Misunderstanding, scuffle at voting site lead to arrest (galloglas)

[proud2BlibKansan]

A confrontation over voter identification requirements Tuesday at an Independence precinct resulted in the arrest of a man who says he was denied the right to vote, a claim election board officials deny.

Phil Lindsey said when he and his son Eamonn showed up to East Alton Community of Christ Church, 16999 E. 23rd St., Tuesday morning to cast their votes in the primary election they presented election judges with precinct-issued voter cards as proof they were registered voters.

After being told by judges that the cards were not valid forms of identification to cast a vote and that they needed to show photo I.D., Lindsey said he produced a bank statement, which, shown in combination with the precinct card, is valid according to the secretary of state’s office.

“They did not have the legal right to ask for a driver’s license,” Lindsey said. “I said, ‘you have got to be kidding me.’ You have to know the law.”

<skip>

“I think it is a shame when people come in and try to intimidate election judges,” she said. “If he had shown the bank statement (in the beginning) he would have been fine.”

http://www.examiner.net/news/x802816840/Misunderstanding-scuffle-at-voting-site-lead-to-arrest

[malaise]

1. She said?

She should have known the law. She has been exposed. She is now embarrassed. Fuck 'she'.

Bravo Galloglas!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. She looks worse in every article

Dumb partisan idiot.

[Watchdawg]

24. KCTribune.com story on Lindsey

Check out another story on this at:

http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18250

[malaise]

25. Thanks

Welcome to DU

[Ellipsis]

28. Excellent article... a must read if your following this.

and Welcome to DU Watchdawg.

I'm going to post this as a stand alone in the Election Reform Forum

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. That's the best write up yet

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Matariki]

74. Oh, these paragraphs are FUNNY

Davis said that most voters show their driver's licenses as ID and do so without becoming upset.

"But Mr. Lindsey didn't want to do it the established way," she said. "They made up their mind they were going to be different and set the judges off. I felt sorry for the judges."

Davis said many of the judges are over age 70 and that there was fear that one judge may have a heart attack because the disruption was so upsetting to her.

:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

39. no shit....

[DS1]

2. And he did show the bank statement

that's when you stfu and let the guy vote. But no, someone's gotta have a tude

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Yeah that statement really stuck out

[Bozita]

5. I heard Charlene Davis' RANT on Thom Hartmann's show on Friday.

I'd love to hear her story again, this time under oath.

The replay of Hartmann's show is available at www.whiterosesociety.org/

Give it a listen. And, keep in mind that Galloglas is a disabled 63 year old.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Thank you for the link

:)

[Fovea]

6. An open and shut case-

They were clearly guilty of voting while Democrat.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. DemocratIC

:hi:

[Fovea]

26. Yes, they are members of the Democratic party

but individually, each of them is a Democrat, hence they would be charged with driving while (being a) Democrat.

At least, that is the sense in which I typed it...

[Lars39]

9. wtf is wrong with just the precinct-issued voter cards?

That's all I presented.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. These poll workers insisted on an ID with a signature

I think we all understand why.

[Wilms]

30. Perhaps because it's the law in MO?

Unless I got this wrong, the precinct ID needs to have a signature on it. I thought I read on another thread that galloglas' ID wasn't signed, so I checked the law,

http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills01/biltxt01/intro01/HB0772I.htm

[Pastiche423]

31. Your 1st link is from 2001

We are now in the year 2008.

[Wilms]

33. Laws stay on the books until they're changed.

I prefaced my comment wondering if I got it right. The law could have been superseded, of course.

And there's this:

"The voter identification card shall contain the voter's name, address, precinct and a signature line. The card may also contain other voting information at the discretion of the election authority. The voter shall be instructed to sign the card for use as identification at the polls."

http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills02/biltxt02/intro02/HB1670I.HTM

Again, it may not be right. It would be great if someone from the "show me state" with knowledge about this could straighten this much out.

[Pastiche423]

37. It took me less than a minute to type

Missouri + SoS in google to bring up the answer to your question.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/default.asp


Registered voters need to present ONLY ONE of the following types of ID (examples only):

Type are as follows:

* One Missouri Driver's License

* One Missouri Non Driver's License

* One Local Election Authority Card + Bank Statyement

* One Bank statement

* One Federal Government ID

* One Federal Government Passport

* One Missouri Institution of Higher Education ID

* One Out of State Driver's License

* One Utility Bill

[Wilms]

40. I was trying to find out if the voter ID card needed a signiture on it's back.

I thought I read either galloglas or proud2blib saying that the first offering was admittedly inadequate. The lack of a signature on it perhaps the reason. But I may have misread that much. I don't know if that card needs to be signed or not. The links I provided suggest the possibility but I didn't feel them to be definitive.

