« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Court Throws Out WI AG Voting Suit
It looks like some of the state and local efforts led by Republicans to stymie voters, aren't panning out.
The latest loss for the GOP comes in Wisconsin. Where the suit filed by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen requesting confirmation on thousands of voter registrations, has been thrown out by a county circuit judge.
From Wisconisn State Journal:
Judge Maryann Sumi said Van Hollen failed to state an adequate claim for bringing the lawsuit and noted that state law has consistently favored protecting citizens' right to vote. Sumi also said that Van Hollen did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.. . .DOJ spokesman Kevin St. John said the Department of Justice plans to appeal, possibly directly to the state Supreme Court.
Just yesterday, the Nevada Secretary of State rejected a GOP argument that people who corrected incomplete registration information at the polls should be forced to cast provisional ballots. And in Indiana, a judge ruled against Republican efforts to shut down early polling places in Democratic-heavy areas of a key county.
Last week, the Supreme Court sided with Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, ruling against ruling against a Republican effort to require her to provide infomration on voters with mismatched registration information to county election officials, which could have led to GOP challenges.
Late update: TPMmuckraker caught up with Joe Wineke, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, who called the ruling "very strongly worded."
"It's great to know that the circuit court in Wisconsin understood that the rule of law is more important than partisan political campaigns," Wineke told us. "The really amazing thing to me right now is that the attorney general plans to appeal with 12 day to go till the election."
We should have a copy of the court's decision shortly, so check back soon.
Josh
Zachary
Here's more:
http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=10/23/2008&id=47926
THURSDAY, Oct. 23, 2008, 11:08 a.m.
By Patrick Marley and Steven Walters
Judge throws out Van Hollen voter suit
Madison - A Dane County judge dismissed Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's lawsuit against the state's elections board, saying Van Hollen had not shown that any state or federal laws had been violated.
The ruling comes just 12 days before voters will cast ballots for president.
Van Hollen sued the Government Accountability Board on Sept. 10, arguing the law requires the board to check registration information for more voters against driver's license or Social Security records.
But Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled this morning that Van Hollen had not shown any laws had been violated.
She said mismatched data in government databases are not enough to affect one's ability to vote. The board has said the mismatches are often attributable to typographical mistakes or other harmless errors.
"On Nov. 4, each qualified voter in Wisconsin will go to the polls," Sumi noted. "It doesn't matter if the (Department of Transportation) has misspelled his name or if his middle initial is missing on voter rolls."
Sumi went further and also ruled that Van Hollen didn't have the power to bring the lawsuit even if he'd identified violations of the law.
Van Hollen said the checks - affecting at least 241,000 voters - should be run before the Nov. 4 election to protect against voter fraud.
The board said it is doing what the law requires and argued Van Hollen couldn't sue over the matter because that power belongs only to the U.S. Department of Justice. The board also said it couldn't run the checks before the election because of the short time frame, but that it planned to do the checks after the election.
The lawsuit comes while Republicans and Democrats nationally level dueling charges of voter fraud and voter intimidation.
The case quickly turned into a political fight, and seven groups intervened in the case. Siding with Van Hollen in the case is the state Republican Party; siding with the board is the state Democratic Party, the Milwaukee NAACP and four unions for government employees.
Sumi also ruled that the Republican Party does not have standing in the case.
Assistant Attorney General Kevin St. John said today's decision will be appealed as soon as possible.
October 23, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Just noticed that the article fails to mention this important fact - AG Van Hollen is co-chair of McCain's campaign in Wisconsin.
October 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then he's clearly involved in an ethical conflict-of-interest.
Clearly the conduct of an entitled Republican.
October 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is mcShame involved with anyone who isn't somehow involved in shady dealings?
October 23, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hooray! I've no love lost for Van Hollen. Had there been a credible opposing campaign in 2006, he would never have ascended to AG.
October 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what you mean by "credible." Kathleen Falk was more than credible. She only lost by 9,000 votes out of over 2.1 million votes cast!!
October 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the new improved family oriented, God fearing, pro life American Christian, Republican Party.
It's becoming more and more apparent that these professing christians are only using religion and God to promote their own despicable self promoting agendas.
Note that now it is the norm to profess being a christian and during the same sentence using deception, mistatements, overt and covert false innuendoes (used to be called lying) while discussing the inherent value of a human life (while promoting executions for those who have transgressed.... promoting wars which kill innocent men, women, children and unborn folks rather than discussing alternatives with real or fictitious enemies... and then continuing justifying even illegal and perhaps unnecessary wars..
Ah... such faith our new, improved Christians have in their lord who spent 33 years on this earth promoting love of even your enemies and forgiveness of sins... and TRUTH!
Kind of reinforces the shortest passage in the bible... "God wept"...
October 23, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"God created [Republicans] because He was disappointed in the monkey." -- Mark Twain.
And there was only one, overworked, Devil.
October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Jesus wept."
Just saying.
October 23, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update: Now looks like even AG isn't expecting anything more to happen before Election Day. (see the last para.) For those of us who've lived to long in this swing state, it's great to have one less (major) fire to be putting out!
http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=10/23/2008&id=47933
THURSDAY, Oct. 23, 2008, 12:10 p.m.
By Patrick Marley and Steven Walters
UPDATE: Doyle, GOP respond to ruling
Madison - Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle said the lawsuit filed by Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen to enforce federal voter-registration laws was part of moves by Republicans "all over the country... to remove qualified voters from the voting lists."
Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's dismissal of the suit today means "we can all move forward and have a good election," Doyle said in a statement. "The Government Accountability Board, not the Republican attorney general, has the responsibility to supervise elections."
