Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Retool Election Code (New Mexico, long read)
The Albuquerque Journal ^ | November 13, 2004 | Editorial page staff

Posted on 11/13/2004 1:45:38 PM PST by CedarDave

Prime time in a big election year is sometimes called the silly season. This year in New Mexico it was ridiculous. Courtroom battles marked the months before election day. On Nov. 2, some 13,000 provisional ballots were cast in Bernalillo County alone, many by people who thought they were registered. More than half of the 13,000 were rejected. Long before the ballot-counting process ended Friday, it was clear that the cobbled-together, contradictory state election code is a loser.

Lawmakers should start from scratch and rewrite the code in the next legislative session.

It should be easy for citizens to register and to vote, and both processes should have a high degree of confidence. By any reasonable means, the counting of ballots should be streamlined and transparent. The language of elections law must be consistent and clear enough to eliminate what seems to be an endless list of lawyerly arguments about what it might mean.

VOTER REGISTRATION:
Armies of volunteers and paid workers added thousands of new voters to the rolls this year. But too many forms were improperly filled out. With some workers being paid by the head, there was an incentive for quantity over doing the job right. Beyond sloppiness, fraud is suspected in more than 200 registrations filed in Bernalillo County.

Workers should not be paid by the head. All registrars, paid or volunteer, should be trained, certified and sworn in by election officials before being set loose on the general public. To assure accountability, forms they turn in should be traceable to them. And the people they are registering should get a receipt or carbon copy that could be filed along with a provisional ballot should the original fail to be filed with the county clerk.

Lawmakers should also explore election-day registration at the polls, currently in effect in six states, including Wyoming and Idaho. With a separate line strictly for registration, it wouldn't slow down voting. There clearly would be added costs, but same-day registration would eliminate middleman registrars and the possibility of discovering on election day, weeks after you believed you had registered, that you're not on the rolls and cannot vote.

VOTER ID:
It is hard to read current law and not conclude that someone who does not turn in their own registration at the clerk's office must show ID when they vote. But under the interpretation of the law, if your registration form was turned in by whoever registered 13-year-old Kevin Stout to vote, you don't have to show ID. Meanwhile, anybody who submitted their form by mail must show ID at the polls and, according to another interpretation, the address on the driver's license has to match the address on the registration rolls. The easy way out of this nuttiness is crystal-clear law applied consistently. Everyone shows photo ID every time they vote. The picture has to match the voter; the name on the ID has to match the name on the rolls. Mobility is too high a hurdle for many students and low-income people. A utility bill or anything else with name and address should suffice.

BALLOT HANDLING:
Clarify, simplify and make uniform throughout the state how absentee, provisional and in-lieu-of ballots are handled. Lawmakers could expedite the tally by allowing election workers to open the outer envelopes of absentee ballots and sort the ballots before election day and, starting at 12:01 a.m. on the day, to do everything else but tally of votes. Lawmakers should specify that observers must be allowed to watch each step of the ballot counting, including the statewide canvass by the Secretary of State's Office. The law should clearly lay down the rules for challenging ballots and determine what identifying information on the ballots, like Social Security numbers, should be privileged.

Gov. Bill Richardson and the Legislature should put an election code overhaul high on the list of priorities for the 2005 session.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: campaign04; campaign2004; votefraud
Agree with all except same day voting. Also, need to provide proof of eligibility (i.e. citizen, non-felon, etc.). Registering 30 days ahead of an election gives officials time to check voter address, do a computer search, etc.

With the exceptions mentioned noted above, the editorial suggestions would seem acceptable for Congress to adopt for a uniform nationwide electoral process.

1 posted on 11/13/2004 1:45:39 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
I am given to understand, that despite the appearances and various commentary in the article and in public by the media, the details are that the Democrats found to their dismay, that all the money that they had poured into New Mexico in order to buy the state, including the massive union crackdown, did not give them the votes they expected ... and so they have tried again and again and again since November 2nd, to try and engineer a win for Kerry ... and they do not want to give it up ... rather, they want to cause a hang.

Ohio was the prime state, and New Mexico was the marginal state; but the Democrats lost both states ... or, that is, they are unwilling to concede, despite Kerry's concession.

The point is, they wish to state on the record, that the election was never really decided at the polls ... and there was really never a complete concession.

Sore Losermen II

They figure that nobody's really looking; and somehow, someway, some "win" can be achieved.

They intend to contest New Mexico, over and over and over again, in order to build a myth that somehow, the people were disenfranchised, dis-whatever.

2 posted on 11/13/2004 1:53:43 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute

It wouldn't surprise me. It's a real black eye for Richardson, who has presidential ambitions, that he couldn't deliver his state to kerry even though he has been an absolute control freak.


3 posted on 11/13/2004 1:58:59 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute

IIRC, there originally were somewhere in the range of 18,000-19,000 statewide provisional ballots. The President's lead before they started counting these was about 8,300 votes. Yes, if all had been accepted, there would have been a good chance of the President losing the state. However, once a county and the SOS certify the election, it's too late to challenge. Because of the President's current 6,000 vote lead, a recount will not change anything. And I believe the provisional ballot fight is over for this year.

However, in the future, provisional ballots and voter day regisitration must not be unrestricted so that a candidate or party can go out and roundup the homeless and illegals and drive them to the polls on election day with the promise of a meal or a fifth of wino wine.


4 posted on 11/13/2004 2:05:14 PM PST by CedarDave (Served with pride alongside the Swifties, USCG patrol boat, Coastal Division 13, Viet Nam, 1967-68.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
You wrote:

"Agree with all except same day voting. . . ."

I'm sure you're referring to enabling simultaneous registration and voting on election day. I couldn't agree more with that. It is a terrible idea that just begs for fraudulent voters to show up, then disappear when the votes are cast.

I really like this recommendation:

"Everyone shows photo ID every time they vote. The picture has to match the voter; the name on the ID has to match the name on the rolls."

Amen! And I think the federal government has a role to play here. Since we don't have a national id -- something else I favor -- I think the federal government should make it possible for citizens to acquire a new version of their social security card that contains their picture for instances like voting, though there are other times when it could be useful. I don't want to hear about complaints from people about how some citizens don't have drivers licenses and therefore have no picture ids. Verifying who is who at the polls is the essence of ballot security and we citizens have to expect, nay demand it!
5 posted on 11/13/2004 2:05:16 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

This is so reasonable, I can't believe it was written by a New Mexico newspaper.I thought that showing a photo ID was considered by all enlightened people in New Mexico to be Evil Voter Intimadation. I could go along with same day registration if it was done like the provisional balloting (the votes put aside and not counted till they are checked for cheating).


6 posted on 11/13/2004 2:09:43 PM PST by Blumtoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

The election rules are fine when Democarts win. Since this is likely not the case the whole system must be overhauled.


7 posted on 11/13/2004 2:12:26 PM PST by truthandlogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blumtoon

No, same day registration is an opportunity for fraud, IMO. And taking time to check on eligibility of same day voters just slows down the vote count process.

BTW, the ABQ Journal endorsed W and two of the three Pubbie congressional candidates (who both won).


8 posted on 11/13/2004 2:16:40 PM PST by CedarDave (Celebrate November 2, 2004 -- May it always be known as Vietnam Veterans Victory Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; truthandlogic; Clemenza
Washington State Board of Elections Supervisor sez:

You guys have finished your election...ALREADY?(!) Wow! How'd ya do it so fast?

9 posted on 11/13/2004 2:19:56 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("They don't want some high brow hussy from NYC characterizing them as idiots..." (Zell Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Lawmakers should also explore election-day registration at the polls,

Hell no. What's so difficult about registering 30 days before an election. Isn't it better to clean up voter rolls before an election than afterward?

10 posted on 11/13/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Arlen Specter's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

I would support a law that considered everyone with a driver's license or state photo-id would be automatically registered. To vote you would have to show the id.

Moving around is always a problem. Lots of people wait before changing their driver's license. But even after a move, the photo-id should be required, along with some proof of residence.

People who do not change their registration info within a reasonable time should expect problems. On the other hand, states should have a way of verifying your registration online or by mail.


11 posted on 11/13/2004 2:24:33 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; Cicero; snopercod
Please excuse my skepticism in regard to Democrats and especially Democrats in New Mexico.

There, "truth" is defined as, "whatever is said or written by Democrats."

There is no requirement for actual, geniuine, the real, truth.

There is no political or news media job requirement in all of New Mexico, that is, truth.

Probably because there is not time, in the day, given that all of the time, is spent on how incredibly over-sensitive are the Democrats, and how they constantly preen and posture around one another, and, that, there, is their daily bread.

