I understand why Ohio would say that, but doesn't that depend on what the Ohio election law says. For instance, I am in college in N.Y. with no intention (at the moment) to remain here. Nevertheless, I have been a resident in the state for 30 days and can vote as such... Why would I be any different than a temporary worker?

[PDXLawyer domicile is not the same as resident. You described domicile. Residency requirements vary from state to state.]

I really love the flag waving Republican traitors (and I use that term advisedly) who are determined to question the legitimacy of this election. Most don't really believe that McCain is winning or will win the election, but they will focus laser like on this to sow hatred and dissent. Reminds me of Dallas in 1963.

This just in! JFK was killed by a Republican Hatred Laser!

Reminds me of Dallas in 1963.

Ugh. That was truly uncalled-for.

I'm sure the couple dozen or so staff members who registered in Ohio will turn the election...

If you vote early and die before election day does your vote still count? Do you have to be an eligible voter "on election day" for your vote to count? (no Chicago jokes, please)

I really love the flag waving Republican traitors (and I use that term advisedly) who are determined to question the legitimacy of this election. Most don't really believe that McCain is winning or will win the election, but they will focus laser like on this to sow hatred and dissent. Reminds me of Dallas in 1963.

I really love the flag waving Republican Democrat traitors (and I use that term advisedly) who are determined to question the legitimacy of this [i.e., the 2000] election. Most don't really believe that McCain Gore is winning [Florida] or will win the election, but they will focus laser like on this to sow hatred and dissent. Reminds me of Dallas Florida in 1963 2000.

*rolls eyes* Just don't feed the trolls.

To the college question: If you're going to be living in a place for nine months a year for four years, I think you have a decent case that you are a resident. A meaningful number of people move around the country following their jobs and this seems no different; surely you can't disenfranchise everyone who knows they may need to switch towns/states/coasts on the drop of a paycheck.

AFAIK, technically yes. Ballots are counted on election day, and any ballot can be disqualified at that time.

According to this slate story that depends on the state and the circumstances.

Because election law is governed by states, the rules vary widely when it comes to how this issue is handled. Had Steen lived in Florida, for example, her vote would have counted. Florida state law dictates that "the ballot of an elector who casts an absentee ballot shall be counted even if the elector dies on or before election day" so long as the ballot was postmarked or received by the election supervisor prior to the voter's death. Steen's daughter tells Explainer that she postmarked her mother's absentee ballot on April 29 or April 30, nearly two weeks before Steen passed away.

In 2004, USA Today reported that California, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio, and West Virginia all allow for the counting of absentee ballots of deceased voters while many other states technically do not. Many states that prohibit these so-called "ghost votes," however, lack the reporting system to quickly update voter rolls with recent deaths. That means it's very unlikely that a recently deceased voter would have his or her absentee ballot nullified.

With early voting I think it it would be harder to track since I doubt most states distinguish non- absentee or provisional votes once they have been cast.

-- To the college question: If you're going to be living in a place for nine months a year for four years, I think you have a decent case that you are a resident --
.
For voting purposes, the law says you have the right to vote in a statewide election only if you intend to return to the same state notwithstanding undertaking the obtaining of an education there. It seems odd to make the determination on something other than duration, but that's the way it works.
.
When I was an undergrad, I had no intention to stay in that city (notice, I didn't say "state"?) and I returned to my hometown each summer. College was a "long term temporary" location.
.
I would think some commutes set up a similar situation. E.g. the person who commutes to NYC from Hartford (or from Newark). More time in NY, resident of CT (or NJ).

They are violating the Constitutional rights of people to freely travel. How do they know if someone intends to stay or not? Someone has every right to say on November 5th they want to move back to Vermont.

What? They came to vote for McCain? Arrest their asses and haul them off to jail!

-- They are violating the Constitutional rights of people to freely travel. --
.
Either you're being sarcastic, or you're a Democrat.
.
-- How do they know if someone intends to stay or not? Someone has every right to say on November 5th they want to move back to Vermont --
.
In New York, the question of intent to stay, if challenged, is decided by the board of elections in each county.
.

NY Election law: 5-104. Qualifications of voters; residence, gaining or losing. (caution, 3.5 Mb PDF file of complete code)
.
2. In determining a voter's qualification to register and vote, the board to which such application is made shall consider, in addition to the applicant's expressed intent, his conduct and all attendant surrounding circumstances relating thereto. The board taking such registration may consider the applicant's financial independence, business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children, if any, leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that it may reasonably deem necessary to determine the qualification of an applicant to vote in an election district within its jurisdiction. The decision of a board to which such application is made shall be presumptive evidence of a person's residence for voting purposes.

.
So, look for driver's license, auto registration, bills being sent to the person's residence, etc.
.
I agree with you, people can change where they intend to live, and can do so the day of the election, not just the day before or day after. They vote "where they are" at the moment.

-- These "permanent abode" requirements (even for domicile) have always struck me as kind of weird. --
.
They don't mean "permanent" the way you are taking it. A better phrase would be "I'll stay here (and come back here after business and pleasure trips) until I decide to relocate to a place not yet (and maybe never) decided."
.
I'd relocate from my "permanent" residence if the right opportunity presented itself, or for any other reason. But I don't have any present intention or plan that has particularity attached to it.

