partisan politics

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

On Sept. 10, reporter Eartha Jane Melzer of online publication, the Michigan Messenger broke the story that the GOP of Macomb County, Mich. was planning to use public lists of foreclosures to challenge the eligibility of potentially thousands of low-income and minority voters in that hard-hit region. Since that time (and at least party through Project Vote's efforts to catalyze action to stop the illegal disenfranchisement), the story has been picked up by multiple news outlets around the country and generated a lawsuit from the Obama campaign and the DNC on behalf of potentially-disenfranchised Mich. voters.

Sept. 10

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Macomb County GOP chairman James Carabelli reportedly told the Messenger in the Sept. 10 report.

“The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters,” Melzer wrote. “More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans – the most likely kind of loan to go into default – were made to African Americans in Michigan...”

Sept. 11

In a statement, Project Vote attorney Teresa James explained that Michigan law allows challenges at the polls only if the challenger “knows or has good reason to suspect” a voter is ineligible. According to James, the Michigan Secretary of State has clarified this to require that challenges should be based on “reliable sources or means.”

“Republican challengers with only a list of foreclosure notices will have NO evidence or reliable source to suggest that eligible voters have moved and are no longer eligible to vote,” James said.

Later that day, however, Carabelli denied having any such plans, according to a Detroit News report. Despite his claim that the story was a fabrication, Melzer “stands by her story '100 percent' and has clear notes on her conversation with Carabelli.”

Sept. 12

James sent a letter on behalf of Project Vote to both major political parties in Michigan, offering a detailed analysis of state and federal law and the requirements for challenging voters based on residency. In the letter, James clarified that a change of address for any reason – including losing one's home to foreclosure – does not itself disqualify an individual from voting under Michigan law, and that challenging a voter on the basis of a foreclosure would violate the National Voter Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Sept. 16

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit on behalf of the potentially disenfranchised foreclosure victims, according to Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers.

“Democratic lawyers argued that foreclosure proceedings can take more than a year and don't always force a homeowner to change residences,” Gordon wrote. “Nor is there a basis, they wrote, 'for challenging the right to vote of all the renters who reside in an apartment building that has been foreclosed.'

“They said the tactic is intended 'to discourage, intimidate and suppress the vote of individuals whom defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for them.'”

A spokesman for the state Republican Party denied the plan to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters and claimed that they “never talked about doing it,” Gordon wrote.

The same day, “a group of Senate Democrats -- including Sen. Obama -- sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking for details on what the Justice Department plans to do to ensure voters aren't 'intimidated or harassed based solely on the fact that they have received a foreclosure notice,'” according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department 'is aware of the allegations and is currently reviewing the matter.'”

Sept. 19

U.S. Sen. John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked the McCain campaign to “'repudiate any efforts of the Republican Party and any of its state affiliates to engage in voter suppression and intimidation tactics,'" relating directly to the Sept. 10 report on caging foreclosure victims in Macomb County, Mich., according to a blog post in The Hill.

"'It is beyond disgraceful that the Republican Party now seems to be targeting those who are suffering the most,' Conyers said.’ It appears that individuals who can't recall how many houses they own don't understand how awful it is to lose your home to foreclosure, and don't know that you don’t need to own property to vote in the United States of America.'”

Conyers' anti-caging bill, Caging Prohibition Act of 2008 (H 5038) has not moved in Congress since January.

Sept. 24

Congressional members and acting assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights division, Grace Chung Becker discussed the Michigan voter caging scheme during a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Administration committees, according to Jonathan Kaplan of the Michigan Messenger.

Becker said that if allegations of voter caging foreclosure victims were true, “it would be a concern to us in the Civil Rights Division.” She also noted that criminal prosecutors from the DOJ would not monitor polling stations this year.

That same day, the Michigan House Democrats announced the introduction of a plan “that protects the right to vote for residents who have received a foreclosure notice.” The plan is currently in the Senate, according to the House Democrats news release.

In Ohio, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner also took action to protect the rights of low-income voters in that state. On Sept. 24, Brunner issued a directive to county boards of election stating that they “may not cancel an Ohioan’s voter registration based solely on the fact that the person is involved in a foreclosure process.” Brunner instructed boards that they must comply with the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which says a voter’s registration can only be canceled due to residency if the voter confirms such a change in writing, or if the voter fails to respond to a forwardable notice and fails to vote in two subsequent federal elections.

Picking up on the severity of the voting rights issue and how it may impact national turnout in November, Ian Urbina of the New York Times reported how “federal election officials say they are concerned that voters are not being properly informed of how to update their addresses – a problem that may lead to the loss of thousands of votes.

The number of people who move “due to foreclosure or any other reason” exceeds the number of people who notified the election boards.” According to Urbina, 375,000 Ohio residents filed for a change of address with the U.S. Postal Service, but only 24,000 updated their voter registration information. Similarly, in Missouri, 250,000 people notified the Postal Service of their move, but only 22,000 told the election board.

Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio sent notices to residents in select counties who have filed for change of address, but did not update voter registration, Urbina wrote.

On Sept. 24 Project Vote sent letters to the DNC and the RNC, as well as to Secretaries of State, Attorneys-General, and state party chairs in key states where we are conducting voter registration work and fear large numbers of low-income voters could be susceptible to similar caging tactics, including Ariz., Colo., Fla., N.M., Penn., Nev., N.C., Va., Ohio, Md., Mo. and Ga.. Project Vote also sent a letter to the Department of Justice, outlining the legal ramifications of this and other voter caging operations, and demanding investigation and prosecution of acts that violate voter rights under the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and other federal laws.