24/7 posturing.

At the top, this takes the form of "I am with you! The people!" And then, after "work," there's a short walk from the statehouse to Rio Chama for steaks and charge it to the public purse, waiter.

New Mexico is no longer a state; rather, it's a kingdom.

The only reason that there is real progress and real growth, is because there are so many actual, real, working stiffs who are not yet under the union label.

In other words, everybody else is doing the actual work, while the vaunted Democrat Worker Voter Party studies holes in river bank mud, at a cost of millions, or argues over fence lines at a cost of millions, or decries water conservation in the name of conserving water, again, at a cost of millions, while also writing checks, millions, for new parks and things where, on rare occasions, I've seen some dog catch a Frisbee.

The entire state of New Mexico, for Democrats, is a giant public work, excepting the vast reserves owned by the many limousine liberals who complain about how much money they have.

Like Sam Donaldson, who owns enough of New Mexico, that you can see it on the November 2, 2004 Elections results map --- I've heard that it's the big blue area in the upper-left-hand corner, but that's only a rumor.

There are people in New Mexico, whose word is their bond, and a good one. Occasionally, I meet such people.

Yet, as a group, as a whole, the Democrats are not to be trusted in any way, shape or form, and especially their "retreat" known as Los Alamos --- which in Spanish, translates to: All of yours is mine.

Los Alamos is a honey pot of communist worker bees and has entirely lost its usefulness.

If the Nature Conservancy wants to return something to the wilds, they can spend THEIR money by giving it away unconditionally, to a project dedicated to returning the entire face of the caldera, to God's country.

There is nothing happening at Los Alamos, except spying --- the whole place, the town and suburbs and nearby villages, is 100% a giant federally-funded act.

We waste billions on that slope, that could be used to fund the Veterans Hospital system.

Am I going on and on?

You betcha.

Los Alamos is a joke, and even the commies know it.

What's the point?

Democrats.

You could close Los Alamos and keep open three Air Force bases.

You could build 50 C-17 aircraft that we desparately need.

NOTHING is happening at Los Alamos, except for Democrats taking home gov't dollars.

12 posted on 11/13/2004 2:27:38 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

No kidding. If somebody doesn't have their act together enough to get a valid photo ID and register a month in advance do we really want them deciding our future leadership?


13 posted on 11/13/2004 2:33:16 PM PST by BJClinton (And your crybaby whiny-assed opinion would be ....?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute

I think Lawrence Livermore has taken over the former mission of Los Alamos. Not sure.


14 posted on 11/13/2004 2:48:59 PM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton

I'm afraid that whatever King Richard[son] wants in the way of election reform, he will get. With both houses of the legislature in Democrat hands and with him keeping a whip in the form of threatened vetos of hometown pork (which he used earlier this year), he has complete autocratic control. Fortunately, for the nation, he is only governor of New Mexico. Unfortunately for the nation, he has his sights set on higher office and he and her tHighness, Hillary, may team up in 2008. Given that they are both control freaks, God help us.


15 posted on 11/13/2004 2:49:00 PM PST by CedarDave (Celebrate November 2, 2004 -- May it always be known as Vietnam Veterans Victory Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
*shudders*

We may have to get the feds involved in NM if we are going to have real change.
16 posted on 11/13/2004 2:51:26 PM PST by BJClinton (And your crybaby whiny-assed opinion would be ....?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Another reform I'd like to see is to keep all precinct totals secret until ALL precincts in that state have submitted their totals.

That would keep potential fraudsters from knowing how many votes they needed.

17 posted on 11/13/2004 3:11:14 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Yeah, I guess you're right. I believe that new book by John Fund (Stealing Elections) said that states that make it easy for people to vote don't have higher turnout than states that actually make people put out a little effort.


18 posted on 11/13/2004 3:13:34 PM PST by Blumtoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
Not too cynical, are you? Los Alamos voted for Bush 52%-46%.

However, what you say has more than a ring of truth. Both of the NM labs are money black holes, full of government bureaucracy and useless directives, unbelievable government sector fringe benefits, and general wasted time, effort and money. And most of the workers who enjoy this government largess are Democrats who don't live there but commute from the Santa Fe area where they fit right in with the other liberal intelligentsia who infest that beautiful area.