[Ellipsis]

46. It's not a voter ID card .... it only shows your'e registered and where to vote.

Thats the only thing on the SOS website not allowed as legal ID.

That's the cluster fuck. People think it's a legal voter ID card. it ain't. and from what I read on the "many threads" some have been allowed to use it to vote in other precincts as a legal ID.

[Pastiche423]

48. Did you even read the link I supplied?

[Wilms]

49. A few times over the last two days and immediately on seeing your post.

But it's not clear to me if the voter ID card they show requires a signature (on its back) or not.

Can you help me with that?

[Pastiche423]

53. There is NO signature requirement on the SOS page

The page clearly shows (w/examples) what is required.

Phil Lindsey showed his Voter ID Card and a Bank Statement to the poll judge. He provided exactly what was required to vote in Missouri.

[Wilms]

54. OK. Another Duer cleared it up.

I was wondering if the back of this card had it.



Probably not.

On this other thread EV_Ares said his state issued card, while different, didn't need a sig.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x506638#top

Thanks.

[galloglas]

69. NOTHING was improper, either first or last

Neither I nor Proud2Blib said, or implied, that was the case.

Perhaps you are simply remembering allegations you read, or heard. from Charlene Davis. I brought 4(FOUR) different types of acceptable ID.

The fact that NONE were the type which all the PHOTO VOTER ID Xenophobes and Vigilantes seem to adore is beside the point. I more than covered the voting requirement without caving to their attempts at de facto Photo Voter ID ministrations.

But when the election judges
1) Would accept NONE of the valid ID (nor even look at them)
2) Would not even look at the SoS sheets (and they were supposed to
have those same papers on their own walls)
3) When they refused to call the Election Board for clarification
4) When they refused to call the office of the SS for clarification

and finally said, produce a "signature ID" (read: Photo Voter ID) or leave, now!!!", I had to make a decision.

I decided to stay until we were told WHY we were not being allowed to vote. And that NEVER happened.

I was arrested instead.


What would YOU have done, Wilms? Cave in to an Unconstitutional demand because it was "easier"?

[Wilms]

76. I had a question that was resolved prior to you posting.

Thanks.

All well and good what you posted. But it varies from other posts by you. It's ok. Heat of the moment and all. But you'll understand the confusion if one is really trying to understand how one gets arrested for voting.

I listed a few questions that struck me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=506638&mesg_id=506643

Sounds like you got what you were looking for.

[Hubert Flottz]

83. "screaming also could be heard coming from Lindsey"

How did that repub official know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact YOUR voice that she head "screaming" on the other end of the phone line? Since the "judges" went to the trouble of calling in the cops, you might want to go to the trouble of getting yourself a lawyer and making this lady prove in a court of law that it was YOU she heard. She shouldn't have issued a damaging statement like that about you to reporters without some real proof of some kind.

I can't believe that we have people in this country where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, casting their votes in a church. Were you afraid the snakes would get you? I know I would be afraid of snakes if they did that kinda sh!t here in West Virginia!

I'll bet Thomas Jefferson would be in your corner!

[Hubert Flottz]

86. One other point about this repub election official...

"Davis said many of the judges are over age 70 and that there was fear that one judge may have a heart attack because the disruption was so upsetting to her."

Did the "Judges" worry about the possibility of the voter maybe having the same type of a health problem when they cuffed him and hauled him away?

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. No an ID with a signature is not required

Acceptable IDs: voter precinct card, bank statement, utility bill.

[Wilms]

35. Your response seems incomplete.

So does the SOS website, so it's ok. But I'd rather believe in reality instead of what I want to believe.

The links I posted refer to signatures on voter ID cards. I don't know if that was superseded or what but I'd like a linkable reference to how that works.

In other words, "Show Me"!

[Ellipsis]

36. Here

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/default.asp


I did some rearch on Section 115.427, RSMO Supp. 2006 The language I read seemed reflect to the vote ID law now overturned.

[Wilms]

38. I've seen that page, but not the back of the card illustrated.

What was overturned? Photo ID requirements (which we all understand) or signatures on voter ID cards?

That's my question. One of them anyhow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=506638&mesg_id=506643

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. In MO, voters are only required to verify their address,

NOT their signature.

[Wilms]

44. Link it. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. It's already been posted and linked in this thread

MO voters do not need to show an ID with a signature or a picture. I know this because I live in Kansas City and have been a poll watcher in MO.

Galloglas had 3 acceptable IDs on him. All are listed on the poster provided by the MO SOS that is to be hung in every polling location. (And it was not displayed at the location where Galloglas voted.)

He had

a voter card which had been mailed to him by the election commission

a bank statement

a utility bill


ALL of these by themselves are acceptable under MO law. The only thing a voter has to provide is proof of residence.

[Wilms]

47. How many he had, and what was first presented are two different things according to the accounts.

So careful you don't spin-out.

I know you don't need a photo, and I didn't ask that, so we can set that to one side and try to concentrate on this other issue.

Quite specifically, I am asking if the voter ID he used is to have a signature on it or not. Can you linkably verify how that works?

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. One more time

He was asked for an ID with a signature. The law does not require that; only proof of residence is required. Galloglas refused to provide a copy of his signature and offered a voter card he received in the mail, then a bank statement and then a utility bill. The poll workers kept demanding an ID with a signature.

The reason they ask for a signature is that way they get a picture ID since everyone has a signature on their drivers license.

These same poll workers at this same polling location had insisted on a signature in Feb also. Galloglas filed a complaint and called both the local election commissioner and the MO SOS. He was told the poll workers were wrong to ask for a signature and he would not need one when he voted in August. But the poll workers asked him anyway.

And again, the links you are asking for are in this thread. So is the interview of the election commissioner by Thom Hartman, who read to her over the phone the list of acceptable IDs listed on the SOS website. And no, a signature is not listed as a requirement, only an address.

[Wilms]

52. I think I understand most of what you are saying.

But I'm really asking a simple question.


http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/

I appreciate a number of people posting the voter ID site, but it is unclear if the "Local Election Authority" card gets signed on it's back.

Can you answer that question for me?



--on edit--

Someone straightened me out on this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3771149&mesg_id=3773685

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. I believe the back just lists the polling location

no signature

But I don't have one right here in front of me so I am not 100% positive.

[Wilms]

56. Yea. But now I'm more sure there's no signiture on the back of that card.

Another thread has a DUer with a different voter ID card, but it has no signature on it, so I'd just imagine the same for the one galloglas used.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellipsis]

93. Wilms is not a disrupter.

Just another persnickety member of ER.

*Grin*

[piedmont]

51. Here ya go.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/

No signature is required.

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. Now here is a critical statement from that link:

If you do not possess any of these forms of identification, you may still cast a ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each major political party, attest they know you.

BINGO!! They already admitted they knew him, since he had made the same objection back in Feb.

I am really hoping these poll workers are majorly screwed and at the very least don't get to work future elections.

[Bozita]

58. The bold-printed statement at the bottom is testament to the criminality of the precinct workers

"If you do not possess any of these forms of identification, you may still cast a ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each major political party, attest they know you."

Seems they knew Gallogas quite well.

[galloglas]

70. Why don't you "Show US!!", Wilms

Why don't YOU find out and let us all know! You seem to be the only one with questions.

Hell, I don't even think they are questions. They seem to be "What happened between 2001 and now?"

So, if you don't like the status quo, as evidenced by the SoS's (the chief elections officer of the State of Missouri) web site, why don't YOU look up the answers and then YOU can tell us.

We've got other things to do than YOUR homework created to bedevil others.

[Wilms]

77. Stop yelling before someone calls the cops.

I attempted finding out looking at the SoS website and, OMG, asking here. My bad.

The SoS site is a bit murky with regard to that "1 & 3" reference to non-photo ID.

When you contacted the SoS about that, what did they say?

[galloglas]

97. Sorry about perceived shouting.

My attempt to play on "SHOW ME !!" and "Show US!!" is just too obscure, I reckon.

From now on, I'll try not to be funny after midnight. Simply forgot that the caps would be construed as "Shouting". Sorry about that.

RE: the reply from the SoS, all was good as far as they could see.

One note about the SoS page: The picture of the Election Board's card is (I think) from St. Louis.

By the nature of Missouri's autonomy of its Election Boards and County Clerks, during elections, each ED designs and print its own card, or cards.

Consequently, the one shown is an example only. To create a page that had the exact card for each ED would require 114 (minimum) different cards to be put on the web page and those would be available to the SoS only a week or so before the election.

I expect the logistics of doing something like that might be insurmountable. If not, I am sure it would be seen as a counterproductive expenditure of time for the amount of difference made.

[galloglas]

68. Wilms, try this

This is the official web page from the SoS web site.


http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/


When I went in on Tuesday morning, I was carrying FOUR 4)valid IDs in my left hand, as well as the print out of the SoS's web page above:

1) The Election Primary Notification from the Jackson County Board of Election Commissioners. That piece (printed on white stock paper) gave my

A) Name
B) Address to which the card had been delivered (my home addy)
C) My township and
D) My precinct.

It gave times of voting (6AM to 7PM) and the address of the precinct.

Please note that the card was "Return Service Requested" to the USPO, allowing them to be notified if I failed to pick up that mail.

2) I had with me my latest bank statement, showing my full name and address

3) I had my Telephone bill (utility bills are acceptable.

