Elections Are A Minor Inconvenience

Minnesotans want Norm Coleman to concede, by a two-to-one margin, so they can move on with full representation in their government. And the DNC has turned up the pressure by demanding that Coleman concede. But Norm Coleman and his business buddies don't care.

A group of several dozen of the most influential business lobbyists in Washington is vowing to raise and spend whatever it takes to bankroll Norm Coleman’s upcoming appeal fight, in the wake of a three-judge ruling declaring that Al Franken defeated Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race.

The group of lobbyists, which calls itself “Team Coleman,” is made up of some of the biggest players in D.C.’s permanent lobbying establishment, and includes executives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association and others.

“We will raise as much as is necessary,” Dirk Van Dongen, a leading member of Team Coleman and the president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, told me in an interview. “We’ll keep raising money as Norm needs it. We continue to be active in raising resources for Norm to carry out this fight to the end." [...]

But Democrats are likely to point to the lobbyists’ fundraising as proof that they’re merely keeping this battle alive to keep the seat vacant and prevent Dems from getting a leg up in the big upcoming policy battles involving the business lobbies, such as the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act.

Van Dongen (who is the father of WhoRunsGov editor Rachel Van Dongen) rejected that claim.

“That’s a side benefit,” Van Dongen said, when asked if the goal was to keep the seat vacant. “But this is all about us doing everything we can to be sure that Norm has had a fair election and to get him back in his Senate seat. We’d be doing exactly the same thing if the Republicans were in the majority.”

Well, there you have it. The amount of corporate money plowed into a doomed-to-fail project is a small price to pay for the "side benefit" of keeping that 59th Democratic vote out of the Senate. I wonder if Team Coleman funded any of the tea parties, too.

And we're beginning to see this obstruction and delegitimizing of the election system as a pattern. In NY-20, where Scott Murphy has moved into the lead on the strength of absentee votes and is heavily favored for victory if the numbers continue to flow in at this level, the Republican candidate Jim Tedisco and his buddies from the Brooks Brothers Riot Roger Stone and John Sweeney have decided that their best option is to suppress as many votes as possible, and use the language of "voter fraud" to deny legitimate voters the franchise. Despite the fact that actual cases of fraud are almost nonexistent. Not even the junior Senator from New York has been spared.

This just in from Columbia County: when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s absentee ballot came up in the queue, the poll watchers for Jim Tedisco objected to it, saying the senator was in the county on election day and should have voted in person.

Gillibrand's office maintains that she wasn't in the county on Election Day.

And today, a judge said that most of Tedisco's 1,200 objections are invalid. But this statement by a Tedisco ally says it all.

They're not doing it because they believe the votes to be illegitimate, really. What they're doing, in the days and now hours leading up to the court hearings that will decide the outcome of the race between Republican Jim Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy, is creating a fact on the ground for the judiciary to overturn, if it dares [...]

"It's always better to be ahead-that's the whole goal of this process," said Nick Spano, a Yonkers Republican and former state senator who came out on the right side of a lengthy recount process in 2004, eventually winning by 18 votes.

This will never end. The Coleman and Tedisco cases can be put on a continuum. Conservatives now see electoral results as simply a starting point. They have adopted the cries of "stolen elections" from 2000 and 2004 and turned them right around. It was all so very predictable. They've had a plan for stealing elections for years and years, and Coleman and Tedisco are just following the playbook.

The latest and most elaborate of these jokes is the urban legend that American elections are rife with voter fraud, particularly in the kinds of poor and minority neighborhoods inhabited by Democrats. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that fraudulent voting would be a major target of the Department of Justice. As the New York Times reported last month, the main result of this massive effort was such coups as the deportation of a legal immigrant who mistakenly filled out a voter-registration card while waiting in line at the department of motor vehicles.

But the administration has remained ferociously committed to suppressing voter fraud -- as soon as it can find some. In April of last year, Karl Rove warned a Republican lawyers' group that "we have, as you know, an enormous and growing problem with elections in certain parts of America today. We are, in some parts of the country, I'm afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses. I mean, it's a real problem.

"I appreciate that all that you're doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the ballot -- the integrity of the ballot is protected, because it's important to our democracy."

The goals here are to intimidate and alienate people from the voting process, suppress as many votes as possible, and delegitimize the victory, even if the Democrats manage to run the legal gauntlet and win. Eventually, Al Franken and Scott Murphy will be seated in Congress. But there's no harm for the Republicans to just keep on with the same dirty tactics, with a look to the next election, when they can whisper about how "the Democrats stole the last one."

...Howard Dean on Hardball today: "This could be a national pattern ... this looks like a national attempt by the Republicans to keep people out of office if they have a D after their name."

Special Election Delays Make Yacht Party Happy Campers

CapAlert gets around to covering the issue we covered on Wednesday - how legislative vacancies on the Democratic side embolden the Yacht Party and make it more impossible to pass a decent budget. What amazes me is that they get a Yacht Party leader to go on the record about it:

To this day, Ridley-Thomas' seat remains unfilled. Democratic Assemblyman Curren Price of Inglewood finished first in the primary last week and is expected to take his place in the upper house after a May 19 runoff.

Of course, that will create a vacancy in the Assembly, which will likely last until early October by virtue of the state's election-scheduling laws.

"Every vote we pick up, it is exponential for the Republicans," said Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines. "It gives us a lot of ability to move the debate and navigate to issues that we care about."

This is Yacht Party logic - they actually think a vacancy is a PICK-UP for them. It's the logic of an extortionist. No sane person other than someone trying to exploit would agree that a less-than-full legislature for years on end makes sense from a public policy standpoint. That's why we could significantly reduce the time of the merry go-round AND save millions of dollars in special election costs by instituting Instant Runoff Voting for special election seats.

But the Yacht Party has no intention of fixing the policy. They want to laugh as they see legislators walk out the door.

In Northern California, Rep. Ellen Tauscher has accepted an Obama post in the state department, though still faces the confirmation process.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, has already declared for the seat, and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, is said to be considering a run.

"Joan Buchanan should run for Congress," said a laughing Villines, hoping for yet another vacancy in his house. "She'd be an excellent congresswoman."

"It creates a better dynamic than having the ability of the liberal-controlled Legislature to just steamroll its own desires," Villines said.

A better dynamic in the sense of being a fake dynamic, where the elected will of the voters is not reflected in the ability of the legislature. I can't think of a better argument to repeal two-thirds than these two quotes.

Ending The Special Election Merry Go-Round

Assemblyman Ted Lieu, who joined Calitics yesterday for an online town hall, has an op-ed with Gautam Dutta of the New America Foundation arguing for an election reform he will soon combine with a bill, to institute instant runoff voting for all special elections in California.

Here’s the root of the problem. On March 24, 2009 barely 6 percent of registered voters showed up for a special election to fill a vacancy for California’s 26th Senate District. In an area with almost 1 million residents and 400,000 registered voters, only 23,000 civic-minded citizens decided who would replace former State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (newly elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors).

How much did this special election cost? A whopping $2.2 million of our tax dollars – nearly $100 per voter – according to the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder / County Clerk.

Unfortunately, we’re not even close to being finished. Since no candidate won a majority, we must hold a second election that will cost even more money. Because this is a heavily Democratic district, it is certain the Democratic nominee, Assemblymember Curren Price, will win. Yet Mr. Price must wait two months for a second election before he can be sworn in as State Senator.

Far from being “special”, special runoff elections cost millions of tax dollars to administer — at a time when governments have been forced to lay off schoolteachers and workers.

Obviously, the Assemblyman is making the fiscal responsibility argument for combining low-turnout special elections through IRV. But there's another crucial argument to be made - the irresponsible delay in proper representation in the legislature. Mark Ridley-Thomas was elected to the LA County Board of Supervisors in November, and his replacement won't take office until May. That's unacceptable, and especially so in California, where the Yacht Party uses the conservative veto to hijack the budget process. With a faster resolution of the Ridley-Thomas seat, for example, Republicans would have one less vote to use as leverage for the budget.

And this is more acute in the case of special elections for Congress in CA-32 and CA-10. Imagine, for example, if Sen. Gil Cedillo wins the Solis seat. He could be replaced by a sitting Assemblymember, which is the logical scenario. Then THAT Assembly seat needs to be filled. By the time all the special elections and runoffs are complete, we're well into 2010.

Enough. Instant runoff voting is a perfectly acceptable way to divine the will of the people without the need for a separate runoff election. The aforementioned Mark Ridley-Thomas has called for a feasibility study into IRV for these special elections. Lieu and Dutta explain:

With IRV, voters get to rank their choices, 1, 2, 3. If your first choice cannot win, your vote automatically goes to your second (i.e., runoff) choice. It’s like conducting a runoff election, but in a single election. If IRV had been used last night, the election for the Senate district would be finished.

IRV has already been adopted by San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, Memphis, and Santa Fe. Currently, Louisiana, South Carolina and Arkansas all use IRV for overseas voters. A number of prominent leaders have endorsed IRV, including: President Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, California Controller John Chiang, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Influential civic groups also support IRV, including: Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles League of Women Voters, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Asian American Action Fund, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and New America Foundation.

This is not only a budget issue, it's the right reform for California. Let's end the special election merry go-round.

Fat Lady Warming Up In Minnesota

Today the Minnesota Supreme Court denied flat Norm Coleman's lawsuit seeking to roll back certain precincts to pre-recount numbers because of a belief that certain ballot may or may not have been double-counted. If this is dealt with at all, it will be after the Canvassing Board has certified a winner.

This means that the only ballots in question before that certification are absentee ballots that were wrongly invalidated. Keep in mind that FRANKEN's campaign has sought to get those ballots counted, as the absentee ballots in general have favored him. The two campaigns, per court order, have to agree on a framework for counting those ballots, and the Supreme Court has offered an extension for that framework to be approved. There's been a tentative agreement on that framework, but it involves each campaign having a veto power over ballots, and the result is probably going to be with very few of those ballots getting counted. So I don't see how we move out of certification without Al Franken being awarded the seat.

What this whole process shows is how fragile and tenuous our election process really is. In close races like this, the flaws in the system are brought into view. That can't be changed for the purposes of this election, but should be a part of the future. Nevertheless, Franken's going to win this seat. Coleman's lawyers are talking about contesting the election, but their chances of succeeding are very, very slim.

Al Franken, D-MN.

I Not Only Deny The Allegation, I Deny The Alligator

The title is an almost certainly apocryphal quote attributed to Jesse Jackson Sr. Today, Jesse Jackson Jr. held a press conference where he denied both allegations and alligator. Crooks and Liars has the vid. As I said before, the question is what is the meaning of the word "emissaries." If people empowered by Jackson were sent to Blagojevich with the purpose of setting up a pay for play scheme for the Senate seat, that's one thing. If they were people SUGGESTING Jackson would agree to such a scheme without actual knowledge, that's another. Jackson says it's the latter, and Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't have Jackson on tape, so it's largely hearsay, and what's more, hearsay from a corrupted source like Rod Blagojevich.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is warning Blago not to make any Senate appointments and to resign immediately. The problem here is that Blagojevich is under no need to listen to Reid, and can make any appointment he wants, and while the Senate could fight it, it's unclear whether they have the authority to do so.

The solution, of course, is for not only Illinois, but every state in the union to mandate special elections for all vacant Senate seats as an acknowledgment that we live in something called a "democracy." Selection by governors is a relic from a time when state legislatures chose Senators, which ended with the 17th Amendment in 1913. That we haven't cleaned this up yet is a disgrace.

While there will be an undeniable whiff of corruption surrounding anyone Blagojevich picks at this point, there is an undeniable whiff of aristocracy surrounding our method to replace vacant Senate seats in general. Democracies elect people and vote on stuff. Monarchies and oligarchies appoint people and make decisions in small groups of elites. (And then they often make aristocratic appointments like Caroline Kennedy.)

Our Constitutional method of filling vacant Senate seats is a hold-over from a far more aristocratic version of the Senate. It was written back when Senators weren't even elected by popular vote. It's bad enough that states are granted Senate seats instead of people, thus leading to the embarrassment of our "democracy" where California (population 36,553,215) has as many Senators as Wyoming (population 522,830), where Vermont (population 621,254) has as many as neighboring New York (population 19,297,729), and Pennsylvania (population 12,432,792) has as many as neighboring Delaware (population 864,764). Click here for more population figures.

That population discrepancy is bad enough, so let's stop compounding it by appointing Senators instead of electing them. If we want to export democracy around the world, let's start by improving democracy here at home.

Right on.

...The entire Democratic caucus in the Senate has now called on Blagojevich to resign before appointing a successor for the open seat.

Voter Fraud Canary Not In Coalmine

TPM Muckraker is having some fun today going state by state and showing that not one Secretary of State or elections division has encountered any evidence whatsoever of voter fraud. Reports of voter suppression would be harder to come by because it's more difficult to figure out who didn't vote - in one precinct in Minnesota they ran out of voter registration materials (the state has same-day registration), and at another a Somali interpreter was telling people to vote for Norm Coleman, which may be extremely important in a close Senate race. But basically, the rumors of a "stolen election" through voter fraud were completely unfounded, again.

Of course, that's not the reason for the rumors. It's to suppress the vote, alienate people and delegitimize the election. Fortunately, with maybe 130 million turning out, that doesn't appear to have worked, either. The system nonetheless could use some reform.

Vote-Switching On The Stolen Election Refrain

Rush Limbaugh's first post-Obama program was a bit of a treat to hear. He of course said that this was a defeat for the forces of moderation and that conservatives can now "cleanse" themselves. I'm so glad to hear that he's gotten the message. But there was another part. He seemed to call into question the validity of early voting (heaven forbid we ever make it easier to exercise the franchise) and then he raised the spectre of the election being stolen. I expected this to be about ACORN, but no, he was talking about computerized voting. Now, never mind the fact that every documented instance of vote-flipping has gone from Democrats to Republicans, not the other way around. But he had this bug in his head that the election had to be the result of theft.

He's not alone and he probably co-wrote this memo:

Forensicon, Inc., a Chicago-based computer forensics company, was contacted last Thursday by a security firm lining up vendors to assist the Republican National Committee with consulting related to potential allegations of computerized voter fraud. It has been widely reported that electronic voting machines in many states are vulnerable to hacking by anyone with the right equipment and a few minutes' access to the voting machine.

Yesterday, noted Chicago resident Oprah Winfrey attempted to cast her vote for her candidate, but the vote failed to register correctly.

It has been widely reported that electronic voting machines in many states are vulnerable to hacking by anyone with the right equipment and a few minutes' access to the voting machine with a handheld computing device. The lack of printed voting receipts in many of these systems leaves the election ballots in many areas vulnerable to rampant fraud and abuse.

"If the election returns vary significantly from the polled numbers in any precincts that proves crucial to the election outcome, I expect that a legal struggle over the validity of the election results will ensue," said Forensicon's President, Lee Neubecker.

Now, as it turns out, there is a role for election protection to play in ensuring that the vote is safe and secure. Only it's mainly been administered from the left, and to great effect. Yesterday problems were identified, registered and fixed in extremely short order, thanks to a dedicated team of election protection officials. But that's not what the Republicans are going for here. Their goal is to delegitimize the vote.

And I really don't think it'll work, particularly with an election outcome this resounding. It'll be consigned to the furthest reaches of the zombiesphere, but I don't think it'll be a factor. Because they can't answer a simple question - how would you improve voting? Because that's not what they want to do.

That said, if the Republicans would like to sign on to a paper ballot-only bill, I could dig one up for them.

Random Bits

Because I can't totally think straight in between checks for poll numbers and early exits (which you shouldn't pay any attention to), here's some stuff I'm reading, in convenient bullet-point form:

• Conservative hero John Shadegg is paying felons and sex offenders to do his GOTV work.

• Great article by Paul Waldman on Why We Vote. And you can match it up with this older story, also from The American Prospect, from Scott Lemieux about why federal elections should be under federal control. The "irrationality" of voting when one person can't make much of a difference is magnified when you're in a safe state with virtually no electoral activity. Those who hate the National Popular Vote idea say that it would change the rules so candidates would only campaign in a few big cities, but that's just patently false. It's too expensive to do that. What it would do is force a national strategy of local get-out-the-vote activities, where neighbors meet neighbors, and civic engagement is enhanced, and the country is better for the exchange. Furthermore, we have to do something about these different states with different standards, voting on a Tuesday for no discernible or defensible reason, etc.

• Newt Gingrich is an idiot who doesn't understand the free market at all. Pricing carbon emissions would necessarily get those energy producers to find smarter and more efficient ways to create and deliver energy. And that wouldn't be a tax, but (finally) the recognition of the serious externalities of carbon.

OK, now off to biting fingernails...

Anecdotes ARE Data!

45 minute waits here in my little enclave in Santa Monica, CA.

Saw a line outside a sofa store with 100 people in it.

Spanish-speaking plumbing companies with little yard signs on the road have "Votar Obama!" on top of them just to attract eyeballs. Take that Joe the Plumber.

Lots of problems with voting machines in Virginia, particularly in Richmond.

Registered Voter By Birth

As the last of the lawsuits against ACORN gets laughed out of court, and as Republican Secretaries of State grumble about having to reinstate voters to the rolls, it's clear that, no matter what happens in the election, this insanity around voter registration and zombie lies about voter fraud has to stop. Exhibit A is the fact that John McCain's own head of his "Honest And Open Election Committee" can't name any evidence of voter fraud.

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said [...]

Asked for specifics about the dangers of fake registration, Ben Porritt, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, provided links to 13 news clips and a 2003 Missouri state auditor’s report. Eleven of the cases did not involve registration fraud. Two recounted how felons appeared to have cast illegal votes under their own names. The lone example of a forged registration leading to an illegitimate vote comes from The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who in April 2006 wrote that a community organizer had improperly registered a noncitizen, and “someone eventually voted in [the noncitizen’s] name.”

Michaelson, who served for 27 years as executive director of the Illinois Board of Elections, said the sharp exchanges over registration fraud have undermined voters’ confidence in the electoral system.

“The fact that so many of these illegal registrations are being made public raises a perception in the minds of people,’’ he said. “That’s more of a general concern. You don’t want to perpetuate the idea that our election process is lacking integrity.”

Asked whether his own party was responsible for fostering that perception, Michaelson said, “Well, it doesn’t help. It has captured the attention of a lot of people.” Why do it, then? “Maybe it’s because there’s nothing else to talk about,” he said.

Boy, he is part of a committee with the word "honest" in it, isn't he?

This is one of those "problems" that actually has a solution, a very smart and nonpartisan solution that would be simple to implement and would eliminate a lot of unnecessary labor. Rick Hasen asks for America to nationalize voter registration.

The solution is to take the job of voter registration for federal elections out of the hands of third parties (and out of the hands of the counties and states) and give it to the federal government. The Constitution grants Congress wide authority over congressional elections. The next president should propose legislation to have the Census Bureau, when it conducts the 2010 census, also register all eligible voters who wish to be registered for future federal elections. High-school seniors could be signed up as well so that they would be registered to vote on their 18th birthday. When people submit change-of-address cards to the post office, election officials would also change their registration information.

This change would eliminate most voter registration fraud. Government employees would not have an incentive to pad registration lists with additional people in order to keep their jobs. The system would also eliminate the need for matches between state databases, a problem that has proved so troublesome because of the bad quality of the data. The federal government could assign each person a unique voter-identification number, which would remain the same regardless of where the voter moves. The unique ID would prevent people from voting in two jurisdictions, such as snowbirds who might be tempted to vote in Florida and New York. States would not have to use the system for their state and local elections, but most would choose to do so because of the cost savings.

There's something in this for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats talk about wanting to expand the franchise, and there's no better way to do it than the way most mature democracies do it: by having the government register voters. For Republicans serious about ballot integrity, this should be a winner as well. No more ACORN registration drives, and no more concerns about Democratic secretaries of state not aggressively matching voters enough to motor vehicle databases.

Finally, universal voter registration is good for the country, not only because it will make it easier for those who wish to vote to do so, but because it should end controversy over ballot integrity that threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our election process. If President McCain or Obama makes this a priority, we can have the system ready in time for the president's re-election.

Of course, Republicans aren't serious about ballot integrity, and their opposition to this would prove it. They just want something to carp about and undermine confidence in elections. In addition, there's a credible concern, given how the current government has politicized the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration, that giving over voter registration to them might have dangerous consequences.

But of course, there are Republican Secretaries of State doing that politicization right now. And wouldn't it be nice to create an election system where people don't have to turn in a form or remember to vote at an old precinct if they missed the cutoff, a system designed to make voting easier instead of harder?

This is but one possible innovation in elections (like expanding early voting access, making Election Day a weekend or a holiday, instant runoff voting, a mandate for paper ballots, abolishing the Electoral College, etc., etc.), but it certainly would help to defuse this massive hissy fit we hear every four years like clockwork. I'd love to see Republicans oppose the concept of registering every American to vote.

Actual Headline

On CNN right now: Wife To Praise Husband.

I can't wait for the other hard-hitting breaking stories like "Hungry Man To Eat Dinner" and "Water To Remain Wet."

There really is nothing to cover here.

Hey guys, here's an actual story:

Today, the Obama campaign launched a new website aimed at simplifying the election process for voters as we gear up for a historic general election. VoteforChange.com is a new voter registration tool where voters across the country can verify their registration status, register to vote for the first time, or get the relevant absentee voting information for their state – all online.

"The number one reason that people don't vote is because they don't understand how easy it is to register to vote", said Jason Green, Director of Voter Registration. "VoteforChange.com, simplifies the process. It allows voters to register, check registration status, or find a polling location – all at the click of a button. By simplifying and explaining the process we believe that new voters will register, become involved in our movement for change and elect Senator Obama president in November."

I spoke with Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan about this today. The Obama campaign is really on top of this like no other candidate in the recent past, and he needs to be - the ground game is crucially important.

Returning The Party To The People

I hate to get off the McCain house train (and really, I hate to), this is a great move by Team Obama.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign will call next week for the creation of a commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012, with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle for the Democratic nomination between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The commission also will be urged to redraw the nominating calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at ensuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses.

Up for grabs: no more Super Tuesdays, moving back the calendar to at least February, adding absentee voting to caucuses, and reducing superdelegate power.

Primary reform isn't a sexy topic, but given the clusterfuck that we endured this spring it's absolutely essential to rebuild the stature of the party. Obama is doing the right thing, and by the way the Clinton campaign is involved in this as well.

This shows Obama is listening to the rank and file. I'm as encouraged by that as almost anything he's done so far.

Fighting For The Franchise In Ohio

In 2004, Ohio's election system was run by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R-Crazytown). We know how that turned out. In 2006 Democrat Jennifer Brunner was elected, and we're already seeing the positives of that.

Ohio has created a window in the election calendar that would allow residents instant gratification — register one minute, vote the next. It's also given the campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain a chance to bank thousands of first-time voters during that Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 window.

The move will benefit Obama, who enjoys a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18- to 34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month. If Obama's campaign were able to tap into college campuses with one-stop voting, it would add thousands of votes to his tally in a state where, in 2004, John Kerry lost to President Bush by only about 118,000 votes, putting Bush over the top in the electoral count.

Actually, the move will benefit America. Increased participation in the political process is a universally desired result, and same-day registration has been shown to increase turnout significantly. The same with early voting. And the same with permanent absentee balloting (a new feature in Ohio this year). Making the process easier benefits the country by allowing the widest possible range of voices to be heard.

Of course, Republicans don't want more voters, so they're trying to muddy the waters and raise fears of non-existent voter fraud.

In Ohio, Republicans are clearly not pleased with same-day registration and voting and have not ruled out a lawsuit against Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office.

"You have to wonder, when they look at what they consider a loophole with such excitement," said Jason Mauk, the Ohio Republican Party's executive director. "That would suggest manipulating the process, and I think opens the door to suspicion."

What's hilarious is that state lawmakers created this early voting window in 2006. When the governor was a Republican. And he signed it into law. So it's not a loophole.

Republicans want to open the door to suspicion as a pretext to suppressing the vote. Amazingly, they're engaging in the same tactics at veterans homes.

WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November.

I have witnessed the enforcement of this policy. On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.

Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

I carry around hundreds of blank voter registration cards in the trunk of my car for just such occasions, so I was able to register Mr. O’Nieal in November. I also registered a few more veterans — whoever I could find outside on the hospital’s sidewalk.

There are thousands of veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan who are isolated behind the walls of V.A. hospitals and nursing homes across the country. We have an obligation to make sure that every veteran has the opportunity to make his or her voice heard at the ballot box.

Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and I wrote to Secretary Peake in July to request that elections officials be let inside the department’s facilities to conduct voter education and registration. Our request was denied.

It's not such an incredible story, when you look at both candidates' record on veteran's funding issues (Obama is far better), and when you learn that troops deployed abroad have given money to Obama by a 6:1 margin.

This really is the electoral battleground: whether the organization of the Obama campaign can overcome the institutional barriers to participation thrown up by Republicans.

The Very Best Hires

I was very pleased to see this yesterday.

Obama for America
Dear --

Help Protect the Vote Real change only happens when new people enter the political process and make their voices heard.

That's why this campaign is launching an unprecedented Voter Protection Program that will fight to promote and defend the voting rights of every American.

Attorneys, law students, and those with legal expertise will be essential in making sure every eligible citizen who wants to vote can vote -- and that their vote is counted.

Find out how you can lend your skills to make sure every voice is heard in this election:

http://my.barackobama.com/VoterProtection

It looks like a 50-state effort that is starting earlier than for any other previous Presidential campaign.

They'd better be ready. It's very clear that voter suppression and intimidation is baked into the cake of Republican electoral strategy. Sen. Obama is in Indiana today and considers that a swing state, yet this is the state with the restrictive voter ID law that the Supreme Court rubber-stamped this year, leading to nuns in their 90s being turned away from the polls. Yesterday there were a series of primary elections around the country, and in Missouri a man was arrested for trying to vote. They don't require a state-issued ID like a driver's license to vote, but the election judges apparently haven't gotten the memo.

So this morning I walked into my precinct at about 9:45AM, along with my son. Both of us were carrying Precinct issued voter cards, bank statements and utility statements, all of which are acceptable forms of ID in Missouri. The precinct is in the basement of a church and there are two precincts there: 08A and 08C. As I walked in, there were a total of six persons. Three for each precinct [...]

The first judge was named Leroy (he would tell em his last name) and he asked for our IDs and was handed the precinct-issued cards. He left them sitting on the table and said, "You need to show me IDs with your signatures on it!", in rough, angry tone.

I replied, "No sir, I do not." and handed him a computer copy of the SoS's web page, printed from this location. http://www.sos.mo.gov/... / The judge did not even look at it, instead standing straight up from his chair, raising his voice loudly, and said, "If you don't want to vote, there is the door, and you can leave now!"

My reply was, "Sir, we do want to vote. My son and I have both brought the proper ID, and the Sos"s sheet verifies that. Now, if you are refusing to let us vote, please tell us why." And the reply was, "I need to see your signature!"

(Now bear in mind, the next step in the voting is to actually sign the Poll Book, at which time judges can look at my signature all they want. But what was being demanded was some ID which was already signed. Then it dawned on me that many people would only have signatures on some government-issued IDs, such as Driver's Licenses.
Compliance with such demands would result in voters having to show Photo Voter IDs without even the need of the GOP-controlled Missouri Legislature having to pass another Photo Voter ID Act. In effect, causing Missouri voters to comply with conditions which had been declared unconstitutional in 2006!)

With the sudden realization of what was probably happening,I had to make a decision. Glancing around the room, I realized that I had seen all of these election judges at past elections. What was the likelihood of them all being untrained, or them all having forgotten what the rules were in the prior election. I calculated the odds were long.

I turned back to Leroy and replied, "Leroy, my son and I want to vote. We brought what was required of us. I am holding the SoS's web page n my left hand. If you will not look at it, or read it, please call Charlene Davis at the Eastern Jackson County Election Board, or call the SoS's office to find out what you are supposed to do. Because we want to vote."

We were then told, "You can either give me what I told you to, or you can just get out that door and find someplace else to vote!" (as he stood towering above my son and I). I looked him in the eye and said, "Leroy, Nope! We will not leave until you give us our rights. We've a right to vote!"

Leroy leaned over the table and shouted, "Not unless you follow our rules here!" To which I replied, "Your rules do not trump the laws of this state! Please read them! This ID card (the precinct-issued card) is all I need. And slapped the card down on the table in front of him. "this is all that is required."

In the next moment an election judge moved toward me from my left and called to me, causing me to turn ninety degrees to my left to face him. I am fairly certain that it was the same judge who had insisted on my photo ID in February. Regardless, as I turned, the man continued walking up to me until he gave me a "Chest Bump" (like players or managers do to umpires in baseball games), and said "You either do what you're told to vote, or you get out of here NOW!"

I was beginning to feel like Alice, when she fell through the Looking Glass, but managed to ask, "And you going to evict me? Call the police?"

ASt that point, Leroy pick up the converstaion and said, "You leave right now!". I replied, "If you won't call your Election Board, I will." and pulled my cell phone from my pocket. I turned to my son and asked himn to take his cell phone and call "Election Protection" at the Missouri SoS's Office.

As we both dialed, Leroy shouted for us to leave the building immediately, and I replied, "Sorry. Can't do that. What you are asking is neither legal or fair. Let's settle this thing." And as my son and I were talking to our respective parties, Leroy also made a call... to the Eastern Jackson County Election Board.

As my son spoke to the SoS's office, I was asking for the GOP BoE head, Charlene Davis. Oddly enough, she was not available.

But Leroy did manage to get through to the Election Board, as Independence, Missouri, Police Officers entered the precinct doors. One of the last things that Leroy was heard to say to the Election Board was "Then we don't get the signatures??"

My son and I were grabbed by the arms and escorted outside. The two policemen who escorted us were soon joined by four others with two other squad cars. Surrounded, we were peppered by questions. Basically they were of the type, "Why are you bothering these people?"

The answer, as clear as we could make it was, "We aren't bothering them! We are simply trying to vote, and these people are breaking Missouri State Statutes, preventing us from voting."

The police responded, "Look, you are breaking their rules. If you don't get out of here, we are going to arrest you!"

The question I had in response was, "Their rules? What rules? Those are employees of the Election Board, they are under the mandate of the Election Board, and then the SoS. Aren't you more concerned about the breaking of state laws?" As it turns out, apparently they were not.

This guy was obviously testing the limits of the system, but in the end it merited him an arrest. And he actually knew the rules.

The elections process is extremely fragile and ruled by local boards and pollworkers who aren't always in possession of the facts. Add on top of that the institutional barriers to voting, with long lines in poor and urban precincts, and the more devious tricks beyond ID laws, like voter caging, etc., and the Obama campaign has a major task ahead of them. This won't show up on any poll or projection, but getting out in front of election protection is absolutely worth a point or two.

I urge any lawyer reading this to pitch in.

Not Just An Old Election Problem

A lot of people are talking about these allegations about Karl Rove's role in stealing Ohio in 2004. Certainly worth paying attention to and following up. It's just as important to note that the right is not only continuing these tactics, but mainstreaming them.

At a little remarked-upon hearing this week, Rep. Keith Ellison grilled liberal blogdom's favorite punching bag Hans von Spakovsky over the voter ID laws he championed which led to disenfranchisement a couple months ago in Indiana:

ELLISON: Now here's something that happened on the May 7th Indiana election. A dozen nuns and another unknown number of students were turned away from the polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the United State Supreme Court. Mr. von Spakovsky, you wanna stop nuns from voting?

VON SPAKOVSKY: [silence]

ELLISON: Why don't you want nuns to vote, Mr. von Spakovsky?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Congressman Ellison, uh-

ELLISON: I'm just curious to know.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Those individuals, uh, were told, were- knew that they had to get an ID, they could have easily done so. They could have voted, uh, by absentee ballot- uh, nursing homes under the law are able to get-

ELLISON: ...Mr. von Spakovsky, are you aware that a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a-

VON SPAKOVSKY: They all had passports-

ELLISON: Excuse me.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They had expired passports which meant that they could have gotten-

ELLISON: Mr. von Spakovsky, do you know a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a sister who's in her order and who knew her, but had to turn her away because she didn't have a government-issued ID? That's okay with you?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Yes...

Okay with him? It's his most fervent dreams realized!

Ellison didn't let up there. He asked von Spakovsky pointedly about the greatest hits of US Attorney/voter fraud cases in Minnesota (where US Atty Thomas Heffelfinger was fired for ignoring voter fraud claims) and Missouri (the infamous Bradley Schlozman prosecution over a separate voter fraud case involving ACORN). Ellison basically accused him of lying to the committee and von Spakovsky became indignant. This guy was on the Federal Election Commission, just to let you know how far these completely bogus charges have progressed into the mainstream.

This voting stuff isn't going away, and if anything it's going to get more intense as Republicans get more desperate. I can't believe that this article didn't get more attention when it came out a few weeks ago. There's no question that this will became an enormous issue literally out of nowhere this fall.

Election officials worry that the state's home foreclosure problem will pose a problem this November for voters still registered at their former address, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Voters in pivotal Ohio with outdated addresses face possible pre-election challenges and trips to multiple polling places. They also are more likely to cast provisional ballots that might not be counted.

"It's a real issue," said Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in elections. He wonders whether foreclosures might explain the increasing percentages of provisional votes cast between 2004 and Ohio's latest election, the presidential primary in March.

Ohio provided President Bush with an 118,000-vote victory in 2004, giving him the electoral votes he needed to win the election.

All of a sudden you're going to hear that these families forced out of their homes and relocated across the country are actually fraudsters trying to steal the election for Obama. The very fact of vacancy at the addresses where these people are registered makes hundreds of thousands of people prime suspects for voter caging. And you can be sure that re-registering isn't paramount on their minds, either. In battleground states like Nevada, one out of every 120 or so homes is in foreclosure right now. This seems like a huge under-the-radar issue that is receiving literally no attention.

And there's a nexus here between these potential minefields and the voter ID laws conservatives are pushing.

Ohio's requirement that voters show identification at the polls makes it more important that they keep their registration information current, said Jeff Ortega, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's elections chief.

In 2004, the Ohio Republican Party challenged more than 31,000 newly registered voters statewide after letters it mailed out came back as undeliverable. The challenges failed, but Brunner said a new state law requiring counties to mail their own notices to all registered voters could lead to another round of pre-election challenges.

There may be plenty of illegal disenfranchisement, but is anybody paying attention to the legal version?

My Money, Your Vote

This is some Tammany Hall shit, if true. And I don't think Clinton orchestrated it, actually, this is what some rich people do when they're trying to get what they want:

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

If that doesn't tell you that we have to radically change the delegate selection process, nothing will. Whether you're an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter, there can be no doubt that the manner in which the party chooses its nominee is haphazard, uneven, counter-factual, and simply unbecoming of a political party that prizes every vote and every voter. The system buckles when anything happens except a runaway winner taking charge early. The drawn-out fights get more drawn-out. The superdelegates decide the nominee, and even if most of them are elected it's unseemly. The number one topic on the agenda at the DNC after the election ought to be how to reform this busted system and come up with a primary process we can all be proud of.

I also agree with TBogg, the Presidency is not about picking the first whatever, it's about choosing someone fit to lead the country, and the devolution of this primary into identity politics was extremely unfortunate and sad, and it turned me off to the process in many ways. I'm over it now, but that's ALSO a factor of how the nominee was chosen. So it's all got to change.

Nuns

The primary results from Indiana and North Carolina should be pretty much projected by 8:00ET or so (and to me, it looks like a split, although Indiana looks to me like it'll be closer). But we already know who's won, at least in Indiana - voter suppression advocates like the 9 robed figures on the Supreme Court.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

This is merely the one story that's been reported. You have to expect there are many more; in fact there are several more later in the story. Of course, the Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts faction on the Court will tell you that's just the price we have to pay for dealing with the scourge of non-existent voter fraud.

Today's vote was kind of a test market for the fall. There's high turnout throughout the state anyway so I don't expect this aspect of the vote to be widely reported.

...a group of voting rights advocates that established a separate hot line reported receiving several calls from would-be voters who were turned away at precincts because they did not have a state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

One newly married woman said she was told she couldn't vote because her driver's license name didn't match the one on her voter registration record, said Myrna Perez of the Brennan Center Justice at New York University's law school, coordinator of the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hot line. Another woman said she was turned away from casting her first-ever ballot because she had only a college-issued ID card and an out-of-state driver's license, Perez said.

"These laws are confusing. People don't know how they're supposed to be applied," she said.

In case you're interested in continuing the mentality that allows voter suppression to be codified into law, there is a Presidential candidate that's right for you.

Here’s what McCain was really telling the party base: If you liked George W. Bush’s nominees, you’re going to love the judges John McCain will put on the bench.

McCain also touted his support for the so-called Gang of 14 as a supposed sign of moderation. But the fact is that he has voted to give lifetime jobs as federal judges to every one of President Bush’s most dangerous and damaging nominees. And they’re already eroding individual rights and legal protections. We’re all going to be living with the consequences of those votes for a long, long time.

The two Supreme Court justices nominated by President Bush are already making it harder for workers mistreated on the job to get justice. They’re letting politicians get away with making it harder for some people to vote. They’re redefining our Constitution and laws to erode progress on women’s rights, educational opportunity, environmental protections, and more.

We all know that a vote for McCain is a vote against women's reproductive rights, a vote against consumer rights, a vote against worker rights, and a vote for massive corporate power under the law. And we know that the Republicans aren't able to win legitimately, so laws like Indiana's will be replicated wherever possible in an attempt to game the system. In a sense awareness is a powerful way to counteract this - sunlight is the best disinfectant. At the same time part of me believes that the vote margin in November needs to be higher than the last two elections in order to get a result in line with the will of the people. But this is not a cause for despair, but a clarion call to get to work right now.

Dean's Long-Term Move Aligns With Election Reform

Earlier today I mentioned the Feingold plan for universal same-day registration. Some replied that "Republicans would filibuster it" and I think it's shortsighted to look at what would happen on this bill tomorrow. Increasing the voter base and mobilizing new support is the cornerstone of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, and it's a long-term vision that includes finding the youth vote and taking advantage of demographic shifts.

Step outside of Washington and assessments of Dean are drastically different, and far more favorable.

"I believe the Democratic National Committee should be an organization that is just what its name suggests, a national party," says Steve Achelpohl, the Democratic chairman in strongly Republican Nebraska. "We cannot sustain ourselves, particularly in terms of presidential elections, if we only have 15, 18, 20 states in play. Dean stands for the proposition that we should try to play everywhere."

The plan to do that, dubbed the 50-state strategy, is the fault line that divides Dean's supporters and critics.

Since winning a four-year term as chairman in February 2005, the former Vermont governor has poured tens of millions of dollars into the state parties. Computer systems have been modernized, and voter files -- the information used to solicit money and support -- are constantly scrubbed, expanded and forwarded to Washington, building a national database that should greatly help the presidential nominee.

State parties have also worked to invigorate the Democratic brand, each hiring the basics: a field director, a data manager and a spokesperson. "We've basically gotten people to believe that they can be Democrats in Utah again," Dean says. "That matters enormously."

This is all connected. Making it easier to vote and pouring money into local parties that facilitate that expanded access are two sides of the same coin. Dean knows that the long-term trends are on the side of Democrats, and that by expanding the playing field you dilute the power of big last-minute money and force candidates to compete. And if lots of people are turning out and the party organizations have the means to get them out, we win.

The biggest short-term hurdle to this is onerous election laws like the voter ID ruling. It also manifests in small ways like this outrage.

One of the major demands of may 1 this year was to fight against the disenfranchisement of nearly a million immigrant voters. Despite quadrupling the price of citizenship in the US, USCIS has refused to clear the backlogs of individuals waiting for citizenship- some 2 to 3 years. Nearly a million immigrant voters that have done everything we’ve asked of them in order to become citizens will be denied the vote in Novemeber if we don’t act NOW.

FIRM is teaming up with partners around the country to unite and push for a clearing of the backlog in time to let these people exercise their right to vote!

Yep. I think the DNC ought to be making a MAJOR stink over this. The executive branch has so much control that is off the radar screen - such as little things like this. The Presidency certainly matters. But so does meaningful local action on election reform, which will eventually lead in the direction progressives would like - full access to voting and massive participation.

Counterpunch

This is the best way to deal with that awful Supreme Court decision on voter ID.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) are introducing legislation to help more Americans register to vote by allowing Election Day registration at polling places for all federal elections. The Election Day Registration Act addresses chronic problems with the American electoral process – low voter turnout and archaic voter registration laws. Election Day registration is also seen as preferable to advance registration since voters are actually present when they register, reducing opportunities for fraud. The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), who represent states that recently enacted Election Day registration, are also cosponsors of the bill.

Same-day registration ought to be a core election rights value. It raises turnout in every state where it's tried, it encourages new voters to get involved, and as the Minnesota Secretary of State notes it's far more secure:

Allowing Election Day registration can also address concerns about potential voter fraud. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has called Election Day registration a “no brainer” and has said it is more secure than advance registration because “you have the person right in front of you – not a postcard in the mail.”

Minnesota and Wisconsin have been running their elections this way for over 30 years. Same-day registration states beat their counterparts in turnout by 16 points (70-54) in the 2004 election.

Now, this wouldn't cure everything enshrined in that SCOTUS ruling - you'd still need some form of ID to present at the polls under Indiana's law, for example - but it eliminates all of the barriers to entry associated with registration, and it allows voter registration and mobilization activists to focus in the states on free ID programs and expanding access to photo IDs in underserved communities. The end result would be positive for our democracy, increasing participation and giving voice to everyone who wants it.

I think this should be a legislative goal as soon as possible.

Double Bubble Trouble - 94,000 Uncounted

We have a number to attach to the disenfranchisement in Los Angeles County due to faulty ballot design - up to 94,000.

Spurred by confusion over Tuesday's voting, acting Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan said Wednesday that his office will examine more than 94,000 ballots cast by nonpartisan voters to determine how many votes for presidential candidates may have gone uncounted.

Logan said he also will try to determine whether the uncounted ballots would make a difference in the way delegates are apportioned between the Democratic presidential candidates and, if so, will seek legal approval to count as many as possible.

In other words, he doesn't want to count them. Because we know that there will be little or no impact on delegate counts. I went through this in a comment thread on Kos, but allow me to replicate.

For those playing at home, Los Angeles County CDs are 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41. Of these, 24, 39 and 41 are only partially in LA County.

24 - 8,000 vote spread, not changing
25 - 9,000 vote spread, not changing
26 - 12,000 vote spread, not changing
27 - 18,500 vote spread, not changing
28 - 17,000 vote spread, not changing
29 - 6,400 vote spread, in all likelihood not changing
30 - 4,000 vote spread but it's an even-numbered delegate allocation, not changing
31 - 18,000 vote spread, but if Barack picked up enough, he could get it back to a 2-2 split
32 - 31,000 vote spread, not changing
33 - 27,000 vote spread for Barack, not changing
34 - 29,000 vote spread, not changing
35 - 17,000 vote spread for Barack, not changing
36 - 8,000 vote spread, not changing
37 - 8,000 vote spread for Barack, not changing
38 - 37,000 vote spread, not changing
39 - 26,000 vote spread, not impossible but only a piece of LA county is in the district, so not changing
41 - 15,000 vote spread, not changing

There is no question as to the voter's intent; they asked for a Presidential primary ballot, requiring them to fill in a bubble certifying that is redundant and stupid. This isn't a delegate issue, it's a voting rights issue. And no matter what the impact on the outcome, those votes should be counted.

But the registrar appears to be doing all he can not to count them. Look at this spin.

Election workers will examine these ballots to see if voters marked a presidential candidate. But even if they did, it may be difficult to count them.

The presidential ballot for independents who voted in the Democratic primary was the same as the ballot for those who voted in the American Independent primary.

In the American Independent contest, there were three candidates running, while the Democratic Party had eight. The bubbles for the first three candidates in each party were in the same position on the ballot, making it impossible to tell after the fact if a voter was voting Democratic or American Independent -- unless that person also filled in the bubble indicating party preference.

I don't know if they moved them around from precinct to precinct or not, but the first three candidates on my sample ballot were Gravel, Edwards, and Dodd, who probably got 20 votes at the ballot box between them. So nice try.

(This, by the way, does resolve the mystery of the bubble a bit. They clearly had several types of scan-tron sheets; one for Democrats, one for Republicans, one for each lesser party like the Greens, and one for DTS. Because the Democratic and the American Independent party opened their primaries, the double bubble told the machine which primary the DTS voter took part in. The obvious resolution would be to have different scan-tron sheets for DTS voters in the Dem primary, and DTS voters in the American Independent Party primary, all 8 of them. OR, forget the capturing of DTS information and Democratic information differently, and just give them a Dem ballot. You'd know by the voting rolls if a DTS voter participated in a partisan primary.)

The Courage Campaign, which has spearheaded this issue, wants every vote counted, and they've put together a petition to submit to the registrar.

Unfortunately, Dean Logan, the Registrar in charge of Los Angeles County, is refusing to conduct a physical hand-count of every "Decline-to-State" vote before the official vote is certified in just a few weeks.

Every vote must be counted. And time is running out. Please sign our petition to Registrar Dean Logan today demanding that he conduct a physical hand count of all "Decline-to-State" votes cast in the Democratic primary. The more names we add to this petition, the more likely it is that the Registrar will count every vote.

Never again. Not in California. Not in America. Please sign our petition to Registrar Dean Logan right now.

And the Sacramento Bee is out with a scathing editorial.

A major voting disaster Tuesday shows the pitfalls of having each of the state's 58 counties set its own rules and ballot designs. Voters in Los Angeles County who belong to no party ("decline-to-state" voters) and who wanted to vote in the Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday got a raw deal [...]

Worse, acting Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Dean Logan told county supervisors that the county had used the same "double bubble" design in 2004 and 2006. In those elections, only 40 percent of the county's decline-to-state voters' ballots were counted. It is outrageous that the county knew of this massive disenfranchisement and did not make changes. This calls for an investigation.

County election officials knew that the decline-to-state vote in the Democratic Party primary Feb. 5 would be huge. Yet they failed to establish a system that would ensure that nonpartisan voters' votes would count.

Registrar Logan now has said that the county will look at the 94,500 uncounted ballots to see if they can "clearly identify the voters' intent." A clear mark for a presidential candidate should be enough.

California's patchwork of voting rules is a serious problem, and the Legislature should change it. The exciting 2008 election has encouraged a massive surge of participation. The state shouldn't squander it by disenfranchising qualified voters.

It's absurd that we have 94,000 disenfranchised voters and a registrar who's seemingly OK with that. Sign the petition.