Yeah, I lived there for 13 years and worked for both government and then a private company with lab contracts. They did their own thing with the people's money, but when I was told to go out and get commercial business, they threw government bureaucracy at me: Contracts, government accounting procedures, and other endless restrictions on my marketing and travel. Because they had government contracts, everything in the commercial sector had to follow the same rules. No money to be made that way; couldn't charge the client enough to cover the overhead costs.

Finally I bailed out to a small business elsewhere in the state with a much more handshake way of doing business. Though I miss the sceneary, the government bureaucrats with their rules have yet to completely take over this part of the state. And, BTW, this area went to Bush 79.5% to 20%.

19 posted on 11/13/2004 3:14:39 PM PST by CedarDave (Celebrate November 2, 2004 -- May it always be known as Vietnam Veterans Victory Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; backhoe
Gov. Bill Richardson and the Legislature should put an election code overhaul high on the list of priorities for the 2005 session.

Oh Sure

Pudgy thought it was OK to give Monica a job (after the one she gave Bubber) and now they expect him to voluntarily close voter fraud loopholes?

.

20 posted on 11/13/2004 3:52:24 PM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Yes, but the crap that is going on here in NM is an even bigger black eye - Billy Boy would do well to understand that the American people are getting very tired of this nonsense.

Also, I think the nation wide rejection rate on provisional ballots is usually about half so that's not out of line and in fact would have been suspicious if not about that.

21 posted on 11/13/2004 4:40:38 PM PST by Let's Roll (For a guy who shirked his own job, Kerry sure was eager to tell others how to do theirs ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
My apologies; I do tend to over-react to oppressive, restrictive, reactionary "liberals" who run the various gov't bureaucracies (a.k.a. boutiques) that exist for the "closure" that said "liberals" need.

Los Alamos is maneuvering to keep the gov't spigot open --- that means that the controlling university authorities are playing politics --- yes, they voted for Bush, for job security; but around the area, the aforementioned "liberal" enforcers rule their politially-correct states of (like-minded) being ... while that is admittedly my impression, given that I have not seen anything to contrast with the general, thoughtless, careless, and coldly-insensitive-to-truth passion for Clintonism and fascist homosexual absolutism that is rampant uber all else, despite the facts of life and the facts, scientific, that would lead them away from their rigid self-containment.

22 posted on 11/13/2004 7:03:48 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Getting desperate to make good on his promise to deliver New Mexico for Kerry, Gov. Richardson today kicked off his "every vote must count" drive by asking the Bernarillo election board to include "Stone ballots" for Kerry which he says are located at the Petroglyph National Monument in Albuquerque. He says he has enlisted the services of a powerful shaman to ascertain the vote preferences of some of New Mexico's oldest residents. County election officials, complaining that they have no record of registration, nonetheless have been instructed by the Democratic Central Committee of Bernarillo County that in the true spirit of political correctness, that is is offensive to deny the right to vote based on corporeal existence, except in the case of a Christian, when not only is it permitted to deny he franchise, but it is mandatory. This policy, it is hoped, will deny Republicans from using this procedure involving dead spouses or parents.
23 posted on 11/13/2004 9:14:23 PM PST by BigEdLB (BigEd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; First_Salute
SOURCE: http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?nameid=votefraud

How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

1. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).

2. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).

3. Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)

4. Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00).

5. Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00)

6. Illegal aliens. These voters have long been a core liberal constituency, especially in California. In Orange County in 1996, Rep. Bob Dornan had his congressional seat stolen from him when thousands of illegal aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez (Christian Science Monitor, 9/2/97).

7. Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a "smokes-for-votes" campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/14/00).

8. Phantom Voters. These voters don't really exist, but their ballots do. In the 1996 Lousiana Senate race, GOP candidate Woody Jenkins had the election stolen from him when he discovered that 7,454 actual votes were cast but had no paper trail to authenticate them (Behind the Headlines, F.R. Duplantier, 4/27/97).

9. Dimpled chads. Those infamous punch-cards were a ballot bonanza for Al Gore. Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00).

10. Absentee ballots. Normally it's assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami's 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court (FL Dept. of Law Enforcement Report, 1/5/98)."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=votefraud

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=electionfraud

EVERY VOTE COUNTS . . . INCLUDING FRAUDULENT ONES!!

24 posted on 11/14/2004 8:01:47 PM PST by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson