It's Getting Ugly

How bad can the internal polling of Representative Scott Garrett be? In his latest press release, Garrett's camp is bringing ACORN into their attacks against Dennis Shulman. I've thought for a while the McCain campaign has been listening a little too closely to the talk radio blowhards. But for Garrett to descend the desperation path, one really has to wonder what the heck is going on.

The Shulman campaign posted Garrett's release on DailyKos, which then prompted them to get nominated for a fundraising drive. From the release:

Top aide Hauser's work as a lobbyist for ACORN interests has manifested in Shulman's campaign as Hauser actively pulls the strings. It hasn't gone unnoticed that Shulman rarely speaks directly to the press; his campaign message is communicated by Hauser, who cut his teeth as the mouthpiece for ACORN interests.

[snip]

As a result of Hauser's puppeteering, Shulman has been silent about the concerns raised by ACORN voter fraud during this election. Even as concerns are raised about ACORN's influence in New Jersey, Shulman has not condemned ACORN for their efforts to manufacture voter registrations.

One had to expect this kind of attack, and the Shulman campaign seemed to want this fight over who is employing the worst lobbyist, but come on. ACORN? Really? Personally, Mickey Mouse can sign up to vote all he wants (he wins votes every election), it's up to the County Clerk to validate a registration. The people signing him up should be prosecuted, but if they make it onto the rolls and into the polls that's on the County Clerk.

Where was Garrett's outrage over the voter roll purges of legit voters? Or the fact you can hack the machines we're required to vote on by law? There wasn't any. We've seriously watched this campaign go into the gutter on both sides; but Garrett's camp claiming he's a champion of transparency and accountability in the voting process is ridiculous.

The man voted against re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act; actively supported unconstitutional disenfranchisement efforts while standing silent while the Administration actively sought to disenfranchise voters; and joined a group to argue that hackable voting machines weren't a problem.

Please, Garrett, get off your short horse.

Paper Vote Verification Now

Back in September, our Representative Scott Garrett took to the floor to argue against a voter-verified paper audit trail. The crux of his argrument was that it opened up the potential for votes to be sold, as if as a member of Congress he had a special understanding of how that worked.

Fortunately, most of us don't live in a world where that kind of activity is the norm. However, we all live in a world where the ability to verify the integrity and accuracy of a vote count is at the core of how we function as a society.

Now, we find out that Premier Election Solutions Inc. (Diebold) has confirmed people's fear about their electronic voting machines dropping votes and the validity of concerns about our electoral process in the electronic age.

From the AP:

At least 1,000 total votes were dropped in nine Ohio counties over the course of a handful elections back to 2006, including the March presidential primary, though the error was in all cases discovered and corrected within several hours. Premier Election Solutions Inc. previously had said complications with antivirus software caused the problem, but on Tuesday the company said in a product advisory that the problem is with the machines themselves.

And from the Washington Post:

Unlike other software, the problem acknowledged by Premier cannot be fixed by sending out a coding fix to its customers because of federal rules for certifying election systems, Rigall said. Changes to systems must go through the Election Assistance Commission, he said, and take two years on average for certification and approval -- and that is apart from whatever approvals and reviews would be needed by each elections board throughout the country.

We're heading into the biggest Election in modern political history, and the machines used in 34 states drop votes? And they happen to be more problematic in "high density" areas (read urban)? And the company has known about the problem for 10 years?

It's bad enough that the machines have been shown to be hackable, now we know they've had a known programing bug that drops votes. Our process is too important not to have a paper trail to audit.

My hope is, with yet another revelation of how at risk our process has become, Garrett and others who have opposed the efforts of Representative Rush Holt to provide simple vote verification might actually see the error of their ways. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Must See Film: Election Day

PBS did the broadcast premier of Election Day, a documentary by Katy Chevigny. I originally saw the film as part of the Stranger Than Fiction series a while back, and it instantly became one of my favorite films of all time.

The film takes an amazing look at our electoral process by observing 11 different stories all shot on Election Day 2004. The good, the bad and the ugly are shown as they happen.

The film covers important aspects regarding registration, voting rights, and ballot verification. It also has very touching scenes, including those covering individuals voting for the first time.

PBS will be streaming the entire film on-line for the month of July, and I can't recommend it strongly enough. Anybody that wants to help organize a screening let me know.

I Voted Today

And so should you. I'll be mailing my unaffiliation form tomorrow, but I participated. It's super easy, and if you have a preference you should take the five minutes to make sure it's heard.

Get Out & Vote

Here's how to vote on Tuesday if you're an unaffiliated individual like myself:

1. You have to be registered unaffiliated.
2. You then have to go with an ID or proof or residence to your polling place.
3. You declare at the poll which primary you want to vote in.
4. Then, if you want to hang on to your unaffiliated status, you fill out and drop this form in the mail on Wednesday and you're unaffiliated again.

Personally, I prefer the open primary process that we had when I lived in Michigan. However, this will do for the time being.

Voting Rights vs. Garrett & Bush

On Saturday I had a chance to watch Democracy Works on PBS, hosted by Steve Adubato. The show was regarding returning ethics to Trenton, and I appreciated the insights Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole and others shared. One of the points by the panel was that we as citizens need to work harder to stay informed and participate so that we get the kind of Representation we want. Truth be told, only 34% of New Jersey voters showed up on election day in 2003, the last election comparable to this year's contest. With property taxes and corruption being the number 1 & 2 things people talk about in New Jersey politics, only 34% of folks voted. Put another way, only 18% of New Jersey's voters are deciding for the rest of us.

Voter turnout, for most politicians is a frustration. When I spoke at the Meet the Candidates forum at Sussex County Technical School, "participate" was a common refrain. One candidate used the example that of all people in the room, the number of people turning out would mean the three folks sitting in the front row were making all of the decisions. True public servants want the feedback because they want to do a good job. However, not all public servants fall into this category.

I've covered Representative Scott Garrett's disdain for upholding the voting rights of naturalized citizens; last year Garrett also voted for a voter ID bill based on several State laws that court ruling after court ruling after court ruling finds disenfranchises voters in the poll tax tradition, and is therefore unconstitutional. Garrett's votes are, at best, deplorable in that he does not passionately believe in the right so many have died and fought to protect.

Garrett's votes to institutionalize disenfranchisement go hand in hand with the efforts of the Bush administration's use of the Justice Department to meet the same end. This was buried in the Record on Friday, but it deserves a read.

Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:

-Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A Federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on
the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election.

-Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.

-Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.

-Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.

In late 2001, Ashcroft also hired three Republican political operatives to work in a secretive new unit in the division's Voting Rights Section. Rich said the unit, headed by unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Mark Metcalf of Kentucky, bird-dogged the progress of the administration's Help America Vote Act and reviewed voting legislation in the states.

So when Garrett ran for Congress, saying he was a friend of Bush, he wasn't kidding. Folks who don't believe in and actively seek to undermine the fundamental principal of voting have no place at any level of government, let alone in the White House or Congress. If more of us take an active role as citizens, we'd be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.

Garrett vs. Legal Immigrants in a Nutshell

As reported by the Express-Times, Representative Scott Garrett took questions from high school students yesterday. In defending his vote against The Voting Rights Act, Garrett had this to say.

"I'm looking out for the American citizens who were born here legally," Garrett said.

I guess naturalized citizens don't count in Garrett's world.

I made a point during the campaign to try and dispel the myth that all immigrants must pass an English test in order to become citizens. If you look at page 99 of "Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants" it details the exemptions to taking the language and civics tests. When you read comments like Garrett's or this little gem from Newt Gingrich over the weekend, you have to realize they don't know the facts:

"Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.

Since that's not true, Mr. Gingrich must agree that ballots should be printed in multiple languages. With citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, comes the right to vote and the government is compelled to prevent discrimination and exclusion. I still think Garrett's vote against the Voting Rights Act is one of the most deplorable actions he's ever taken on our behalf, and I'm glad the students at Warren Hills Regional High School took him to task over it.

So, rematch in '08?

With Paul Aronsohn's announcement of his intention to announce his intention in late spring, I received a handful of e-mails and a text message asking if the rematch was in store. The answer to that at this point is I don't know. I'm still thinking about what my involvement would look like in '08 (candidate, staffer, party, etc.) to best serve the District. As those who read this blog realize, I'm rather unlikely to work for or vote for Rep. Scott Garrett. I'm equally unlikely to work for or vote for Paul.

Don't get me wrong, Paul's a nice guy. He was always polite to my volunteers that he met, and up until the whole sign stealing thing our campaigns were rather cordial, as I was with Garrett's as well. My reaction to the sign incident was boneheaded; as hard as we worked to raise the money and get the signs out, to have a significant portion of my "war chest" vanish didn't sit well. The boneheadedness was reinforced by the press coverage and subsequent police incident report on a different night that pointed to the BCDO and not Paul's staff directly. While I didn't win the award for dumbest press release, had Stuart Rothenberg known I was alive I might have been in contention.

My objection to Paul comes down to a principle, and for me it's a really big one. It's called Democracy. On both Blue Jersey and Retire Garrett there is a common refrain about the '08 primary.

There should be a vigorous Democratic primary that will encourage the candidates to hone their policy positions and become better candidates to face Garrett in 2008.

Regardless of which party you fall into, the ability to choose your representation is a basic cornerstone of Democracy. If you're running for office, you should be a big fan of the idea. The problem I have with Paul is just that, and it was from a 2005 article from PoliticsNJ.

Even if they are both hell-bent on running, there could be a way for Wolfe and Aronsohn to settle their contest without incurring the costs of a full-scale primary. Aronsohn said he'd be willing to abide by the verdict of the Bergen County Democratic convention, which will take place next February or March. But Wolfe indicated she probably wouldn't, saying she didn't want to leave the district's other three counties out of the process.

This shouldn't even be in a candidate's mind. Even if the reporter planted the idea, or offered it as a possible solution to the primary quandary, there should be a soul shaking voice that screams no at the thought of excluding people from voting. I had a chance to ask Paul about this at one point. Due to the fact I don't have the conversation recorded I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I can say his response didn't change my mind. While his direct involvement in the BCDO is a question mark, being willing to leave the decision for an entire Congressional District in the hands of a man who actively tries to boot those who don't work with him is highly suspect.

I won't ever work or vote for someone who would vote or act against the principle right so many have fought and died to achieve and protect. When Garrett voted against re-authorizing the Voting Rights Act I called it deplorable, and I feel the same way about Paul being willing to skip the Primary. For me, or anyone else for that matter, having to choose between the two is a terrible choice to have to make.