HAVA Fraud
From dKosopedia
Contents |
Florida Provisional Ballots
A Vote for Provisional Ballots Chicago Tribune, 20 Oct 2004
On Monday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that provisional ballots in the state would only be counted if they were cast in the right precinct. That decision was based solely on state law.
-Cope 13:25, 21 Oct 2004 (PDT)
Michigan Provisional Ballots
A Vote for Provisional Ballots Chicago Tribune, 20 Oct 2004
A judge in Michigan says that if a ballot is cast in the wrong precinct, the state must still count it.
--Cope 13:23, 21 Oct 2004 (PDT)
Ohio Provisional Ballots
Starting with this diary comment by drh on Thu Oct 21st, 2004 at 15:18:29 GMT in this diary [1]
- The dispute is over federal language that says such provisional ballots must be provided in a voter's jurisdiction. Carr ruled that's a county -- meaning votes cast in the right county but wrong precinct would count, at least for federal offices. Blackwell says it's a precinct, meaning any vote cast in the wrong precinct would not count.
- Carr ruled last week that Blackwell's directive to election officials Sept. 16 violated the federal Help America Vote Act because the directive says provisional ballots should not be issued to a voter in the wrong precinct. It said poll workers must direct voters to the correct precinct.[...]
- The three judges hearing the [appeals] case are Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Court Judge Ronald L. Gilman of Tennessee and U.S. District Judge Herman J. Weber of Cincinnati. Boggs and Weber were appointed by President Reagan, while Gilman was named by President Clinton. Carr also was appointed by Clinton.
- Blackwell has noted that 26 other states plus the District of Columbia are handling provisional ballots the way he proposes, and the Florida Supreme Court backed that approach in a ruling this week on a similar lawsuit.
- The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in a Michigan lawsuit, arguing that it is up to states to determine how ballots are counted.
- HAVA has not been tested before since it was passed in 2002 -- my guess is that the GOP found a loophole in the provisional ballot section. I'd like to know exactly which 26 states these are -- I know Colorado is one of them, 'cause I wrote the SoS about it myself (she cited as her defense: Colorado RS 1-9-301(6), HAVA 302(2), and NVRA 42.20.I-B.1973aa-1) -- i believe it's still in the courts.
More diary comments from [2]
by drh on Thu Oct 21st, 2004 at 15:18:29 GMT
- HAVA has not been tested before since it was passed in 2002 -- my guess is that the GOP found a loophole in the provisional ballot section. I'd like to know exactly which 26 states these are -- I know Colorado is one of them, 'cause I wrote the SoS about it myself (she cited as her defense: Colorado RS 1-9-301(6), HAVA 302(2), and NVRA 42.20.I-B.1973aa-1) -- i believe it's still in the courts.
by buffalo soldier on Thu Oct 21st, 2004 at 15:24:16 GMT
- State judge in Colorado reversed Sec of State (none / 0)
Here's a letter from the colorado SOS posted by drh on Thu Oct 21st, 2004 at 15:18:29 GMT [3]
- Thank you for your email. I certainly respect your opinion and appreciate you sharing your concerns with this office. As Colorado's Secretary of State I took an oath on the day I was sworn into office to uphold the law. It is a non-partisan responsibility I take very seriously. Colorado Revised Statute 1-9-301(6)states that:
- "If the voter does not compete and sign the provisional ballot affidavit or if the voter does not present the required identification, the ballot shall not be counted unless the county clerk and recorder or designated election official determines that the voter was properly registered in the precinct and county."
- Furthermore, Section 302(2)of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 states that:
- "The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot at the polling place upon the execution of a written affirmation by the individual before an election official at the polling place stating that the individual is -
- (A) a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desire to vote and
- (B) eligible to vote in that election"
- And finaly, the National Voter Registration Act of 1973 states in Title 42 Chapter 20 Subchapter I-B Section 1973aa-1 that:
- "...Congress declares that in order to secure and protect the above-stated rights of citizens under the Constitution, to enable citizens to better obtain the enjoyment of such rights, and to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth amendment, it is necessary (1) to completely abolish the durational residency requirements as precondition to voting for President and Vice President."
- The great thing about our form of government is that if the people feel that there is a flaw or discrepancy in the system they have the ability to seek relief in various methods. One option is to go to the legislature to change the law. In this case, the citizens have taken this issue to court for further review. As I do not have the ability to make or change laws, it has always been my policy to look forward to any clarification or direction from our court system and/or legislative body. This office is ready to implement whatever decision comes from court review.
- Best Regards
- Donetta Davidson
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)