Showing posts with label voter disenfranchisement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voter disenfranchisement. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The GOP War On Voting Rights, cont...
Oct 5th, 2011
The GOP's war on voting rights is finally causing casualties. The Chattanooga Times-Free Press reports:
"Dorothy Cooper
is 96 but she can remember only one election when
she's been eligible
to vote
but
hasn't.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center."
"I don't know what difference it makes," Cooper said."
Neither do we, Ms. Cooper. Neither do we.
Read more HERE.
The GOP's war on voting rights is finally causing casualties. The Chattanooga Times-Free Press reports:
 |
| Image via Progress NC |
is 96 but she can remember only one election when
she's been eligible
to vote
but
hasn't.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center."
"I don't know what difference it makes," Cooper said."
Neither do we, Ms. Cooper. Neither do we.
Read more HERE.
Friday, September 23, 2011
DOJ Slams Texas Redistricting
Sept 23rd, 2011
Via TPM:
"The Justice Department said late Friday that based on their preliminary investigation, a congressional redistricting map signed into law by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry appears to have been "adopted, at least in part, for the purpose of diminishing the ability of citizens of the United States, on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, to elect their preferred candidates of choice to Congress."
DOJ's Civil Rights Division is specifically contesting the changes made to Texas Districts 23 and 27, which they say would not provide Hispanic citizens with the ability to elect candidates of their choice.
They say they need more information on the congressional plan to determine what the purpose of the redistricting plan was for sure. But the federal agency came out stronger against the state House of Representatives plan, which they flat out said "violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in that it was adopted, at least in part, for the purpose of diminishing the ability of citizens of the United States, on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, to elect their preferred candidates of choice to the Texas House of Representatives."
Just a small part of the big GOP disenfranchisement plan for 2012
Via TPM:
 |
| Image via |
DOJ's Civil Rights Division is specifically contesting the changes made to Texas Districts 23 and 27, which they say would not provide Hispanic citizens with the ability to elect candidates of their choice.
They say they need more information on the congressional plan to determine what the purpose of the redistricting plan was for sure. But the federal agency came out stronger against the state House of Representatives plan, which they flat out said "violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in that it was adopted, at least in part, for the purpose of diminishing the ability of citizens of the United States, on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, to elect their preferred candidates of choice to the Texas House of Representatives."
Just a small part of the big GOP disenfranchisement plan for 2012
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Disenfranchised
July 26th, 2011
If you think the wave of new voter restrictions is NOT an attempt to disenfranchise likely liberal voters, than you are not paying attention. HT to AlterNet for this one. A young man of voting age attempts to get a Wisconsin state ID for the purpose of participating in elections. He is first denied because of "inactivity" in his bank account. He is then told that he has to pay $28 for the ID. Bear in mind that the model legislation for all these new state initiatives, crafted right here in my state of Indiana, only passed muster with SCOTUS because there is no charge for the ID itself (peripheral supporting documents required for issuance have costs attached but that is another matter). The young man and and his mother, who accompanied him, are to commended for capturing their experience on video.
"The mother-son hidden camera team manages to satisfy the bank account busting first clerk and eventually makes it to the third clerk where they discover that unless you explicitly specify that you have come to the DMV for a Voter ID, you will be charged $28. The clerk admits that there is no difference between the Voter ID and the non-Voter ID -- they're literally the same physical object -- but that it's the policy of the establishment to leave the honus for making this distinction on the customer: no signs, no warnings, just a box on the form you have to hope you notice and check.
The mother asks for the clerk's superior who is somewhat helpful. She then asks for the superior's superior which we can assume the mother gave hell to when the camera was off.
Watch in awe/disgust below and then read about the closure of DMVs in highly Democratic districts."
If you think the wave of new voter restrictions is NOT an attempt to disenfranchise likely liberal voters, than you are not paying attention. HT to AlterNet for this one. A young man of voting age attempts to get a Wisconsin state ID for the purpose of participating in elections. He is first denied because of "inactivity" in his bank account. He is then told that he has to pay $28 for the ID. Bear in mind that the model legislation for all these new state initiatives, crafted right here in my state of Indiana, only passed muster with SCOTUS because there is no charge for the ID itself (peripheral supporting documents required for issuance have costs attached but that is another matter). The young man and and his mother, who accompanied him, are to commended for capturing their experience on video.
"The mother-son hidden camera team manages to satisfy the bank account busting first clerk and eventually makes it to the third clerk where they discover that unless you explicitly specify that you have come to the DMV for a Voter ID, you will be charged $28. The clerk admits that there is no difference between the Voter ID and the non-Voter ID -- they're literally the same physical object -- but that it's the policy of the establishment to leave the honus for making this distinction on the customer: no signs, no warnings, just a box on the form you have to hope you notice and check.
The mother asks for the clerk's superior who is somewhat helpful. She then asks for the superior's superior which we can assume the mother gave hell to when the camera was off.
Watch in awe/disgust below and then read about the closure of DMVs in highly Democratic districts."
First of all, this an obvious violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a poll-tax. Plain and simple. Second of all, there is still no evidence of any major voter fraud in the U.S. whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
