« | »

Don’t Have To Have A Residence To Vote

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Ohio homeless must be allowed to vote, federal judge says

Posted by Terry Oblander/Plain Dealer Reporter October 28, 2008

Homeless people cannot be denied the right to vote because the grate they sleep on doesn’t have an address, a federal magistrate has ruled.

Edmund Sargus, a U.S. District Court judge for southern Ohio, on Monday ordered Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner not to reject provisional ballots that fail to list a building address on a provisional voting envelope.

Sargus also ordered Brunner not to reject provisional ballots because of poll worker error, “including failing to sign a provisional envelope.”

The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless had asked the court for a preliminary injunction dealing with issues affecting the homeless.

Cleveland attorney Subodh Chandra, who represents the coalition, told the court that a Cuyahoga County Board of Elections training and compliance officer said in an Oct. 21 deposition that his board did not plan to count ballots for homeless people who could not list a home address.

Alas, this is not really a new development. ACORN and the ACLU have already gotten this “right” in various states like Michigan.

From an operation calling itself TheUptake.org, via MySpaceTV Videos:

No Home = No Vote

How do you vote when you don’t own a home? From Detroit we hear first hand that it’s not easy, if sometimes just impossible. What’s being done to prevent that this election? We listen in on an ACLU session and find out how people who can get legal help to vote by calling 866-OURVOTE.

Thanks to the good offices of the ACORN and the ACLU, people around the country (such as in Michigan) can vote — even if they have no address.

As the ACLU lawyer in the clip explains, all you need is a cross street.

And never mind that this ultimately means that anyone can vote in any number of different precincts.

(Click to enlarge)

You see, Uptake is just as concerned as the ACLU and ACORN is about “protecting the vote.”

But where were these people when the Democrat forces in Florida were trying to throw Ann Coulter in jail for allegedly voting in the wrong district?

By the way, 866-OURVOTE takes you to the Orwellian-named National Campaign For Fair Elections, which is a front for the radical Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

From Discover The Networks:

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-662-8600

    * Uses the courts to bypass the electorate and its officials in order to gain what it perceives as desirable and “just” outcomes
    * Supports racial preferences and racially gerrymandered voting districts
    * Opposes Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism security measures

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCR) was established at the request of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 to eradicate race-based discrimination and the involvement of the private bar in enforcing civil rights legislation. Today LCCR uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia. Its “major objective” is “to use the skills and resources of the bar to obtain equal opportunity for minorities by addressing factors that contribute to racial justice and economic opportunity.” “Given our nation’s history of racial discrimination, de jure segregation, and the de facto inequities that persist,” LCCR elaborates, “the Lawyers’ Committee’s primary focus is to represent the interest of African Americans in particular, other racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all racial and ethnic minorities.”

Among LCCR’s positions are the following: (a) mandating that employers be subjected to outside investigations of employment complaints, while allowing employers access only to redacted versions of those complaints; (b) interposing in the desire of a city to protect its citizens from the high levels of crime common to housing projects (City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation; King v. City of Blakely Housing Authority); (c) suing to force communities to build low-income housing, regardless of the realities of the housing market in those communities (e.g., Huntington, NY); (d) pushing for the most radical possible reading of the Americans With Disabilities Act (e.g., Tennessee v. Lane); (e) requiring states to redraw voting districts in such a way as to guarantee minority representation (suits in Virginia, Rhode Island, and Alabama, inter alia); and (f) pushing for the broadest possible reading of “constructive discharge” in sexual harassment cases (Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders).

LCCR’s many affiliate offices have filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to limit the wholesale granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists. The organization has also opposed measures to guarantee that airport security screeners are U.S. citizens. Many individual members of LCCR are members of the Lawyers’ Committee on Human Rights, which has consistently criticized the Patriot Act and America’s handling of military prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Other members of LCCR are affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (with which LCCR is often joined in amicus curiae briefs) and the Center for International Rights.

