Open Left - New Mexico

Voting Rights Groups Sue States for Failing to Register Low-Income Residents

project vote — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

By Erin Ferns

Enfranchising America's least represented citizens is as simple as following the law: that's the message Project Vote and a coalition of voting rights groups sent today as they filed lawsuits against Indiana and New Mexico for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Under a key provision of the NVRA, most states are required to provide voter registration opportunities to the millions of low-income Americans who apply for or use public assistance programs such as Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Medicaid. Project Vote estimates that full implementation of this law could improve lagging voter registration rates among low-income citizens by two to three million new voters per year nationwide.

Unfortunately, compliance with the NVRA since its inception in 1993 has been spotty at best, non-existent at worst, leaving third-party groups with the hefty responsibility of picking up the slack by conducting expensive registration drives in disenfranchised communities. The groups believe it is time for government to be doing its job of registering its citizens, and to start by properly implementing and enforcing the NVRA.

The latest offenders under this federal law include the states of New Mexico and Indiana, both of which are being sued for denying hundreds of thousands of residents the opportunity to register to vote. Representing the plaintiffs are Project Vote, Demos, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP, the ACLU of Indiana, and law firms, Barnhill & Galland and Schwartz, Lichten, & Bright, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives, and DLA Piper U.S.

Last week, the Election Assistance Commission confirmed that poor implementation of public agency registration is a "widespread problem," according to today's press releases. Between 1995 and 1996 - the first two years the law was in effect - 2.6 million voter registration applications were collected from people who visited offices for Food Stamps, TANF, and Medicaid. That number dramatically declined in 2007-2008, when fewer than one million applications were collected nationwide, according to the EAC report.

The decline was even more severe in New Mexico, where public assistance agencies-despite steady participation rates-showed a 90 percent decrease in voter registration applications from since 1995.

"In 2007 the average number of adult participants in the Food Stamp program alone was over 103,000, but [the Human Services Department] averaged only 134 registration applications per month," according to the press release. "Project Vote investigations of six HSD offices in January 2009 revealed that none of the offices provided voter registration application forms to their clients as part of the benefits application." Additionally, the complaint alleges that New Mexico has also been neglecting the better known "motor voter" provisions of the NVRA, which require motor vehicle offices to offer voter registration services. Officials from the HSD are among the defendants named in the suit, which also includes New Mexico's Secretary of State, Mary Herrera, officials from the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division, and the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department.

"The NVRA was enacted to ensure that states affirmatively provide all citizens an equal opportunity to register to vote," says Nicole Kovite, director of the Public Agency Voter Registration Project at Project Vote. "By ignoring this vital law, New Mexico is denying this right to thousands of its residents every year."

In Indiana - which has one of the country's worst records for voter registration, particularly among low-income people-evidence of violations of the NVRA were also cited in the coalition's lawsuit against officials from Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration, the co-directors of the Indiana Election Division, and the members of the Indiana Election Commission. Although the state currently has more 300,000 adult participants every month in the Indiana Food Stamp program alone, voter registration applications have declined from 80,000 applications collected in the 1995-1996 election cycle to a dismal 2,519 in 2007-2008.

"Voter registration should primarily be the responsibility of the government," said Jeff Ordower, ACORN's Midwest regional director. "Indiana's noncompliance has not only resulted in thousands of low-income and minority Indiana citizens being denied the opportunity to register to vote, it has also forced ACORN, the NAACP, and other groups to expend considerable effort and resources to take up the slack."

As they did in Indiana and New Mexico, the coalition has sent pre-litigation letters "notifying California, Colorado, and New Jersey that lawsuits may be necessary if they do not bring their programs into compliance," the group said. However, the group emphasizes that states do not need to wait to be sued before finally complying with federal law.

"Recently several states that had been disregarding the NVRA have been forced to comply," according to the coalition. "Last week the State of Missouri settled a similar lawsuit brought by the voting rights groups; since a court order in that suit forced Missouri public assistance agencies into compliance in July, voter registration applications skyrocketed from fewer than 8,000 a year to more than 100,000 in just eight months. In 2008, Department of Justice investigations forced both Arizona and Illinois to take steps to improve compliance."

Wrongful Convictions Are Still Possible in New Mexico

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:14:23 GMT

This week, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico signed legislation repealing the death penalty, replacing it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Governor Richardson based his decision on a lack of "confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates" and the very real possibility of wrongfully convicting and executing an innocent person. By repealing the death penalty, Governor Richardson's action this week eliminates the risk of New Mexico ever executing an innocent person. Governor Richardson should be commended for taking this action.

The question now is whether Governor Richardson will take the necessary steps to eliminate the causes that lead to wrongful convictions. While I agree that life without parole gives New Mexico the opportunity to correct mistakes when wrongful convictions occur, I am concerned about the very real risk that innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and now sentenced to life without parole in New Mexico.

I commend Governor Richardson for his recognition that New Mexico's criminal justice system is "inherently defective." The Governor recognizes the systemic problems that have led to wrongful convictions in New Mexico stating, "[e]vidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants." Repealing the death penalty can prevent these systemic problems from leading to the execution of an innocent person. The next step is to prevent these errors from happening and sending an innocent person to prison.
The challenge for Governor Richardson is to take steps to protect the liberty interests of the citizens of New Mexico, and address the problems that he recognizes still exist in his state. The Governor recognizes "competent defense attorneys are not assigned to all defendants," yet New Mexico has failed to adopt the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel--standards recognized by the Supreme Court. Governor Richardson recognizes that "evidence can be manipulated," yet New Mexico lacks any laws mandating critically needed oversight and accreditation requirements for public forensic laboratories. The leading cause of wrongful convictions is faulty eyewitness testimony. Procedures have been developed that are proven to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and improve the criminal justice system as a whole. As such, the Governor should follow through with his commitment to fairness in the criminal justice by supporting the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act, a bill currently pending in the New Mexico legislature. Governor Richardson recognizes that prosecutors have the ability to abuse their power, but no state, including New Mexico, has an effective system of prosecutorial accountability--as illustrated in The Justice Project's forthcoming policy review on this issue.

Governor Richardson's responsibility to reform the criminal justice system in his state does not end with repeal of the death penalty. As the Governor stated, we live "[i]n a society which values individual life and liberty above all else." The state of New Mexico has an obligation to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens through a criminal justice system that yields fair and accurate verdicts. I applaud the Governor for his commitment to the fair administration of justice and hope that he continues to ensure that life and liberty are both protected in New Mexico.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

New Mexico Repeals Capital Punishment

Daniel De Groot — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:30:00 GMT

Great news:

SANTA FE (AP) - Gov. Bill Richardson says he is signing a bill repealing New Mexico's death penalty.
The bill replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Congratulations Governor and to Democratic Representative Gail Chasey, who championed this bill in the NM legislature. Richardson's statement inside.

SANTA FE - Governor Bill Richardson today signed House Bill 285, Repeal of the Death Penalty. The Governor's remarks follow:
Today marks the end of a long, personal journey for me and the issue of the death penalty.
Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment - in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that.
But six years ago, when I took office as Governor of the State of New Mexico, I started to challenge my own thinking on the death penalty.
The issue became more real to me because I knew the day would come when one of two things might happen: I would either have to take action on legislation to repeal the death penalty, or more daunting, I might have to sign someone's death warrant.
I'll be honest. The prospect of either decision was extremely troubling. But I was elected by the people of New Mexico to make just this type of decision.
So, like many of the supporters who took the time to meet with me this week, I have believed the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to some who might consider murdering a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a witness to a crime or kidnapping and murdering a child. However, people continue to commit terrible crimes even in the face of the death penalty and responsible people on both sides of the debate disagree - strongly - on this issue.
But what we cannot disagree on is the finality of this ultimate punishment. Once a conclusive decision has been made and executed, it cannot be reversed. And it is in consideration of this, that I have made my decision.
I have decided to sign legislation that repeals the death penalty in the state of New Mexico.
Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.
But the reality is the system is not perfect - far from it. The system is inherently defective. DNA testing has proven that. Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country.
Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100-percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes. Evidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants. The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate confidence - I would say certitude - that the system is without flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not the case.
And it bothers me greatly that minorities are overrepresented in the prison population and on death row.
I have to say that all of the law enforcement officers, and especially the parents and spouses of murder victims, made compelling arguments to keep the death penalty. I respect their opinions and have taken their experiences to heart -- which is why I struggled - even today - before making my final decision.
Yes, the death penalty is a tool for law enforcement. But it's not the only tool. For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent. But it's not, and never will be, for many, many others.
While today's focus will be on the repeal of the death penalty, I want to make clear that this bill I'm signing actually makes New Mexico safer. With my signature, we now have the option of sentencing the worst criminals to life in prison without the possibility of parole. They will never get out of prison.
Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe.
The bill I am signing today, which was courageously carried for so many years by Representative Gail Chasey, replaces the death penalty with true life without the possibility of parole - a sentence that ensures violent criminals are locked away from society forever, yet can be undone if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted. More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans - a fact I cannot ignore.
From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That's not something to be proud of.
In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings. That is why I'm signing this bill into law.

h/t to Leftistaddiction in quick hits.

Surprisingly, Richardson claims that the vast majority of the opinion expressed by voters has been pro-repeal. Of 10,847 emails, phone calls and in-person contacts, 8107 were supportive of ending the death penalty. In the last thread, someone noted that support for the death penalty is high, but shallow. This is some evidence to support that (likely) hypothesis.

It may seem mostly symbolic since NM only had 2 people on death row, and had only executed one person (in 2001) since the 1960s, but it's still a big victory to get this off the books, lest a future Governor like George Bush ever get elected there.

For those of you liberals who still support capital punishment, I think the consolation is that this shows that the general ground of criminal justice reform is ripe for harvest. I don't know what exactly Jim Webb has in mind as he hasn't introduced any legislation, but as this solid USA Today article shows, the states are charging ahead on their own. As I complained the other day, much of this is only happening to save money (apparently running a Kafkaesque prison nightmare is a luxury only solvent nations can afford). Still, it is happening and what started as pure cost savings doesn't have to end up that way. Nice to see some "disaster liberalism" for a change.

The Principled Case Against the Death Penalty

Daniel De Groot — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:15:00 GMT

From David Kaib's quick hit we learn the good news that New Mexico's legislature has passed a bill banning capital punishment, which now awaits Governor Bill Richardson's decision to sign or veto.

This is of course a postive step, and I'm hopeful that with his Presidential and Cabinet ambitions most likely doomed, due to his looming legal problems, that Richardson will (perhaps akin to former Illinois Gov. George Ryan) have a change of heart and sign the bill. New Mexico isn't alone, as several other states have death penalty repeals that have some level of legislative action beyond introduction.

However, the unfortunate aspect to this, is that it is all happening as a cost saving measure rather than from any decisive turn against the morality of the death penalty. In fact, capital punishment still polls very strongly in America, much stronger than in most other comparable wealthy democracies. In the 2006 GSS, the death penalty for murder was supported by even a bare majority of self identified liberals. So it's clear death penalty opponents have a lot of work to do to turn this around. Inside, I'm going to try and make a philisophical case against the death penalty. It's not wrong just because it's inefficient or expensive, it is fundamentally unjust and immoral.
Most of the time, cases against the death penalty rest on the following sorts of claims:

Innocent people get killed
It's often cruelly painful to the subject
It disproportately impacts the poor and minorities
It isn't a deterrent, and may even increase murders
It's too expensive
Victim families do not get closure
It dehumanizes the guards, executioners and society generally
Juries may be reluctant to convict defendants if the death penalty is a possibility
It puts the US in the company of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia for using it
Killing is just wrong and the state shouldn't be in the business of doing it

I believe all of these are true, or at least have strong evidence to back them. However these sorts of arguments miss the point in the capital punishment debate. They assume that we who argue against the death penalty must prove it is wrong. Instead, it is the opposite that is true. The problem with capital punishment is that proponents have utterly failed to make the case for it. That alone should cause the practice to end, if we are true to the philosophical roots of how a free society should be governed.

Why It's Wrong: A Violation of The Basis of a Free Society

One fundamental value, is the default assumption that all behaviour not illegal, is legal. It doesn't have to be that way, one can imagine a society of repression where government acts to legalize behaviours which would otherwise be forbidden. Sufficiently repressive societies will more or less end up functioning much like that anyway - if the secret police can drag you away at a whim, you'll probably self regulate yourself out of doing a great many things that there are no written rules against. So that assumption is vital, the presumption of permissiveness. It is the very basis of a "free" society.

Given that, one is left with the question of "under what circumstances can behaviours be made illegal then? When can society mandate certain acts?"

A good starting point is John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle, which stated:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

It's a simple expression that underlies the liberal vision of the rational State and society. It doesn't resolve everything, as the details of what measures "prevent harm to others" is contentious, but it does rule out a great many things. Interpreting this principle more broadly, you can arrive at something like section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

It is here that capital punishment fails the test. Obviously the Canadian charter has no legal effect in the US, but I'm using it as an expression of a relevant philosophical premise: If you want to propose that the State should have the power to kill certain citizens for engaging in certain behaviours, you are proposing to give the State a massive freedom curtailing power (to revoke life itself), in service of...what exactly? What greater end can justify this abrogation of the ultimate human and civil right?

And things do work this way in the US. Many laws are premised on their service to the "general welfare" or that they are "necessary and proper" for the fulfilment of government's role. It's just that the Charter states it more succinctly.

Opponents don't have to cite studies or do comparative research to other countries. In this understanding of a free society, the onus should properly rest with those who wish to curtail freedom to explain why, rather than those who wish to keep freedom to explain why not. You want government to act, particularly in such a severe and irrevocable manner, you need to show it works.

It's certainly true that capital punishment is very popular, but that's more to do with some kind of ingrained human appetite for vengeance that sees itself expressed in capital punishment rather than the practice meeting the threshold for societal utility. I say that because I've not see a good argument for the practice, so the fact of its popularity must rest on something other than an empirical case.

Does capital punishment save lives? Does it comfort the loved ones of victims? Where is the evidence for these propositions? The logical theory about why these things might be true is simply not good enough. In a world that had never tried the death penalty, we might accept this, but we now have more than enough statistical data on which to base or refute these assertions, and they are easily cast into doubt.

It is as if the prosecution made opening and closing arguments, with nothing in between. The defence doesn't actually even need to call a witness.

The Fall Out

Once you arrive here, capital punishment becomes a very dangerous deviation from the fundamental nature of a free society. The meritless arguments for capital punishment (usually "punishment" meaning "vengeance") are not valid reasons for government action, and if we accept such things, we risk other illegitimate encroachments on freedom that perhaps have intuitive/emotive appeal but lack substantive societal merit. A not insignificant example are the prohibitions on felons and prisoners voting. These too serve no useful societal purpose, and have many deleterious side-effects. Why are they supported?

After that, the negative effects of capital punishment are just insult upon injury. Not only is it not demonstrably saving lives or comforting victims, but it is killing innocent people, and inflicting psychological harm to the guards, executioners and other officials in the judicial system who have any role in executions. It costs more than life imprisonment, and adds incentive to people on the run from the law to kill police officers rather than face death behind bars. It might even be setting murderers free, since any jury is liable to have at least one person more than queasy about convicting someone of a crime for which they will be put to death. Who wants that on their conscience?

In short, it is bad policy that not only fails to achieve its aims, but makes things much worse. As a violation of the principles of a free society it is simply morally wrong. If liberalism really is resurgent in the US, it is time to start making these sorts of moral arguments that return to the foundations of how democratic societies are organized. Liberalism is coherent and holistic, and cafeteria "pick and choose" ideologies leave society prone to accept atrocity where they don't feel personally harmed by the bad policy.

Several States Debating Election Day Registration to Expand Access to the Polls

project vote — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:20:54 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

Election Day Registration has been the subject of election reform debates for decades and the year following one of the most historic presidential elections makes no exception. As lawmakers in at least 16 states hope to expand access to voter registration and effectively increase voter participation, skeptics of such reforms raise the fear of voter fraud. Today, 10 states successfully practice Same-Day Registration (either on Election Day or during an early voting period), with above-average turnout rates and no reported problems with voter fraud. For those states considering EDR, the decision to efficiently expand access to democracy should be clear.
Since the 1970s, 10 states have implemented Same-Day Registration with average turnout rates that are 10-12 percentage points higher than national averages, according to research and public policy group, Demos. Despite the growing acceptance of EDR across the country and its smooth implementation for 35 years there is still stiff resistance to adopting such policies in a majority of states.

After years of introducing and failing to pass EDR bills, New Mexico's House committee finally approved a bill providing for registration and voting both during the early voting period and on Election Day. However, this bill, HB 52, may not survive in its current form if EDR supporters cave to voter fraud hysterics raised by state Republicans who claim being on the border raises vulnerability, despite the fact that there is no history of voter fraud in the state, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican.

The voter fraud argument against EDR is not unique to New Mexico; opponents of EDR measures frequently claim that the possibility of voter fraud is heightened when voters are allowed to register and vote at the same time. However, a study on voter fraud in EDR states found only 10 incidents of voter fraud in six EDR states over the course of three election cycles (1999-2005). "Of these, there was only one case of voter impersonation at the polls," in which a 17-year-old boy voted on behalf of his father, an instance unrelated to EDR, according to a 2007 Demos report.

The other isolated voter fraud problems that led to federal investigation "were directly attributable to clerical errors, poll worker shortages and incompetence, not any organized scheme or intent on the part of voters to scam the system," according to the report.

If administered efficiently, residents who register at the polls are required to substantiate their residency and the entire registration process is carried out under the supervision of an elections official on the same day, limiting the chance for errors or fraud.

"Advocates of same-day voting say it increases voter participation and makes it easier for those who have moved from another state," the New Mexican reports. "William Mee of Voter Services Coalition told the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee that many people are disenfranchised by failing to register in time."

Failure to register in time is not just an issue of "laziness" or last-minute political interest. Other issues such as clerical errors, voter purges, and high mobility rates are often reason for voters to be unknowingly left off of voter rolls. EDR would help short-circuit purge and suppression attempts by allowing these individuals a "fail-safe" opportunity to correct registration errors and increase their voter turnout rates.

Allowing citizens to register and vote on Election Day would also ameliorate issues surrounding provisional balloting, an option that is often utilized by underrepresented voters who are more likely to encounter registration problems. Provisional ballot counting procedures vary from state to state, rendering many legitimate ballots ineligible if not cast within the correct county or even precinct. For example, acceptance rates of provisional ballots in 2004 varied from 96 percent in Alaska to just four percent in Delaware, according to a 2006 Project Vote report.

