LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2012 ELECTION

I am on an email list from OurTime.org. It is a nationwide non-profit organization that leverages online organizing, new media, and popular culture to enhance the political voice of young Americans. More than one million members strong, they lead campaigns that register voters, remove ballot barriers, and highlight relevant news and policies that impact their lives.

They released a report with seven recommendations to improve and modernize our nation's electoral system.

These include:

- Universal online voter registration

- Online absentee ballot request forms

- A federally standardized list of permissible forms of voter ID

- Mandatory early voting periods

- Uniform standards for voting machine allocation

- Same day voter registration

- Requiring colleges and universities to act as DMV's in registering their enrolling students

CLICK HERE to read the report.

I would add the following:

"It’s time to rethink our largely partisan system of state and local election administration. We risk leaving our election processes open to partisan mischief – or to the perception of such mischief. We should have a serious conversation about solutions to this risk, including developing an entirely professionalized and non-partisan system for administering our elections."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

You say you want a revolution, Run for Office

I was planning on writing a post about the "Occupy Wall Street" protest but this article says what I would have written.

Paul Sracic is chairman of the department of political science at Youngstown State University in Ohio.

In case this is not obvious to those camping out near Wall Street and in various other cities around the country, consider the following: In about 13 months, all 435 members of the House of Representatives must stand for election. In addition, 33 Senate seats and residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will be up for grabs. And this is just at the federal level. So if the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd wants to peacefully overthrow the government, there is no need to gather in a public square. The demonstrators can work for a candidate or run themselves.

Unfortunately, those who are part of this movement seem to have dismissed this option. The New York group has produced a manifesto of sorts, entitled a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City." Among the grievances listed (which they helpfully note are not "all-inclusive") is "that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power."

So my suggestion to Occupy Wall Street and their affiliates throughout the country is to pay as much attention to their 15th Amendment right to vote as they do to their 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble. In other words, get out of your sleeping bags and onto the ballot!

Use the above link to read the entire article.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Voter Suppression

There seems to be a Republican misuse, led by State Legislatures and GOP Governors, of their power by enacting restrictive voter ID laws under a thin veil of "preventing voter fraud."

Legislation already passed in Ohio could deprive nearly 900,000 citizens, mostly seniors, low-income individuals, students, the disabled, and people of color, of their voting rights by limiting voter ID verification to one of just five types. Unfortunately, a similar law was passed in Texas, and more such laws are well on their way in 20 other states. This type of voter suppression goes against everything America stands for. The only way we can ensure all voters have a voice is for all of us to stand up and use our voices right now. This is just too important to sit quietly on the sidelines.

Since taking office in January, conservative legislators in state houses across the country have raised the specter of voter fraud to, quietly and quickly, push through a series of bills that would make it significantly more difficult for large swaths of the population to vote, including college students, rural voters, senior citizens, the disabled, and the homeless. Proposed legislation would dramatically change how the country votes ahead of the 2012 elections, requiring Americans in some states to present their birth certificate before registering to vote and show a DMV-issued photo identification at the polls. These voter ID bills would not only dampen voter turnout, depressing Hispanic turnout by as much as 10 percent, but also cost cash-strapped statehouses (and taxpayers) millions of dollars. Yet in dozens of states, Republicans have made bills restricting voting a central part of their legislative agenda by passing voter ID bills before they even begin to work on budgets. Conservatives have claimed their assault on voting rights is necessary to combat the threat of mass voter fraud. Yet the Brennan Center for Justice notes that voters are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud, and the Bush Justice Department's five-year "War on Voter Fraud" resulted in only 86 convictions out of 196 million votes cast. As The Progress Report's Alex Seitz-Wald notes, "The only fraud in voter fraud is the allegation of fraud." Instead, like their assaults on unions, Planned Parenthood, and AARP, conservatives' anti-voter agenda is aimed at silencing the voices of those who disagree with them.

ASSAULT ON VOTING RIGHTS: After picking up more than 650 seats in state legislatures across the country last November, Republicans have moved quickly to make their anti-voter agenda into law. Kansas has already passed a bill requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. If signed by Gov. Sam Brownback (R), it would be the nation's strictest registration requirement. Similar laws in Arizona and Georgia have been invalidated by federal courts or are waiting review from the Justice Department. And in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Montana, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri, at least one legislative chamber has approved a photo ID bill. By the end of the year, these states could join eight others that have already passed and implemented voter ID requirements. They've been able to move so quickly with the help of the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, which has distributed "model" voter ID legislation to conservative lawmakers that bears a striking similarity to bills in at least two states. But conservatives may come to regret passing the laws they now so eagerly support. In Indiana for example, photo ID laws have forced election workers to turn nuns and college students away from the polls. And voters may not be very happy to bear the cost of implementing new voter systems. As the Brennan Center notes, "in a difficult fiscal environment, citizens may reasonably question whether there are more pressing needs on which to spend their tax dollars than photo ID rules."

THE NEXT FRONTIER: Last month, conservatives were on the verge of passing voter ID bills in at least two dozen statehouses. But in the past few weeks, progressive lawmakers and organizations have fought back, killing bills in seven states. And progressives are not just playing defense. In four states, lawmakers are moving forward on what The Progress Report's Scott Keyes has called "the next frontier in voting rights": online voter registration. Already implemented in eleven states, electronic registration is not only cost-effective but has, according to the Pew Research Center, increased "voter list accuracy, streamlined the process for government officials, and enjoyed overwhelming public support." But most importantly, online registration has a track record of raising voter turnout, especially among younger voters, compared to those who registered using "traditional methods." While conservative statehouses across the nation work to make voting more expensive and more difficult, progressives have found "a welcome reform" that will make the country's voting system more accountable, more cost-effective, and more inclusive.

FROM JIM CROW TO THE TEA PARTY: Today's battles over voting rights are just the latest episode in the rights's long campaign to restrict voting rights. For more than a century, conservatives have ginned up the threat of voter fraud to restrict the voting rights of minorities and the poor. In the Jim Crow South, historian Leon Litwack notes, "respectable" Southern whites justified their support for poll taxes and literacy taxes which disenfranchised millions of African-Americans "as a way to reform and purify the electoral process, to root out fraud and bribery." Since 1958 both the RNC and state GOP committees have engaged in more than half a dozen "voter caging" efforts supposedly designed to "prevent voter fraud" by challenging the residency, and voter eligibility, of thousands living in low-income and minority communities. Most recently, during the lead-up to the 2010 election, Tea Party volunteers challenged the eligibility of voters at the polls in an effort to stop "voter fraud" and prevent "stolen elections." And in 2006, U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias and Tom Heffelfinger lost their jobs after they ran afoul of GOP activists for refusing to prosecute voting fraud cases where little evidence existed and expressing "deep concerns" about laws curbing Native Americans ability to vote.

I remember my 94 year old aunt in FL. fighting about having to get her picture id so she could go and vote for Obama. We all need to fight this effort to prevent certain voters from voting.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The Two Sides of Ballot Access

Ballot Access is a two sided sword. It deals with candidates getting on the ballot and registered voters being allowed to vote in the candidates’ selection process.

Candidates

In the coming weeks, legislators in at least 16 states will be working on legislation to curb unnecessary restrictions on voter choice. In some of these states, ballot access reforms have already made it into law.

Nebraska
Is the first state this year to enact ballot access reform, eliminating “the county distribution requirement for statewide non-presidential independent candidate petitions.

New Mexico
Omnibus election law bill contains provisions to extend the petition deadline for independent candidates by three weeks, and lower the petition signature requirement for new parties in mid-term election years.

Illinois
Rep. Jim Watson (R-Jacksonville) introduced House Bill 2854, to allow candidates to pay a filing fee in place of Illinois’ petitioning requirements.