LCCR’s activities are currently divided into six major campaigns:

Voting Rights Project: This project focuses on the reauthorization of provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Education Project: Founded on the conviction that “discriminatory educational practices” are widespread in American schools, this project “challenges discriminatory tracking programs, the disproportionate placement of minority students in special education and ‘dead end’ courses, … the biased administration of student discipline, [and] congressional initiatives that could have a detrimental impact on minority and low-income children.”

Housing, Lending, and Community Development Project: “All too often, substandard segregated housing in minority communities exacerbates economic, political and educational disparities. [This project] litigates fair housing lawsuits … to challenge discrimination in rental and private markets as well as in public and assisted housing.”

Environmental Justice: “Low-income communities and people of color are disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution and the myriad of health problems associated with poor air and water quality and toxic exposure. … Established in 1991, the Environmental Justice Project … seeks justice for people of color who are fighting to clean up contamination in their community …”

Employment Discrimination Project: This project “challenges all forms of racial, national origin, and sexual discrimination in the workplace … [and] dismantles systemic barriers faced by women and minorities in hiring and promotions.”

Minority Business Project: Launched in 2003 and based on the premise that “minorities face discrimination in establishing businesses and competing for contracts in the public and private sectors,” this project “works to advance affirmative action and implement innovative ways to ensure that minorities can compete and succeed in the marketplace.”

LCCR was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II, on grounds that it “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.” In addition, LCCR has given its organizational endorsement to the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign — a project of the California-based Coalition for Civil Liberties, which tries to influence city councils to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act.

LCCR also endorsed the 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and called upon the U.S. government to “[r]ecognize the contribution of immigrant workers, students, and families, and [to] end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status.” Moreover, LCCR endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks…

Alas, it almost goes without saying that the LCCR is a 501c3 tax exempt “charity.”

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, October 29th, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Don’t Have To Have A Residence To Vote”

  1. Liberals Demise

    Anyone for a lawyer rodeo? THIS is why Washington is not responsive to the people of this nation…..it’s full of LAWYERS!! Maybe its time to cull this herd of unrepentent money grabbers!! They are the main reason COMMON SENSE has done an “EXIT…STAGE LEFT”. I wonder who are the nut jobs and who are the guards watching them? It is our own system that seems to be undermining our election. Can anyone here say why this is happening and why we allow it to happen? Why is it that the minority is allowed to rule the majority? Why they apparently have more rights than the rest of us and their will is crammed down our throat? I’m choking here!!

  2. sheehanjihad

    “We The People” allowed this to happen. “We The People” can fix it. All we need is the courage to do it.

  3. wardmama4

    I’m thinking of filing a lawsuit that this moron combined with SoS Brunner is taking away my right to a fair, legitimate and legal vote on Nov. 4th. This is a disgrace to the Law, lawyers, judges, voting, elections, voter rights and just plain common sense.

    Two things: 1) ‘The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit affirmative individual right to vote.’ (Center for Voting & Democracy) and 2) Judge Sargus was a Clinton appointee.

    It just disgusts me to no end.

  4. katmeredith

    All voter verification laws should be thrown out. If the homeless can vote without verifying an address, what’s the point? Polling places, voter IDs, all a waste of money. Let’s all just count road signs and call that the official vote.

  5. Sir Corky

    This is clearly just a mechanism to allow voter fraud. As cruel as it may sound, I don’t see many homeless people pouring out to vote in the election. But this will allow all those Brownlee Ave. nuts to register as living at any random bench in whatever swing state they decide to go to and try to steal this election.

    ACORN would be proud of this decision. I’m sorry, but I think that if you’re too lazy to walk down to the county records office or town hall or wherever it is that you register to vote in your particular county, maybe you just shouldn’t be bothered to vote either.

  6. Enthalpy

    Sheehanjihad, Pogo was correct more often than not, and you are as well. It is disappointing at best to know that all of this has come about because we failed to do what was necessary to stop it. As you say, we can fix it. Failure is not an option!




« Front Page | To Top
« | »