As if the lack of voter fraud and the elimination of the risk of voter disenfranchisement wasn't enough to prove EDR is a viable and effective election reform, Patty O'Connor, an election official from long-time EDR state, Minnesota "told the [N.M. House] committee that it has worked well in her state," the New Mexican reports. Based on figures from the United States Elections Project, Minnesota's voter turnout rate exceeded the national average by at least 16 percentage points in 2008.

Despite being met with resistance from the GOP, the New Mexico bill is supported by the County Clerks Association "if the registration is limited to early voting." Although HB 52 sponsor, (Rep. Jim Trujillo, D-Santa Fe) supports this idea, he is being "urged...to keep Election Day registration in the bill" by committee chairwoman Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque. The bill is currently in the House Voters and Elections Committee.

Quick Links:
Case Study: Election Day Registration. electionline.org. February 2007.

In Other News:

Exemption removed from voter ID bill - Associated Press
JACKSON - The Republican-controlled Mississippi Senate reversed course Wednesday on part of an election bill by saying that all voters, not just those below retirement age, would have to show photo identification at the polls.

Voter ID bill would make Minnesota laws most restictive in the nation - The Minnesota Independent
House Republicans are urging passage of a bill to require every Minnesotan to have a government-issued photo identification in order to vote in the state. The bill (HF 57) introduced by Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, would make Minnesota's voting laws among the most restrictive in the nation.

ACLU attacks voter registration bill - Associated Press
ATLANTA - A bill introduced in the state Senate that would require proof of citizenship when you register to vote is under attack.

Exit Poll Analysis Suggests Obama Victory Due to Surge in Youth and Minority Voting

project vote — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:43:42 GMT

The United States saw dramatic increases in voting from traditionally underrepresented groups, including minorities and young voters, according to a new analysis released this week by Project Vote. If borne out by systematic analysis of the voter rolls, this change in the electorate is evidence of the power of successful voter registration drives and an indication of the strong inclination of voters to participate in the process when candidates address their issues.
Countering the conventional wisdom that the voting population on November 4 did not change as dramatically as predicted, the analysis, The Demographics of Voters in America's 2008 General Election: A Preliminary Assessment, demonstrates that African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters cast millions more ballots in 2008 than in 2004.

"The analysis estimated that about 5.8 million more minorities voted in this year's presidential election than in 2004, while nearly 1.2 million fewer whites went to the polls," wrote Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers. "The figures appear to reflect the success of Project Vote and other liberal voter registration groups in registering millions of young, poor, elderly and minority Americans to vote in recent election cycles."

According to the analysis, African-Americans cast nearly three million more ballots nationwide in 2008 than in 2004-an increase of 21 percent. The total votes cast by Latinos went up by 16 percent-more than 1.5 million-and young Americans aged 18-29 cast 1.8 million more votes, a nine percent increase. That the overall totals did not increase significantly compared to 2004 was in part due to a decrease in voting by white voters.

In addition to presenting an analysis of ballots cast from the United States as a whole, the memo by Project Vote consultant and Ph.D. candidate Jody Herman and Barnard College political science professor Lorraine Minnite examines several key states in detail, including Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Project Vote data is preliminary, and does not speak to "turnout," which is traditionally a measure of the percentage of the voting-eligible population that shows up to vote. Project Vote expects to release a full report on turnout in the 2008 election in 2009 when government survey data on the voting-eligible population comes available. Yet, this preliminary analysis indicates that a significant shift occurred this year.

"There is no doubt that this surge in voting by Americans of color and young people had a powerful impact on the outcome of the election," said Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, in a press release issued today.

"Separate opinion polls and election results themselves indicate that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and Latinos backed Obama," according to Gordon.

"Thus, the appearance of an African-American presidential candidate with a sympathetic message may have prompted the nation's minorities to vote at levels approaching white voters -- if final state vote counts do not upend Project Vote's figures," wrote AlterNet's Steve Rosenfeld last week. "Its findings also suggest the U.S. electorate is not an inflexible assembly of voting constituencies, but has segments that are mobilized -- or demobilized -- depending on the year, candidate and message,"

In an email exchange with Rosenfeld, Frank Sharry, executive director of pro-immigration reform group, America's Voice, said "neither the turnout increase among Latinos -- nor the swing in support to Democrats -- were surprising."

"Telling people you don't like them and don't want them is not a winning electoral strategy," wrote Sharry. "But that is what the Republican Party has been saying to immigrants, Latino immigrants in particular, for the past four years. No surprise, then, that record numbers of Latinos turned out in 2008 and that the swing away from Republicans to Democrats among Latino immigrants in particular was dramatic."

Voters Eager to Have A Stake in Historical Election: Early Voting Predicts Strong Turnout Tuesday

project vote — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:47:47 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

In the last two weeks voter registration and early voting has shown that voters are geared up and ready to take part in what has been called a "historical event" on November 4.
Last week, voters scrambled to register at drive-thru election office windows in Southern California, busy street corners in Wichita, Kansas, and post-naturalization ceremonies in Los Angeles County. These efforts to meet the Oct. 20 registration deadlines in some states are seen as evidence of a surge in voter registration among historically underrepresented communities, including newly naturalized Latino and Asian citizens, and Black voters as well as formerly disenfranchised ex-felons.

This week, early vote turnout gave a sneak peek at what voters and election officials can expect at the polls on Tuesday, and it's "going to be busy as heck" said one official in Orange County, Calif., where registration rates went up 15 percent since 2004. To accommodate the high turnout, which is expected to exceed "the recent high-water mark in voter participation set in 2004," some states are taking precautionary measures, adding new machines and even extending early voting.

Experts predict "huge turnout" of as much as 132 million people, or 60.4 to 62.9 percent of eligible voters this year, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The last presidential election brought 60.7 percent of eligible voters to the polls, "the highest since 1968, when 61.9 percent cast ballots." Election officials in many states, including Ohio, Arizona, New Mexico, and Minnesota, have predicted turnout as high as 80 percent.

"We are going to have long lines," with some states expecting voting machine shortages, according to Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate. "But long lines in this election, as in 2004, are not going to deter people from voting, because of the emotional context of this election. They didn't deter people in 1992 or in 2004, and they're not going to deter people now."

Managing long lines has already been a point of contention in key states. In Georgia, voters waited four to five hours to cast early ballots on Wednesday, in spite of last minute changes Tuesday to reduce the eight hour waits voters encountered on Monday, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. A combination of "high turnout, staff and equipment shortages and state computer problems slowed the process."

Like Gans predicted, however, these issues are not stopping voters from showing up at the polls bright and early.

"It's a historical event and I want to be part of it," said Hampton, Ga. voter, Dara Christian, who arrived at her precinct to be second in line shortly after 5 a.m. on Wednesday. According to a Tuesday AJC report, a million ballots had already been cast during more limited voting in the last few weeks. And about 125,095 of those were cast as of Tuesday night.

While officials in various counties addressed some of the problems by supplying extra equipment and staff, according Tuesday's AJC report, the Democratic Party and election officials are still pleading with Secretary of State Karen Handel to extend early voting in order to support high turnout, including state Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd and DelKalb County Commissioner Lee May.

"It is not my intention to lay blame on any particular, person or body of government," May wrote in a letter to Handel and Ga. Governor Sonny Perdue. "It is my desire that we don't inadvertently squelch the desire of so many Georgians to participate in the political process."
"Handel said Tuesday that Georgia law doesn't include a mechanism to allow her or Perdue to extend early voting," according to AJC. Handel said that even if she could allow the extension, it would be a "logistical disaster," dismissing Kidd's plea an "orchestrated effort of that political party across the country."

In Florida, on the other hand, after record turnout Monday,Governor Charlie Crist listened to similar concerns and signed an order to extend early voting hours to 12 hours a day, over the objections of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, according to the Miami Herald.

"It's not a political decision," said Crist, a Republican. "It's a people decision."

In Broward and Miami-Dade counties alone, more than 43,000 people cast their votes Monday, "roughly 5,000 more than on any other previous day."

Other efforts to help ensure Election Day runs smoothly for voters are underway, including the National Campaign for Fair Elections' hotline, 1-866-OURVote. The line has already received up to 4,000 calls a day, according to New York Times blog, The Caucus. The group plans to have 20 call centers set up around the country by Tuesday with a capacity of handling 100,000 calls on Election Day.

"The notion behind the non-partisan National Campaign phone line is that if problems erupt at polling places on Election Day, the group will have lawyers at the ready to respond to the complaints," the Times reports.

"So far, most calls have been from voters experiencing problems with their registration along with those trying to locate their polling place, according to Ken Smukler, president of InfoVoter Technologies, the Bala Cynwyd, Pa.company that which manages the call system."

Among those who will benefit from the voter protection hotline and other precautions learned are the large numbers of new voters around the country. Since 2004, voter registration rose 15 percent in Orange County, Calif. where citizens were allowed to register at a drive-thru elections office window last week, according to the Associated Press. Alabama has 76,000 new voters since 2004, two thirds of whom are African-American, according to the Mobile Register-Press. Last week, two thousand voters registered on a street corner in Kansas, about a quarter of whom were ex-felons who until then thought they were ineligible to vote, according to MSNBC. Newly naturalized Latino and Asian citizens in Los Angeles County doubled last year's registration rate with 64,000 new voters this year, according to the Los Angeles Times. Up until last week, community groups were "walking precincts, conducting phone banks, holding forums, and distributing multilingual voter guides" to help new citizens become a part of the democratic process.

Historically, Latino, Asian, and African-American citizens have registered and voted at alarmingly lower rates than their White counterparts. In 2006, just 41 percent of African-Americans and 32 percent of Asians and Latinos, respectively, voted in the midterm election compared to 52 percent of Whites, according to Project Vote report, Representational Bias of the 2006 Electorate. But that may just be changing this year.

"We want people to know we're here and our next generation is going to be very important in the process," said recently naturalized citizen, Carlos Romero in the Los Angeles Times.

In Other News:

In Ohio, Wary Eyes On Election Process: Fears of Fraud and Blocked Votes - Washington Post
CLEVELAND -- With Ohio still up for grabs in next week's presidential election, the conversation here has expanded from who will carry the state to how -- the nitty-gritty of registration lists, voting machines, court challenges and whether it all will play out fairly.

Provisional Ballots Get Uneven Treatment - Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Provisional ballots, one of the fixes the government implemented following the disputed 2000 election, are often proving to be a poor substitute for the real thing.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote.

Obama Wins!!! (Updated)

Chris Bowers — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:18:02 GMT

Barack Obama has won the 2008 Presidential Election.

Yes, you read that right. And no, I am not joking.

People will probably say that I am calling the election too early, which could depress turnout. People might say that I am taking too much for granted, which is especially bad for a committeeperson in West Philadelphia. People might say that I am simply being foolish, because there is time left and a lot can change in four days. For these people, I have five quick points (more in the extended entry).
Here is why this is over:

In order to win the election, all Barack Obama needs are the Kerry states, plus Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico. That adds up to 273 electoral votes.
Obama leads by at least 9.5% in every Kerry state and Iowa, according to both Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics. Also, my own numbers concur with those calculations.
This means that in order to win the election, all Obama has to do is hold onto states where he leads by 9.5% or more, and win both Colorado and New Mexico. These are both states where more than half of all voters will cast their ballots before Election Day (source). In other words, the elections in Colorado and New Mexico are already almost over, not just beginning. And these are the only two states he needs to win, other than the ones where he leads by double-digits.
In Colorado, about 60% of the vote is already in. According to the crosstabs of the three most recent polls in the state, Obama leads early voters by 15% (Rasmussen), 18% (Marist) and 17% (PPP). Even in the best case scenario for McCain, where he only trails by 15% among those who have already voted and only 55% of the vote is in, he still needs to win the remaining voters by 18.4% in order to eek out the state. And that is the best-case scenario. The worst case scenario for McCain--65% of the vote in and an 18% deficit among early voters--is that he needs to win the remaining voters by 33.5% in order to win the election.
That leaves New Mexico. In 2004, New Mexico had an even higher rate of early voting than Colorado (50.6% to 47.9%). Further, all polling aggregation sites show Obama's lead to be larger in New Mexico than in Colorado. While the recent dearth of polling in the Land of Enchantment means there are no early voting crosstabs, those two facts suggest the situation is even worse for McCain in New Mexico than in Colorado. At the very least, it isn't much better. Update: A new poll from PPP in New Mexico indicates that 56% of the vote is in, and Obama leads 64%-36% among those voters. If that is accurate, McCain would have to win the remaining voters by 35.7%.

So, unless Obama one of the following occurs:

Obama blows a double-digit lead in either Iowa or one Kerry state
McCain wins the minority of remaining voters in either Colorado or New Mexico by at least 20%

Then the election is over and Obama has won no matter what happens anywhere else.

If people wonder why Obama has recently campaigned in seemingly safe states like Iowa and Pennsylvania, this is why. The only possible way he can lose at this point is if he blows one of those states. In this situation, if I were making the decisions, I would have him campaign there, too.

This has me very, very excited. Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States. He is effectively ahead by double-digits right now, and leads like that don't disappear in four days. Obama wins!

Early Exit Polls: Obama Leads In Georgia

Chris Bowers — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:51:09 GMT

Survey USA is starting to report crosstabs for early voters in many of their recent state polls. In every state where they have such crosstabs, Obama is ahead by shocking margins. First, Georgia:

Early and absentee voting began in Georgia on 09/22/08. Among the 18% of Georgia voters who tell SurveyUSA they have already voted, Obama leads by 6 points; among those who have not yet voted, McCain leads by 11.

With 18% of the vote in, this crosstab is effectively an "exit poll" showing that Obama is literally winning in Georgia right now. Similarly surprising pro-Obama margins can be seen in several other states, like Iowa:

Among the 14% of Iowa voters who say they have already cast their ballot, Obama leads by a 2:1 margin.

And New Mexico:

Among the 10% of New Mexico voters who say they have already voted, Obama leads by 23 points.

And North Carolina:

Obama has a slight advantage among those who tell SurveyUSA they have already voted. North Carolina has 15 Electoral College votes

And Ohio:

Of the 12% of respondents who tell SurveyUSA they have already voted, Obama leads by 18.

None of the other Survey USA polls released this month included early voting subsets. Still, these numbers are enough to indicate that Obama is clearly over-performing among early voters compared to his standing among all voters. This means that the Obama field campaign is obviously superior to McCain's, and that even if McCain tightens the campaign later on, Obama will already have banked a substantial lead. Early voting is also an excellent protection against the voter suppression tactics Republicans regularly employ.

Obama is winning big across the board right now. Best of all, this lead is not just in polls, but in actual votes.

Update: Survey USA also reports that Jim Martin leads by 4% in the Georgia Senate campaign, among early voters.

Update 2: Also, I should note that I share skepticism of those who think this all sounds like 2004, and as such is too good to be true. However, keep in mind that during the early voting phase in 2004, Kerry never actually led Bush. During early voting in 2008, we all know that Obama is well ahead right now. That, combined with a less than effective McCain ground game (Bush's was excellent, McCain's isn't) makes things very different from 2004.

Update 3: It should be noted that these subsets have very high margins of error. However, that Obama is outperforming his overall numbers in every single one of these subsets makes it highly unlikely that this is just "statistical noise." If it were truly random, than the early voting numbers would be pro-McCain in at least one of the five states listed here. Instead, Obama outperforms in all five.

Update 4: If Obama is ahead by 30% in Iowa with 14% reporting, should we already call the state for Obama? I'm tempted.

Update 5: 538 has more on this.

NM-02: Talking About Guns, Tinsley Says He Has a "Rude Awakening" for Obama

barbwire — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:05:07 GMT

Ed Tinsley, the GOP's Congressional candidate in NM-02 who's running against Democrat Harry Teague, has been caught in the act again. Tinsley's latest inflammatory remarks -- and what can be perceived as a threat to Barack Obama -- came at a recent candidate forum in Roswell. Tinsley was asked about his views on gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Instead of talking about his or his opponent's positions on the issue, Tinsley launched into a disturbing attack on presidential candidate Barack Obama, as you can see in the video clip above. Ed Tinsley said:

Well, I'll say this, somebody that certainly doesn't get it is Barack Obama when he says that our district clings to our guns and our religion out of frustration. I have a rude awakening for him and we'd love to have him as a guest at our ranch.

Check out Tinsley's demeanor when he says the words "rude awakening." What do you think he has in mind when he says it? What do you think his words are meant to convey?
Making such statements is getting to be a disturbing habit with Ed Tinsley. This isn't the first time he's demonstrated a penchant for brutal and violence-tinged rhetoric. For instance, in 2002 when running in the GOP Congressional primary in NM-02, Tinsley was asked about his views on the death penalty. He answered,

"I would certainly like to take the people out and drag them behind my horse until their head popped off."

The Albuquerque Journal printed the quote and Steve Pearce, Tinsley's primary rival back then, used it against him. Pearce -- no shrinking violet in the inflammatory rhetoric department himself -- ended up winning the primary and the Congressional seat. (Pearce is now running for U.S. Senate in New Mexico.) The voters of New Mexico's Second District evidently didn't cotton to cruel talk like that back then, and I doubt they'll do so now.

Last month, Tinsley earned Worst Person in the World status on Keith Olbermann's Countdown and gained notoriety across the web for his nasty and personal statement at a candidate forum in Las Cruces -- where he said of his Dem competitor, Harry Teague,

"How am I supposed to call my two nephews over there [in Iraq] right now ... and tell them I'm running against a guy who will cut your throat!"

You can read about that incident in my previous posts on Democracy for New Mexico here and here.

In an election cycle when genuine threats to Obama are not uncommon, it's downright scary to have a candidate for the U.S Congress make a statement that, at the very least, takes a threatening tone towards the Democratic presidential nominee. What is in Ed Tinsley's head -- and in his heart -- if he can make the kind of statements I've cited without blinking an eye? Tinsley likes to talk about All-American values, but his remarks seem to reveal a much darker view of the world -- a place where vigilante might makes right and fear tactics are employed without shame. Maybe that's why Dick Cheney will be down in Harry Teague's hometown of Hobbs later this month to raise money for Tinsley. Two Darth Vader peas in a pod.

We certainly don't want a Congressman from New Mexico who talks like a reckless bully (and would vote like one too). We'd be much obliged if you could help Harry Teague get elected to represent NM-02. Click here to donate to the cause.

Stopping Voter Suppression: The Press Gets It Right in Virginia

project vote — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:39:24 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
What is striking about how the process of disenfranchisement and voter suppression works is how much it relies upon the media to repeat and amplify the breathless and hyperbolic accusations of so-called voter fraud against voter registration drives. If journalists were to spend any time at all investigating the sensational claims - often made by people with a direct partisan interest in the outcome of an election - they would find that the accusations are mostly taken out of context, are limited to a few instances, and have never, ever, been proven to have resulted in any fraudulent vote being cast.

Sadly, the history of this issue shows that it has been bereft of this kind of basic journalism, even through the 2006 mid-term elections. This is important because haphazard reporting of partisan claims of voter fraud without checking the facts is how the media helps these voter suppression efforts. These stories not only deter potential voters from getting on the rolls, but, as noted above, inspire bad election reforms aimed at disenfranchising voters, particularly those that are currently underrepresented in the electorate.

A prime example of this kind of lazy journalism in recent weeks comes from Las Vegas where local reporters simply repeated accusations of fraud made by the Clark County clerk against ACORN without even bothering to contact ACORN to see how their drive was being managed.

The group's registration drive has reached one million voters nationwide [Full disclosure - it is run under a Joint Effort Agreement with Project Vote. ~~ed.] and, according to one article, election officials see "rampant fraud" in the 2,000~~ 3,000 cards submitted by the group each week in Las Vegas. This week, the Associated Press reported that the state set up a "voter fraud task force" to look for "election irregularities and instances of questionable voter registration and intimidation," directly citing issues with voter registration drives. Neither of these Nevada reports provided the facts of voter fraud, what it is and how it relates to the voter registration process. Most importantly, neither reports cite real examples of the intentional casting of an illegal ballot - the real definition of voter fraud - in the state.

However, it may be that the hard work Project Vote and others - including the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, DEMOS, and the Advancement Project - have engaged in over the past few years debunking the voter fraud myth is beginning to change the way journalists approach these stories.

This week, several publications broke this trend by debunking recent Virginia GOP allegations of widespread voter fraud as a result of massive voter registration drives that primarily target youth, low income and minority communities - constituencies that have a long history of being underrepresented on the voting rolls and in the voting booth.

Since the beginning of the year, an unprecedented 147,000 people - "almost half under the age of 25" - registered to vote in Virginia, according to Monday's Washington Post lead editorial. Pointing to a recent incident where three members of the Community Voters Project were arrested for falsifying voter registration cards, Republican Party chairman, Del. Jeffrey Frederick of Prince William County claims widespread voter fraud is a hidden agenda in voter registration drives. [CORRECTION: The original Washington Post editorial identified the wrong organization. The Community Voting Project is a project of the Center for Community Change. It is not affiliated with the Community Voters Project and was not involved in this incident].

Remarkably, however, this time the press decided to investigate this inflammatory accusation. This charge is "utterly baseless" and is "unsupported by election officials, police or prosecutors," the Post notes in the editorial. In fact, the Post described the accusation as an exercise in "fear mongering" by Frederick, amplified by his allegations that citizens who register with these drives are also vulnerable to identity theft, a claim that amounts to nothing more than "a classic attempt to suppress votes," the Post editorialized.

Bob Bauer, at his Web site, www.MoreSoftMoneyHardLaw.com, takes the critique one step further, looking at both the accusations and the Post's coverage. "And the Post omits mention of another feature of Fredericks' suppression gambit," wrote the election law attorney. "He also called for an 'investigation,' well understanding that his words would creep into the press on his remarks and filter out into the electorate."

In a prime example of the kind of journalism that should happen as a matter of course when these kinds of serious allegations are made, a Virginia reporter for the Danville Register & Bee reached out to local registrars to get a real idea of the voter registration process and how unlikely it is to lead to voter fraud.

"'It's not easy to falsely register somebody,' said Pittsylvania County Registrar Jenny Saunders, who explained that in addition to the registrar going over the application for obvious errors (like missed questions), there's a statewide database all applications are checked against."

Partisans out for political gain perpetuate fear about the integrity of the election system, something that the media often picks up unfiltered. "In fact," the Post wrote, "it is groundless accusations and cynical fear-mongering such as Mr. Frederick's that are injecting the real venom, and the true threat, into the elections.

Below are some important facts to consider when writing (or reading) reports on voter registration fraud:

Voter Registration Drives Rev up in Presidential Election Years
The fact that young people and minorities are expanding the voting rolls this year does not indicate that something is awry with voter registration drives. Indeed, most large-scale drives target those populations least represented in the electorate. Further, in high interest election years, especially presidential, more people are motivated to help register voters or get registered themselves. Stories about so-called voter fraud should be evaluated in terms of the number of cards thought to be fraudulent versus the total number of cards the registration drive is gathering.
Voter Registration Fraud Does Not Lead to Voter Fraud
"We have the checks and balances...to makes sure the wrong person doesn't get registered and the right person does," said Va. election official, Saunders in the Register & Bee.
Further, professionally-run drives expect almost a third of all applications to be duplicates or incomplete, no matter how well-trained the canvasser or volunteers are. This does not mean they are all illegal. However, the registrar is required to ensure all applications contain accurate information "including whether the applicant is a citizen, their Social Security number, date of birth, full name, valid residence, whether they've been convicted of a felony, or whether they have been determined mentally incapable...If any of that is left off...the application is denied," according to the Register & Bee. Note: Not all states require Social Security number information to be filled out on a voter registration card. For more information on your state's requirements on registering to vote, visit ProjectVote.org.
Allegations of Voter Fraud are Often Motivated By Partisan Gain
"If you're not winning at the ballot box, try your chances in the registrar's office, or in court," the Virginia Pilot editorialized. "[That's] [h]ardly democratic."
Following the success of voter registration drives that have increased registration among low income, minority and young people, almost all claims of rampant voter fraud have come from Republican leaders, despite lack of substantiation of a real problem. The most vicious and corrupt efforts made were part of what has become the US AttorneyGate scandal that subsequently exposed the widespread politicization of the Department of Justice and led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. All of that unraveled because former US Attorney David Iglesias refused to make false accusations of voter fraud against ACORN's 2004 voter registration drive in New Mexico.
The fact is between 2002 and 2005 - when the Department of Justice carried out the most intensive investigation of voter fraud in US history - only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting nationwide. However, partisans still made public allegations and the press, in many instances, ran these claims with out real evidence. Armed with these published anecdotes and buoyed by manufactured public outcry about the possibility of their votes being canceled out by illegal voters, legislators fought to pass laws that disenfranchise certain classes of voters. As a result, states like Indiana and Georgia have implemented some of the most draconian voter ID laws despite the lack of any evidence of actual voter fraud.

Reporters practicing ethical and rigorous journalism should recognize that merely using the "rhetorical hand grenade" of voter fraud - without an explanation of how voter registration and elections are administered or an investigation into the evidence of voter fraud - is the real threat to democracy.

Quick Links:
Minnite, Lorraine. "The Politics of Voter Fraud. "Project Vote. March 2007.
Voter Registration Guides and Surveys [By State]. Project Vote

In Other News:

A voting penalty after the penalty - Birmingham Press-RegisterAnnette McWashington Pruitt watched her 18-year-old son graduate from high school this May. She proudly tells people that he is going into the Navy, following in the footsteps of his older brother (who is serving in Iraq) and his grandfather (who was in the Air Force).

Voting Rules Create Land of Disenchantment: Advocacy groups are battling New Mexico's strict voter registration laws as election looms - Miller-McCune
Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar remembers volunteering for the annual voter registration drive in Albuquerque, N.M. She remembers the camaraderie as the group of usually 30 to 40 volunteers headed out in the morning, clipboards in hand, to knock on doors and register new voters.

Denogean: 97-year-old voter can't prove she's a citizen: On deathbed, father told her to vote Democratic - The Tucson Press
Shirley Freeda Preiss of Surprise is one ticked-off little old lady. And who can blame her? The 97-year-old retired schoolteacher and onetime traveling showgirl has voted in every presidential election since 1932 when she cast a ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But thanks to the state's voter identification requirements, it's looking unlikely that she'll be able to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Watch your (official) language - Stateline.org
Missouri, a key presidential swing state and home to one of the most hotly contested gubernatorial races, will test what some see as voters' attitudes toward immigrants this November with a ballot measure to make English the only language of state government.

Record Youth And Minority Turnout Threatened By Persistent Election Barriers

project vote — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:20:17 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Reports and exits polls this entire political season have built a narrative of tremendous, even record-breaking voter participation, pushing us to believe that voter turnout in November will exceed all expectations.

Maybe.
The dirty secret of elections in America is that getting on the rolls, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted is a complicated system adjudicated and carried out by more than 3,000 counties and towns and regulated by a complex mix of state and federal laws. In order for the expected record-shattering turnout to occur in November, all aspects of the system, from registration procedures to polling place systems to ballot counting procedures all need to work properly. However, those with an interest in suppressing turnout may disrupt the process at any one of those points. The biggest impact comes by preventing people from making it onto the voting rolls in the first place since no one can cast a ballot without being registered.

Unsurprisingly, politicians with partisan interests at heart are pushing states to raise barriers to the democratic process by enforcing laws that restrict voter registration drives and violate the Voting Rights Act. These election-related policies have disproportionately negative impact on young people and minorities - two groups that have historically suffered underrepresentation in the electorate. However, in an encouraging move aimed at lowering these kinds of barriers, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would help enfranchise all voters on Election Day.

Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives
During presidential election years, efforts to register more citizens increase dramatically. However, several states impose various restrictions on voter registration drives, which in turn has a disproportionate impact upon youth and people with disabilities - two communities that commonly register to vote through such drives, according to Ben Adler of the Politico.

The swing state of New Mexico is under the most scrutiny for their drive policy and has recently been sued for unconstitutionally hindering the right to collect voter registrations under a 2005 election reform law.

"The activists contend that because the law creates criminal penalties for failing to meet its requirements - which even supporters acknowledge are stringent - it discourages groups from collecting registrations," Adler wrote. New Mexico's excessively short 48 hour time frame to turn in a completed application and subsequent misdemeanor charge if the collector is late has reportedly stopped students who "'simply want to get out on campus and register their friends to vote.'" The Federal government recognizes the challenges imposed by short time lines: Under the National Voter Registration Act, state agencies are provided 10 days to turn in new applications.

Violations of the Voting Rights Act
Other voting rights issues that have recently been battled involve violations of the Voting Rights Act.
The U.S. Justice Department recently announced an agreement to protect Latino voters in New Jersey after a complaint was filed involving discrimination in the voting process. Puerto Rican voters in the Penns Grove borough had complained they were subject to racial comments and hostility as well as disproportionately asked for voter ID and turned away at the polls. It was the third lawsuit of this nature this year. The suit also alleged that Spanish-speaking voters were not provided Spanish-language election materials or enough aid from bilingual poll workers, also requirements of the Act. The agreement must still be approved by the court, the Justice Department press release said.

"The right to vote is a fundamental guarantee for all American citizens," said U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Christopher Christie. "The Division is committed to vigorously enforcing federal civil rights laws during the important election year and commends the county and borough for promptly and constructively resolving the matter."

Asian voters in Massachusetts were not as successful in getting the state to provide fully sufficient bilingual ballots, according to a column by Adrian Walker of the Boston Globe. Advocates recently attempted to meet with Secretary of State William Galvin to gain his support for a proposed law requiring ballots be translated into Chinese and Vietnamese. The bill passed the Boston City Council earlier this year, but still requires legislative approval in order to ensure elderly Asian residents with limited English skills are not denied the right to vote in November.

"Voting is as American as apple pie," said Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon. "This is something everyone should want to protect."

However, Galvin - who the legislature looks to when considering election law - denied the group, as he has for the last year, according to Walker.

Despite swelling interest and rising registration rates among youth and minorities, there are significant and persistent barriers to their increased participation. The identification of these barriers should serve as a wake-up call in each state, pushing them to take steps to address the barriers and equip themselves to handle the influx of new voters this coming Election Day.

Voter Registration Surge and Election Day Chaos
An example of this swelling interest can be seen in one county in Florida where minority voters are beginning to balance their share of the electorate. This year alone in Lee County, Florida, black and Latino voters have increased by as much as 22 percent - more than double the increase among white voters, according to local publication, Fort Meyers News-Press.

"The increase in minority voter registration gives voice to people who haven't always been represented at the table," the News-Press editorialized. "Whether it's the presence of a nontraditional candidate, the pressing economic conditions, or the war in Iraq, anything that inspires citizens to participate in the political process is beneficial."

The unprecedented surge of voters expected to turn out in November could pose a major challenge for states, according to Stateline.org. The online news site, run by the Pew Research Center, raised concerns about poor ballot design and even last minute voter registration drives that could swamp understaffed offices, making it more difficult for voters to get on the rolls, let alone cast a ballot.

"People know it's going to be a historically high turnout. Whether they can do anything about it is another question," said Dan Seligson of electionline.org, a Pew Center on the States project that provides analysis on election reform.

Smart Election Reform
While other states scramble to figure out how to accommodate the influx of voters and advocates ensure voting rights are protected, one state is pushing one of the most effective measures to expand access to democracy for all American citizens - Election Day Registration. On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would allow voters to register and vote on Election Day. The bill, SB 2807 is currently in the House Ways and Means committee. If passed, Massachusetts would join the ranks of eight other EDR states, which have average turnout rates that exceed non-EDR states by as much as 12 percent. Three other states are considering EDR bills: New Jersey, New York and Ohio. To view these bills, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org.

Quick Links:
Contacts:
Mass. Committee on House Ways and Means
State House #237
Boston, MA 02133
Phone:617/722-2380
Mass. Secretary of State William Galvin
Citizen Information Service
One Ashburton Place, Room 1611
Boston, MA 02108-1512
Tel: (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
TTY: (617) 878-3889
Fax: (617) 742-4528
E-mail: cis@sec.state.ma.us
Reports:
"A Summary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965." Project Vote.
"Voters Win with Election Day Registration: Election Day Registration Was Successful in Several States During the 2006 Mid-term Elections." Demos. 19 November 2008.

In Other News:

Voter-rights group cries foul in state: La. defends process for dropping names - The Times - Picayune [La.]
BATON ROUGE -- A national voting rights organization says Louisiana election officials are violating federal law by dropping voters who have registered in other states. But state officials said Friday they are in compliance with all federal and state voting laws.

More homeless people expected to vote this fall - Associated Press; The Raw Story
Among the record number of voters expected to cast ballots this fall may be an increase from an often-invisible population - the homeless.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Obama Firewall Holding

Chris Bowers — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:59:06 GMT

This hasn't been the best week of polling for Obama, as I noted today in both my presidential forecast update and in a look at Obama's apparent lack of a bounce from his overseas trip. However, one very important and very bright spot remains: Obama's firewall states remain untouched.

The 50%+1 Map: Obama 273--265 McCain

This is the bare bones, 50% + 1 map for Obama. It is simply the Kerry states plus Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico. And, as I noted above, Obama's advantage in these states remains untouched by current polling:

Obama Firewall

State	EV's	Obama %	McCain %	Margin	Obama Total
Obama Base	210				210
Pennsylvania	21	47.3%	40.3%	+7.0%	231
Michigan	17	45.5%	38.8%	+6.7%	248
New Mexico	5	46.8%	40.5%	+6.3%	253
Iowa	7	46.0%	39.8%	+6.2%	260
New Hampshire	4	45.8%	41.0%	+4.8%	264
Colorado	9	46.5%	43.0%	+3.5%	273

In order to win the election, McCain must win at least one of these states. However, McCain has not led in at least six consecutive polls from all of these states. In fact, Obama's lead is large enough in all of these states that there is no statistically valid way to argue that McCain is currently ahead, or even tied, in the electoral college.

This hasn't been the best week of polling. However, as long as the firewall holds, there is no need to panic. It is only when a poll shows McCain ahead in one of these six states that it will be time for real concern.

Waking the Giant: Making the Latino Vote Count in 2008

project vote — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:54:27 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

Massive voter registration drives, recent passionate immigration debates, and the contested presidential primaries are finally bringing one of the nation's fastest growing populations into the democratic process, despite decades of low voter participation rates and recent voting rights attacks based on anti-immigrant rhetoric. Recognizing their rapidly increasing voting power - which is catching up with their "raw demographic power," particularly in the closely contested states of Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada - both presidential candidates are actively pursuing Latino voters. However, advocates caution a powerful lesson must be learned from voter suppression schemes executed in recent elections in order to ensure this former "sleeping giant" of electoral participation will have access to the polls in November, and most importantly, have their votes counted.
Latinos have long been noted as the "sleeping giant" of elections in the United States because they turn out to vote in numbers far below their percentage of the voting-eligible population. For example, in 2006, Latinos made up nine percent of the voting eligible population in the United States, but only six percent of the voters, according to Representational Bias, Project Vote's 2007 analysis of the 2006 electorate. In contrast, Blacks, who make up roughly the same amount of the overall population in the U.S. as Latinos, account for 12 percent of the voting-eligible population, and 10 percent of the voters.

One reason for the lag in voter participation among Latinos is their very low voter registration rate. Only 54 percent of voting-eligible Latinos are registered to vote, compared to 61 percent of Blacks and 71 percent of Whites. Further, Latinos did not turnout at rates similar to Blacks or Whites. In 2006, 60 percent of registered Latinos voted, compared with 67 percent of Blacks and 73 percent of Whites. Overall this means that just 32 percent of the Latino voting-eligible population cast a ballot in 2006 compared with 41 percent of Blacks and 52 percent of Whites. If Latino voter turnout had matched their percentage of the voting-eligible population in 2006, an additional 2.6 million Latino voters would have gone to the polls.

The Asheville Citizen-Times echoes these statistics in a story this week. They note that Latino population growth outpaces their representation in the electorate for multiple reasons including low rates of naturalization and voter registration. However, they also report a projection from the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute at the University of Southern California that projects Latino turnout of 9.3 million in November. This would be an astounding 18 percentage point increase over participation in 2006 and would represent voting by roughly half the Latino voting-eligible population, a mark this population group has never met.

This projection underscores the kind of impact Latinos could have if they were to participate at rates similar to other large population groups. Partisans and those who prefer an electorate that makes predicting turnout as easy as looking at who voted the last time and simply assuming much the same will happen again have a vested interest in ensuring that the sleeping giant never awakes.

Sometimes this insurance takes the form of coordinated voter suppression schemes. For example, in the 2004 presidential election, Latino voters in the battleground state of Ohio were the victims of a partisan voter disenfranchisement scheme, according Richard Hayes of online news magazine, AlterNet. In an excerpt from his new book on the subject, Hayes reports voters experienced a number of irregularities, including receipt of ballots already spoiled and marked for a third-party candidate and incorrect distribution of voting machines, causing the votes to be shifted to the incorrect candidate depending on the precinct the machine had been intended to be placed in.

However, the most sinister finding of his research indicates specific and direct attempts to suppress the Latino vote. "And we have powerful evidence that Latino voters in Cleveland were intimidated into leaving the polling place without ever receiving a ballot at all," Hayes wrote.

After finding it suspicious that turnout was so low in a "hotly contested presidential election in the foremost battleground state," Hayes examined the initial explanation given by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. The election board claimed a lack of Spanish-speaking Cleveland poll workers and a high number of Latino voters lead to Spanish-speakers' ballots being rejected because they could not adequately read the ballot in order to enter their punch cards correctly.

The explanation is not true, according to Hayes who said official results indicate that no more than three ballots were rejected at the three precincts within the Cleveland polling place in question. A more likely explanation would be that a number of voters at the "overwhelmingly Democratic precincts" were intimidated by challengers at the polls before signing in or receiving a ballot, he wrote.

Recent voter suppression attempts have gone beyond dirty tricks and entered the realm of law. Attempting to institutionalize voter suppression based on anti-immigrant rhetoric, state and federal legislators have introduced retrograde proposals to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Most recently, U.S. Representative Dean Heller introduced a bill to repeal the VRA provision that requires counties to provide bilingual ballots if more than five percent of the voting age population is non-English speaking. The bill, H.R. 5971 was last referred to the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Proof of citizenship requirements at registration - a measure that would affect millions of Americans who do not have proper documentation - is currently implemented in one state, Arizona. However, five states have similar legislation pending (Calif., Ill., Mass., Mich., and N.Y.). To monitor some of these bills, visit www.electionlegislation.org.

Democracy is stronger when everyone participates and both legislators and election officials should put more emphasis on creating access to the polls, not barriers. This election cycle shows all signs of being precedent setting in terms of increases in civic engagement and electoral participation. As Hayes wrote, "all eligible voters should be allowed to vote without interference, for the candidates of their choice, and have their votes counted as cast."

Quick Links:
A Summary of the Voting Rights Act. Project Vote. May 24, 2006.
U.S. Representative Dean Heller

In Other News:

Florida Felons May Not Be Aware Of Restored Voting Rights - Capitol News Service
TALLAHASSEE - More than 150,000 former felons in Florida are eligible to cast ballots in this year's elections, but most of them may not even know their rights have been restored, according to state parole commission officials.

Reed Outspoken on Veterans' Voting Rights - KNDO/KNDU [Wash.]
KENNEWICK, Wash.- Voter registration is becoming a controversial issue, especially in the veteran's community.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Path To The White House Leads Entirely Through Blue States

Chris Bowers — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:30:00 GMT

As a result of gians made in the 2006 elections, the path to the White House now leads entirely through blue states. If one adds Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico to the states Kerry won in the 2004 election, there is now an easy, non-Ohio, non-Florida path to victory for Democrats. The new, natural governing map now looks like this:

"Easy" Or "Firewall" Map: Obama 273--265 McCain

This is the easy path to victory, and it requires neither Ohio nor Florida. Here are some worthwhile facts about these twenty-two states, plus D.C.:

Democrats control both branches in 20 of the 22 state legislatures: In every state except Michigan and Pennsylvania, Democrats control both branches of the state legislature.
Democrats control a majority of 22 of the 23 congressional delegations (note: some errors follow--update below): If the members of the House and Senate are combined, Democrats control the majority of congressional delegations in every single one of these states except Michigan, where Democrats trail by only an eight to nine margin.
Obama leads in all 23 states: Obama currently leads by 5.5% or more in all 23 jurisdictions, except in Colorado where he leads by 4.0%. I has been more than a month since even a single poll has shown McCain either ahead or tied in any of these states. The last was a poll Michigan, on May 27th. Since hat time, three Michigan polls have shown Obama ahead by 3%, 6%, and 9% respectively.
Democratic dominance in three new states: In Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, Democrats hold the trifecta--both branches of the state legislature and the Governorship. Democrats have picked up four of the fifteen seats in the U.S. House in these three states over the last four years, and are poised to pickup even more this time (NM-01 is a particularly strong pickup). Democrats picked up a U.S. Senate seat in Colorado in 2004, and are set to pick up tow more Senate seats this year, with the Udalls poised for a Colorado and New Mexico sweep.

In other words, thanks to large local gains in the 2006 elections, Democrats now completely dominate local politics in enough non-southern states to win the Electoral College. There are now enough "naturally" Democratic states in order to win the White House.

Unlike Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, Obama does not have to go through Republican states in order to win the Presidency. He doesn't have to win Ohio, and he doesn't have to win Florida. Basically, all he has to do is hold states where, other than Michigan, Democrats have been completely dominant lately. If we lose this election, it will be because we lost at least one blue state, and picked up no red states. As such, we now win unless something abnormal happens. The Presidency is now ours for the taking.

Update: Oh yeah, Republicans still technically control the New York State Senate, for at least another couple of months. I forgot that Bruno's retirement didn't automatically and immediately hand over control. Also, Democrats do control the Michigan State House, while Republicans control the Delaware and Wisconsin State Houses. See it all here. Democrats have two of three (Sate House, State Senate and Governor) in all of the blue states listed above.

Bill McCamley (NM - 02) Donates $47.50 to Himself

Glenn Hurowitz — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:42:13 GMT

New Mexico congressional candidate Bill McCamley (who's running for Steve Pearce's seat), just came up with a very creative idea for taking the rug out from under self-financing candidates, in this case his oil executive primary opponent Harry Teague (who has hardly been a loyal Democrat, donating $1000 to Steve Pearce himself in 2004). Other grassroots challengers should repeat it.

From the AP:

A Democratic candidate for New Mexico's 2nd Congressional District has written a $47.50 check to has campaign.
Bill McCamley of Las Cruces staged today's event to contrast his opponent's campaign loans worth $475,000.

Rocky Mountain Realities on Feb. 5

David Sirota — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:18:40 GMT

Note: My new nationally syndicated newspaper column out today features OpenLeft's very own Paul Rosenberg. Check it out here and check out the original OpenLeft post that I specifically reference. - D

When I took a leave of absence from my job in Washington in 2000 to work in the Montana Senate race, I didn't have much clue what I was in for. Growing up on the East Coast, I thought of the Intermountain West as a huge, far-off, mysterious place of square states and cattle herds - and like many people on the coasts, I didn't know much else.

In the years since that first campaign, I have been working in and reporting on the West, telling people what I say in my new nationally syndicated newspaper column today: That this region is the most politically misunderstood place in America.
Many people scoffed at my writing, saying the West was a backwater - one that would remain a Republican stronghold forever. That is, until the last few years when many Democratic strategists in Washington realized that the West has become a political swing region - one that could decide the direction of national politics for the next generation.

Sadly, when you read the typical national reporter's occasional article about the West or watch national politicians drop in for a visit, you sense either condescension, stereotyping - or both. The West is still portrayed as a weird hinterland whose politics supposedly adhere to Washington, D.C.'s inaccurate notions of lockstep "red state" behavior.

But as I say in the column, the West defies the professional pundits' portrayals. On issues from national security to energy to the role of government, the Rocky Mountain region's nuances are far more complex than "red state" stereotypes - just like most places in America. And as this region prepares to vote on February 5th and then take center stage in the general election, the candidates who ignore the fictions and appreciates these nuances are the candidates who will likely win here.

As the only nationally syndicated newspaper columnist living in and reporting regularly on this region, I felt it was particularly important to write this piece before Tuesday's voting because the West is only going to become more prominent in American politics as this election year progresses. That prominence, I believe, will either allow inaccurate stereotypes to flourish, or let the more complex realities shine through. I hope it is the latter.

Go read the whole column here. If you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site.

One additional note: You may have noticed that I am trying to use my column to promote solid progressive voices whenever I can. Today's, as I pointed out up top, includes the use of material from a diarist at OpenLeft.com - a terrific progressive site. I want to continue doing that kind of thing - the Right promotes its voices very effectively like this. And I want to do the same with my column.

Please, No Marty Chavez for Senate

Matt Stoller — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:14:38 GMT

Senate candidate Marty Chavez is outright loathed by New Mexico Democratic activists, though right now he's the leading candidate for the Democrats in the state. From Roll Call:

Other big names committed to raise money for Chavez are Javier Gonzales, a former Santa Fe County commissioner who is a favorite to replace Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) whenever Udall should choose to vacate his seat; insurance executive and prominent Republican fundraiser Bud Dziak; and Mike Anaya, a former chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party and the brother of ex-Gov. Toney Anaya (D).

Chavez is the Mayor of Albuquerque, and he's basically a developer's DLC dream, which is why it's completely unsurprising a big name Republican would be part of his fundraising operation. It's just business.

Chavez has problems with corruption and big business, and it's interesting that his fundraising base is not coming from Albuquerque. One commenter on Democracy for New Mexico asserts that Chavez actually falsified the names on his finance committee, putting people there who hadn't agreed to serve. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't be out of character.

Hopefully Udall or Denish will get in.

Reinstate the Draft! Tom Udall for Senate!

Alex Flores — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:47:09 GMT

Cross Posted at MyDD.Com and Swing State Project

The word in New Mexico circles is that despite his announcement, Congressman Udall is still being urged to run for the Senate. If "Udall for Senate" gives you the same kind butterflies in your stomach as it gives me, please help urge him to run! Send Tom Udall the message that we want him as our next Senator by sending a small, $5 contribution to his campaign.

It seems like whoever you talk to in Washington and most importantly, in New Mexico, people agree that Tom Udall is our hero candidate. Obviously he needs to step up and run.

A move to run after announcing otherwise is not without precedent and you don't hear anyone complaining about the last guy who did it. In August of 2005, now Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown announced that he would not run against former-Senator Mike DeWine in Ohio. For the next two months, the grassroots urged him to reconsider his decision for the people of Ohio and for people across the nation. He eventually reversed his decision and went on to win the seat for Democrats, helping to give us control of the US Senate.

We need to send Congressman Udall that same message (here's another chance to donate that $5!). The people of New Mexico want him to run and people in Washington and across the United States hope that he'll help us to increase our majority in the Senate by turning Senator Domenici's seat blue!

Tom Udall is the best choice for New Mexico AND for the country as we work towards building the Democratic majority in the Senate. I already wrote a bit about his background, including a bit about his family and his cash on hand that he could use for his Senate campaign committee. But there are other, better reasons for Tom Udall to be the next Senator from New Mexico.

For one, he's a good progressive. He's pro-choice, an environmentalist, a defender of civil liberties and civil rights, and one of the great supporters for veterans in the Democratic Party today. In fact, during his time as a minority member in the Congress, he took the junior seat on the Veteran's Committee in addition to his regular committee portfolio.

In the first polling out about the race in New Mexico, Tom Udall beats both Republicans by 18 points! Governor Richardson is the only other New Mexican who polls as high. Representative Udall could afford to leave his safe seat in the north with these kinds of numbers, run hard for the Senate, and win. He could leave his House seat knowing that another Democrat (and there are many) could easily keep it in Dem control.

In terms of numbers, this just makes sense. Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) and Congressman Steve Pearce (R) are the two leading contenders to replace Senator Domenici on the Republican side (Pearce has formed an exploratory committee and will announce his intentions in the next two weeks, while Wilson declared less than 24 hours after Domenici's announcement and after weeks of traveling statewide). The numbers tell us that both beat current Dem candidates Chavez and Wiviott by small-to-wide margins. The following summary of the numbers comes from the Democracy For New Mexico blog.

Starting with Republican candidate Steven Pearce, Congressman from New Mexico's 2nd District:
*    Pearce loses to Congressman Tom Udall by 18 points
*    loses to Governor Bill Richardson by 24 points
*    defeats Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez by 21 points
*    defeats former Attorney General Patricia Madrid by 16 points
*    and defeats businessman Don Wiviott by 35 points.
Now to Republican candidate Heather Wilson, Congresswoman from New Mexico's 1st Congressional District:
*    Wilson loses to Udall by 18 points (same as Pearce),
*    loses to Richardson by 27 points (Wilson runs 3 points weaker than Pearce),
*    defeats Chavez by 4 points (Wilson runs 17 points weaker than Pearce),
*    effectively ties Patricia Madrid (Wilson runs 15 points weaker than Pearce)
*    and defeats Wiviott by 17 points (Wilson runs 18 points weaker than Pearce).

Someone needs to put these numbers on the Congressman's desk and tell him that it's time to run.

We know that Udall's numbers aren't fluff, either. He's run statewide before and won as Attorney General, twice! Since then, Udall has remained a proud defender of the Constitution and our rights. He was one of the original 66 Members of Congress to stand up with courage against the PATRIOT Act that was first railroaded through the House, forcing most Representatives to vote on a bill they had never read.

This is the kind of leadership and courage we should demand from our leaders and a primary reason why New Mexicans are asking Tom Udall to run for Senate.

Congressman Udall's voting record is solidly progressive. Help in the movement to Draft Tom Udall for Senate today by sending him $5 and the message that he's our best hope!

I Am Liberaltruthsayer and I Am Happy to Be Here

liberaltruthsayer — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:07:33 GMT

Hi! Many of you may know me from my diaries at Daily Kos, or my one or two diaries from MyDD, or you may even be one of the many dozens of readers of my own blogs, http://liberaltruths... or http://whymyhusbandh.... I also have a third blog http://newmexicansfo.... I try to blog often, but I find as the mother of four small kids my writing can get a little spotty sometimes. But this is me. I am Cara, I am from New Mexico, and I am Liberaltruthsayer, and I am so glad to be here at Open Left!
Here I am at Yearly Kos with Governor Richardson and one of the most excellent human beings on the planet, Ken Camp.

http://farm2.static....

I have been a lifelong follower of politics, and my first political act was writing a furious letter to Richard Nixon when I was about 3 or 4 in crayon. My father, a very vocal republican, and my mother, a secretly left-leaning independent, raised me to be aware of the electoral process, so from the 1972 conventions on I have watched both party conventions. I knew from a very young age that I was a liberal, and when I was 18, in 1986, I registered to vote immediately. My father was pretty disappointed that I didn't go Republican, but two years later, at the end of the Dukakis campaign, my dad pulled me aside and told me that even though he didn't agree with me politically he was so proud of me for being involved and was so sorry that my candidate had lost. He was a fabulous dad. I lost him 18 years ago yesterday, and it is still painful. He never got to see his beautiful grandkids!

This was my dad...http://farm1.static....

I do have to say, though, that there are several things I am grateful he didn't have to see. I am so glad he didn't live to see the party he believed was so good, nobel and righteous in its patriotism and defense of the constitution and so agnostic and libertarian with regard to interfering in the lives of the American citizenry, become the political arm of the fundamentalist Christian church. I am so thankful dad didn't have to see the Supreme Court invalidate a presidential election and rule that counting the votes of American citizens would impinge on the rights of one of the candidates. I am so glad that my dad didn't live to see 9/11, that would have broken his gentle heart. I am so glad he didn't live to see our nation attack a soveriegn country without provocation.

I do not believe my father would be a Republican today.

For him, and for my beautiful children, I fight. I write. I do whatever I can to save the world for the kids and honor my dad's memory.
Ok, here's the beautiful kids
http://images.kodakg...

I have to say that in all my years of campaigns I have never been so excited about a candidate as Bill Richardson. Of course, it goes without saying, that he is my governor and I am partial to him because he is a wonderful governor, and maybe even that he reminds me a little of my dad, but he is also a terrific candidate for president. Here is why I think Bill Richardson is the best candidate for the job.

1. Experience: Not one of the other candidates can match Bill Richardson's resume. He served 7 terms in Congress, was UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, and was just elected last fall to his second term of Governor with an astonishing 68% of the vote. His tenure as governor has brought New Mexicans together to solve the problems of our state. We have one of the best records of job growth in the nation, over 80,000 new jobs have been created under Richardson, and that is in a state that just hit the 2 million mark for population. Under Richardson collective bargaining was restored for public employees, and domestic partners of state employees were given the same rights as married state workers. Every New Mexican saw tax relief, most significantly for families was the elimination of sales taxes on food and medicine. Richardson has successfully taken on drunk driving and meth labs, two of the most socially damaging and prolific types of criminal activity in our state. He has encouraged alternative energy industry with wind, solar, and biomass energy production. He has brought commuter rail to our very congested Rio Grande Corridor. He has raised teacher pay. There are many other things I am overlooking now but let's just say that he has been a very progressive governor, and accomplished so much for my state.

2. Issues: Bill Richardson has the most definitive plans for America of any of the candidates. His Iraq plan is solid, get out now, no residual troops. His energy policy is more comprehensive and bolder than any of the other candidates. He has a workable health care plan, providing universal coverage for all Americans. Richardson has a one point plan on No Child Left Behind--scrap it. He proposes a national minimum wage for teachers. Most of all, and I know he can do this, Richardson talks about bringing our fractured and divided nation together.

3. A Great, Compassion-filled heart: When there is someone in trouble and facing dire straits, Bill Richardson is there. Paul Salopek, a journalist for the Chicago Tribune and on special assignment for National Geographic, was being held prisoner in Sudan last fall. Bill Richardson flew to Darfur and sat down with Al-Bashir. Al-Bashir, after some deliberation, said, "I will let him go, if you will stay." (I love it when BR tells this story because his eyes get HUGE at this point, it is pretty funny.)He says then Al-Bashir laughed and let them go. A few months later he was back to negotiate a very fragile and sadly short-lived cease fire between Al-Bashir and the rebel forces. Richardson has secured the release of American prisoners from North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba. He also went to President Bush recently to ask for leniency on a woman who had sought assylum in a Chicago Catholic Church to avoid deportation and separation from her young son, an American Citizen. Sadly she recently was arrested. The point is Bill Richardson will fight for people, fight for decency and fight for what is right. I have a lot of faith in Bill Richardson.

So that is my story. I am glad to have this forum to discuss ideas. I believe that our netroots community may be the last great hope for our society, a salon of ideas, a clearinghouse for discussion, and a community dedicated to bringing change and restoring freedom. Thank you for taking the time to read.

Cara