4) I was also carrying my uncashed Social Security Check.


That is 4 (FOUR) valid forms of ID to show the judges.

When we were asked if we wished to vote, we replied "Yes".
When told, "You will have to show proper ID.", we replied "OK." and each showed our notice from the election board.
PLEASE NOTE: There is no signature line on either the front or the back of this mailed card.

We were told, "That's not enough. You have to show signature ID."

I said, "I don't think so. I have the legal requirements here on the SoS web page. I says nothing about a 'signature ID'. But here is my bank statement, which is recognized as valid."

We were not even allowed to show the bank statement, nor anything else. We were told top produce a "signature ID" or leave immediately!!

(BTW, while there were all six judges there, my son and I were the only voters at the precinct).



So, what did you get wrong??

After being forced to produce my driver's license, against my will at the Feb. Presidential primary, I was damned sure going to get it right at the state primary.

So, what is your problem with this? We were totally civil, totally quiet, and totally polite. We caused no ruckus. All we did was refuse to leave until we had been told why we were not being allowed to vote.

What we were was quietly adamant about leaving without a reason being given for our disenfranchisement.

Do you have some problem about our refusal to acquiesce to the precinct's refusal to grant what was our Civil Rights at that Kafkaesque precinct?

[Wilms]

78. Pretty obvious they got it wrong again.

Like you were anticipating. Right?

And I'll ask you to pardon my asking if there was a signature line on the ID card you had.

I'm figuring there'll be a lot of informed poll workers next time. In fact what you were up to was political action. Sounds good to me. But why feign outrage when you know they're gonna screw it up? And too bad there weren't more witnesses. That would help in court should those poll workers gang up and insist that you caused a ruckus.

[galloglas]

80. Anticipating or expectation.

Perhaps they are the same thing.

Yeah, it was too bad the polls weren't packed. Oddly, when we drove into the parking lot, I remarked to my son,

"My God!! Look at the cars! I have never seen this many cars even at a general election!" There were about fifteen cars in lot that would hold maybe 55, tops.

I suppose would have wondered "where are all the voters?", if the lady at the first table had not started asking, "Would you like to vote?" before we even fully cleared the door.

And no offense taken about the signature line.

As to "I'm figuring there'll be a lot of informed poll workers next time", it is a real question. Personally, I would bet that each of the six I saw had worked the polls for at least five years, some for at least eight (I've been at the same address for eight years, and two of the women were there when I first voted at that precinct. So they were not "inexperienced" by any means.

On the other hand, I got a phone call from the MO SoS office about midday Thursday to tell me that they had called Charlene Davis about this, and was told that Davis had vowed to SoS Carnahan that there would "be no repeats of this" in November. So, we'll see.

As to "But why feign outrage when you know they're gonna screw it up?", I would need to know when you mean "feigned outrage".

If you are speaking of the "outrage" at the polls, I would reply that there simply was none.

I was absolutely gob-smacked that they attempted what they did. My jaw may have hit the floor when I realized the extent to which they were going. And I did, when I realized that it was either roll over for them and take it or dig in my heels, certainly change my demeanor. But it was to cold resolve rather than outrage.

Was I absolutely adamant? Yes.

Loud, obscene, animated, boisterous, or anything else, including outraged? No. It simply did not happen. All I said was the one thing that seemed bound to inflame them. That was the word "No".

They just did not seem to have entertained the idea that I was willing to go to jail rather than buckle under to their bullying.

As to "That would help in court should those poll workers gang up and insist that you caused a ruckus", I am quite sure that will happen. Charlene Davis has ensured that with the public statement that have been made.

But, I'll have a right to a jury trial and will happily take a polygraph. When Charlene and these workers are asked to do the same, I expect (since there are huge penalties for their actions, as I have described them) one or more to break ranks. If not, there are some circumstances which will put the lie to their statements,

For instance, if I had no legs, I could not jump up on a table a stomp on it. Nor can a man with a paralysis of one vocal chord start screaming.

So I actually welcome these outrageous statements about my behavior because, even though I have only my son as an eye witness, they must prove I am capable of what they claim I did. And that will be a tall hill for any kind of stepper.

Also, the police apparently were recording all that happened over a radio on one of the patrolman's belt. So that will be evidence, too. Unless it somehow gets "disappeared".

[Wilms]

92. Outraged, gob-smacked, whatever...

There was a lot of surprise reflected despite the previous experience suggesting it would all happen again.

What I meant by witnesses was going there with a group rather than with only one other. Expecting a hostile environment, back-up is an idea.

[galloglas]

98. I talked to Charlene about two weeks before

I was probably stupid to believe she would actually abide by the law. But she did give me an *absolute promise* that the judges would not ask for a Photo Voter ID.

When I went to the poll, I really did not expect what happened. Some grousing by the staff, perhaps. Some snide remarks, maybe. But even that I expected to be whispered behind their hands. I did not think I would be set up.

Stupid me, I guess. But, when I was put in the position I was put in, I had to quickly think it out and make a decision.

Looking back, I am glad I did what I did.

[Sancho]

87. Does MO use caging lists (illegal) like Florida?

One reason to take multiple ID that list your full name and address in addition to a "signature" ID in Florida are the broadly used challenge lists of felons and lists of those persons with questionable residences. Even if you have a voter ID, if your name is "similar" to a felon or there is an address listed that is different in anyway from the "records", you can be turned away or forced to vote on a worthless provisional ballot.

With students, retired folks who live with relatives or moving in and out of retirement communities, snow birds who live in Florida in the winter, and newly arrived immigrants - address changes are common. Most of those people vote Democratic, so they are targeted by our poll workers and election supervisors as part of the GOP election manipulations.

Very few people change addresses on a Driver's License every time they move around if they are students or retired. In Florida, that means you might not get to vote! We are required have two ID's including one with a photo! Some of our Muslims have been in court because their photos have their head and face covered in photo ID's so the poll workers try to turn them away. I wonder if they challenge little old ladies with photo's wearing red hats that don't show their hair and glasses so big that you can't see their eyes? It depends on which party they are registered as I suspect.

I'm sure that the new battleground in 2008 will be registrations and the right to vote! Of course, we still have hacked computers and butterfly ballots.

[galloglas]

99. Excellent points!!

Yes, there is caging going on as we speak. The GOP is busy using the new State Voter ID database to ID potential voters for challenge in November.

Your reasoning for the multiple IDs is right on target. I took all of mine simply for backups to my Election Notification Card.

But, make no mistake, Missouri is being prepared for exactly the same kind of assault that Florida faced. Our one advantage is that our felons, if on parole or released for time served, can vote. The pity is that they are being told that they can't.

In fact, the Jackson County Board just lost a decision in July/2008 in a suit brought by ACORN which alleged the states failure to register potential voters who receive state services.

See at:

http://www.demos.org/pubs/Complaint%204.23.08.pdf

and

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/court-mo-agency-didnt-comply-with-voter/n20080716175709990017

[onethatcares]

10. he intimidated the judges? WTF?????

The problem is the judges are out of line.

[gratuitous]

12. "Misunderstanding," is that the official story now?

And, of course, the casual reader will leave with the impression that it was the voter who misunderstood, not the faultless prcinct officials. And how did an election judge get "intimidated"? Sounds like one person knew the rules and several others didn't. But the ones who "misunderstood" were the ones in charge.

I hope the lawsuit that's coming serves as the necessary wake-up call to the authorities.

[EV_Ares]

27. Seems to me if everything occurred the way the DUer said he has an

obligation to take this all the way. After all several thousand voters voted with no problem, not saying he did not have a problem but if there was intimidation by a poll worker, he has an obligation to take this before a jury and everyone under oath can testify then we can know the truth about this. After all there would be witnesses around the police officers can testify what they know who were called when he supposedly was yelling and pounding on the desk. No problem. That would be much more beneficial to rectifying any future problems like he says occurred instead of just posts on this board. None of this is doing anyone any good if there are problems with our voting system but he can do something about this by taking it to court. If what he said is true, I am sure the ACLU would be glad to assist.

[kiteinthewind]

61. Yeah, they are covering their asses, big time! Charlene Davis, in this article, says,

“If he had shown the bank statement (in the beginning) he would have been fine" and she is LYING through her teeth."Davis said the board offered five times to allow Lindsey and his son an opportunity to vote after he posted a $300 bond". Why should citizens have to go thru this and post bond to vote? I had the EXACT same thing happen to me in February. Sandra, one of the 'Election Judges' at Independence Precinct 6-2 insisted on my showing her my driver's license. I told her that was unconstitutional and that my permanent voter ID card was sufficient for the voter laws of Missouri. She told me I had to show ID and I, again, argued that my voter ID card WAS my ID (I had been voting in the same precinct for 6 years). She would not allow me to vote, so I showed her my driver's license, but then went to my car and called on my cell phone and filed a complaint. Never got any follow up. The Supreme Court of Missouri overturned the Voter ID act as UNCONSTITUTIONAL in October of 2006. What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL does the Board of Elections NOT understand? IN ADDITION, there were NO other voters in the precinct except for Mr. Lindsey's son, so Ms. Davis and her untrained poll workers can just cover their asses! They know they crossed the line and are going to (FINALLY) be held accountable. Phil showed THREE Secretary of State ACCEPTABLE ID's; 1) Voter ID Card, 2) Bank Statement 3) Utility Bill and NONE of them were accepted by the poll workers or 'election judges' (and I use that term loosely), so when Ms. Davis says They are clearly trying to cover themselves for violating Mr. Lindsey's rights. Phil filed a complaint for this same thing in February, except that he ended up showing his driver's license, so he could vote in the Presidential Primary. Ms. Davis reports that she couldn't find any record of that complaint. It was probably filed in the TRASH, along with my complaint! Hell, he even CALLED her a couple weeks BEFORE the election to make sure that he would not have a problem again. The poll workers KNEW him from the last time and they STILL did this. The Jackson County Election Board cannot independently make their OWN RULES; they MUST abide by STATE LAWS. We are a nation of LAWS, at least I thought we were. Take it all the way, Galloglas!
:argh:

