Today's Seattle Times reports that King County resident Jane Balogh has been prosecuted for registering her dog to vote -- as a protest against lax voter registration standards.
"I wasn't trying to do anything fraudulent. I was trying to prove that our system is flawed. So I got myself in trouble," she says.The "crime" was detected by the paw print Balogh used to sign the dog's absentee ballot envelope (which included only a voided ballot).
Balogh was offered a bargain to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and accept a $250 fine and 10 hours of community service.
In my opinion, this woman performed a noble act of civil disobedience to call attention to ineffectual voter registration standards that allow real fraud to occur. If it weren't for the paw print stunt, which she used to deliberately give herself away, she could have gotten away with casting the dog's ballot. It's impossible to know how many ballots from non-existent people are cast and counted, but we do know there have been hundreds of illegal votes that were counted for which nobody was ever prosecuted (See this memo from the Prosecutor's Office and the discussion of it that I mentioned in the write-up of my interview with John McKay last month) I'd prefer that the PAO prosecute more of the genuine illegal voters and the election officials who knowingly count illegal votes, and not protesters.
The most fitting community service for Balogh to perform would be to challenge the registrations of some illegally registered voters, such as the hundreds who are still falsely claiming residence at mailboxes.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 22, 2007 01:44 PM | Email ThisJane is the Rosa Parks of the pet recognition movement!!.....
Seriously, if the ballot was voided and her intent (9/10ths of the law supposedly...) was not to have the ballot counted, what is the "crime"??
I hope this is a joke. It's about as hypocritical as Gore's electric bill. We, as a society, need to start expecting better from our servants. This is embarrassing.
Posted by: Chris on June 22, 2007 02:48 PMThe dog successfully registered and was mailed an absentee ballot. How was this even possible?
I-25 might not solve this issue, but it certainly won't be any worse than it is now.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 22, 2007 03:12 PMhttp://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/speciesism.html
Speciesism is the act of treating individuals according to the species to which they belong, rather than according to the characteristics they possess, such as the ability to suffer. Most people who consciously support the exploitation of nonhuman animals are speciesist.
In the past, there have been a number of definitions of what constitutes a different species. Today it is defined genetically. To the defenders of speciesism who believe that only humans have rights, this raises the following questions:
Why should rights be granted on the basis of genes?
If rights should be based on genes, why should the line be drawn at species rather than at race, order, phylum, or kingdom?
Like genes that determine one's eye color, etc., which gene(s) determines rights?
Basing rights on species is no more rational than basing rights on the pigmentation of skin or on gender (which are also determined genetically).
Animals whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equals.
I keep saying -- we should all do something like this and make it just as obvious. Civil disobedience with a real point for a change. KCE won't fix their mega-problem until they can't ignore it any longer (or until they can blame it all on conservatives). Let's help them out . . .
(BTW: I saw this on Drudge Report first, then checked here.)
Maybe if you even bothered to read the article before commenting you would know.
I-25 might not solve this issue, but it certainly won't be any worse than it is now.
It really won't make it any better since it will still a partisan office with no accountability. Oh yeah, now we will get to vote the bum out and replace him/her with some other moronic career politico. I fail to see how that's an improvement.
Kitsap County realized they had a political hot potatoe and punted the case to friendly Pierce County for "review." Gerald Costello, Deputy Pierce County prosecutor notified the filer of the felony complaint that Mr. Brown did nothing illegal. Unfortunately for this woman she did not have the legal beagles in Pierce County review her case. She too would have been found innocent because the dog nevre voted.
See www.kitsapsun.com articles by Reporter Brynn Grimley. Also see the related articles and blog postings on CK Beat, www.kitsapsun.com Blogs, CK Beat.
Woof, woof !! Perhaps Kitsap can study King County for their no-nonsense to dog voting. Problem for Kitsap is our dog is a democrat.
Posted by: Shogun on June 22, 2007 05:28 PMMaybe Dwight Pelz is right and Satterburg and Malang are just plain stupid
Posted by: dan on June 22, 2007 05:33 PMI read the article and it looked like the current "proof of identity" laws are far from sufficient to preclude someone falsely registering. If the laws are so good, how could this have happened?
It really won't make it any better since it will still a partisan office with no accountability. Oh yeah, now we will get to vote the bum out and replace him/her with some other moronic career politico. I fail to see how that's an improvement.
Yet, when we complain about corrupt or incompetent politicians, the response - the accountability - is that we can just "vote them out". Elected officials must address their constituants, they can't hide behind a complicit bureaucracy.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 22, 2007 08:06 PMGregoire made the decision to start this, and that place has been a sespool of union activism and distrust ever since.
Posted by: GS on June 22, 2007 09:07 PMThat's how it's possible. Duncan is her dog. She put her DOG'S name on her freakin' phone bill! What a psycho!
She forged a signature on a legal document, and she should be punished appropriately.
Posted by: Lily on June 22, 2007 11:17 PMNow is the time for a PRR of all emails in the elections department. Huff is claiming their safeguards are working, because they caught the paw print.
If this grandma had signed the ballot, I bet it would have been counted.
What about the other ballots that she sent in? What happened to those?
KOMO picked it up today, and it is in many Newspapers, and all over the blogs.
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2007 08:37 AMUnfortunately, if you tried to bring back in-person registartion, the liberals would holler bloody murder that you were trying to disenfranchise the poor, minorities, etc. Interestingly, I believe they do have to appear in person to file for welfare.
Posted by: Desert Rat on June 23, 2007 01:55 PMNo, what it shows is that anyone who actually wants to commit election fraud can do it with impunity. For God's sake, it took them two elections to twig to the fact that the ballots were signed with a pawprint! If she had actually signed them, elections workers never would have challenged them.
But the worst part is this:
"Balogh will be arraigned in court Tuesday. Prosecutors say they could up the charge to a felony if she pleads not guilty."
Our legal system is broken at its foundation. There is something fundamentally indecent and un-American in a system where prosecutors can punish people for availing themselves of their legal rights.
But I disagree about the other part: this can be classified a felony, and she is not being punished for pleading not guilty; rather, she is given a break for pleading guilty.
Posted by: pudge on June 23, 2007 06:11 PMNo, she's not. She changed her phone bill over to her dog's name in order to register him to vote so that she could prove a point... that anyone with a utility bill can now vote, whether they're legally eligible to or not. That's not psycho, that's pretty darn clever.
She forged a signature on a legal document, and she should be punished appropriately.
No one is denying that. Heck, she's even admitted to it and has said she'll happily pay the fine. It's called an act of civil disobedience, and unlike many liberals, she is actually willing to pay the legal price to make her point.
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2007 08:15 PMThat's the same thing. If I tell you to keep your mouth shut or I'll punch you in the nose, it could be said that I'm giving you a break for keeping your mouth shut.
What if prosecutors had said, "If she continues to criticize the Elections Office, we'll charge her with a felony"? Would you be as sanguine about that sort of intimidation?
The right of a criminally-accused person to challenge the charges against him is as fundamental to a free society as the right to free speech. And she has the constitutional right to a jury trial, just as she has the constitutional right to free speech.
Here's another question: What if she were innocent? Would it stll be OK for prosecutors to coerce a guilty plea with the threat of a felony charge? Because, under the law, she is presumed innocent. Prosecutors have no more right to intimidate her into confessing to a crime than they do you or me. (And let's face it, the prosecutors didn't make that threat because she's guilty; they just want a guilty plea.)
If what she did is a felony, then let them charge her with a felony. Even if you believe in the plea-bargain system which has largely replaced jury trials in this country (and I think Mark Steyn would have some choice words for you on that score), it should be a deal between prosecutor and defendant, not a weapon for thuggish government lawyers to force defendants to forgo their rights.
Posted by: ScottM on June 23, 2007 08:41 PMWell no, it's not at all the same thing.
If I tell you to keep your mouth shut or I'll punch you in the nose, it could be said that I'm giving you a break for keeping your mouth shut.
Except that the law says that she can be charged with a felony for what she did. She would not be penalized for pleading not guilty, she would be penalized, according to the law, for her actual crime.
What if prosecutors had said, "If she continues to criticize the Elections Office, we'll charge her with a felony"? Would you be as sanguine about that sort of intimidation?
What felony? Again, the felony she is being charged with is the actual crime she has already admitted she committed. And once she had been tried, they cannot go back and try her again for that crime if she decides to criticize the elections office.
Here's another question: What if she were innocent? Would it stll be OK for prosecutors to coerce a guilty plea with the threat of a felony charge?
Absolutely. Of course. That happens every day. They say, "the crime we believe you committed is a felony. We will charge you with a felony if you plead not guilty, but if you plead guilty, we'll knock it down to a misdemeanor."
Prosecutors have no more right to intimidate her into confessing to a crime than they do you or me.
Agreed. And they have every right to intimidate you and me into confessing, within the limits of the law, and what they are doing here clearly is within the limits of the law.
If what she did is a felony, then let them charge her with a felony.
So she should get no break for pleading not guilty? Then what point is there in doing so? Might as well take your chance in court.
Even if you believe in the plea-bargain system which has largely replaced jury trials in this country (and I think Mark Steyn would have some choice words for you on that score)
I doubt it. I am not championing the plea bargain system, I am simply stating that it exists, that it serves a purpose, and that it is perfectly legal. Besides, it's not like Steyn has expressed a significant amount of ink on this topic that you could know what he thinks in total.
it should be a deal between prosecutor and defendant, not a weapon for thuggish government lawyers to force defendants to forgo their rights.
It's a *bargain*: you have to give something to the accused in order to get something in return. That's all that's happening here. They are saying she can get a break if she cooperates, and that she won't get a break if she doesn't. It is not being "thuggish" to say that the law will be enforced against someone who is accused of violating it.
