VoteSuppressionWatch: NM
The newest Rolling Stone has an article about voter suppression which focuses a lot on the situation in New Mexico and today, the AP is reporting that a 67 year old, Albuquerque woman (who is quite likely Hispanic) was (allegedly) visited by a private investigator claiming ties to the state Republican Party, who questioned her about her immigration status and whether she was a "legitimate voter".
I don't know if these two stories have anything to do with the recent reports that the NM Republican Party has raised twice as much money as their Democratic counterparts over the past three months, or that their largest donor ($115,000) has been a Texas woman with ties to the "Swift Boat" ads from 2004, but I thought I'd throw everything out there for all to see.
---
BTW: Last week, I was going to make a joke about the woman accused of voting while drunk, but I couldn't find the perfect wording and the video wouldn't embed, so I'm just now tacking it onto this semi-related post about what appears to be a potentially threatening situation. After all, Al Gore carried NM by only 366 votes and George Bush beat John Kerry with the slightly wider margin of 5988.
I just got an Obama text message today asking me to respond if I would be able to go volunteer in New Mexico sometime in the next week. I live in Arizona, and I assume other surrounding states received the same message (unless we're a special case since it's fairly likely that McCain will carry his own state). I think Obama HQ is on it and beefing up its New Mexico resources for the final push.
October 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took about a month to certify the NM results in 2000 and something like three weeks to come up with a winner in 2004, a situation that was most likely affected by the "problem" detailed in the Rolling Stone piece.
I'm sure Obama's goal is to get a wider margin than the number of provisional ballots because if the unexpected were to happen and if the whole thing comes down to New Mexico, it's not going to be pretty and an active investigation of voter blocs, plus any fears caused by immigration questions probably isn't going help the situation, at all.
Personally, I think that Udall has enough strength to push Obama and Obama can probably carry Udall, but a lot of it will depend on the actual number of votes cast and anything that works against this tide could be a threat to both Democrats. I'm glad to hear that Obama's ramping-up for a massive GOTV campaign, but if the legitimacy of large numbers are in question and if it all comes down to the lawyers witnessing the counts, then I'm not sure what that'll mean.
October 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . if the legitimacy of large numbers are in question . . . ."
That's the claim being made by hack/doofus Rogers. Don't buy into it.
October 24, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... It'll be up to the Republicans, whether or not they challenge the credentials of any voter. Obviously, I don't agree with their tactics or I wouldn't be shining the light of scrutiny upon them.
October 24, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking only about the "tactics"; I'm talking -- FIRST -- about the ALLEGATION which is intended to JUSTIFY the tactics.
October 24, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they filed a provisional ballot, then the legitimacy of their vote can be challenged and the "tactic" of putting more votes into question is what might be addressed today. Whether or not their provisional ballot will count would be an argument for another day because there's nothing we can do about that before they actually vote.
IOW: My comment was that if we have a lot of provisional ballots that will have to be discussed individually, then unless Obama can get a wider margin than the contestable number, it could theoretically put declaring a winner into the hands of the lawyers and not something that will be known on Election Day.
(Historically, they don't even start discussing provisional ballots until the next day)
October 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let anyone stop you from voting. Call the hotline # 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) for advice before you go to vote or for help if you are turned away at your election location. When you go to vote, take good ID, your cell phone, note paper & pencil. And carry the hotline # with you. For more information on protecting your vote, check out this story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/myra-armstrong/easy-steps-to-ensure-your_b_136904.html
October 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't remember the exact number but I believe there were 30,000 votes that were not counted in NM in 2000.
www.stealbackyourvote.org with RFK Jr. and Greg Palast have some instructions about what to do if various things happen when we try to vote and are obstructed in any way.
You can find out through them about the hundreds of thousands of votes that were not counted in previous elections.
I think what they suggest first and foremost that we NOT accept a 'provisional ballot.
I think we have to be prepared to wait a few weeks for elections results if things are really close.
October 23, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of the NM voters whose registration came up 'disappeared' during the NM Democratic Presidential Preference Caucus in February, and I and many of my friends and neighbors were interviewed by Palast. Seventeen thousand people voted by provisional ballot in the Caucus, myself included. If I had to do it over, I would have raised a huge scene and demanded I receive a normal ballot. I was not provided any envelope for my provisional ballot, and it was likely invalidated for that reason.
There were and still may very well be problems with the Secretary of State's registered voter database, which is in the repository of the private company E S & S. The GOP is waging war on NM voters, from every possible direction. But the good news is we have a very strong voter protection network, as well as the campaign efforts. We aren't going to be blind-sided this time! Pay special attention to how many of the GOP's challenges and scare tactics involve absentee ballots. I don't think this is merely coincidence.
October 24, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could be pushing back BEFORE the electon -- such as going after Rogers and his private investigator: voter intimidation is ILLEGAL, and if it is STOPPED in its tracks BEFORE the election, then it is more likely it WON'T occur ON election day.
What I don't get is why no one is suing the GOP, RIGHT NOW, for the ILLEGALITIES they are engaged in RIGHT NOW.
October 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
...which is the reason that I generated this post.
October 24, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink