Colorado's Katherine Harris Threatens the '08 Election
My home state of Colorado, as anyone following the election campaign knows, is a major presidential battleground state. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have visited the state multiple times, including in recent/coming days. Though a new poll shows Obama taking a commanding 12-point lead, everyone expects both the presidential and U.S. Senate race here to be very close. That's why the Secretary of State Mike Coffman's (R) moves should worry everyone in Colorado and elsewhere. We've got our own Katherine Harris here -- and a careful look at the news suggests he's moving to game this election in a state that could be the Florida of 2008.
I say "careful look" because Coffman's behavior -- while outrageous and potentially election-throwing -- has received coverage mostly in the back pages of local newspapers (and similarly little attention from the national media). But if you bother to dig down, you will see what I'm talking about -- and it's scary.
Here's page 21 of Saturday's Rocky Mountain News:
The story on the left describes Coffman's efforts to invalidate roughly 5,000 registrations (depending on which source you ask). Here's the crux of what's going on:
"5,000 Coloradans whose voter status is in limbo because of [a] controversial check box...The registration form asks for a driver's license or state ID number. If applicants don't have that, they're supposed to check a box and then put down at least the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. But thousands of people didn't check the box. According to a policy adopted last year by Secretary of State Mike Coffman, these applications are supposed to be listed as incomplete...National and local voting-rights organizations criticize Coffman's policy, saying it violates other federal laws. They say Coffman is unfairly putting up barriers for people who are eligible to vote and want him to change his policy."
The check box is "controversial" because you are asked to check it on the form if you don't "have" a driver's license or ID card. Here's what it looks like on the form (which you can download and see yourself here):
So, here's the thing -- what's the definition of "have?" I may have one at my house or in my car, but not with me at the very moment I am filling out the registration form. In that case, it would be logical - and, in fact, honest -- for me to not check that box, while also putting down the last four digits of my social security number as my selected method of verifying my registration. Alternately, for whatever reason (privacy, etc.), I may simply feel more comfortable listing the last 4 digits of my social security number, rather than my entire driver's license number. So therefore, I might have listed my social security number and not checked the box.
And yet, if you made any of those logical choices -- if you gave all the social security information required by law, but simply didn't check the box - Coffman is attempting to use that choice to potentially invalidate your registration and prevent you from voting.
In case you think Coffman's move isn't extreme or motivated by partisanship, consider the fact that two big Republican counties are doing exactly the opposite of Coffman. As the Rocky Mountain News notes, "Election officials in Jefferson and Larimer counties also disagree with Coffman, saying they are weighing in on the side of the voter and won't disqualify people because of what they call a technicality." The Denver Post reports that Coffman reacted by sending a letter to other counties telling them they cannot follow suit, meaning two Republican counties are registering these voters, but others are not.
Thus, it isn't surprising that the Rocky Mountain News notes that "the largest number [of registrations affected by Coffman's edict] are Democrats, followed closely by unaffiliated voters," and "hundreds live in predominately minority neighborhoods in Denver and Aurora" (ie. traditionally Democratic constituencies).
Remember, Coffman is an up-and-coming Republican "star" -- he's simultaneously Secretary of State and running to replace Colorado U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R). So he's not some nonpartisan election observer -- as I said before, he's positioning himself to be Katherine Harris, who also went on to use her notoriety as an election thief to win a seat in Congress.
And Mike Coffman in particular understands that 5,000 Democratic votes is no small number in a place like Colorado. A 12,000 vote switch from Republican to Democrat in 2006 would have cost him his election to the Secretary of State's office.
To be sure, there are going to be a lot of election-day shenanigans all over the country, much of it in the shadows. But what we're seeing here in Colorado is a very public attempt to use Republican-controlled offices to potentially disenfranchise thousands and rig the election. Indeed, the Denver Post now reports that Coffman has asked his fellow Republican crony, state Attorney General John Suthers (R), to validate his moves with an official legal opinion so as to trip up potential pre- and post-election legal challenges to the disenfranchisement. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's happening all right out in the open for everyone to see.
It all adds up to the kind of coordinated Republican scheme we've seen in the last two elections. And once again, that scheme could throw a national election.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Come on Mr. Sirota? I do not see any problem in understanding the question, "do you have CO license?" If you reside and drive in CO then you do have a drivers license. What is wrong here is not the form (or the question), but classifying the applicants as unverifiable. There is no reason why the info cannot be verified. To dismiss 5,000 voters on such a lame excuse is a criminal act. What voters need are constitutional protection of their right to vote. Only then will this problem be solved.
I hope the Obama campaign is aware of this...is there anything they can do????
Why is this so hard? A law. A simple law...
Anyone running for office or actively engaged in a political candidate's campaign cannot oversee elections -- at the local, state and federal level.
I agree, AuntSally, great idea. One problem: the political parties that benefit from this glaring affront to democracy would have to pass it. I won't hold my breath for Nancy "No Impeachment" Pelosi to do the right thing.
Sirota has been stressing the solution: our participation is the last thing the party leaders want. The party leaders have turned our electoral system into their own perpetual motion cash machines.
I'm anxious to see how well naked partisanship survives this election. Has McCain dealt it a death blow? What will be the response of the neocon crazies? As a Kucinich supporter, I have no illusions about Obama.