Pennsylvania
Ballot Access Coalition is working with Rep. Eugene DePasquale (D-York) and Senator Mike Folmer (R-Lebanon) to push for passage of the Voters’ Choice Act (Senate Bill 21). The bill would lower the threshold for new parties to become recognized for the ballot, and reduce the number of signatures required for independent candidates.

North Carolina
State Reps Stephen LaRoque (R-Lenoir), Glen Bradley (R-Youngsville), Paul Leubke (D-Durham) and Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D-Wilson) introduced the Electoral Freedom Act (House Bill 32) that would dramatically reduce the number of signatures required to a fixed figure for a new political party or an unaffiliated candidate to qualify for the ballot. The Free the Vote Coalition, composed of fifteen organizations including Free the Vote North Carolina, the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, FairVote Action, the John Locke Foundation and Democracy North Carolina, are actively lobbying for the bill’s passage. State Senators Andrew C. Brock (R-Mocksville) and Eleanor Kinnaird (D-Chapel Hill) introduced Senate Bill 225, a companion bill, in the North Carolina Senate in early March.

Oklahoman
Ballot Access Reform (OBAR) is working with Rep. Charles Key (R-Oklahoma City) to promote House Bill 1058, which would cut the signature requirement for new political parties in half. The bill calls for a 22,500 signature requirement, rather than the current requirement of 5% of votes cast in the last statewide election.

Alabama
Independent Alabama is backing a ballot access reform effort, while Marylanders4Democracy is pressing the issue in Maryland. The New Hampshire Libertarian Party is backing a ballot access reform bill in their state. Other states with pending ballot access legislation are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, New York and Tennessee.

But many states are trying to make it more difficult for new parties or independents to get on the ballot. I am starting to see some states looking to replace petition signatures with a filing fee.

Voters

Open Primaries are under attack and we are 1 and 1.

Idaho
The decision by U.S. District Judge B. Linn Winmill earlier this month forced state lawmakers to rethink the rules for primary elections. Winmill determined the constitutional right to free association also protects the right not to associate with certain groups. The ruling came after the State Republican Party filed a lawsuit claiming Idaho's primary system, which allowed anyone to take part in GOP primaries, unfairly lumped die-hard Republicans in with independents and even Democrats seeking to skew election outcomes. Winmill's ruling also validated evidence presented at trial showing that past primaries were influenced by crossover voting by Democrats and independents.

Legislation designed to give Idaho political parties the option of closing primary elections only to voters willing to register with the party cleared its first hurdle Wednesday. The Senate State Affairs Committee voted along party lines for the bill that was hammered out after a federal court ruling declared Idaho's 38-year-old system of open primaries unconstitutional. The bill is now headed to the full Senate. It would give parties a series of options for laying the ground rules of primary elections, including closing participation to those registered with the party. If the bill passes, the GOP is expected to limit participation in 2012 to just registered Republicans, including those who register on Election Day. For the first time in state history, the bill would make a voter's party registration a public record and set a deadline of 180 days before the primary for voters to notify the county in writing about their decision to disassociate from a party.

Judge Winmill's ruling is being appealed by the New York based Committee for a United Independent Party. The group's lawyer Gary Allen warned the public record provision could infringe on constitutional privacy rights. Citing a recent Boise State University survey showing the majority of Idaho voters view themselves as independents, Allen cautioned lawmakers against setting rules that could keep independents home on primary election day. "A third of Idaho voters have lost their right to vote in the state's primaries as a result of this decision," said Harry Kresky, co-counsel for the group calling itself the American Independent Movement of Idaho. "As a result of our invention in the litigation, independents are able to take the necessary legal steps to protect their interests, regardless of what the State of Idaho decides to do in the courts or in the legislature in response to the decision."

South Carolina
A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by Republicans Wednesday who wanted South Carolina to close their primary and begin requiring voters to register with a party before voting in a primary. If Republicans don’t want outsiders to help choose their nominees, they have other options, like picking candidates at a party convention or filling out petitions to get them on the ballot, U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs ruled.

The decision reverberates nationally.

South Carolina’s first-in-the-South Republican presidential primary, which has been won by the party’s eventual nominee in each election since 1980, is open to any registered voter in the state, forcing candidates to moderate their message to a wider audience. The Democratic contest is also open. “It’s a great day for independents. It’s a great day for all voters in South Carolina,” said lawyer Harry Kresky, who argued the case for IndependentVoting.org. “The primary confirms a great deal of legitimacy on a candidate.” IndependentVoting.org. joined with the state, Tea Party members and black lawmakers in fighting the lawsuit. Republicans are discussing whether to appeal the ruling, said S.C. GOP executive director Joel Sawyer.

Republicans also plan to ask legislators to pass a law allowing voters in the state to register to vote by party, which likely would open the door to closing primaries to only party members. In arguments before the judge earlier this month in Greenville, Republicans said 25 other states have closed primaries and South Carolina’s current laws break the party’s constitutional rights to associate with the people they choose. They also said the requirement that 75 percent of convention members have to approve picking the nominee at a convention is an unfair hurdle because many churches and corporations only need a simple majority to get things done. Judge Childs ruled political parties are different because they are allowed access to elections and ballots denied to private organizations.

The state argued that the case wasn’t just about political parties choosing whom they want to associate with, it also involves voters deciding whether they want to associate with parties. Also, choosing whether to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary is in a way choosing to align with a party, government lawyers argued.

But with more voters’ registered in no party their argument does not hold. Today over 38% of voters’ are voting for the candidates not the party. So it is important to keep the current system of primaries open but this creates other issues. Why are states using taxpayer’s money to pay for private party’s candidate selection process?

We should be using an open primary system that would include candidates from: the party’s paid for selection process, party members not selected, independents, and write-ins. This would then allow all registered voters to become part of the selection and election process.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The Two Sides of Ballot Access

In reading all the blogs about Open Primaries and Top Two, it is obvious to me most bloggers only see one side of the equation.

To make the concept of a truly Open Primary requires a number of actions to take place in a states Election Law:

Candidate
All candidates must have a chance to get on the ballot. Whichever system a states uses must be fair to all who want to be a candidate: number of signatures, filing fee, same amount of time to collect signatures, equal opportunity to get a message to the voters, etc. Then on a truly Open Primary they should have to option to designate the party they are registered with and their endorsements.

Voter
The voter must have the opportunity to select from all candidates for a position in a primary. Most systems force a voter to select from a single party's candidates. So when a party or state claims "we have an open primary" it just does not fit the bill. I as an independent may want to select different candidates from the major partys, minor partys, independents, or a write-in. How do I do that with most current systems? I would add Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to a primary which would allow me to select as my first choice a favorite son or daughter, vanity vote, etc. and then make an informed vote as my next or other choice(s).

Party
As an entity they have the right to use any selection process they want as long as they pay for it. I as a tax payer should not be paying for their selection process. With the open primary system I am talking about, members of a party who are not selected could still allow the states' voters make the final decision on who should represent them.

Final Selection Process
Here I am still open to suggestions. I do not like the idea of the 40%, 50%+1 concept. So I am like maybe Top Two. The voices who say what about write-ins, etc. not taking part in the General Election, under my system they take part in the Open process. Some say the Blanket Open Primary would be the way to go. Here the highest vote getter for a: party (major and minor), independents, write-ins, go to the General.

What do you think of my suggestions?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

How to Lose Ballot Status in 2010

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

This year, for some unknown reason, major and minor parties will lose their ballot status.

In North Dakota, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 5% for Secretary of State. The Libertarian Party, the only ballot-qualified party other than the two major parties, is running for three statewide offices, but not Secretary of State. The party had chosen a candidate for Secretary of State but he failed to file for the party’s primary, even though he needed no petition and no filing fee.

In South Dakota, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 2.5% for Governor. The Constitution Party, the only ballot-qualified party other than the two major parties, has a nominee for Secretary of State, but not Governor.

In Wisconsin, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 1% for any statewide office. No candidate gathered the needed 2,000 signatures to appear on the Green Party’s primary ballot for any statewide office.

In Montana, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 5% of the winning candidate’s vote for any statewide race at either of the last two elections. The Constitution Party did not poll enough votes to meet this test in 2008, and in 2010, its “second chance” election, it is not running for either of the statewide offices, so it will go off the ballot.

In Massachusetts, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 3% for any statewide race. The Libertarian Party is the only ballot-qualified party other than the two major parties. No candidate qualified to appear on the Libertarian Party primary ballot, because primary petitions are so difficult. They require 10,000 signatures for some statewide offices and 5,000 signatures for other, less important, statewide offices. Only registered members of that party, and registered independents, may sign.

Fox News Poll released several days ago for the Colorado gubernatorial election shows these results: Hickenlooper, Democrat, 44%; Tancredo, Constitution, 34%; Maes, Republican, 15%; others and undecided 7%. The share of the vote for the Republican nominee, Dan Maes, has been dropping with each new poll. If he polls less than 10%, the Republican Party will no longer be a qualified major party and will no longer have a random chance of obtaining the top line on the ballot.

As soon as the November 2, 2010 election has been held, the Democratic and Republican Party of Washington state will no longer be ballot-qualified. This is because the law defines a ballot-qualified party as one that polled 5% of the vote for any statewide race at the last election, for any of its nominees. But under the state’s non-partisan top-two system, which went into effect in 2008, parties won’t have nominees, except for President. It is very likely that the 2011 session of the legislature will change the definition of “party”. During 2009 and 2010, the Secretary of State tried to persuade the legislature to amend the definition of qualified party to a group that had polled at least 1% for President at the last presidential election. That bill, SB 5681, did not pass.

With the growth of independent voters, our concept of Major and Minor parties will have to change.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYC Bar Ballot Access Filing Fee Alternative

Thanks to Ballot Access News and Harry Kresky for this news.

On June 10, 2010, the New York City Bar Association Election Law Committee made this recommendation. Harry Kresky, the New York City Independence Party lawyer, was the original drafter of the report.

"New York should adopt a filing fee alternative to the designating or nominating petition requirement for placement on the election ballot. Incremental reform of the petitioning process has not sufficiently lowered the barriers facing candidates for public office, particularly those who are insurgents.

An additional alternative is to guarantee a place on the ballot to candidates who have met the qualifying threshold for public funding by New York City’s Campaign Finance Board. The two approaches are not inconsistent. The filing fee proposal has the advantage of being applicable to all candidacies and all public offices in New York City and New York State.

Although the Committee supports a filing fee as an alternative, it does not recommend a specific fee or formula; the Legislature should do so."

Here are some questions about this recommendation:

1. Since New York is a Fusion state will a candidate have to pay a filing fee for each party's ballot line? What about the Party's right to decide who runs on their line?

2. If you used a filing fee, it should be required to be collected proportionally across the candidates district. This would show a wide support and not allow self funding.

How would you determine a filing fee?

Use the above link to read the entire recommendation.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Military ballots at risk in New York's special election

New York is holding a special election on November 3, 2009, to fill a vacant U.S. House seat. It is very likely that a substantial number of overseas military will not be able to have their vote counted in this election. A spokesperson for the Overseas Vote Foundation predicts that the federal government will soon sue New York again over this issue.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has recommended mailing absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before they are due. The Military Postal Service Agency recommended at least 60 days.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., alarmed by studies that showed 41 percent of military and overseas voters in Upstate New York (a total of 8,226 voters) did not have their ballots counted in 2008, proposed a reform bill in May.

Schumer’s bipartisan bill mandates that states send ballots out to military and absentee voters at least 45 days before the election. The legislation has passed the Senate, and awaits approval in the House.

Conklin, of the New York Board of Elections, said the state had no choice but to follow its own election laws after former Rep. John McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor, resigned to become President Obama’s secretary of the Army on Sept. 21.

Voters’ rights advocates say potentially thousands of military voters from Upstate New York could be disenfranchised in what early polls indicate will be a tight, three-way race to pick the region’s next member of Congress due to the delay in mailing ballots and the time it will take to return them.

Use the above link to read the entire article.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

More New York Ballot Access Bills

From Ballot Access News:

A4161 cuts the number of signatures needed for all petitions (except statewide petitions) in half. The bill covers petitions for candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot, and also petitions for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties seeking to qualify for the general election. It is sponsored by Assemblymembers Barbara Clark (D-Cambria Hts.), Sandy Galef (D-Ossining), and Mike Spano (D-Yonkers).

S1366 and its companion bill, A4959, delete the requirement that independent candidate petitions can only be circulated by people who live in that district. The bill merely conforms the law to current policy, since the district residency requirement was declared unconstitutional in 2004 in Chou v New York State Board of Elections.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Petition Requirements Soar in Some States

From Ballot Access News:

In approximately half the states, the number of signatures required for a new party, or an independent candidate, depends on how many voters voted in the last election, or on how many people were registered to vote in the last election. In some of the states with the most restrictive requirements, the 2010 or 2012 requirements are substantially higher than they were in 2006 or 2008. This is because, across the nation, turnout and registration were relatively high this season.

California requires a statewide independent candidate to submit a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters at the last election. In 2008 a statewide independent needed 158,372 signatures, but in 2010 such a candidate will need 173,041 signatures. No one has qualified as a statewide independent in California since 1992.

Georgia requires a statewide independent candidate to submit a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters at the last election for which that office was elected. In 2008 an independent presidential candidate needed 42,489 signatures. In 2012 an independent presidential candidate will need 57,582 signatures, unless the law is changed. In 2010, a new party that wishes to run a full slate of candidates for U.S. House will need 287,910 signatures.

Texas requires an independent presidential candidate to collect signatures equal to 1% of the last presidential vote. In 2008 such a candidate needed 74,108 signatures. In 2012 such a candidate will need more than 80,531 signatures (Texas hasn’t finished its official tally yet; the requirement will be somewhat higher than 1% of the unofficial tally).

North Carolina requires a new or previously unqualified party, and a statewide independent, to submit signatures equal to 2% of the last gubernatorial vote. In 2008 the requirement was 69,734. In 2010 and 2012 it will be higher than 85,376.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

PA Ballot Access Reform Bill Introduced

On September 17, Pennsylvania Senator Mike Folmer received a bill number for his ballot access reform bill. It is SB 1578. It should be on-line at the Pennsylvania legislature’s web page by the end of the week. It defines a qualified minor party to be a group with registration equal to one-twentieth of 1%. If it were law now, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties would be on the ballot automatically. They would nominate by convention. The law is based on Delaware’s law. The bill sharply reduces the number of signatures for independent candidates.

There isn’t much time left this year for the legislature to act, but if it doesn’t pass this year, Senator Folmer will reintroduce it next year.

Senator Folmer is looking for Co-sponsors for this bill. If you live in PA please contact your State Senator and ask him/her to co-sponsor, or at least support, SB-1578 “The Voters’ Choice Act”. The bill is the Voters Choice Act drafted by the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition last year (Greens, Libertarians, Constutution, Prohibition, Naderites and others). Folmer is one of the new Senators who knocked off long time incumbents following the pay raise scandal.

Right now, R’s and D’s need 2,000 signatures for statewide offices. Any other party or an independent needs to collect signatures equal to 2% of the highest total number of votes cast for an office in the previous state-wide election. For 2008, a statewide candidate would need to collect nearly 25,000 valid signatures to be eligible. In 2006, parties needed to collect 67,000 because of the huge turn-out of the 2004 presidential election.

John Murphy, a candidate for Congress in PA’s 16th, played a part in getting this bill to the floor. He is part of PA’s Ballot Access Coalition.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Democrats Sue Michigan G.O.P. on Voter Issue

Responding to allegations that Republican Party officials in Macomb County, Michigan plan to use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters at the polls in November, the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit on Tuesday in federal court to prevent what they contended was an illegal practice.

Use the above link to read the entire article.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us