PEOPLE, THIS IS BIG.
It is entirely conceivable a fraudulent activist could drive from precinct to precinct, naming him or herself a name from a list, and voting multiple times. But if that person keeps coming back before the same voting judge, they will be recognized and the police called.
This stops that. This forces any such fraud to not just have a name, but to know what precinct to go to. But then again, that person simply cannot come back to the same precinct more than once.
Poll watchers. USE DIGICAMS. This will also evoke fear of being discovered returning to the same precinct.
Iowa Lawyers for Bush - Saturday, October 23, 2004 report
Yesterday the Iowa Attorney General issued an informal advisory opinion in response to the Secretary of State's question regarding the counting of votes on a provisional ballot cast by a voter who is not a resident of the precinct. In brief, the AG opined that the votes for federal offices should be counted on provisional ballots cast by voters if they live anywhere in the county.
We have attached a copy of the AG's opinion and the related newspaper article that ran in today's Des Moines Register. We have also attached a letter that was posted on the Congressional website that the sponsors of the federal HAVA sent to all Secretaries of State yesterday in which they state their opinion that HAVA does not preempt states's precinct-based voting requirements.
Also yesterday the Secretary of State had scheduled a meeting of the Voter Registration Commission for the purpose of adopting an emergency rulemaking to amend the commission's rules relating to mail-in voter registration forms. As you recall, the AG's office earlier in the week had issued another informal advisory opinion that concluded that the citizenship box on the voter registration form does not need to be checked in order for a person to be eligible to vote in the upcoming election.
The emergency rulemaking would make the rules consistent with the AG's opinion (and inconsistent with statutory language that requires the box to be checked.) The meeting was not held because a quorum was not present (the one Republican on the commission was unavailable to meet) and has been rescheduled for Monday.
A press conference involving three Republican legislators was also held yesterday in which they called for the Secretary of State to follow the law and to not change the rules of the game in the middle of an election pointing out that Iowans have been voting since September 23.
MY REPLY
[Copy of AP article}
What is our response in the event that the commission issues rules consistent with this AG opinion?
Is it possible if the commission issues a ruling on Monday consistent with the AG's that we could contest that rule in federal court for inconsistency with HAVA?
What is the time and place of the commission meeting on Monday?
I don't think that we should allow the Democrats to highjack the orderly process of our election here in Iowa. We are already experiencing problems here in Madison Co.
FOLKS we are combining the freerepublic pajama brigades with the Lawyers for Bush task force to open up a can of whoop on the Dems.
LOOK OUT! What is going on in Ohio is also going on in Iowa. See my post above.
Damned right this is big! Can't believe the Rats aren't appealing. Ohio's so close that fraud could've made the difference.
Anyone read David Frum's book about this? I've heard him plugging it on a couple of shows.