He's definitely a transformational character, but he's still a militarist when it comes to foreign policy. "You can bomb the world to pieces," Michael Franti sings, "but you can't bomb it into peace."
And while we're on the subject of glaring affronts to democracy, how 'bout that Commission on Presidential Debates? There's another opportunity for We, the People to reassert our sovereignty over our election of our president. This election has been a Shock Doctrine puppet show, IMO, since the Dems blatantly kicked Kucinich out of the debates.
Sounds FABULOUS!!!!! I've been wondering since the 2004 election how a man like Ken Blackwell could not only be overseeing the election, but also be the chairman of the bush/cheney campaign in his state!!!
Apply the same rule that federal employees have to deal with that they cannot be part of a partisan campaign while on official business!!
David, Out In The Open is kinda right....b
It should be obvious by now that the Republican Party has no interest in restoring the integrity of the ballot box, and no interest in honest elections. The GOP is no longer a political party, but a criminal organization intent on hijacking our government for its own purposes. We need to restore the ballot box, enforce existing voter rights laws, and stiffen penalties for interfering with the electoral process or tampering with election results. Make any conviction a ten year minimum sentence with no chance of parole or early release.
Since a fair and just election process is fundamental to democracy, I think that anyone convicted of interfering or tampering with elections should get an automatic sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole.
Amen! Should the absolue worst happen in the presidential election (and let's not kid ourselves, it could!), but Congress increases its strength, voter suppression should be the first thing on the agenda. Mr. Waxman, where are you?
When there are no-bid contracts, bailouts, and special rules for your friends, the blatant corruption of the American government by Republicans will never be acknowledged by those who profit: the American media empires and big corporations.
If the wealthy and powerful have to assent to the election of Obama, you can bet they will try their utmost to see him compromise. Buying off Congress would be their alternative. Either way, the media will be a lapdog.
He's right that voter fraud/suppression isn't getting a lot of press. It's also FRUSTRATING! RFK Jr's Rolling Stone got a lot of press when he made the rounds of the talk shows. Rachel Maddow had him try to "Talk her down" -- and he couldn't. But last night on her show, when asking a Colorado Dem congressman how he thought their state would go, neither one mentioned suppression! And the polls! Systematic and systemic voter suppression FOR WHICH WE HAVE NUMBERS (such as the ones mentioned above, IS GOING TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME. Why, oh why, can't we have some measure of how this is going to affect those poll numbers being regurgitated every day? There should be a Plus or Minus Fraud calculation done for every one! Please! Don't you think so Mr. Sirota?
Isn't this taxation without representation?
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why it's legal for a PARTISAN secretary of state to be in charge of elections while also running for office on the election that they are in charge of, or while being in charge of the state campaign for a presidential candidate!
"Legal" is as Congress does, LeftRight, and Congress is controlled by the parties who benefit from this outrage. What are we going to do about it?
Legality and justice aren't necessarily the same, eh? If we want justice, we can't leave it up to the parties. Our Republic was never designed to be a spectator sport, after all.
My greatest hope for post-election America is for this groundswell of participation not to ebb too much. Electing a black man, even one as transformational as Obama, won't solve all our problems. The neocon crazies aren't going to just give up, if Obama wins, right?
I know that it is legal, I'm just trying to figure out WHY it's legal! I know that federal employees cannot act for a partisan election, on duty or off, and I know that most state employees have the same rule, and it's also illegal to for a person on a committee to take gifts from someone who depends on that committee, so why is it legal for a person in charge of elections to be the leader of a party in a certain state!
BBC overnight reports on voter suppression in Colorado and Pennsylvania , as an expert they talk to Karl Rove. who says "All Americans should have a national I.D."
Isn't this like asking Jesse James what he thinks about train robbery. .
BBC should think about becoming complicit in a crime.
Oh if we only had a justice department. Karl ?
There are reasons why Karl Rove and his merry band of thugs want everyone to have a "national i.d.", and it has very little to do with preserving the integrity of the ballot box.
I am so sick of public officials, who are paid by the taxpayers, making it difficult for Americans to exercise their right to vote. From registration forms to ballots, it seems that the mission statement is to make the paperwork as confusing as possible. This is either a grand conspiracy or total incompetence, both are completely unacceptable. In a democracy (do we still have one?), the act of voting should be one of the easiest tasks a citizen can perform.
I think when you are issued a social security card, you should be registered to vote (i.e., automatically). If for some reason you are not able to vote at the time (like if you're 5), then the registration becomes active on your 18th birthday. Everyone eligible to vote should be registered, and then he/she can choose whether or not he/she exercises his/her right to vote.
It should be national, and you would be required to update changes of address (which you have to notify SS of anyway), but it is clear we can no longer trust state and local officials to act in the best interests of the voters. Voting is a right, and maybe we need to revisit the voting rights laws in order to make sure that no one who is qualified to vote is kept from voting EVER.
The problem with that is that SSNs are applied for at the birth of a child. They are required for IRS forms to claim the child as a dependent. I am sure the republicans are not going to agree with pre-registering all infants.
What about a decent "Motor Voter" registration law? I know it exists, but states are allowed to enact it in their own way.
What about same day registration for all 50 states? We have it in Wisconsin, and we aren't the only state that makes it works, although some state republicans are trying to change it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