She also ruled the Republican Party had no standing to intervene in support of the lawsuit.
But state Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus called Democratic claims that his party tried to intervene in the lawsuit to lower voter turnout statewide untrue. He said the Republican Party only wanted to make sure that a federal requirement that the most accurate list of voters possible be compiled and maintained.
Assistant Attorney General Kevin St. John said an appeal would be filed.
St. John said the focus had shifted from the Nov. 4 election to resolving the issue of accurate voter lists for the future. "There will be future elections," he said.
October 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay!!! Now I can go and vote early, knowing they won't challenge the lack of that one initial on my driver's license (that isn't even on my passport!)
Yippee!!!
Thanks for posting so much on this, Purple Avenger! (you are my friend forever!!!)
October 23, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Van Hollen in concert years ago. Back when Sammy was in the band....
October 23, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If ever someone in one of the targeted groups, like students, poor people, newly registered voters, or minorities ever ask why they should vote Democratic, point out that the Republicans keep trying to stop their votes and Democrats who keep trying to defend it. That's why it's always Republicans trying to close polling stations, throw out registrations, put out disinformation in opposing precincts on polling places etc.
And then Republicans can't figure out why minorities, poor people, students, etc. keep voting Democratic!
October 23, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was surprised in 2000 at how "liberal" the FL elections laws -- which go back to case decisions from over a hundred years before then. But it makes sense for at least two reasons:
1. Courts are loath to be involved in election disputes for fear their decisions will be interpreted as biased, and deciding of the election itself. For that reason the traditional decision in most cases has been -- all the way to the US SC -- that it is a "nojusticiable political question" to be taken to the legislature. Which happens to be, also, how it it is stipulated in the US Constitution.
2. Because the vote is so fundamental a right -- the vote on which rests all other rights -- the courts bend over backwards to ensure as many votes as possible are counted. They will prefer a few fraudulent votes be counted than a few legitimate votes not be counted.
Those facts stand to reason. And those facts, especially the second, is powerfully moving: it is one instance of the ordinary citizen being of greater power than the REPRESENTATIVE gov't.
It also explains why investigations of election irregularities are requisitely confidential when close to an election in order not to prejudice or influence the outcome of the election -- rarely if ever are the voters the source of the irregularities: they simply don't have the organizing power.
In the above case, I'd like to know the reasoning of the part of the ruling which holds that the Republican Party hasn't standing to sue. I like it, but want to know the court's reasoning.
October 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, you have "standing" if you can show that you have been/will be harmed. That is, I can't sue to stop something unless I can show that it will harm me if it continues. So the state Republican party would have to show that early voting stations, not checking voter registrations against other documents, etc. would harm THEM. And although we might all think that IS their motivation--to prevent certain kinds of people from voting so the Republicans can win, they can't argue that.
October 23, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the matter with this judge?? Doesn't she know she's destroying the very fabric of our democracy by allowing all these people to vote?
October 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of fabric, why is this Republitard posing in front of an Hermes scarf?
October 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought dirty tricks were over at the Watergate Hotel! Silly me.
When will we ever get to connect the dots between the USA '06/Fredo Bandito Scandal and the current Republican shame machine? Every election they haul out the same old trunk from the attic, filled with "voter fraud" accusations, phony prosecutions, and generally repulsive eleventh-hour electioneering designed to intimidate and divide the electorate. Will there be the political will and public outrage to push the Obama administration to crack down? Let's hope so. Love to all of you.
October 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2004 I attended a couple of GOP functions in Wisconsin where hundreds stood in a room and ranted about how to keep people from voting. I could not believe it. What could be less democratic, less true to the very nature of citizen participation? The attendees yukked it up about people registerering as Donald Duck and the like, and wished Wisconsin would "do the right thing" and just require everyone to show photo ID already.
That all this monkey business goes on under the provisions of a law called the Help America Vote Act is, sadly, par for the course. Oooooo, noooooo, we're not trying to kick people off the rolls. We're just trying to stop massive voter fraud. Because we've seen so many hundreds and hundreds of illegal votes cast in the state. Oh, wait, we haven't? Well, we can't get complacent now, right? Barf.
Van Hollen is McCain's state co-chair? No honor at all.
October 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's not just at the State level in Wisconsin. The Mayor of my city tried to force this same issue, but the Common (Sense) Council was having none of it. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=808804
But I have to admit, I worry about those efforts that are NOT blocked, and the effect they will have on election day.
October 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the courts (including the Supreme Court) have sensed the average voter will not stand for a repeat of the last two presidential elections. They're trying to prevent massive rebellion. I'm 64 and will not hesitate to use what little money I have left to travel to Washington DC to protest if this election is "off" ... and I don't mean violence, just presence in front of the White House, with a sign along with millions of others, most probably. Enough is enough.
October 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Von Swollen
October 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno - might the WI Supreme Court be tempted to expedite this appeal? Is that a possibility? Can anyone enlighten me?
October 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
While technically it is a possibility - and while the Wisc Supreme Ct is itself in a period of change pushed by what has widely been called a race-baiting campaign that unseated the Court's only African-American justice last April - it also seems hard to ascertain how anything could move fast enough to actually, physically, get the checks done before Nov. 4.
("A spokesman said Van Hollen was still hopeful of a resolution before the Nov. 4 election and that the appeal, possibly directly to the state Supreme Court, would be filed soon." - http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/310899)
On the other hand, there is also some concern that this will be used after the fact to try to, legally or politically, make the election outcome seem illegitimate.
October 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Late Friday, the Bush gets in on the action in Ohio. Sounds like a coordinated effort.
October 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink