A major story broken last night by the Denver paper, now spreading rapidly–yesterday afternoon, Congressmen Charles Gonzalez of Texas and Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania sent a letter to U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez expressing “concern about the rights of rights of voters in Colorado”–and asking the Justice Department to look into Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’srecent decision to sue Denver to stop mail ballots from being delivered to “inactive” status registered voters in the state’s largest city.
On September 21, 2011, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler petitioned the Denver District Court for an injunction which would [prohibit] the Denver Clerk and Recorder’s office from mailing ballots to eligible voters who did not vote in the last general election, as the Clerk has done in the past five mail elections. It is surprising to see Secretary Gessler base his petition on Section 1-7.5-107(3)(a)(I) of the Colorado Election Code as its purpose is to protect the right to vote rather than to deny it. The requirement that “the designated election official shall mail to each active registered elector” is plainly designed to insure that no active voter fails to receive a ballot. There is nothing in the law that would preclude officials from mailing ballots to eligible voters who had been unable or chose not to vote in a previous election. Had they so desired, the Colorado legislature could very easily have created such a prohibition by adding the word “only”. It would also have made the law unconstitutional, which may be one reason that they did not. Regardless, that they chose not to do so makes clear that this was not their intention…
If Debra Johnson, Clerk and Recorder for the City and County of Denver – who should know her constituents, their voting habits, and their election needs as well as anyone – feels that mailing these ballots out is appropriate, we can think of nothing that should stop her. Rather, she should be commended for taking steps to protect the franchise and encourage civic participation. What Secretary Gessler suggests is likely to disenfranchise eligible voters and should be condemned therefore.
Nor is this the first action by Secretary Gessler to raise concerns about the potential for disenfranchisement of eligible voters in Colorado. In March of this year, at a hearing of the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections, Mr. Gonzalez, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, cautioned him about his use of a poorly conceived and executed report to gin up support for legislation allowing him to purge voters from the rolls. One would hope that this experience would lead to introspection. Instead, the Secretary has moved from trying to purge voter rolls to trying to deny ballots directly. This is a disturbing pattern.
Title 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership of certain language minority groups, regardless of its intent. Given the diversity of the state of Colorado, and particularly that of Denver County, there is a high likelihood that the barrier to voting Secretary Gessler seeks to impose on these eligible citizens and registered voters will have such a discriminatory result in violation of the Voting Rights Act. [Pols emphasis]
Here’s the full text of the letter, and a release after the jump. Both Rep. Brady, who has advocated for military and overseas voters rights as the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, and Rep. Gonzalez–the other minority member of the Elections subcommittee–have a natural affinity for these issues, so it’s not surprising that Gessler’a activities have come on to their radar. Gonzalez also has some experience pummeling Gessler over his unproven claims of “illegal voters” on the rolls in Colorado during congressional testimony.
We’ve heard that a significant number of Colorado Republicans are growing angry with Gessler over his brashness in engaging in openly partisan shenanigans, both on and off the clock. We don’t know to what extent GOP brass even have the ability to pull the reins on Gessler, but it’s possible an attempt will come soon. Gessler is proving to be very, well, unsubtle in his efforts to skew Colorado elections for partisan advantage using the power of his office–a cardinal error. You’re supposed to be much slicker about this if it’s your goal, because the consequences of blowing your “nonpartisan” cover are pretty steep (see: Harris, Katherine).
And despite what Gessler may think sitting in his office imagining all the ways he can brazenly mess with the rules, there is a higher authority. We and others have noted that this just doesn’t seem like the right fight for Gessler to pick–seeking to reduce access by registered voters to ballots is an inherently very difficult position to defend. The full circumstances of this lawsuit against Denver absolutely reek of the worst kind of partisan chicanery and vote suppression, and there’s just no reasonable excuse for it.
Incidentally, was there an office pool running on how long it would take for the feds to take an interest in Scott “Fox in the Henhouse” Gessler? Who had “not even a year?”
Elections Subcommittee Democrats Seek Investigation of
Colorado Secretary of State; Warn His Actions May Deny Vote to Minorities, Disabled, and Military Voters
September 28, 2011 (Washington, DC) – In a letter to Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General in the Civil rights Division of the Department of Justice, Congressmen Bob Brady and Charles A. Gonzalez, the Ranking Members of the Committee on House Administration and its Subcommittee on Elections, respectively, have requested an investigation into actions taken by Colorado Secretary of State, Scott Gessler. Last week, Sec. Gessler petitioned the Denver District Court for an injunction to prevent the Denver Clerk and Recorder’s office from mailing ballots to eligible voters ahead of the November 01, 2011, election simply because they hadn’t voted in the last general election.
“No right is mentioned more times in the Constitution than the right to vote,” said Rep. Gonzalez. “It is the responsibility of every public official to ensure that eligible citizens are not denied that right. Secretary Gessler, instead, has taken steps that could prevent Coloradans’ civic participation. The Voting Section of the Department of Justice exists to protect this foundation of our democracy.”
Denver City and County Clerk and Record Debra Johnson has called this “a fundamental issue of fairness and of keeping voting accessible to as many eligible voters as possible” and the maps her office released suggest that districts with large minority populations would be particularly hard hit by Gessler’s rule. The congressmen were also concerned that eligible and registered voters who had missed the last election because of a disability or because they were deployed abroad at the time might miss their chance to vote this year.
“Election officials should always favor enfranchisement over exclusion,” said Rep. Brady. “Secretary Gessler’s actions fail to meet that basic principle and may deny thousands of American’s access to the ballot. The Department of Justice should move swiftly to examine this decision to make sure every Coloradan has the right to vote, especially those fighting for our country abroad.”
This injunction could have a disparate impact on disabled-Americans who were unable to make it to the polls in 2010 as a direct result of their disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The injunction could also disenfranchise Americans who were overseas in 2010, including those whose active duty deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan made voting particularly difficult. Democrats on the Elections Subcommittee have worked hard to broaden voter access. They passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act in 2009 to make it easier for Americans who are abroad on Election Day to participate in our democracy, but significant challenges remain.
Sec. Gessler appeared before the Subcommittee on Elections on March 31, 2011 and Rep. Gonzalez questioned his claims about a need to purge voters from the rolls.
Out of state Congressional Democrats have now joined the pitched political battle against Secretary of State Scott Gessler, sending a letter to the Obama Department of Justice asking them to investigate Gessler over his lawsuit regarding inactive ballots in Denver. Congressman Robert Brady (D-PA) and Congressman Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) wrote to the Assistant US Attorney General Thomas Perez, asking him to investigate Gessler’s lawsuit and copied Colorado Members of Congress, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter.
The issue, of course, will be settled by a Denver judge, not some DC politicians, but that didn’t stop them from trying to score a few political points before a judge has the chance to weigh in.
When a Democrat was Secretary of State there were no lawsuits regarding the mailing of ballots to inactive voters. That’s what makes this whole situation stink of political stunt. We have to wonder where Al Yates and his liberal lackies from Common Cause factor in this whole game. When political stunts are being pulled in the name of liberal outrage, those stooges can never be far away.
We have to wonder also — why do Democrats believe that inactive voters in Denver and Pueblo should get ballots mailed to them, but not in the rest of the state?
A question for your peeps down in the G. Village: Is the defense of Gessler part of some cost-benefit analysis? For example, the benefit of suppressing votes is greater than the walking PR disaster he creates for us? Otherwise, I don’t understand why anyone defends him.
Gessler is operating based on an interpretation of the law from the Colorado Attorney General. Why isn’t John Suthers included in your list of boogeymen?
We can disagree about matters of law, but it’s Democrats turning this into a race card federal case (literally).
This creates outrage in exact proportion to your level of Democrat partisanship, and that’s all. Nobody except a few insider baseball whiners will ever care about this.
That you swoop in to link to Peak in order to defend Republican politicians while accusing commenters of being partisan Democrats?
I don’t like Gessler because I’m more in favor of people’s right to vote than the political fortunes of an operative who has demonstrated himself to be a dishonest, self-unaware hack serving in a position of public trust. My beef with Suthers is that he’s taking a radical conservative view of the Constitution that may succeed in denying health care to tens of millions of Americans. And in both cases, I think people will care.
Because legal advice from the AG to a client government official is privileged and confidential. Formal AG opinions are not privileged, but I checked the AG’s website and didn’t see one on this topic. So, did you see that opinion? And if you did, how did you get access to it?
Because legal advice from the AG to a client government official is privileged and confidential. Formal AG opinions are not privileged, but I checked the AG’s website and didn’t see one on this topic. So, did you see that opinion? And if you did, how did you get access to it?
If you post it enough times, he’ll respond. Hmmm. Still no response. He’s just pulling stuff out his rearend, as usual. Post it again, maybe, at least, it’ll prompt a gurgling, sinking sound.
Permanent mail-in ballots and all mail elections are relatively new phenomenon in Colorado. It’s possible that nobody had asked the question about what to do with inactive voters and each county went about things in their own way. In fact, prior to the wave of new registrations in 2008 and the bummer of 2010, I suspect that those that consistently requested absentee ballots were more likely to be active voters.
If I remember correctly, permanent mail-in ballot registration became a thing around 2007, so this is the first general election that will really test the treatment of inactive voters.
In any case, you can be pretty sure that Democrats will consistently push for all voters to be recognized no matter where they live, both on principle and based on math. Democratic voters are more likely to be affected by restrictions on voting, even in Republican areas.
Katherine Harris got to be a GOP candidate for congress in 2002 and won. That was more of a reward than a price. And of course GW got to be President. Subsequent Harris political career developments or lack thereof more due to her being a taste of the lunatic and IQ challenged ladies of the right to come.
In Florida, Katherine Harris, the controversial state official embroiled in the 2000 recount, was also fond of modeling herself after Esther. An HBO drama about the recount had Harris-also a GOP operative and prominent evangelical-quoting one of Esther’s big lines as regards her fate: “If I perish, I perish.” In 2007, Harris also turned to Esther as she campaigned for Senate. [snip] For many contemporary Christians, however, especially conservatives, Esther is a godsend. And for good reasons. According to Nancy Ammerman, a sociologist of religion at Boston University, Esther represents “a willingness to risk everything on behalf of something greater than yourself, something you believe in.” Hence the popularity of Esther’s declaration, “I was born for such a time as this.”
It reminds me of all the Chistocrats who love to spout about Judeo-Christian values to support their aganda of hate on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.
I do believe the excessive demonization of Harris was paybacks for her being the Sec State for Florida in 2000. Democrats have long memories and long knives, and you’re pros at character assassination.
The Clintons as murderers. Soros as an operator who somehow screwed others to escape the holocaust(never mind he was a child at the time). Obama as a laundry list of things he bears no resemblance to including but not limited to radical, socialist, Nazi, Hitler, terrorist sympathizer, foreign, white hating, America hating… I could go on but you know them all.
Anyone who disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq was an appeaser and unpatriotic. Anyone who thinks taxes sometimes need to be raised on the top tier is a class warrior out to get the rich. Anyone who wants to impose a regulation that keeps a worker reasonably safe is a job killer. One could go on.
We simply don’t hold a candle. Tip of my hat to your side.
Harris herself is the one who took credit for making sure the state went to Bush and stated publicly several times that had the entire state been re-counted it would have gone to Gore. She made no bones about the fact that in return for handing Florida and the presidency to Bush she expected a reward and she got it in the form of a congressional seat. Nobody had to bother to demonize her. She did a bang up job all by herself. The make up didn’t help either. Not our fault she favored the Cruella DeVil look.
Oh, ArapaGoodOl’Purveyor of repub crap, you make me blush.
Pro?
You mean we can aspire to the likes of Rove (that staunch Dem. strategist)? Cheney (President Obama’s most partisan supporter)? Krauthammer (ever the “across the aisle” appeaser)?
My cheeks are burning at your praise of our demonization skills, you pro-ignorance lackey. Dems can never reach the pinnacles your party has scaled.
September 28, 2011 08:39 PM UTC
24 Comments
http://www.coloradopeakpolitic…
A question for your peeps down in the G. Village: Is the defense of Gessler part of some cost-benefit analysis? For example, the benefit of suppressing votes is greater than the walking PR disaster he creates for us? Otherwise, I don’t understand why anyone defends him.
and Republicans know that the are the only victims on the planet.
Gessler is operating based on an interpretation of the law from the Colorado Attorney General. Why isn’t John Suthers included in your list of boogeymen?
We can disagree about matters of law, but it’s Democrats turning this into a race card federal case (literally).
This creates outrage in exact proportion to your level of Democrat partisanship, and that’s all. Nobody except a few insider baseball whiners will ever care about this.
That you swoop in to link to Peak in order to defend Republican politicians while accusing commenters of being partisan Democrats?
I don’t like Gessler because I’m more in favor of people’s right to vote than the political fortunes of an operative who has demonstrated himself to be a dishonest, self-unaware hack serving in a position of public trust. My beef with Suthers is that he’s taking a radical conservative view of the Constitution that may succeed in denying health care to tens of millions of Americans. And in both cases, I think people will care.
Because legal advice from the AG to a client government official is privileged and confidential. Formal AG opinions are not privileged, but I checked the AG’s website and didn’t see one on this topic. So, did you see that opinion? And if you did, how did you get access to it?
Because legal advice from the AG to a client government official is privileged and confidential. Formal AG opinions are not privileged, but I checked the AG’s website and didn’t see one on this topic. So, did you see that opinion? And if you did, how did you get access to it?
History repeating itself, maybe.
If you post it enough times, he’ll respond. Hmmm. Still no response. He’s just pulling stuff out his rearend, as usual. Post it again, maybe, at least, it’ll prompt a gurgling, sinking sound.
interpretation of the law fromth AG. Please cite your source and provide a link, ArapG.
Please see my post in Thursday’s open thread for likely reason why, straight from the AG’s office.
Permanent mail-in ballots and all mail elections are relatively new phenomenon in Colorado. It’s possible that nobody had asked the question about what to do with inactive voters and each county went about things in their own way. In fact, prior to the wave of new registrations in 2008 and the bummer of 2010, I suspect that those that consistently requested absentee ballots were more likely to be active voters.
If I remember correctly, permanent mail-in ballot registration became a thing around 2007, so this is the first general election that will really test the treatment of inactive voters.
In any case, you can be pretty sure that Democrats will consistently push for all voters to be recognized no matter where they live, both on principle and based on math. Democratic voters are more likely to be affected by restrictions on voting, even in Republican areas.
Katherine Harris got to be a GOP candidate for congress in 2002 and won. That was more of a reward than a price. And of course GW got to be President. Subsequent Harris political career developments or lack thereof more due to her being a taste of the lunatic and IQ challenged ladies of the right to come.
She and Ken Blackwell ultimately paid a price for the same reasons, and unfortunately less for their vote counting.
And yes, Harris was the first in the line of new Queen Esthers.
She’s the great heroine all little Jewish girls wanted to dress up as on Purim. What did I miss in my Jewish education.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2…
And here:
http://washingtonpoststyle.tum…
Not moving in conservative circles, guess I missed this.
It reminds me of all the Chistocrats who love to spout about Judeo-Christian values to support their aganda of hate on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.
I do believe the excessive demonization of Harris was paybacks for her being the Sec State for Florida in 2000. Democrats have long memories and long knives, and you’re pros at character assassination.
The Clintons as murderers. Soros as an operator who somehow screwed others to escape the holocaust(never mind he was a child at the time). Obama as a laundry list of things he bears no resemblance to including but not limited to radical, socialist, Nazi, Hitler, terrorist sympathizer, foreign, white hating, America hating… I could go on but you know them all.
Anyone who disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq was an appeaser and unpatriotic. Anyone who thinks taxes sometimes need to be raised on the top tier is a class warrior out to get the rich. Anyone who wants to impose a regulation that keeps a worker reasonably safe is a job killer. One could go on.
We simply don’t hold a candle. Tip of my hat to your side.
Harris herself is the one who took credit for making sure the state went to Bush and stated publicly several times that had the entire state been re-counted it would have gone to Gore. She made no bones about the fact that in return for handing Florida and the presidency to Bush she expected a reward and she got it in the form of a congressional seat. Nobody had to bother to demonize her. She did a bang up job all by herself. The make up didn’t help either. Not our fault she favored the Cruella DeVil look.
Oh, ArapaGoodOl’Purveyor of repub crap, you make me blush.
Pro?
You mean we can aspire to the likes of Rove (that staunch Dem. strategist)? Cheney (President Obama’s most partisan supporter)? Krauthammer (ever the “across the aisle” appeaser)?
My cheeks are burning at your praise of our demonization skills, you pro-ignorance lackey. Dems can never reach the pinnacles your party has scaled.