and disposition?
> >
> > Also, not looking for it above but are these
> > considered publicly available records? I'm
> > guessing possibly so since the campaigns had
> > access to know who to call to bug to get to
> > appear.
> >
> > TIA
>
> No. The reasons for the ballot and the
> adjudication are confidential.
>
> The parties had contact info, but not the reasons
> for their voting provisional.


Thanks.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not Ayn Rand Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > All of US law derives from English law. Some
> > derives from Roman, Babylonian and Greek law.
>
> Yet none of those laws have anything to do with
> current US laws and their interpretation. Write a
> legal brief arguing this is how the Romans or
> Greeks did it and let me know how it works out.

Start with this one:

Res ipsa locator

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yet none of those laws have anything to do with
> current US laws and their interpretation. Write a
> legal brief arguing this is how the Romans or
> Greeks did it and let me know how it works out.
>

You'd be surprised. Much of the DC v. Heller decision on the second amendment had to do with historical pre-Consitutional rights and liberties, going back to,the English tradition.

When you are adopting an interpretation that flies in the face of so much precedent, you've got a higher bar to cross.

> The right to know whose voting comes first. FFC
> had been doing it wrong from how the law was
> written, its that simple.

It's never that simple. Laws are ambiguous and open to interpretation. This one was.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


Well lets see we had:


a Senate seat sold by the govenor of Illinois

Not voter fraud, doesn't even involve voters or votes and is/was already illegal under a multitude of existing laws that have nothing to do with voting.


Hitler voting for Obama

Not voter fraud.

Hitler didn't vote for Obama in Ohio. Someone collected a signature on a registration sign up form that said "Adolf Hitler, John...666 Heltz...la".

A. there's no way to know/no telling who did it whether dem or repub
B. it was obviously snark as the address indicated residence in Los Angeles, meaning the person wouldn't even be able to vote in Ohio anyway.



numerous people including an election poll worker there who voted for their friends for him as well

This happened. They were caught by the existing system and were held accountable. Your argument is that we should engage in a full blown expansion of voter suppression because <10 people in Ohio tried to vote multiple times and got caught (indicating the existing system in Ohio was sufficient to ensure vote integrity.


and one party fighting simply requiring an ID to vote tooth and nail.

Oh stop with the disingenous bullshit. Gerrymandering, doing voter purges 3 weeks before an election, the AG in a race having his office step in to decide legal matters on an election, provisional ballots not being counted, ID laws that do not take into account married names, initials etc, giving people a hard time about showing a valid election ID that isn't a drivers license, the State Board of Elections being a partisan-run office etc etc.

This isn't simply about requiring an ID. It's about steadily making it more and more of a pain in the ass to vote knowing full well that voter suppression predominately benefits the Republican party.


Of course, then again, your logic when it comes to elections is that other candidates shouldn't run because they are stealing YOUR votes, so I supposed I shouldn't be surprised by your comments.

You are, at the core, precisely why the Republican party is flailing. Please continue.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You'd be surprised. Much of the DC v. Heller
> decision on the second amendment had to do with
> historical pre-Consitutional rights and liberties,
> going back to,the English tradition.

Considering that the question was the intent of the 2nd Amendment that was actually relevant that time though not entirely necessary. The founding fathers participated in many other State Constitutions that at the time we considered to be more important and made the 2nd Amendment perfectly clear in those.

There was also a long history of SCOTUS and other US court rulings they could have drawn on. If thats what they wanted to do to fill their reasoning pages it was relevant in that instance but still a little odd unless it was just mentioning it as further support.

> When you are adopting an interpretation that flies
> in the face of so much precedent, you've got a
> higher bar to cross.

Theres really nothing unreasonable to expecting someone to prove who they are and show up for their vote. We put more restrictions on an R rated movie and deciding the leaders of the worlds only super power is certainly much more important than if a 15 year old gets to see Rambo in theaters.

Besides if were going the historical international law route for voting the precedent actually falls heavily on the restricted side. Only in modern society have we kind of rewritten history to pretend the Greeks and Romans and Founding Fathers wanted everyone voting and it was a fundamental right to them. All of those as well as every other democracy through out history made it perfectly clear they only wanted certain segments of the population voting for various reasons.

In this case the historical precedent actually works against the argument being made.

> It's never that simple. Laws are ambiguous and
> open to interpretation. This one was.

This really wasnt. The word and is really as straight forward as it gets. Usually laws are so overly complicated that they keep lawyers in business, but this really wasnt one. Fairfax was just doing what they felt it should be, not what the law actually said.

This wasn't an issue about someone having to prove who they were - that was already done at the polls. The reason that SBE didn't want lawyers advocating without voters is simple: they didn't want lawyers advocating.

That's all we are talking about here - if the voter can have their lawyer present information on their behalf or if they have to do it themselves with the lawyer present.

Any good lawyer can drive a bus through that language.

The bottom line was, regardless of our disagreement, we followed SBE's rules even if we disagreed with them. No lawyer was advocating on behalf of a client who wasn't present.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides if were going the historical international
> law route for voting the precedent actually falls
> heavily on the restricted side. Only in modern
> society have we kind of rewritten history to
> pretend the Greeks and Romans and Founding Fathers
> wanted everyone voting and it was a fundamental
> right to them. All of those as well as every
> other democracy through out history made it
> perfectly clear they only wanted certain segments
> of the population voting for various reasons.

This all depends on what you consider "modern". Universal white male suffrage was a concept being pushed in the early 19th century and largely accepted in the U.S. by the civil war. Even before that the property requirements were low enough that large portions of white males could vote. Expansion to women did come later, in the early 20th century, and the notion that blacks should also be entitled to equal participation with whites, although enshrined in the post-Civil War 15th amendment, did not become a reality in the south until the 1960s.

I believe the French adopted to concept of universal male suffrage after the Revolution of 1848, and re-adopted it with the Third Republic. Britain adopted it in the early 1900s, but began working towards it in 1832. Germany adopted it under the post-WW1 Weimar Republic.

Get over it already!

The DEMs won and the GOP cry-babies lost.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This all depends on what you consider "modern".
> Universal white male suffrage was a concept being
> pushed in the early 19th century and largely
> accepted in the U.S. by the civil war. Even
> before that the property requirements were low
> enough that large portions of white males could
> vote. Expansion to women did come later, in the
> early 20th century, and the notion that blacks
> should also be entitled to equal participation
> with whites, although enshrined in the post-Civil
> War 15th amendment, did not become a reality in
> the south until the 1960s.
>
> I believe the French adopted to concept of
> universal male suffrage after the Revolution of
> 1848, and re-adopted it with the Third Republic.
> Britain adopted it in the early 1900s, but began
> working towards it in 1832. Germany adopted it
> under the post-WW1 Weimar Republic.


I would consider that all modern since Roman and Greek were used as an example by the person who brought it up.

It really has been for the last 200 years that the idea started to take hold everyone should be able to vote. The Romans and Greeks all picked as chose who could the say way Europe and the US did at first. The reasons varied but the basic premise of only tax paying citizens aka the people with skin in the game were the voters.

Of the 2000+ years of world democracies its only the last few generations where that idea has surfaced. Probably not the best issue to try and use the world history precedent argument.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

The right of a person to have their attorney appear before a tribunal in the place of that person without that person being physically present predates the founding of the American colonies and dates back hundreds of years of English common law back to Roman law.