Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights

[IJ Reilly]

Administration lawyers argue that only the Justice Department, not the voters, may sue to enforce provisions in the Help America Vote Act.

WASHINGTON — Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election.

Veteran voting-rights lawyers expressed surprise at the government's action, saying that closing the courthouse door to aspiring voters would reverse decades of precedent.

Since the civil rights era of the 1960s, individuals have gone to federal court to enforce their right to vote, often with the support of groups such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters or the state parties. And until now, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court had taken the view that individual voters could sue to enforce federal election law.

But in legal briefs filed in connection with cases in Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the administration's lawyers argue that the new law gives Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft the exclusive power to bring lawsuits to enforce its provisions. These include a requirement that states provide "uniform and nondiscriminatory" voting systems, and give provisional ballots to those who say they have registered but whose names do not appear on the rolls.

"Congress clearly did not intend to create a right enforceable" in court by individual voters, the Justice Department briefs said.

...

J. Gerald Hebert, a former chief of the department's voting-rights section, said he was dismayed that the government was seeking to weaken a measure designed to protect voters.

"This is the first time in history the Justice Department has gone to court to side against voters who are trying to enforce their right to vote. I think this law will mean very little if the rights of American voters have to depend on this Justice Department," said Hebert, who worked in the voting-rights section from 1973 to 1994.

...

But some former Justice voting-rights officials and some election law and civil rights experts said the department's latest position represented a marked philosophical shift. Historically, they said, the department had been aggressive in supporting the idea of private suits as an important tool in fighting discrimination and other ills, even where such rights were not clearly spelled out by legislation.

"Before this administration, I would say that almost uniformly, the Department of Justice would argue in favor of private rights of action … to enforce statutes that regulate state and local government," said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford University's Law School.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-votesue29oct29,1,3672493.story

[Thomas Veil]

Jesus Christ...

The right-wing media are misleading the public with outright lies...international inspectors won't be allowed to monitor the voting...and now no one but the government can challenge the results. Bush really is wrapping it all up, isn't he?

I hate to say this, but the resemblance between this country and the earliest days of the Third Reich are becoming more and more striking.

[3rdpath]

fascism, not freedom, is on the march!

[IJ Reilly]

Welcome to Bushworld 2004.

[solvs]

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

They are only getting away with it because people are letting them. I'm sure Hitler said he was only giving the people what they wanted. They didn't even realize they wanted it until it was forced upon them. Of course, by then it was too late. For once, I am thankful that we are in the land of many lawyers.

[takao]

Jesus Christ...

The right-wing media are misleading the public with outright lies...international inspectors won't be allowed to monitor the voting...and now no one but the government can challenge the results. Bush really is wrapping it all up, isn't he?

I hate to say this, but the resemblance between this country and the earliest days of the Third Reich are becoming more and more striking.

as long as no books are burnt and it's still missing those marching at night with torches it looks good for the US... and leading a "police action" against poland because of their support for terrorists and threatening your own country is still missing too !

[skunk]

as long as no books are burnt and it's still missing those marching at night with torches it looks good for the US... and leading a "police action" against poland because of their support for terrorists and threatening your own country is still missing too!
I think the congruence is remarkable. Nothing missing as far as I can see. Except military success, of course...

[Thomas Veil]

We're not burning books, but the mainstream media are pretty cowed under the control of big corporations, and a large percentage of the people believe the false information they hear on Sinclair, Salem, and similar networks and through radical right wing publications. Control dissent and independent thought. Different means, same end.

And heck, we've already invaded a foreign country under a false pretext, and we've got our eyes on others.

What Bush is really doing is laying down the foundation for a Fourth Reich. And no, I don't think that's too far-fetched a thing to say. Dictatorships begin by (among other things) manipulating elections, controlling the media, stifling dissent, keeping the people in a constant state of fear, spying on your own citizens, and taking a "if you're not with us, you're against us" stance. Bush has fulfilled all these conditions.

I just hope in two days it won't matter. (Though even if Kerry wins, the radical neo-cons will still be plotting to undermine him.)

[skunk]

I just hope in two days it won't matter. (Though even if Kerry wins, the radical neo-cons will still be plotting to undermine him.)
Unfortunately, of course, if Kerry wins, I suspect he's going to have to be be even more militaristic than Bush just to show his mettle.

[takao]

I think the congruence is remarkable. Nothing missing as far as I can see. Except military success, of course...

i would have to disagree ..the US led invasion was pretty successfull ... the problems seemed to rise after 'victory' (which didn't me surprise at all)

[skunk]

i would have to disagree ..the US led invasion was pretty successfull ... the problems seemed to rise after 'victory' (which didn't me surprise at all)
Whether it was "successful" or not depends on whether you believe Junior's Mission Accomplished claim marked the end of the war. I'd say that is a moot point.

[takao]

We're not burning books, but the mainstream media are pretty cowed under the control of big corporations, and a large percentage of the people believe the false information they hear on Sinclair, Salem, and similar networks and through radical right wing publications. Control dissent and independent thought. Different means, same end.

actually i was dead serious about the first two ...i added the 3rd one as a hint ;)
just like heinrich heine said:"where books are burning, people will be burning too in the end"


or another nice quote from erich kästner 1928:
"do you know the country where guns are flowering? You don't know it ? You will get to know it .." speaking about germany


it's a long road to dictatorship/etc. but you can be sure it's a wide autobahn... and the US barley started the engine ...

[LethalWolfe]

I dunno what every has their panty's in a wad for. I think it's completely legit position taken by the current Administration. Obviously the only people that should be allowed to vote are those that are likely to vote for Bush. :rolleyes:


Lethal

[Chip NoVaMac]

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

They are only getting away with it because people are letting them. I'm sure Hitler said he was only giving the people what they wanted. They didn't even realize they wanted it until it was forced upon them. Of course, by then it was too late. For once, I am thankful that we are in the land of many lawyers.

Right you are. The shame of it is that those of us here, on both sides, are the minority. We really care about the government. Too many others end up just sitting on the sidelines.

[IJ Reilly]

And the beat goes on...

Two lawsuits battle state law allowing voters to be challenged at the polls. U.S. backs the statute.

CINCINNATI — As two federal judges in Ohio prepared to rule on lawsuits contending that the state's procedure for challenging an individual's right to vote is unconstitutional, the Justice Department weighed in with an unusual letter brief supporting the statute.

Assistant Atty. Gen. R. Alexander Acosta sent a brief during the weekend to U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott, who held a rare Sunday night hearing in one of the cases, a lawsuit filed late last week by Donald and Marian Spencer. The Spencers, an elderly African American couple, are longtime civil rights activists in Cincinnati.

The Spencers' lawsuit contends that the Ohio procedure, which was enacted in 1886 and permits individuals to challenge the legitimacy of a voter at the polling place, is a vestige of "Jim Crow" laws and creates the possibility of disenfranchising a voter without due process of law.

Another lawsuit, pending in federal court in Akron, raises similar contentions. It was filed by two Akron residents, two residents of nearby communities and the Summit County Democratic Central Committee.

Ohio's Republican secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, is a defendant in each case, along with local election officials in the respective counties.

Acosta's letter urged the judge to heed the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which was passed in 2002 to help remedy some of the problems in the 2000 presidential election. In particular, the letter said HAVA permitted a voter whose "eligibility to vote is called into question" to cast a provisional ballot.

"We bring this provision to the court's attention because HAVA's provisional ballot requirement is relevant to the balance between ballot access and ballot integrity," Acosta wrote.

"Challenge statutes, such as those at issue in Ohio, are part of this balance," he added. "They are intended to allow citizens and election officials, who have information pertinent to the crucial determination of whether an individual possesses all of the necessary qualifiers to being able to vote, to place that information before the officials charged with making such determinations."

Acosta's letter also stated that "nothing" in the Voting Rights Act barred challenge statutes. Consequently, Acosta concluded, "a challenge statute permitting objections based on United States citizenship, residency, precinct residency, and legal voting age like those at issue here are not subject" to a challenge based on the language of the law alone, because those criteria are "not tied to race."

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, a veteran civil rights lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in the Cincinnati case, said he thought "the letter was highly irregular."

"The Justice Department is not a party to the case. They have not filed a motion to intervene in the case or filed an amicus brief," Gerhardstein said.

"They volunteered information that goes beyond any federal interest. It's startling to say that challengers can bring information to [the official] poll watchers. That presumes they will bring in outside information. If you are a poll watcher, how are you going to evaluate that information on the spot?" Gerhardstein wondered.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-ohio1nov01,1,2827306.story

[mactastic]

So in 2000 the argument was 'well you needed to file those lawsuits BEFORE the election for them to count NOW' and now it's 'no you can't file any lawsuits before the election' either?

[IJ Reilly]

Hey, whatever works. I believe Americans as a whole fail to appreciate how thoroughly their government has been hijacked by right wing radicals. They have goals, not principles.

[pseudobrit]

States' rights, anyone?