Sept. 26

The Washington Post reported that Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler instructed the state and local election officials to ensure that voters who have lost their homes to foreclosures are aware that they have not lost their right to vote.

“Terry Speigner, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee in Prince George's County, said his phone 'has been burning up' with calls about the rumor in Maryland,” according to Post writer, Ovetta Wiggins.

“A foreclosure is not a valid basis on which to challenge a registered voter at the polls,” Gansler wrote in the letter to officials.

As we were following the voter caging story in Michigan, the Republican National Committee decided to heighten their attack on the nation's largest nonpartisan voter registration drive and its connection to presidential candidate Barrack Obama – another voter suppression effort that could create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation at the polls, according a Sept. 28 NPR report by Pam Fessler.

Quick Links:

“Voter Caging.” Project Vote.

James, Teresa. “Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters.” Project Vote. September 2007.

Minnite, Lorraine. “The Politics of Voter Fraud.” Project Vote. March 2007.

Erin Ferns is a research analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department.

Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Partisan political operatives in Michigan are taking voter caging operations to depths that would surprise even the most cynical observers of American elections. If their plans are put into action, thousands of Michigan foreclosure victims may find that they will not only have lost their homes this year, but also their vote.

Operatives in the closely contested state, which is home to thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure, are “gearing up for a comprehensive voter challenge campaign,” according to Eartha Jane Melzer of the Michigan Messenger Wednesday. The state allows parties to send election challengers to polls to challenge the eligibility of voters if they “have good reason to believe” a voter is ineligible. In this case, the GOP of Macomb County—a “key swing county” with a foreclosure rate in the top three percent in the nation—has announced plans to challenge the voting eligibility of foreclosure victims based on residency.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Macomb County GOP chairman James Carabelli told the Messenger.

J. Gerald Herbert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department, questions what he calls a “mean-spirited” and possibly legally-baseless tactic: “You can't challenge people without a factual basis for doing so...I don't think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”

Teresa James, attorney for Project Vote, agrees. In a statement released today, James explains that Michigan law allows challenges at the polls only if the challenger “knows or has good reason to suspect” a voter is ineligible. According to James, the Michigan Secretary of State has clarified this to require that challenges should be based on “reliable sources or means.”

“Republican challengers with only a list of foreclosure notices will have NO evidence or reliable source to suggest that eligible voters have moved and are no longer eligible to vote,” says James.

“The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters,” Melzer writes. “More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans – the most likely kind of loan to go into default – were made to African-Americans in Michigan...”

Melzer points out that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's regional headquarters is in the office of the state's largest foreclosure law firm, Trott & Trott, whose founder has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the campaign. McCain “stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state,” Melzer writes.

“At a minimum, what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systemic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote,” says Herbert. “When you are comprehensively challenging people to vote, your goals are two-fold: One is you are trying to knock people out from casting ballots; the other is to create a slowdown that will discourage others.” This type of disruption would be expected in areas with high foreclosure rates, particularly the Detroit metropolitan, where one in every 176 households received foreclosure filings during the month of July, according to Melzer.

“You would think [the Macomb GOP] would think, 'This is going to look too heartless,'” says David Lagstein, head organizer for Michigan ACORN, which has registered 200,000 new voters statewide and provides foreclosure-avoidance assistance.

“The Republican-led state Senate has not moved on the anti-predatory lending bill for over a year and yet have time to prey on those who have fallen victim to foreclosure to suppress the vote,” Lagstein says.

Michigan is not the only swing state at the risk of voter caging issues this election. At the urging of Project Vote and other voting rights advocates, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner recently issued a binding directive to all county election boards, instructing them that parts of the state's challenge laws in relation to residency challenges based only on returned mail were unconstitutional. It is unclear, however, whether Brunner’s directive will prevent partisans from filing frivolous challenges anyway, which—however baseless—could have a chilling effect on voter turnout. And the Michigan Messenger reports that Franklin County, Ohio director of elections Doug Preisse and the chair of the local GOP have said they do not rule out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.

In Project Vote’s statement, Teresa James says “The GOP’s plan is a cynical partisan attempt to suppress the vote of thousands of low-income and African-American voters, a replay of the 2004 threats of mass challenges...In America you get to vote even if you’re behind on your bills. All Americans—particularly those members of the community hit hardest by the economic crisis—deserve a voice and a vote on Election Day.”

Quick Links:

“Voter Caging.” Project Vote.

James, Teresa. “Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters.” Project Vote. September 2007.

In Other News:

'No-Match, No-Vote' Law Draws Criticism - Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE - Advocacy groups predicted Wednesday that thousands of people, mostly the poor and minorities, will be denied the right to vote through no fault of their own under a new Florida voter registration law.

Can young people actually make a difference this year? - Slate
In 2004, the "youth vote" was supposed to break all records. It did and it didn't-but either way, it didn't make a difference for John Kerry, even though he won 54 percent of voters under 29. So it is with this year's youth vote: Even if it exceeds that of four years ago-Barack Obama currently commands about 60 percent of the under-29 cohort-it will be nearly impossible to say whether it made a difference.

ACLU launches campaign to get former prisoners to register to vote – Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin [N.Y.]
ALBANY -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today kicked off a six-week campaign to educate county election boards and former prisoners on the voting rights of convicted felons.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote’s Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).