McCain-Palin email gets Minnesota’s same-day voting requirements wrong

Figures…haven’t gotten anything right have they.
They’re synonomous with lying and deceit.

Make sure that the MN Secretary of State’s Office gets this information, they should know in case they get questions from people who rec’d this erroneous info. Thanks.

Come on…that could very well have been a typo! Someone typed “AND” instead of “OR”, or Goofed… Don’t go yelling “FRAUD” without proof! That could be LIBEL, and you could have LOTS of legal problems for that.

I want to see an ID requirement. Gotta stop “Michael Rodent” (That’s Mickey Mouse to you uninitiated) from voting!

‘The keys are like right next to each other”

Yo Chuck,

Get thee to a law school.

The First Amendment protects freedom of the press from low-information units like you and Sarah Palin. “LIBEL”, as you so loudly put it, requires a showing of actual malice. NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), where the court held that the paper did NOT libel an Alabama public official by describing his voter supression activities as reprehensible in an editorial.

Libel also requires a named person who is damaged by the alleged libel. Named persons are conspicuously absent in the current reprehensible Republican disenfranchisement effort. Funny how no one wants to sign their name to a flyer aimed at stripping people of fundamental rights.

So who you gonna call to create “LOTS of legal trouble”? The Bush DOJ? They’re busy illegally leaking confidential USCIS information. The dogcatcher maybe?
something the RepuLibel against a media outlet requires a showing of New York Times” Contracts

Unfortunately the “could very well have been a typo” argument does not tread water very well. Even if there is a typographical error, and did not intentionally attempt to confuse or misinform members of the electorate, those who are endorsing the literature being sent out are responsible for the content.

I think it’s a little funny that people think this is an attempt to defraud voters. This e-mail was to people who signed up for McCain’s newsletter. Ostensibly McCain voters. It’s kind of like shooting yourself in the foot don’t you think? The truth is they were just too stupid or too rushed to look at the actual rules in MN. Most likely they took the rules for one state with same-day voter registration and sent out the same information to any state that has it.This just shows the type of incompetence that has plagued McCain’s campaign from the start.

YO DAN, THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT.

Yeah, like anyone really even checks
this is a moot point people…..

Pleased to be of some help, Naplesgal!

A more complete explanation of “actual malice”: it means that the person made a statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard regarding its falsity. It’s a fairly steep burden of proof, and that burden is placed on the party alleging libel. A third party doesn’t have the requisite standing to allege libel, I think.

The Independent made no claims of Republican intent, so I presume that the wing-nut was referring to a comment. I think most online comment sections are pretty clear opinion (vice fact) fora, making libel that much harder to demonstrate.

Re: all the “typo”, “mistake-not malice” excuses:

Voter suppression has been a Republican tactic since at least the 1950s. The late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, William Rehnquist made his Republican Party bones suppressing the non-Anglo vote in the Southwest. Republican leaders to this day admit that low turnout favors their party. The ubiquity and commonality of the voter suppression efforts are no random event. I’m forced to paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, Alice’s Restaurant:
If one person does it, they may think s/he’s really sick….
If two people do it, they’ll think they’re weird….
If three people do it they’ll think it’s an organization….
And if fifty people do it, they may think it’s a movement….
That’s the Republican movement: denying people their fundamental right to vote.

I’m filled with hope today. Best of luck to my friend Al on the recount. It was a pleasure to meet you at South Nashua High School on a cold January afternoon in 2004.

Everybody has to be a little more careful.

You say: “And if you bring a valid Minnesota driver’s license or learner’s permit, a valid Minnesota photo ID, or a tribal photo ID with signature, you don’t need to also bring a bill.” This is true ONLY if your valid MN documents ALSO have your current address within the precinct in which you’re voting. If you’ve moved recently & haven’t changed your drivers licence (or other documents), the license is sufficient to prove WHO you are, but not WHERE you live, and you need a recent utility bill addressed to you at your current address OR a voucher.

Paul, thank you very much for that correction. I was trying to be careful but I believe you are right — a license can be “valid” without having the correct address. I added something to end of the sentence in the post to clarify that.

To anyone who even attempts to be an apologist for the GOP on this one, I’d like to remind you of a little thing called The Stolen Elections of 2000 and 2004. Gee, who was it who spent gobs of taxpayer money purging the voter rolls in Florida in 1999 to ensure the state suppressed the African American vote to deliver the state for W.?? Hmmm, who was it who made sure that 100,000 people were issued “provisional” ballots in Ohio that then never got counted supposedly because they would be ’statistically insignificant’?? Who were the two highest election officials in both of those states who supported then-candidate Bush?? Who was it who flew “challengers” into Minnesota from out of state in 2004 to intimidate voters and suppress the vote, including on the Red Lake Reservation? Who was it in 2004 who said Native Americans in Minnesota couldn’t use their legitimate Tribal ID’s to vote?

Give up?

It was the REPUBLICANS. So when a REPUBLICAN campaign sends an e-mail like the one above; or when an excessive number of REPUBLICAN precinct challengers show up ILLEGALLY at the Brian Coyle Center in Minneapolis (as happened yesterday according to this online publication) or when REPUBLICAN backed organizations like Minnesota Majority or the Minnesota Voters Alliance come up with phony “concerns” about nonexistent “voter fraud” – and when REPUBLICANS try to pass a bill in our legislature to require photo ID’s to vote – you’re damn right we’re going to be alarmed. Get a clue, right-wingers. We progressives are rightly triggered when you try to muscle your way in and steal votes, suppress the vote, lie (like when the absentee ballots went out in New York with the name Barack Osama), and when text messages go out on election day saying democrats can vote on November 5th, we’re going to stand up and call you on the carpet for your unforgivable anti-democratic tactics.

And by the way, for all of you uber patriots who claim to have a monopoly on being American – there’s nothing more American than voting. So if you want to have a contest about who’s more patriotic – those of us who actually BELIEVE IN THE VOTE will go up against you any day.

Long live democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

StrongProgressive, this factoid I just learned of might belong on your list or in any case bears some relation to your point about suppressing voters with tribal IDs in 2004. In 1984, Reagan’s campaign considered demanding a recount in Minnesota, the one state they lost and not by much. Their goal was to gain a full 50-state sweep after the fact by invalidating Native American votes. Reagan’s campaign manager Ed Rollins made reference to it recently and I wrote about it in this post:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/14422/rollins-not-bitter-clings-to-idea-that-dead-indians-voting-in-minnesota-stopped-84-sweep

Thanks Chris. Just read your post. Two things – no surprise the 1984 Republicans wanted to steal Minnesota. Hadn’t heard that before. But two – who is this guy Roberts who doesn’t even challeng Rollins’ “dead Indians” comment? Unfortunately, the press has become a total lap dog for the right. Watch out, Obama. The media will visit on you the scrutiny that they witheld from W. Happened in ‘92 after Clinton won, too.