Posted by: pudge on June 24, 2007 01:43 AMWhat felony?
The same felony charge they're threatening her with in this case, what felony do you think? They could just as easily threaten to increase the charge based on her exercise of free speech rights as on her exercise of her right to challenge the charges against her. I don't know how to explain it any more simply.
If what she did was a felony, then charge her with a felony. It's the law that defines which acts are felonies and which misdemeanors. So charge her with what she did. If leniency is called for because of mitigating circumstances, then either don't charge her at all, or recommend a lesser sentence. But don't charge her with a felony because she exercises her rights as a free citizen of a free country.
Here's another question: What if she were innocent? Would it stll be OK for prosecutors to coerce a guilty plea with the threat of a felony charge?
Absolutely. Of course. That happens every day.
If indeed it "happens every day" that prosecutors use this power to coerce people into pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit, this is not a good thing.
And they have every right to intimidate you and me into confessing...
...to crimes we didn't commit?
I don't think you and I have anything more to discuss.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2007 07:28 AMI didn't know; your argument is making much sense. If threatening her like that before her charge, fine, they have every right to tell her that she will be charged with whatever charge they can support in court, regardless of the reason. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Of course, after the trial, she cannot be so "threatened," because that would put her in double jeopardy.
If what she did was a felony, then charge her with a felony. It's the law that defines which acts are felonies and which misdemeanors.
But, it's also the law which allows plea bargains. So saying we should follow the law is mere tail-chasing.
They could just as easily threaten to increase the charge based on her exercise of free speech rights as on her exercise of her right to challenge the charges against her. I don't know how to explain it any more simply.
You're not making your case, though.
If indeed it "happens every day" that prosecutors use this power to coerce people into pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit, this is not a good thing.
Shrug. If you're not guilty, then don't accept the plea bargain.
And they have every right to intimidate you and me into confessing...
...to crimes we didn't commit?
Of course. No one is holding a gun to your head. You don't have to confess. You're a creature not only of free will, but of rights, including the right to an attorney. You act as though you are be forced to do something you don't want to do, which is nonsense.
Especially in this case, since she's already admitted she's guilty.
Posted by: pudge on June 24, 2007 09:04 AMExcuse me said Sims. I think not; Sims and company are obviously committed species discrimination. I say that all Republicans should encourage their pets to vote. The Democrats do it all the time. They even do it when their pets are not legal voters.
Posted by: Snuffy on June 24, 2007 09:41 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003758181_votingdog22m.html
Posted by: hsj438 on June 24, 2007 10:09 AMLet's forget about the reason she did this, lets just look at the results.
Sept 06- KCRE sent a ballot to a registered Dog (unknowingly-nothing wrong with that)
Dog mailed back ballot - using paw print
Oct 06 - KCRE sent another ballot for general election (they must not have noticed the paw print in the primary election) Oversight possible?
Nov 06 - Dog Mailed back ballot - using paw print again.
Nov 9th 06 - KCRE called dog owner, and said you cant sign ballot with paw print. Owner notified them that it was a DOG.... Was told a supervisor would call her back.....No call ever occured.
May07- KCRE sends dog another ballot. Dog mails back ballot with paw print.
June 07 - Dog owner served papers from KC superior court charging her with felony.
Who dropped the ball? If KCRE had done their job, and followed-up this woman in November 06, then it would not seem so outrageous and they would actually be doing their jobs.
I know they can't jerk the dog's registration unless the DA tells them too, but this case should have never gone this far. Unless Sims and company wanted it too!!!
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2007 10:44 AMAnother part of the solution is deterrence -- which giving this woman a misdemeanor lessens. If she truly believes in both the rule of law and conscientious civil disobedience she should insist on taking her felony. Obviously this is not the case. I'm mostly responding to people here who want to give her a medal, in which case her reasons for doing this are completely relevant.
I'm in Texas, and we just had the Republican legislature trying to create a voter suppression burden requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. This is apparently her theme too. They framed this as necessary to prevent voter fraud. That's just holding up a boogeyman instead of providing any real solutions (see paragraphs above). Non-citizens don't have any interest in voting in our elections, whether they are legal or illegal. If they are legally here, such a felony would put their legal status in jeopardy, and if they are here illegally, it simply makes it easier for authorities to find them. As a crime done on the public record, once caught it is entirely too easy to prove.
Its hard enough to convince actual citizens to register and vote. Add to that the disincentives that a non-citizen faces, and I think you can see why we don't have an epidemic of foreigners trying to fraudulently vote in our elections. It's a false problem that only a xenophobe would believe exists. This stupid woman has unwittingly identified her self as such.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 24, 2007 11:48 AMhttp://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/06/24/697959.html&cvqh=itn_deported
Posted by: PC on June 24, 2007 12:00 PMWHAT YOU DID WAS INCREDIBLE!
