The award for most likely to suppress voters in 2004 goes to?

Posted by: ST on August 3, 2005 at 12:44 am

The Democratic party (emphasis added by me):

The American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund today released the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election.

The ACVR Legislative Fund report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election. Examples include paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee and an Ohio court order stopping Democrat operatives from calling voters telling them the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

The report further finds that thousands of Americans were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain "nonpartisan" organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states. Examples include a law enforcement task force finding "clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee," including hundreds of felon and double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

And just what do they recommend to cut down on these types of voter intimidation and suppression?

In addition to common-sense recommendations such as required government issued photo ID at the polls, accurate statewide voter registration databases and a zero-tolerance policy against vote fraud and intimidation, ACVR Legislative Fund identifies five cities as election fraud "hot spots" which require additional immediate attention prior to the 2006 elections. Philadelphia, Pa., Milwaukee, Wis., Seattle, Wash., St. Louis/East St. Louis, Mo./Ill. and Cleveland, Ohio were identified based on the findings of the report and the cities’ documented history of fraud and intimidation.

Gasp! Not the dreaded photo ID suggestion.

While neither party’s hands are clean, this report puts a serious dent in Democratic claims of Republicans being the champions of "stealing" (or attempting to) elections.   A good place to go for a refresher on Dem attempts at voter suppression and intimidation is Bill Hobbs blog.  He did an outstanding job of keeping tabs on stories that made it across the wire about Democratic shenanigans. 

Wink: Joe Gandelman. Read more at The Anchoress.

(Morning Update: 8/3/05: read Joe’s revised post … this group appears to have some GOP leanings which may call into question some of the findings).

In the meantime, Ohio’s 2nd District Congressional seat has finally been called.  The winner was Republican Jean Schmidt:

US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
753 precincts of 753 reporting

  JEAN SCHMIDT 57,974 52% (W)
  PAUL HACKETT 54,401 48%

Expect shrill cries from the left of "stolen!" and other additional nonsense.  But that report from ACVR couldn’t have come at a better time, could it?  Morning Update: 8/3/05 : read Joe Gandelman’s revised post (already linked above) … this group appears to have some GOP leanings which may call into question some of the findings.

See Right Wing News, Captain EdMichelle MalkinWizbang, and Iowa Voice for more comment. 

More: Trey Jackson has the ad that Hackett ran against Schmidt, and said earlier: "Ohio deserves better." 

They got it .

Even more: Tom Blumer at Bizzy Blog (who liveblogged as the votes were being counted) gives 20 reasons why Schmidt should have lost but didn’t.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Iowa Voice trackbacked with John Hawkins And I Were Right
  • 12 Responses to “The award for most likely to suppress voters in 2004 goes to?”

    Comments

    1. actus says:

      “Expect shrill cries from the left of “stolen!” and other additional nonsense. ”

      I doubt it. This disctrict was one which the GOP wins with 50% margins. A 4% loss is a major victory for democrats.

    2. Joe says:

      “A 4% loss is a major victory for democrats.”

      Is the “reality-based” version of events that election losses are labeled as victories?

    3. actus says:

      “Is the “reality-based” version of events that election losses are labeled as victories?”

      Do you really have a hard time understanding how a 46% gain is a win, even if it didn’t lead to grabbing a seat in a special election?

    4. Guess ya gotta grab those ‘wins’ where you can these days, actus :wink:

    5. actus says:

      “Guess ya gotta grab those ‘wins’ where you can these days, actus ”

      Bellwethers toll whether you ignore them or not.

    6. Cliff Hughes says:

      Isn’t it just a little ironic that a democrat posing as a hawk cannot fool all of the people any of the time and still calls it a victory. Where is the truth hiding in the democrat lexicon.

    7. Actus: Indeed, they do :)

      Cliff: Yeah, it’s interesting how the Dems are spinning this into a victory. I guess now a loss is not really a loss nor is a win a win? Those definitions just keep a’ changin’ ;)

    8. NYgirl says:

      How awful. This is of course on top of all the cars with Bush & pro-life bumper stickers getting keyed. & Lawn signs being ripped out & graffitied.

    9. NY, there were some questions as to how accurate this report is considering many in the group who compiled the info were members of the GOP.

      That said, I do think there were far more incidents of Dem’s attempting to intimidate/suppress voters than Repubs. Bill Hobbs (who I linked to in my post) has an excellent roundup of links about this.

    10. pst314 says:

      Back when liberals were pushing “motor voter” and other measures, any critics who pointed out that these measures would vote fraud much easier were called racists and oppressors.