Lexington Herald Leader Editorial: Quick Assault On Voting Rights In GOP-Controlled States Reveals Supreme Court's Mistake.

Quick assault on voting rights in GOP-controlled states reveals Supreme Court's mistake

States' rush reveals court's mistake

In her dissent to last month's wrongheaded Supreme Court decision striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote that ending the preclearance requirement for districts with a history of discrimination was "like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

Just one month later, Republican lawmakers are flooding the country with voter suppression laws masquerading as voter ID laws and redistricting plans.
Texas gleefully announced within two hours of the decision its plan to institute a redistricting map and strict voter ID laws that had been challenged by the Department of Justice as discriminatory.

Attorney General Eric Holder is commendably trying to battle Texas' discriminatory laws under a different section of the Voting Rights Act, but draconian voter ID laws are rapidly spreading through Republican-controlled states.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory says he will sign a nakedly partisan voter suppression bill, though he admits that he has not read it. Perhaps he should.
Republican lawmakers insist that they must disenfranchise thousands of voters to ensure the integrity of the electoral process — even though there has only been one case of voter impersonation fraud in the past 12 years in North Carolina, according to the State Board of Elections.

The extreme measures to eradicate a non-epidemic conveniently suppress voting by groups that traditionally support Democrats.

Of the 319,000 voters who will lack the required photo ID, nearly one-third are black.
The bill discourages young voters by refusing to accept college photo IDs, requiring a North Carolina-issued ID from anyone who has resided in the state for 90 days and eliminating a highly successful voter registration drive in high schools. Meanwhile, the bill expands voter registration drives for senior citizens who tend to be more conservative than young adults. In North Carolina, civic participation is encouraged only if it's likely to benefit Republicans.

The new law would also eliminate same-day voter registration, reduce the early voting period by a week and prevent precincts from extending polling hours in response to long lines. None of those restrictions have any shred of relevance to the supposed issue of voter fraud.

The bill's only conceivable intent is to deceptively and artificially keep the Republican Party in control by riding roughshod over the most essential constitutional right of voting.

The spate of photo ID laws is heir to the disheartening American tradition of inventing ways to suppress voters. Once there were literacy tests and poll taxes; now we have gerrymandered districts and needlessly stringent identification laws that seek the same outcome, albeit dressed up in the language of "electoral sanctity."

The Republican Party should drop its clearly partisan pursuit of these laws. No party can build broad success on the kind of sordid tricks and deceptions that America should have abandoned long ago. We should be making it easier, not harder, for people to vote.

Nothing proves the continued necessity of the Voting Rights Act more than the current rush to suppression. As Justice Ginsberg said, "I didn't want to be right, but sadly I am."

Federal Appeals Court Orders Release Of Clay County's Vote Buying Convicts.

Judge: 6 convicted in Clay County vote-buying plot must be released no later than Friday

Six of eight Clay County residents convicted in a widespread vote-buying conspiracy must be released no later than Friday, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The six are former Circuit Judge R. Cletus Maricle; former county Clerk Freddy W. Thompson; former Magistrate Stanley Bowling; Charles Wayne Jones, who was a Democratic election officer; and Bart and Debra Morris.

The six have been imprisoned since March 2010, when a federal jury convicted them and two others of conspiring to buy or steal votes in elections in 2002, 2004 and 2006 in order to hold on to power and enrich themselves and associates.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the convictions July 17. The appeals panel ruled the eight did not get a fair trial because U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves admitted some evidence that should not have been presented to jurors.

Caldwell denied requests to release former school Superintendent Douglas Adams and Williams Stivers, who was an election officer, but scheduled hearings Aug. 12 on whether they should continue to be detained.

Reeves revoked bond for Stivers and Adams before they were convicted because they had contact with witnesses in violation of a court order.

Eric Holder And Justice Department Aim To Challenge States' Voting Rights Laws.

Justice Department to challenge states’ voting rights laws

The Justice Department is preparing to take fresh legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the nation, U.S. officials said, part of a new attempt to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court ruling that the Obama administration has warned will imperil minority representation.

The decision to challenge state officials marks an aggressive effort to continue policing voting rights issues and follows a ruling by the court last month that invalidated a critical part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The justices threw out a part of the act that determined which states with a history of discrimination had to be granted Justice Department or court approval before making voting law changes.

The Supreme Court effectively struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.

In the coming weeks, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce that the Justice Department is using other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits or take other legal action to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present certain kinds of identification in order to vote. The department is also expected to try to force certain states to get approval, or “pre-clearance,” before they can change their election laws.
“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary,” Holder said in a speech Thursday morning in Philadelphia. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.”

Holder announced that, in a first step, the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan.
Holder said he is asking a federal judge to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a ten-year period because of its history of discrimination.
“It’s a pretty clear sign that a lawsuit against the Texas voter-ID law is also on the way,” said Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman. Miller said Justice may also sue North Carolina if that state passes a new voter ID law.

The Obama administration had opposed the Texas voter-ID law signed in 2011 by Gov. Rick Perry (R.), saying it endangered minority voting rights. Texas was one of eight states that passed voter-ID laws.

Supporters of the measures, which were signed by seven Republican governors and one independent, said that requiring voters to show specific photo IDs would prevent voter fraud. But critics of the laws said that they could hurt turnout among minority voters and others.
Because of Texas’s history of discrimination, the voter-ID law had to be cleared by the Justice Department. The department blocked the law, saying it would endanger minority voting rights. Texas sued the Justice Department, leading to a week-long trial last summer.
Last August, the U.S. District Court in Washington blocked the law from going into effect, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor, minority

Breaking U. S, Supreme Court News: As I Expected, Court Invalidates Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act, Formula No Longer Valid For Pre-Clearance,

Read the 5 to 4 decision here.

U. S. Supreme Court Holds That States Are Powerless To Impose Proof Of Citizenship Requirements On Voting Form Before A Person Can Vote.

Supreme Court says states may not add citizenship proof for voting

States may not require additional proof of citizenship on federal forms designed to streamline voter-registration procedures, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court rejected a requirement passed by Arizona voters in 2004 that potential voters supply proof of eligibility beyond an applicant’s oath on the federal form that he or she is a citizen.

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200.
The federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
Three other states have similar proof-of-citizenship laws, and others have considered the additional requirement.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote separate dissents, although both made the point that the majority ignored the Constitution’s demand that states set the requirements for voter registration.
“I would construe the law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the state free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish,” Thomas wrote.

The Arizona proposition was immediately challenged after passage. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — which included retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting by designation — also held that federal law precluded Arizona’s action.
O’Connor was sitting in the courtroom Monday as her former colleagues upheld the decision.

Scalia noted that the Constitution’s elections clause, which empowers Congress to preempt state regulations governing the “times, places and manner” of holding congressional elections, gives weight to the federal regulation that states “accept and use” the federal form to enroll voters.
The state-by-state battle over who is eligible to vote, what kind of identification or proof may be required and even the hours of voting prompted a host of legal battles leading up to the 2012 elections. In general, Republicans proposed new restrictions as necessary to combat voter fraud, while Democrats said such moves would harm minorities and the poor, who often do not have easy access to the required credentials.

The court’s oral arguments and its decision avoided those partisan battles and concentrated on questions of federalism.
But interest groups that challenged the law claimed a great victory.
“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live.”

Groups that supported Arizona called the decision dire.
“The integrity of our nation’s elections suffered a blow today from the Supreme Court,” said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch. “This issue takes on increasing urgency with the prospect of 11 million illegal immigrants being given amnesty. It is essential that our elections be secured by ensuring that only citizens register to vote.”

Scalia, writing for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said Arizona is not powerless to protect against noncitizens voting.
He said the state need not register voters when it has other proof that they are not citizens. He also said the state could petition the federal Election Assistance Commission to alter the form to require evidence of citizenship, and go to court if the commission fails to do so.

Alito in dissent pointed out “that prospect does little to assuage constitutional concerns.”
“The EAC currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future. If that situation persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of its constitutional claim is problematic.”

Editor's note: The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and you can read the opinion by clicking here.

AS LONG AS MY REPUBLICAN PARTY INSISTS ON SELECTING PHONIES, RACISTS, NEANDERTHALS, IDIOTS AND MISOGYNISTS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, I SHALL DO MY PART, AND URGE OTHERS, TO REJECT THEM AT THE POLLS!

ENOUGH SAID.

As Election Looms Tomorrow, Many Voters Fear The Process Is Compromised.

As election looms, many voters fear the process is compromised
By Tony Pugh

WASHINGTON — Only days before millions of Americans cast their ballots, a climate of suspicion hangs over Tuesday’s national elections.

Accusations of partisan dirty tricks and concerns about long voter lines, voting equipment failures and computer errors are rampant, particularly in key battleground states such as Ohio and Colorado, where absentee and provisional ballots could decide a close election.

“Those will be the states that are the most prone to confusion and chaos and contesting if the election is close or within what some people call the ‘margin of litigation,’ ” said Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

State and local election officials and partisan watchdogs are on high alert for problems, as is the U.S. Department of Justice. All of them plan to post election monitors at potential trouble spots across the country.

The extra preparations will certainly help, but they haven’t stopped reports of phony election workers showing up at people’s homes to collect their absentee ballots or anonymous callers falsely claiming that voters can stay home on Election Day and cast their ballots by phone.

With concerns running high about voter intimidation, voter suppression and poorly trained poll workers, many think that the integrity of the elections – and the officials who run them – has been compromised. Nowhere is that more true than in Ohio, where Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has drawn the ire of Democrats by limiting the amount of time for early voting.

“It’s highly unfortunate that the rules of the game have become hyper-politicized,” Stewart said. “It sets up a situation that, regardless of who wins the election next Tuesday, the losers, especially the most zealous partisans, will be set up to doubt the legitimacy of the outcome.”

In their national bid to root out voter fraud, True the Vote, a conservative organization, might have hundreds of thousands of poll watchers nationwide. They plan to challenge voters they suspect of casting ballots illegally. This could slow the election process and force challenged voters to cast provisional ballots, which are counted later.

“True the Vote has reported instances of procedural and technical errors occurring in polls that could lend themselves to abuse,” a statement by group founder Catherine Engelbrecht said.

Labor organizations and voting rights groups, such as Common Cause and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, also will have poll watchers making sure that voters aren’t harassed, intimidated or threatened by True the Vote members.

“Our monitors will be monitoring their monitors,” said Judith Browne Dianis, a co-director of the Advancement Project, a national nonpartisan voting-rights organization. “We are going to make sure they’re not engaging in bullying at the polling places.”

The recent high-water mark for voter distrust is the 2000 presidential election, when Florida’s disputed votes and the resulting challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court left the race undecided for several weeks. The high court eventually declared Republican George W. Bush the winner.

Concerns about the 2012 election mushroomed last year as Republican state lawmakers around the country introduced a series of restrictive voting laws that critics claimed would affect minorities, college students and the poor disproportionately. Democrats and civil rights advocates argued that the laws were a less-than-subtle attempt to suppress the votes of some of the party’s strongest supporters.

Federal and state courts in 14 states ended up reversing, weakening or postponing many of the laws’ most contentious provisions, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

In the aftermath of those legal battles, a skeptical electorate wonders whether innocent mistakes, computer glitches and human error by elections workers have a deeper, more sinister intent.

After printing the incorrect election date on voter materials printed in Spanish – but not in English – election officials in Maricopa County, Ariz., made the same mistake a week later with a different document. Once again, the identical English-language materials didn’t have the error.

County Recorder Helen Purcell called the errors regrettable but said accusations that her office was trying to suppress Hispanic voter turnout were “simply a malicious lie.”

Polling by MIT’s Stewart found that roughly 25 percent of voters had doubts about the legitimacy of the 2008 presidential election results. He said recent polls by others suggested that that rate hadn’t changed, nor had there been a large outcry for election revisions as there was after the disputed 2000 election.

“I think what has changed is that this has become a major rallying point for the bases of the parties and for surrogates of the candidates,” he said.

Accusations of partisan politics continue to roil Election Day preparations in Ohio, which many experts think could decide a close presidential race.

Earlier this week, Norman Robbins, the research director at the Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates, a nonpartisan voter-education group, notified Husted’s office that thousands of requests for absentee ballots may have been rejected improperly statewide because of incomplete data checks by local election officials. The checks mistakenly showed that the applicants weren’t registered to vote. Nearly 900 wrongly rejected ballot requests were found in Cuyahoga County alone, Robbins said.

Cuyahoga is Ohio’s most populous county and a Democratic stronghold.

In response, Husted’s office sent a directive to county election offices to try “at least one (of four) additional search criteria” if the name of an absentee ballot applicant doesn’t appear on the list of registered voters.

These kinds of problems are why Stewart thinks Ohio is the wild card in a close presidential election.

“If Ohio is within 2 percent either way,” he said, “then I think we’re in for about a three-week period of high drama over the canvassing of that election.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/02/173485/as-election-looms-many-voters.html#storylink=cpy

I'M GOING TODAY TO VOTE MY CONSCIENCE. NEXT TUESDAY, PLEASE DO THE SAME. READ MORE BELOW.

TODAY, I AM GOING TO VOTE -- (I HAVE NEVER MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE), AND I INTEND TO VOTE MY CONSCIENCE FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO I WANT TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE AMERICA FORWARD, NOT REGRESSIVELY BACKWARDS.

TO AFRICAN AMERICANS READING THIS MESSAGE: I DON'T CARE IF YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY OR BARACK OBAMA, BUT YOU MUST NOT LET YAHOOS AND RACISTS DICTATE FOR YOU WHO TO VOTE FOR.

THERE ARE MANY OF THEM STATING THAT IF YOU VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA YOU ARE DOING SO BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.

PLEASE NOTE THEY ARE USING REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY ON YOU. DON'T LET THEM DO THAT TO YOU!!

REMEMBER: THEY HAVE ALWAYS VOTED FOR WHITES, AND YOU NEVER ACCUSED THEM OF VOTING FOR SKIN COLOR.

NEITHER SHOULD THEY!!!

AND, I BET YOU HAVE ALWAYS VOTED FOR WHITE CANDIDATES, LIKE I HAVE, AND EVERYONE WAS HAPPY. NOW YOU MAKE A DIFFERENT CHOICE, AND THE ACCUSATIONS FLY!!!!

HEAR ME: DON'T LET THEM DO THIS TO YOU. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE, AND TELL THE ASSHOLES TO GO AND SCREW THEMSELVES!!!!!

Eugene Robinson: Election Is A Struggle For National Meaning, Identity.

Eugene Robinson | Election is a struggle for national meaning, identity

WASHINGTON — This election is only tangentially a fight over policy. It is also a fight about meaning and identity — and that’s one reason why voters are so polarized. It’s about who we are and who we aspire to be.

President Obama enters the final days of the campaign with a substantial lead among women — about 15 points, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll — and enormous leads among Latinos and African-Americans, the nation’s two largest minority groups. Mitt Romney leads among white voters, with an incredible 2-1 advantage among white men.

It is too simplistic to conclude that demography equals destiny. Both men are being sincere when they vow to serve the interests of all Americans. But it would be disingenuous to pretend not to notice the obvious cleavage between those who have long held power in this society and those who are beginning to attain it.

When Republicans vow to “take back our country,” they never say from whom. But we can guess.

Issues of race, power and privilege are less explicit this year than in 2008, but in some ways they are even stronger.

Four years ago, we asked ourselves whether the nation would ever elect a black president. The question was front and center. Every time we see the President and his family walk across the White House lawn to board Marine One, we’re reminded of the answer.

The intensity of the opposition to Obama has less to do with who he is than with the changes in American society he not only represents but incarnates. Citing his race as a factor in the way some of his opponents have bitterly resisted his policies immediately draws an outraged cry: “You’re saying that just because I oppose Obama, I’m a racist.” No, I’m not saying that at all.

What I’m saying is that Obama’s racial identity is a constant reminder of how much the nation has changed in a relatively short period of time. In my lifetime, we’ve experienced the civil rights movement, the countercultural explosion of the 1960s, the sexual revolution, the women’s movement and an unprecedented wave of Latino immigration. Within a few decades, there will be no white majority in this country — no majority of any kind, in fact. We will be a nation of racial and ethnic minorities, and we will only prosper if everyone learns to give and take.

Our place in the world has changed as well. The United States remains the dominant economic and military power; our ideals remain a beacon for those around the globe still yearning to breathe free. But our capacity for unilateral action is diminished; we can assert but not dictate, and we must learn to persuade.

Obama’s great sin, for some who oppose him, is to make it impossible to ignore these domestic and international megatrends. Take one look at Obama and the phenomenon of demographic change is inescapable. Observe his approach to international crises in places such as Libya or Syria and the reality of America’s place in the world is unavoidable.

I’m deliberately leaving aside what should be the biggest factor in the election: Obama’s policies. It happens that I have supported most of them, but of course there are legitimate reasons to favor Romney’s proposals, insofar as we know what they really are — and the extent to which they really differ from Obama’s.

In foreign affairs, judging by the most recent debate, the differences are too small to discern; Romney promises to speak in a louder voice and perhaps deploy more battleships, but that’s about it. Domestically, however, I see a clear choice. I consider the Affordable Care Act a great achievement, and Romney’s promise to repeal it would alone be reason enough for me to oppose him. Add in the tax cuts for the wealthy, the plan to “voucherize” Medicare and the appointments Romney would likely make to the Supreme Court, and the implications of this election become even weightier.

Issues may explain our sharp political divisions, but they can’t be the cause of our demographic polarization. White men need medical care, too. African Americans and Latinos understand the need to get our fiscal house in order. The recession and the slow recovery have taken a toll across the board.

Some of Obama’s opponents have tried to delegitimize his presidency because he doesn’t embody the America they once knew. He embodies the America of now.

LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, WE ENDORSED POTUS BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT. THIS YEAR, WE FIND HIM NOT DESERVING OF RE-ELECTION. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO ENDORSE HIM. WE LIKEWISE DECLINE TO ENDORSE HIS OPPONENT, MITT ROMNEY, A MAN WHO LACKS ABIDING GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

Many of you have figured out by now I don't think POTUS Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected President of these her United States.

By the same token, I for certain don't feel like Mitt Romney has any business bringing his PHONINESS and lack of abiding guiding principles to the White House.

And yes, Americans are more careful about choosing their produce or dead fish at the local store as they do selecting their rulers.

That's why we found ourselves in this mess of having to close our nostrils in order to select the "lesser of two evils"!

I, for one, am glad I don't have to make that choice of which "evil" to choose. I won't have to share the blame for what becomes of the next 4 years!!

And then again, maybe, the Hand of God is in all of this.

Maybe, God has decided once again to send another VERY CLEAR message to America, which America will, once again, IGNORE TO ITS DETRIMENT.

WAKE UP, people, AND READ "THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL"

BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

FOX NEWS HEADLINE: DRUG MONEY FUNDS VOTER FRAUD IN EASTERN KENTUCKY, WELL, I'M SHOCKED! NOT!! WINK!!! WATCH VIDEO.

WE JOIN THE LEXINGTON HERALD LEADER IN BEMOANING "KENTUCKY'S BACKWARD POLICY ON EX-FELON VOTING RIGHT". YES, WE DO!

Ky.'s backward policy on ex-felon voting

Ky. disenfranchises too many citizens

Each election season, responsible citizens loudly bemoan — as they should — low voter turnout.

In the Kentucky primary this May, only 14 percent of registered voters exercised their privilege.

Equally discouraging — but more easily remedied — is that a huge number of Kentuckians did not even have that privilege.

As a report issued by the Sentencing Project last week confirms, Kentucky remains one of the most backward states when it comes to restoring voting rights to felons who have paid their adjudicated debt to society.

We are one of only six states in which more than 7 percent of the population is disenfranchised as a result of felony convictions. Among black Americans, that climbs to 22 percent.

Contrast that to neighboring Indiana where less than 1 percent of the voting age population is disenfranchised for felony convictions and 7.8 percent of blacks.

Kentucky is one of only a handful of states that doesn't restore voting privileges even after a person has served time and been released from probation or parole.

Under the Kentucky constitution, ex-felons can only regain voting rights by petitioning the governor individually.

For several years, the Democrat-controlled Kentucky House of Representatives has passed a bill to place an amendment on the ballot that would automatically restore voting rights for all but the most serious criminals once they have served their sentences or been released from probation or parole.

Each of those bills has died in the Senate where Republicans set them aside without a hearing.

That's just another example of the cynical march by some right-wing elements to pick and choose who gets to vote in this country.

Voting is the most basic privilege of citizenship, it is what holds a democracy together. We don't take to the streets in violent protest when we lose an election because we had a say and will again.

It's in everyone's interest for people who have committed crimes and served their time to rejoin society. But the chances of that happening are reduced when they are excluded from this most basic right.

Opinion polls consistently show that people favor restoring voting rights to felons who have served their time. It's time for the Kentucky Senate to get that message.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/07/17/2260811/kys-backward-policy-on-ex-felon.html#storylink=cpy

Fewer Voters Cost Too Much For All. AND WE AGREE.

Editorial | Fewer voters cost too much for all

The people have spoken. Or, given the pitifully low turnout numbers in Tuesday’s elections, maybe they whispered.

Heading in to Tuesday, prognosticators expected between 15 percent and 20 percent of eligible voters to show up to exercise their most precious right as American citizens. Those forecasters ought to bet on the Derby because they were about smack-dab on the nose: Local turnout didn’t make it to 16 percent, and state numbers didn’t even graze 15 percent. There’s no way to paint a smiley face on any of that.

Compare and contrast Tuesday’s sparse turnout in Kentucky with this ABC News observation about Wednesday’s historic elections halfway around the world: “Long lines snaked out of polling stations across Egypt ... as Egyptians went to cast their ballots in the country’s first free and fair presidential elections, the first in Egypt since President Hosni Mubarak was ousted February 2011.”

And then ponder the message found in the almost lone voice of a Louisville voter, quoted in The Courier-Journal on the same day freedom-hungry Egyptians were jamming their polling places. She was exactly right when she said: “In some ways it makes my vote count more because there are (fewer) people voting.”

Think about that. Fewer votes do count more when few people vote. And how is representative government supposed to work when the people who are supposed to be represented don’t even bother to show up to elect their representatives? If Americans think government is broken, and we keep hearing that (and hearing that), perhaps they ought to consider their own couch-potato roles in that hobbled system.

And then, just for added alarm, toss in the role money — especially outside money, unleashed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision — plays in some of today’s elections, one in particular, and what that might mean to all those who just can’t be bothered.

The win of Thomas Massie, the tea party- and U.S. Sen. Rand Paul-backed Republican candidate in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District primary, was just hours old when The New York Times filed a story about how a 21-year-old Texan armed with an inherited $1 million was able to pump more than $500,000 into Mr. Massie’s race, or as the Times dubbed it, “a little-watched Republican House primary in Northern Kentucky.” His opponents didn’t stand a chance against the “saturation advertising,” especially when so many voters are so unengaged.

It is difficult not to be disturbed by how the story advances the Massie template. Beyond the Kentucky race — in the November general election, Mr. Massie will face Democrat Bill Adkins for the U.S. House seat being vacated by the GOP’s retiring Geoff Davis — the story details how the scenario is being reproduced by followers of Ron Paul (daddy of Rand), in other parts of the country.

“Karl Rove’s fear-and-smear-style Republicans are going to wake up at the end of the year and realize we are now in control of the Republican Party,” said, per The Times, the man who runs the “Super Pac” that flooded Kentucky with money in support of Mr. Massie.

It’s one thing for Republicans, who have made their own beds with extremists, to have to live with these control issues. It’s quite another thing for the rest of the country to have to live with them, too.

But that is exactly what can happen if most voters decide to sit things out and let a few others decide their futures, and the futures of their communities and country, for them. Will we wake up at the end of the year and realize Ron and Rand Paul and their followers are in control of the country, too? Take a look at the scorched-earth proposals they make, and see how they fit with the America you envision.

John Ramsey, the young man with money to bankroll the ad glut in the 4th Congressional District race, asks in The Times story, “How much money would you spend for freedom?”

It’s his right as an American to ask that question, but it’s the wrong question.

The right question to ask after an American election in which only about 15 percent of the eligible voters bothered to cast ballots, is: “Why are you letting other people and other people’s money speak for you?”

A continuing silence may provide painful truth to the old Bob Dylan line that money doesn’t talk — it swears.

Discouraging Voter Turnout In Kentucky's Primary Elections..

Discouraging voter turnout

In Kentucky Tuesday only 14 percent of registered voters decided it was worth the trouble to go to the polls.

Remarkably, that's more than the 10 to 12 percent election officials had anticipated.

This is discouraging for any number of reasons. Low turnout means a small portion of the population is making some serious decisions for everyone else. That's just not good for democracy.

It's also an indication that, as a people, we take the right to vote freely for whomever we choose much too lightly.

It was just last year when the entire world was excited about the Arab spring as millions risked their lives to agitate for the right of self-determination. Throughout the last century disenfranchised groups within this country, women and African-Americans, fought for the right to vote.

And, with Memorial Day approaching, we must remember that thousands of Americans have returned home in flag-draped coffins after fighting for these rights for people in other parts of the world.

But blaming voters is not the only issue. It is too hard to vote. In Kentucky the polls close at 6 p.m., an hour that might have made sense in an agricultural society where most women didn't work outside the home.

Today, with the press of round-the-clock work, school, extracurricular activities and a host of other distractions, that's an unreasonably early hour.

Beyond that, though, in this country we still insist for the most part on voting only one day, in the middle of the week and almost always in person. What about voting on weekends, or by mail or by secure Internet connection?

Technology has made it easier to count votes but, frankly, it hasn't done much to make it easier to cast them.

We know that money is an issue here, as everywhere. New technology comes at a cost, as would expanding polling hours or days.

But as a society we need to consider the cost that has been paid to give people the right to vote; and the potential cost of letting that right drift away without a fight.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/05/24/2199246/editorial-discouraging-voter-turnout.html#storylink=cpy

Editor's note: in my precinct, it was 3.5% turnout! Yes, SHAMEFUL, I know!

On Election Day Tomorrow In Warren County, Only One Election Matters: The Clerk Of The Circuit Court Clerk Race Between Brandi Duvall And Pat Howell Goad, Both Democrats. Watch News Video And Go And Vote.

KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH LAUNCHES WEBSITE TO EDUCATE VOTERS ABOUT VOTING NEXT WEEK TUESDAY.

Kentuckians For The Commonwealth launched a non-partisan voter education website last week at www.KentuckyElection.org that helps people know what elections they'll be able to vote in, find voting locations, and learn where the candidates stand on various issues. It's a useful site, so check it out and share it with friends. But above all - don't forget to vote on Tuesday May 22nd. Polls are open from 6am to 6pm.

Today Is Election Day In Kentucky. The Commonwealth Needs You To Go Do Your Civic Duty, So Go And Vote, People!

If you don't vote, you should NOT complain about the way things are going. That right to complain is reserved for those who have bothered their God given Constitutional right to vote.

Republicans: Please Vote For David Williams/Richie Farmer; Addia Wuchner; Hilda Legg; And James Comer. Thanks.

OK: I voted today -- I work the polls tomorrow -- for David Williams and Richie Farmer; Addia Wuchner (my favorite lady); Hilda Legg; and, James Comer.

I urge y'all to vote for them tomorrow.


Democrats: I'll let y'all figure it out, but don't forget Allison Lundergan Grimes.

See ya!

Absentee Voting Is Open For Kentucky's Primary Election.

Absentee Voting is Open for the Primary Election

Frankfort, KY – Voters across Kentucky are already casting ballots for this year’s May 17th primary election. While not all Kentuckians can head to the polls before Election Day, Kentucky law does provide opportunities for some voters to cast absentee ballots before the May 17, 2011 primary election.

“It is very important that everyone votes in this upcoming election. Kentucky law provides voters with a number of opportunities to cast a ballot,” stated Kentucky Secretary of State Elaine N. Walker, the Chief Election Officer of the Commonwealth. “I hope that all citizens will plan for Election Day accordingly, and if they cannot make it to the polls on Election Day that they still vote absentee. There simply is no unimportant election.”

Many County Clerks’ offices across the Commonwealth have already begun in-person absentee voting, where voters actually vote on voting machines similar to those used on Election Day. All County Clerks’ offices must allow in-house absentee voting at least twelve working days before Election Day. The actual start date for in person absentee is left to County Clerks and their office hours. Voters will have until May 16, 2011 to cast an in-person absentee ballot.

Voters might also be eligible to apply for a mail-in absentee ballot. Applications for mail-in absentee ballots are available from voters’ respective County Clerks’ offices and must be received during office hours in those offices by May 10, 2011. After receiving an approved application, county clerks will mail a ballot to the respective voters, and voters will have until 6:00 p.m. local time on Election Day to return their ballots to the county clerk. All mail-in absentee ballots must be returned by mail to the county clerk and must be received by 6:00 p.m. local time.

There are a variety of reasons why a voter might request to cast an absentee ballot, including:
• Advanced age, disability, or illness
• Military personnel, their dependents, and overseas citizens
• Students who temporarily reside outside the county
• Other voters who temporarily reside outside of Kentucky, such as a vacationer
• Voters incarcerated but not yet convicted
• Voters whose employment takes them out of the county during all hours the polling place is open
• Voters who will be out of the county on Election Day
• Military personnel confined to base who learn of it within seven days or less of an election
• Voters who have surgery scheduled that will require hospitalization on Election Day, and the voter’s spouse
• Pregnant women in third trimester
• Precinct Election Officials

Voters are restricted as to whether they can use in-person absentee voting or mail-in ballots according to their reason for casting an absentee ballot.

Secretary Walker also reminded voters that with the start of in-person absentee voting, electioneering laws are now in effect for the building in which the absentee voting is located. Electioneering is prohibited inside in-person absentee voting locations during the hours in which absentee voting is being conducted. Electioneering materials shall not be affixed to the interior or exterior of any in-person absentee voting location during that time as well. For more specific rules about electioneering, citizens are urged to contact their local board of elections or the State Board of Elections.

To learn more information about absentee voting or to use the Voter Information Center, a service that will confirm voter registration and provide pertinent election information to registered voters, please visit: www.vote.ky.gov.

Tomorrow (Last Filing Day For Office) Will Be Like A ZOO In Frankfort, Kentucky. So Watch Out For The STAMPEDE. Where's Tarzan When You Need Him?!

RE: Candidate Filing Deadline
DATE: January 24, 2011
CONTACT: Les Fugate, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Office of the Secretary of State
Office: (502) 564-3490
Cell: (502) 229-3803
Les.Fugate@ky.gov

This is a reminder that the deadline for candidate filings for the May 17, 2011 primary is 4:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, January 25, 2011.

Secretary of State Trey Grayson will open his office all day for members of the press to use as a station for writing stories, relaxing, etc. We will try to accommodate everyone as much as possible. We anticipate having internet access available (including wireless) for anyone needing web access during this time; however, computers will not be provided in the conference room.

We will have numerous chairs placed in the hallways for those of you who would like to watch the filing room directly, as the conference room does not have a direct view of the filing room. We will also have some computers in the hallway in order for those outside of our office to access the online candidates listing page:

http://www.sos.ky.gov/candidates

We will attempt to update this site as quickly as possible with the hope of being near “real time.”

We would like to make this day as accommodating as possible. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. The Secretary looks forward to seeing all of you on Tuesday.

Who: Secretary of State Trey Grayson, Candidates for 2011 primary elections

What: The 2011 election filing deadline

When: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 (4:00 p.m. EST is the exact deadline for filing with the Office of the Secretary of State)

Where: Office of the Secretary of State, RM 152, State Capitol Building