The post earlier about you owning up to your civil disobedience and willing to pay the fine makes you point even stronger.
I don't see those criminals who destroyed downtown Seattle for WTO owning up...hell, they sued.
Jane, you need money for a legal battle, you just let us know.
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2007 08:56 PMHaving been at the WTO protests I can assure you it was a relatively small group of dimwitted people who destroyed downtown Seattle. The lawsuits were from the people who did nothing wrong expect link arms and practice civil disobedience in front of police lines. These people sued (and won) because the police did not follow the laws they were sworn to protect and entrusted to enforce.
It is one thing to insist that the law be enforced; it is an entirely different thing to falaciously imagine that these foreigners are somehow robbing you of your democracy. Instead of accusing them of everything you fear and pulling silly and stupid stunts like this, you should instead contact your congressional representatives to do the right thing on immigration, so you don't have to imagine such bogeymen. For the sake of deterence and honest civil disobedience, you should insist on taking a felony conviction for this, otherwise your example lacks any moral weight worth the consideration of any ethical citizen. You obviously have no serious consideration for the rule of law . . . so why should any of these "non-citizens" you seem to fear even care what you think? Once you accept the felony you so richly deserve and have even seemed to beg for, I might take you more seriously. Otherwise you are just another ignorant xenophobic nincompoop.
The only non-citizen I can find who has voted in America did so inadvertantly, and deserves consideration for her inadvertance as well as for her involvement and community activism above and beyond the call of duty. Your registering your dog to vote is downright insulting to her plight. Here is an individual who has invested all of her being into being an American from her infancy, even running for city council. Do you dare to compare the silliness of your pooch (however otherwise loveable) to her moral commitment?
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/meyer_1533___article.html/know_illegally.html
You should be ashamed of yourself. And tell your son to stop harrasing me with his unsolicited emails . . . I've warned him and there are laws against that . . . not that you so far seem to care about such things. I know you are chronologically much older than me, but please grow up, for the sake of your children and grandchildren if nothing else. I'm sure all your pets still love you, but that's a whole different story. Grow up for the sake of your human relatives.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 25, 2007 04:21 PMYou must not have looked very hard to find only one, since the Dornan case shows 748. And citing relevant facts is not, of course "racist" or "xenophobic" by any rational definition of the words.
Further, even if we didn't have that proof, why shouldn't we work hard to close such loopholes to prevent it from happening? Well, you just throw up your hands and say, "it won't happen." And why should we take your word for it, especially since you've been proven to not know what you are talking about?
And further, you slam Jane for her efforts, but tell me, what were YOU doing to fix our election problems? Anything?
Anything at all?
That's what I thought.
Posted by: pudge on June 25, 2007 04:42 PMAPPLE VALLEY — Zoila Meyer has been in America since the age of 1.
She has been living the American dream; marrying her high school sweetheart, raising their four children, working on a college education and winning a seat for city office.
Her only problem — she isn’t an American — and now faces deportation for illegally voting in the 2004 election.
“I truly thought I was a citizen, all my life. I’ve been voting since I was 18. I didn’t know I was here illegally,” she said. “It was a mistake on my parents behalf. They messed up. They didn’t want to. It just happened.”
I love it. You come on here, call people a bunch of names (xenophobes and idiots) and then demand THEY grow up?
Why don't you stick to your precious state of Texas - where it's a 'burden' to provide citizenship in order to register to vote - and let us deal with our issues up here.
And stop being such an arrogant punk.
Posted by: jimg on June 25, 2007 05:07 PMIs it also OK that at least 748 people voted illegally in Bob Dornan's race?
Do you realize that every illegal voter takes away the right to vote of a legal voter?
Do you actually want to stop people from voting illegally? What do you want to do toward that end?
What have you ever done to improve the integrity of the voting system?
Posted by: pudge on June 25, 2007 05:55 PMYOU are not going to take HER seriously?
Sorry, but who the hell are you, and why should anyone care whom you take seriously?
You're the one who told an obvious and easily provable lie, that illegal aliens do not vote.
You're the one chastising someone for trying to fix a broken voting system, when you've done nothing.
Why should ANYONE take YOU seriously?
Posted by: pudge on June 25, 2007 08:26 PMI truely think you are one great lady in our sad state democracy!
You GO Girl Go!
Posted by: GS on June 25, 2007 11:55 PMUntil post #35, not one single word about illegal immigrants voting was said. There was a lot of discussion of illegal voting and how illegal voting was made simple by the existing rules and their implementation.
hsj438 is the first one (#35) to bring up illegal immigrant voting and the name calling. It turns out, if you follow his link, he is an a$$. Oops, I mean he is a member of a Democratic group in Texas. Since he initiated the xenophobic name calling, it appears that he purposely initiated a fight to generate thrills for himself.
Apparently, he is too dense to understand that the word "illegal" can be used independantly from discussing someone's immigration status.
Though it will cause her grief, what Jane did to point out obvious flaws in our voter registration was commendable. Had she chosen to cast a fraudulent ballot, she most likely could have gotten away with it (similar to some of those in 04 that knowingly put provisional ballots through the accuvotes).
Way to go Jane.
Oh, what did hsj438 have to say about us?
hsj438 bragsApparently I've stirred up the xenophobic hornets nest up in the Seattle area on this subject. Specifically regarding the specious claim that non-citizens are voting en mass to deprive American's of their democracy. We've already
addressed this issue in Texas, although some xenophobes claim it's a whole different world up there in the foreign country of Washington state . . . . uh huh . . . riiiiiiiiight. I'm guessing human nature isn't so vastly different,
even if some refuse to look beyond their county lines to the rest of the national GOP propaganda program, which looks surprisingly similar no matter which state we are talking about. Anyway, I've made my point and don't plan to even try to outgun their local yokels . . . but I encourage y'all to check it out. Probably sounds surprisingly like what you would hear in these-here-parts. Yee haw! ;)Interesting blog interaction, and probably not unlike the same crap you will find in this country . . . er state, of Texas. May as well review.
The tolerant, diverse, caring, compassionate, rule of law following Dems strike again.
Who is he going to believe, himself or his lying eyes?
Posted by: pudge on June 26, 2007 11:15 AMJane belatedly falls back on people double voting etc. as her real concern. I agree that could be a problem, but probably the kind of offense that misguiding voting CITIZENS would likely engage in. I think I've already enumerated the reasons that this is the case.
What I found distastful was Jane invoking the typical foreign boogeyman/boogeywoman as justification for her cause. In a country with hundreds of millions of residents both citizens and non-citizens, there are more than reasonable doubts that non-citizens are the problem you make them out to be.
Anyway, if you must engage in community service for you felony offense, I agree with Stefan Sharkansky who started this thread in the first place. Your community service should involve checking out voter fraud in your county. I'd be interested to hear your report back about how prevalent it is and who is actually committing fraud . . . seriously. Is it really the foreign boogeymen/women? I doubt it, but I'm willing to be educated.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 26, 2007 11:40 AMcorrection - I never said that there are NO non-citizens voting . . .
Posted by: hsj438 on June 26, 2007 11:50 AMcorrection - I never said that there are NO non-citizens voting . . .
Posted by: hsj438 on June 26, 2007 11:51 AMI've read the linked Seattle Times story and still do not see where Jane mentions non-citizen voting. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point to the specific article and section you are referencing for your statements.
Illegal voting and processes that allow illegal votes to occur are the issues we are addressing. That encompasses dead people voting, "proxy" voting where a family member votes for another family member, double voting, voting where you are not a legal resident (you legally live and vote in another state and still vote here too), non-citizen voting, and felons illegally voting.
Additionally, we are looking into the practices that allow for "easy" manipulation of the system that allows illegal registrations to slip through, thus allowing illegal votes to cancel legal votes. Jane gave us a local example (we've heard of this in other states) of how the system we have here does not yet have the safeguards to guarantee that registrations come from legal citizens. What's your issue with that?
Do you perform acts of civil disobedience? Do you always demand that you receive the heaviest charge when you are brought in? Why do you demand that of Jane?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 26, 2007 11:59 AMfrom: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003758181_votingdog22m.html
Interesing how personal loyalties can make one overlook the things right in front of your eyes.
I'm happy to recycle for those who don't want to believe . . . at least one time anyway.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 26, 2007 12:09 PMI asked you many questions and you answered none of them.
What are YOU doing to improve and maintain the integrity of the voting system? What do YOU suggest we do about illegal voters? Do you think it is OK for people to vote illegally?
Again, we saw over 700 people vote illegally, for sure, in an election where the difference was just over 900. And that was only one House district. In a statewide race in WA, the same per capita illegal turnout would number in the thousands, and our last close statewide race was a mere 133 votes.
So don't think you can convince anyone that illegal voting is not a potentially serious problem.
I readily concede we probably don't have the same level of illegal alien voting in WA as they did in Dornan's former district in Southern California. But that's only for now, and what's more, we don't even really know. It is quite possible that if we were diligent about actively checking voter eligibility, that Rossi would have won in 2004. And if that is what happened, that means the wrong person was elected, and that democracy itself was defeated.
And that's not melodrama, that's fact.
Posted by: pudge on June 26, 2007 12:46 PMThe issue is what are the REAL voter fraud problems.
How can you think that this isn't one, when you've been given the facts that clearly show it is?
I assert that the likely problems are not non-citizens
Yes, well, so you deny the facts. The facts are that in at least one House race, over 700 aliens voted illegally, which would be more than enough to turn a close election. That means it is, clearly, a REAL voter fraud problem.
It makes you look stupid to pretend otherwise. Are you, in fact, stupid?
To shove the blame off to non-citizens is simply inventing boogeymen instead of solving the real problem.
No one is shoving "the blame" to non-citizens. It is one of many problems. Why should we ignore it, just because there are also other problems?
I can't be much more clear than this.
I agree. You cannot be much more clear on the fact that you do not understand the fact that illegal alien voting has been incontrovertibly proven to be a real problem.
Sure one can find a single inadvertant case
Or, over 700. In a single House race that was decided by less than 1,000 votes.
but in terms of the real problems, they simply aren't it
Stupid facts, disagreeing with you!
And anyone citing them as such is not seriously considering basic human motivations
Ah, I see. So because they potentially got the wrong person elected, it's not a problem because they didn't MEAN to do it.
Anyone who would make that claim is not seriously considering what democracy actually is.
Besides, we've seen plenty of evidence of that your claim about lack of motivation is nonsense. We've seen people encourage illegals to vote, and we've seen, in a single House race, several hundred illegals vote. Ah, but it was all an accident! Suuuuuure.
It is simply a xenophobic fantasy/horror to think that this is any real problem.
Well, no. In fact, it is a fact. We have the proof. Over 700 in a single House race. How is this NOT a problem?
It is. There is no logical way to argue that it is not. You are ignoring the facts because they don't support your preconceived, and false, notions. But in the real world, those of us in the reality-based community look at things called "facts."
Posted by: pudge on June 26, 2007 07:21 PMThanks for all your attention. I feel much loved for it ;) All you have given me is your gainsaying about how non-citizens voting is such an issue, but no reference by which to check your facts. I have at least offered reasons that this is likely not the case, but I'm not going to accept some insane burden to prove such a negative. You can either show me how my reasoning is wrong or provide me with your raw data . . . neither of which you have done after several rounds of this. Which leads me to reiterate how you are simply relying on xenophobic boogeymen to make your point. Thanks for all your attention, however. I really enjoy it.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 27, 2007 11:26 AMDang, you got me. I missed Jane's statement about non-citizens, but that doesn't change much.
There were 34 posts before anyone mentioned non-citizens and then it was yours. Obviously, we were not having the same take on this as you.
What do you know about the 2004 election controversy here? Unless you are familiar with the issues surrounding that election, you are only interjecting yourself into a local issue just to initiate a fight. We had people listing their domicile as a private mailbox - and KCRE allowed it.
The crux of this story is how to improve the voter registration system so as to prevent ANYONE from intentially registering when they do not meet the legal requirements. Using existing laws and procedures allowed someone to register a dog.
Non-citizens are but one component of a poor registration/voting system.
By the way, why throw the book at Jane, but not at others that did more?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 27, 2007 12:22 PMLet's review, I'm supposed to prove absence of non-citizens voting, while you (with no references) get to claim the same by simple assertion. Just trying to figure out the knots you wish you could tie me in before you leave the field . . . I at least provided some sound reasons why non-citizens of at least minimal human intelligence would be acting against their obvious interests. Perhaps you can address or attack that rationale if you otherwise feel too lazy to deal with the actual facts or data. Well, thanks for the attention. You've provided some heat to warm my otherwise cold heart if not any actual light. Nice to know there are other humans in the world whether or not they actually enlighten the rest of us. Watch out for those boogeymen and I hope you find some warm fuzzy peace.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 28, 2007 11:16 AMThe fact that non-citizens COULD defeat our voting systems and fraudulently vote does not equate with any established fact that they are actually doing so. Non-citizens, legal or illegal, have their own priorities and interests to look out for, and committing voter fraud is for obvious reasons not very high on their priorities.
Of course I recognize that illegal immigration is the current issue and breeds many a boogeyman in the minds of those who don't want to stand in their shoes even for argument's sake. I personally stand by those who wish to invoke the rule of law against those illegals who have cast such concerns aside for their immediate economic interests. If we can get our border situation under control, I too hope that we can get them to understand the demands of ours or any other legal system.
It does not, however exempt me or any other person from understanding the basic human motivations of any one regardless of whatever side of the rule of law they stand. Just for comparison's sake, I heard a pretty good political/legal/moral questions posed on yahoo questions lately. Which is worse? A drunken driver who injures or kills some unintended victim? Or an illegal immigrant crossing our borders. I agree that both are issues serious enough to address, but it seems that in the current political climate, the latter is irrationally considered a far greater threat than the former.
I certainly applaud all of you folks who have contacted and convinced your various representatives/senators on the latter issue (illegal immigration), and indeed share some agreement thereof, but to otherwise extend this into justifying all these other boogeymen simply lacks any basis in fact or reality and serves only to undermine the very democratic principles which would make your protest valid in the first place.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 28, 2007 11:42 AMFine, go here: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/sanchez.html. It's not hard, I gave you more than enough information for a simple Google search.
Now I expect you to stop claiming, once and for all, that there is no real data or evidence that non-citizens voting.
Non-citizens, legal or illegal, have their own priorities and interests to look out for, and committing voter fraud is for obvious reasons not very high on their priorities.