[Bozita]

64. Another Precinct 6-2 complaint dealing with the same topic? They LOST it? How convenient.

Thanks.

[kiteinthewind]

65. Galloglas votes at Precinct 8-something, same city, but just down the road from me!!

You're right, tho, what a coincidence. :hi:

[AllentownJake]

13. When the election judges aren't practicing election law

it isn't intimidation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Well it can be viewed as intimidation on the part of the judges

[Ellipsis]

15. So is the precinct card not the same as voter ID card?

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006general/voter_id_MSOS001.mp3


If so the potential confusion lies to the public lies in the difference between what they assume actually the voter ID to be.

Am I wrong on this?

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I think they are two different cards.

I am not positive though.

[Ellipsis]

23. I think your right..

It's odd though... there's no picture of VOTER ID card on the SOS website, but the precinct card is pictured showing it must be used in conjunction with another form of ID such as the bank statement or a utility bill. Which, by itself, could be used as a stand alone document for legal ID.

More odd that a paycheck with current address (easily forged given todays in home technology) would be allowed, but a precinct card sent to the voter by the state would not be. If the precinct card isn't why even show the image on the website.

At a minimum the precinct card should have a disclaimer printed on it saying it isn't legal ID. I'm guessin' this not the case.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. I live in Kansas and we just get one card in the mail

But fortunately we don't need ID to vote.

[galloglas]

72. Kind of

The "Voter ID Card" with the signature line is something that voters get when they register for the first time, or move to another precinct.

It is printed on about a #36 pound paper and is the size to fit in a wallet. In addition to that, they send a "Voter Election Notification" card each time an election is about a week to two weeks away. It is about a 30 pond paper, shows only the upcoming election, and is "dated" after that.

The "Voter Election Notification" is a mailing that is returned if a voter has moved. It is the Board's way of helping keep the roles clean.

I have voted in Jackson County for over 40 years. In that time I have had about six "Voter ID Cards" and a jillion of the others. In those forty years, those have been treated exactly the same as far as being an ID. In fact, until Charlene tried to make some legal distinction between the two, I had never heard them distinguished before.

The "Voter ID Cards" have, though, often been used as a "regular ID" so as to take out library cards, Video Store rental cards, fishing licenses, etc. Indeed, that was their original purpose. In order to get a new one, one must make a personal trip to the Election Board to request a duplicate.

And, believe me, they get ratty after a few years. Consequently, everyone I ever knew who used them for voting IDs used the "Voter Election Notification".

My last one was lost as my previous billfold fell into the fourth trout hold down at Roaring River State Park, as I tried to hold my fly rod under my arm, and get a ten dollar bill out for Eamonn (then just shy of 18).

The billfold fell into to water and, after being fished out and sorted out, the ID card was torn and (since it then smelled of salmon eggs) it was tossed. All the plastic came through OK and Eamonn bought two Diet Cokes and a Hot Dog with a soggy ten dollar bill.

I took the dry $1 bills he got in change and put them in a dry front pocket.

[Ellipsis]

75. Next time laminate it...

...Evenin'.:P

Thanks for posting. That been bugging me for a while.

[Wilms]

79. Oh. So there is a signatured card among the various voter ID card.

Must be a joy to be a poll worker.

So who trains them? And can the state Democratic party communicate to their poll judges what the deal is?

Or don't they care? :shrug:

[galloglas]

82. Yes, there are at least two different cards

And these cards are printed up at Charlene's direction (she has been there 36 years).

And I expect being a poll worker must be Hell, at least in my area. Whatever else they contend with, they must also contend with Charlene. That would be worry enough. She runs that place like a Mafia don.

Charlene dictates whatever training must be done. And the Democratic party has no control over these poll workers, as I hear it. The party does not designate them, not control them, does not nominate them, not are any known to be active within the party, and no one seriously believes any of the "Democratic Poll Judges" are truly Democrats.

But the Democratic Party is quite concerned about this. They have been trying to remove her since the time of Gov. Mel Carnahan in 1992. Gov. Holden also tried to remove her from 2000 until 2004 when Matt Blunt (R) won the gubernatorial race. (Or didn't, as the case appears to be).

I expect total support from the Democratic Party in this affair. The few exceptions may be those few Jackson County Democrats who seem to have her favor, especially the ones who keep coming up with entirely improbable and illogical wins.

Oddly, or perhaps not, the voting records of these favored Democrats seem to be more conservative than their Republican opponents and counterparts.

[Wilms]

91. DINOs

And you wanted these folks to hand count ballots?

Makes me appreciate the old lever machines.

[galloglas]

95. NOPE! Absolutely not !!

We had made the assumption that such a drastically altered system would entail a major overhaul of the four EDs where we have these bipartisan boards appointed by past Governors.

Probably would not surprise you to learn that Charlene'd ED, and the two in St. Louis, are old appointees of (you guessed it!) John Ashcroft.

Charlene is one of a kind. But, in general, these folks make the loyal appointees of the Bush Justice Department look like campaigners for "Fighting Bob La Folette".

The other 112 districts are County Clerks and, as such, elected. Their heads would role in an election if the farmers and stockmen of the counties saw a straight out cheat.

Kinda like our State Fairs. Everyone sees the prime Bull, the top Rm, the winning Hog. And no one ever thinks there has been cheating.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. The way the "elections officials" acted reminds me of the LAPD...

...insuring that someone's rights are infringed by their abuse of "authority" and when they're caught: denying it, blaming the victim and claiming everything was done by the book.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Without the YouTube video, the NYC Cop/Critical Mass story...

would never have gone beyond an arrest and a conviction for trying to run over a cop.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Just looked that up

WOW

But can we bring cameras into polling places?

[Ellipsis]

21. No.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Good point

[bleever]

20. K&R.

[aikoaiko]

32. Voter activists need to start videotaping this type of thing (as long as that is legal).

[fascisthunter]

41. Me Thinks the Judges Over-Reacted because galagos Called them out on their Bullshit

[autorank]

59. Typical out of control elections officials.

"It’s an unfortunate situation," Davis said, "but the thing is, this is not his first time doing this. He was not being disenfranchised or denied a right to vote. He simply would not listen to logic."

"Listen to logic!' Lets see, Phil's voting rights are being violated. I could care less what questions people who don't know have about the requirements. I am quite confident in Proud2BLib and the other folks from Missouri. They vote there and know the rules, as does Phil. Apparently the head of elections in his county doesn't.

So, her judges were wrong, Phil was right, but he didn't "listen to logic."

After talking to Phil, in a moment of real brilliance, Hartmann just hauled off and called Davis. Her accusation about screaming were apparently expanded to include other acts by Phil which never took place.

After they haul him off to jail, she shows up and offers him the right to vote. Oh really. Phil says he was just presented with a ballot, no envelope and no assurance on the privacy of his vote. This was just a ruse anyway by the elections director who realized that her folks had screwed up. If Phil had done all the things that she claimed between this article and Hartmann, she wouldn't have gone near him. The offer to vote in person by the director of elections is a sign of guilt and remorse on her part for the actions of her poll workers. (In fact, this raises an interesting question - can the Director of Elections walk around with ballots and offer whomever she wants the right to vote right on the spot?)

I look forward to Phil's day in court. I'm sure he'll prevail and that the allegations about his behavior are proved 100% wrong.

[Ellipsis]

60. Yup!

:toast:

[autorank]

66. Right(s)!

:toast:

[kiteinthewind]

63. I am looking forward to it, also, Autorank! I hope to be able to get off work to be there! I am so

tired of this town :banghead:

[autorank]

67. Oh, go, report on the events there.

It sounds like you have a pretty good Democratic Party out there. How did they react to this?
Phil is a known entity within that group.

[Usrename]

71. That is an interesting question, the one about the loose ballots.

She's probably got a whole big huge pile of blank ballots for her folks to fill out willy-nilly.

:wow:

[kiteinthewind]

96. In the 2004 Presidential Election, I was a volunteer coordinator in the Blue Township (Independence)

for ACT (America Coming Together). We were busy registering lots of new voters. I remember my supervisor saying that when they had taken up one of the batchs of voter registration cards to turn in, the workers were basically complaining about all the 'work' they had to do because of the 'excess' of registrations. I registered about 20 people myself while canvassing. They didn't say anything when I turned those in, however on election day, I called all the people I had registered to make sure they got to the polls. One young man told me he went to the precinct and was told he was not on the list-They had no record of his registering. I assured him that I had personally HAND delivered his registration ( he totally believed that I did) along with about 19 others, but there was nothing we could do to 'prove' it. I suspect some of them may have been 'filed' in the trash, as the BOE was clearly not prepared to do their job.:tinfoilhat:

[galloglas]

100. I would not be surprised.

Our decision not to vote was (in part) because I could not understand how Davis could managed to get out ballots to the precinct to be scanned in the precinct scanning counter.

Put it in an envelope? Could it be opened by her? Dumped? Would she through it in with the absentees? When asked, "How?" she could/would provide no answers.

[Joe Fields]

62. Kickin' it, 'cause this needs to be.

[CrazyDude]

73. Sue the police officers n/t

[Wizard777]

88. I would file a civil rights case against the Judges.

[scarface2004]

81. expect violence at the polls in november...

sort of like when marcos had his last stand in the philipines...the repukes will not go quietly!!!

[tbyg52]

84. K&R for the Monday AM crowd.

This has saved a lot of votes in November, I am sure. Check out the comments on the newspaper stories, citing similar situations.

[Sancho]

85. I've seen this exact problem in Florida, and it is a way to manipulate elections.

I also was challenged by precinct workers when I had a voter ID and employer's ID, but refused to produce a driver's license. Many older folks, some new to the state, etc. don't have driver's licenses, and the law in Florida doesn't require one.

Poll workers use this as a way to intimidate and turn away Democrats. New immigrants don't know what to do, even if legal voters. Also, in Florida if you don't vote on the spot, it is unlikely you'll ever get your vote counted.

I didn't get arrested, but had to argue with the poll workers who stated that they were trained to ask for a driver's license. I had a copy of the law with me downloaded from the state website. I was holding up the line and signed and insisted on voting. They eventually got a "captain" to agree that I could vote, but most of the line almost booed me.

EVERY PRECINCT should have about half a dozen early voters challenge the ID requirements that target Democratic voters.

[csziggy]

94. The law in Florida has changed and does require a photo ID

It sucks but the Democratic representatives in the Florida Legislature did not have the power to block it. And no one has challenged that law to get it overturned.:(

From the 2008 Florida Voter Registration and Voting Guide http://election.dos.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/2007-2008/2008VoterRegisVoteGuide.pdf:

What To Expect At The Polls

Polls will be open on election day from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. local time. To determine your polling place, check your voter information card or contact your supervisor of elections.

You will be asked to show a photo and signature identification when you go to the polls to vote. Acceptable forms of photo identification include:
• Florida driver's license
• Florida identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
• United States passport
• Debit or credit card
• Military identification
• Student identification
• Retirement center identification
• Neighborhood association identification
• Public assistance identification
If your photo identification does not contain your signature, you will be required to show an additional identification that provides your signature.

If you do not have the proper identification, you will be allowed to vote a provisional ballot.

If you voted a provisional ballot solely because you did not bring photo and signature identification to the polls, you do not have to present further evidence of eligibility. The local canvassing board will simply compare your signature on the provisional ballot certificate with your signature on the voter registration record. If the signatures match, your provisional ballot will count (provided you were in the proper precinct).

At the time that you vote, you will be given a written notice of your rights as a provisional ballot voter. The notice will include a statement as to whether or not and by when you have to present further evidence of eligibility and information as to how to find out if the voter’s provisional ballot was counted, and if not the reason(s) why.

Once your identity has been established, you will be asked to sign the precinct register or electronic device and then you will be allowed to vote.

In 2004 when they were first talking about requiring a photo ID I did not present one - I presented my Voter ID. I had to sign a form saying I was who I said I was and was allowed to vote. But Ion Sancho (our local Supervisor of Elections) is very good about allowing voting when there is a question. And I think one of the deciding factors - I am a middle-aged white woman, someone they are not likely to challenge. The young African-American woman who I gave a ride to the polls was required to present a photo ID and was not willing to rock the boat.

Since then, I just carry in my Driver's License and Voter ID. Even though the DL is 15 years old with several renewal stickers on the back, they still accept it. I guess that ID proves I have been in the same location for a long time. B-)

[Hubert Flottz]

89. "disruption"

snip...

Davis said that most voters show their driver's licenses as ID and do so without becoming upset.

"But Mr. Lindsey didn't want to do it the established way," she said. "They made up their mind they were going to be different and set the judges off. I felt sorry for the judges."

Davis said many of the judges are over age 70 and that there was fear that one judge may have a heart attack because the disruption was so upsetting to her.

While Missouri election law permit a voter without acceptable ID to cast a ballot when two judges recognize the person, election judges at Lindsey's precinct chose not to do so. Davis said this is a state election law, not one required by the federal government. More...

http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18250

DISRUPTION



"the disruption was so upsetting" to a hell of a lot of folks with health problems but the GOP didn't care then.