Obviously, the many non-citizens who have voted disagree with you.
Posted by: pudge on June 28, 2007 02:18 PMYou shamed me well. Thanks for the link. After reading it, it seems that there was a group effort by an organization called "Hermandad Mexicana Nacional" to register non-citizens. As I've said I don't think a non-citizen would decide to do this on his/her own. I'm guessing that this organization probably misled them or otherwise offered some inducement to do so. I hope they got prosecuted for it.
So it seems we found an instance over ten years ago in California where several hundred non-citizens were registered to vote. Still not enough to change the outcome in that particular instance, but worth pointing out. I think it justifies an item on any prosecutor's menu, but not anything like an alarm to overhaul the system or create extra hurdles for the billions of legal votes and millions of legal voters exercising their rights in the last decade. A few hundred people acting like idiots at one point in history doesn't justify greater burdens on millions of people exercising their legal rights for all elections to come.
In order for someone to decide to cast an illegal vote, one has to first overcome the ordinary disincentives that prevent many people from voting in the first place. For example, the usual "How is my one vote going to make a difference anyway?" etc. I'm guessing that Hermandad Mexicana Nacional overcame this through justification of group effort, which mirrors the thoroughly legitimate justifications that political parties provide. Your vote matters because you aren't just voting alone, we are voting together.
In any case, such conspiracies tend to get noticed by the authorities, and indeed legitimate political parties want their "conspiracies" well known to the general public so they can attract otherwise reluctant legal voters to their cause. Indeed in this particular case, it seems that the investigators already had a good idea of whom they were after. Even ineffective conspiracies tend to get noticed by the authorities this way. And while I admit to being a party animal myself, I once again reiterate my hope that this group and its central actors got prosecuted to the full extent of the law . . . even if they acted on behalf of a nominal Democrat. My message as a Democrat depends even more crucially on the rule of law, than any rejection of otherwise legal Republican party messages. We are all on the same page when it comes down to this.
So this example prompts me to ask a little more clearly . . . Is there any sort of group effort to register non-citizens to vote in your local area? If not, I stand by my assertion that Jane's initial justification for her actions is simply a response to her boogeymen.
I don't really know Jane, she may or may not actually deserve such labels, and in my ignorance thereof I really should have kept such judgments to myself. I still think that her motivation which she initially provided to your local press likely reflects her "boogeymen" more than any real concerns of voter fraud.
However I also recognize that her subsequent justification/concern in this thread for multiple voting could likely represent a much more rational concern. I think the people much more likely to conspire/plan/engineer schemes of voter fraud are probably those who are already voting rather than non-citizens.
Barring some grand conspiracy otherwise, I think we should all avoid blaming the boogeyman for not getting the outcome we may individually desire of our political systems.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 28, 2007 07:55 PMIf I can't debate, I'll call you names!
"And further, you slam Jane for her efforts, but tell me, what were YOU doing to fix our election problems? Anything?
Anything at all?
That's what I thought."
" those of us in the reality-based community look at things called "facts.""
"It makes you look stupid to pretend otherwise. Are you, in fact, stupid?"
"I asked you many questions and you answered none of them."
Isn't that YOUR tactic Pudge???????????
"Sorry, but who the hell are you, and why should anyone care whom you take seriously?"
WHAT AN ARROGANT BASTARD, CAN'T LOGICALLY DEBATE SO ATTACK LIKE A BLOOMING IDIOT!! He must have been a flower child
I think it justifies an item on any prosecutor's menu, but not anything like an alarm to overhaul the system or create extra hurdles for the billions of legal votes and millions of legal voters exercising their rights in the last decade.
What extra hurdles are we talking about here? Proving citizenship is not a significant hurdle for millions of legal voters, only for a tiny percentage who don't have a birth certificate or somesuch. And again, if we had this sort of noncitizen voting in WA in 2004, it could very well be that we right now have the WRONG GOVERNOR. Yes, the amount they found was not enough to change Dornan's race, but it was MUCH MORE than enough to change our governor's race, which was decided by about 130 votes at final count.
Are you telling me that a very easy-to-comply-with (for almost everyone), one-time, proof of citizenship is too much of a hurdle to make sure we get the right governor? I just can't see that.
(I am, of course, not saying we have the "wrong governor." Many people think that; I just don't know. I think the person who got the true number of legal votes is unknown and probably unknowable, and that as a result, we just have to go by what the law says, and I think that the law says Gregoire won, as much as I hate that, as I campaigned quite a bit for Rossi.)
A few hundred people acting like idiots at one point in history doesn't justify greater burdens on millions of people exercising their legal rights for all elections to come.
No one is talking about that. You check citizenship at registration, one time.
In order for someone to decide to cast an illegal vote, one has to first overcome the ordinary disincentives that prevent many people from voting in the first place. For example, the usual "How is my one vote going to make a difference anyway?" etc.
Perhaps you don't realize how close our governor's race actually was. At the second recount, the difference was a mere 42 votes, out of over three million. No one who was here and knows how close it was would rationally come to the conclusion that one vote can't make a difference, even in a huge statewide race.
So this example prompts me to ask a little more clearly . . . Is there any sort of group effort to register non-citizens to vote in your local area? If not, I stand by my assertion that Jane's initial justification for her actions is simply a response to her boogeymen.
Again, I think you have things backward. You do not wait for it to happen before you try to put protections in place. You do it beforehand. You be proactive. We know it can happen, we know it has happened, and we know if it happened that it could change the result of an election.
If the "burden" on voters were significant, I could see a complaint here. But I don't see how "bring your birth certificate or naturalization papers" is significant (yes, some people can do neither, but that's a tiny percentage, and they can be dealt with in other ways).
Posted by: pudge on June 29, 2007 08:35 AMPudge Sayeth @ http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008835.html
drw, you made my point for me, almost.
drw:>>There is nothing in the Constitution to say how one would define a citizen or verify that they are such...leaving that to the legislators to define.
Pudge:Correct.
drw:>>Therefore, why couldn't a law be defined that in order to prove your citizenship rights, you have to prove that you're a citizen (i.e. by photo identification)?
Pudge: Because it is citizens who have the right to vote, not "people who prove themselves citizens."
drw:>>Therefore, I think you're wrong when you state that the Constitution does not allow us to exclude citezens from voting just because they don't have a piece of paper.
Pudge: Well, I am quite certain I'm right. :-)
drw:>>The Constitution is silent on the subject. Since it does not expressly forbid it (like say limiting one's free speech rights written in the First Amendment), then the Constituion DOES allow it.
Pudge: Nope, that's not how the Constitution works. First of all, the federal government is quite clearly one of enumerated rights, which means that if the Constitution doesn't say it, then it is more than likely it IS forbidden (see the Tenth Amendment). Second, there's also the Ninth Amendment, which quite clearly says you are wrong: just because some rights are enumerated, doesn't mean we do not have other rights.
A Ninth Amendment case here would be pretty simple to make. The Ninth says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And clearly, the right of a citizen to vote, without written proof of citizenship, has long been a right of the people.
But I wouldn't bother going there. The concept is more basic than that: the government cannot require us to fulfill some additional obligation in order for us to exercise our rights. It is your right as a citizen to vote, so therefore, you can vote if you are a citizen, period, even if you have no written proof of citizenship.
hsj438: Pudge, whichever of your personalities/devil's advocates is making this point, I say ditto! ;) Perhaps you should consider law school?
Personally, however, if someone told me provide proof of my citizenship, I couldn't do so in less than an hour. For many people this all the effort they would put into it, and if they saw this as remotely necessary they would likely just put it off until they had more time, like the next election, or the one after that an so forth. Perhaps they had a rough day at work, the kids need to go to soccer practice, groceries need to be bought, diapers have to be changed and so on. If this is actually their RIGHT to vote then the government/election dept. should be making it as easy as possible to exercise this right. And thus if voter fraud is to be seriously pursued, it is best done from a prosecutor's oversight rather than through greater burdens on the overwhelming number of legitimate voters.
Posted by: hsj438 on June 29, 2007 11:08 AMAnd finally, I would be amenable to a compromise, as I said in the other discussion: requiring proof of citizenship or allow the person to appear before a board of some sort to convince a body of officials that he is indeed a citizen, without written proof. Such decisions would, of course, be subject to appeal in a court of law.
Also, I am in a very Republican area of Washington. I am represented in the county and state by four people, who just happen to be four of the best Republicans in the state, for what it's worth. Although yes, we are outnumbered and the county and state levels, unfortunately. And I am proud to be the chair of not just my precinct, but the 39th Legislative District.
As to the rest ... maybe you couldn't produce your birth certificate in less than an hour, but you wouldn't be required to, of course. I know this isn't your point exactly, but it would be all over the news, there would be a public information campaign, and you would have plenty of opportunity.
And while I am, as you can tell by what I said in the other discussion, very interested in making sure everyone has the RIGHT to vote, I do not much care that everyone takes up that right. If you cannot be "burdened" to "prove" your citizenship in one way or another, I am not inclined to really care. People who are not motivated to vote ... that's their problem.
I disagree with your claim that the government should be making it as easy as possible; they should not make it intentionally difficult, they should not place any significant or undue burdens in the way, but make it as easy as possible? By that logic, we shouldn't even require them to produce identification at all, which is required already.
I do not see providing a birth certificate as an undue burden; if you are one of the very few who cannot do that, then that sucks, but there are other options, and I would certainly work to make sure those options do not pose more of a burden than is necessary. But illegal voting is a problem; you won't convince me otherwise, even if that problem is merely "potential," and we should do something about it.
Cheers ...
Posted by: pudge on June 29, 2007 12:15 PM