-- I could have voted twice rather easily. And nobody would have been the wiser. --
.
The snow-bird population in FL is able to do the same thing. I think voting in 2 states is a fairly common practice, like speeding, it's not apt to be caught.

Perhaps the take away point, as suggested by Dave N and my experience here in TN is, the the registration and voting system ultimately relies on the honesty of each citizen. State elections systems are not staffed to investigate the legitimacy of every single registration or ballot cast by an individual voter. And if that was really their task, we would probably find them about as friendly as your local DMV office.

Caine from Kung Fu just voted in Ohio

I'm sure the couple dozen or so staff members who registered in Ohio will turn the election...

Our local TV news, KENS5 San Antonio, had this story last night about several van-loads of campaign workers heading from SA to Ohio to work for Obama in the election. It was almost an advertorial, as it said limited space for the all-expenses-paid trip was still available. The 1:48 segment took five seconds to mention that the McCain campaign was also sending people in.

Several van-loads per large city is a lot more than a couple of dozen.

But, anyway, the problem with dodgy residence issues is the possibility of voting twice or more.

I’d say that voting twice wouldn’t be as much of a distortion as temporarily relocating a bunch of people to a battleground state. Here in Texas you could vote a hundred times, and it won’t change the outcome.

To the college question: If you're going to be living in a place for nine months a year for four years, I think you have a decent case that you are a resident

The answer here is “it depends.” The first time I went to Texas A&M I still had a bedroom in my parent’s house in San Antonio, where I lived for the summer, long holidays, and occasional weekends. It was more my “residence” than the dorm rooms I lived in. So I voted in SA. The second time I went to Texas A&M was after I got out of the Army. I had a wife and daughter, and we had another daughter while we were there. We still visited our parents in San Antonio and stayed in my old bedroom, but it wasn’t my “residence” as much as the house we rented off campus. So we voted in College Station. It should be the voters’ choice, as long as they only get one choice.

So on the day you arrive in Ohio you're entitled to register and vote there if you intend to remain, but if you've been in Ohio for a year you can't register and vote there if you were only planning to stay for 13 months. Doesn't it seem like such a rule would be hard to enforce?

As much as I would dislike the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, as mobile as the population is getting, having a nationwide voter registration database would be quite useful at coordinating problems like this.

PLR

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is a joke. They couldn't "find" their ass with both hands.

That said, I have my doubts about Florida in 2000 just as I have my doubts about Texas and Illinois in 1960.

Let's get over it, shall we?

Issues that I know of in FL 2000:

1) publicly called before the polls closed. Impossible to quantify, but the loss of at least 100s of net Republican votes is a given.

2) fragility of pre-punched cards - if I didn't vote for President, it would be EXCEEDINGLY easy for my "no vote" ballot to become a vote for either candidate. This could happen on purpose or on accident - the more the ballot is handled, the more likely this is.

3) temptation to commit fraud: one person counting was caught making stacks of 75 for one candidate and stancs of 100 for the other, then counting them all as 100s. I won't mention which way was which, but you can go look it up if you care.

4) opportunity to commit fraud: the more times you handle the ballots, the more people there are involved, and the more opportunities. There was a woman caught slipping a ballot under the door to the people counting.

5) MOUNDS of chads that used to be attached to a ballot. See #2 above for why this is bad.

6) selective recounting.

In short, there were lots of problems, and the counting would become less reliable not more so the more times it was counted.

Make of that what you wish. Having done fairly extensive research on the topic myself, I am satisfied that the course of action (stop the counting and go with it) was the right one. Of course, since that ended up leaving the candidate I disliked less as the winner, that could be bias speaking, but I have gone to fairly extensive efforts to try to make the decision bias-free.

Back on topic, the shenanigans in Ohio are ridiculous, but this particular point is fairly minimal, really, as long as both sides are treated equally (which appears to be the case at the moment). Allowing one side to get around it while stopping the other side would be pretty bad, and I'm sure the Ohio SoS is looking for a way to do so as we speak.

I find this to be some what of a load of ___. In a prior life, I DID move from state to state on occasion. I always marveled at how the local authorities were quite interested in me paying whatever fees necessary to register my car, change state plates etc. I got a couple of tickets in various places for that in a far shorter amount of time that this article seems to indicate would be required to be allowed to register to vote. (i.e., I'd get a new driver's license but not new plates and would get a ticket as being a resident without proper plates).

To say someone can live somewhere long enough to get ticketed for not having in-state plates on a car, but not long enough to vote is ludicrous.

I find this whole issue rather sad. I recall, as Gore supporter in 2000, I was against the Fla recount. What could I say? I live in Chicago. It's difficult to me to see how voting irregularities in one place that happened to be close or report results later required special treatment, particularly when my home was known for historical problems. My view then was, and is now, play be the rules as they exist at the time of the game, and if you don't like the rules, change them before the next game starts.

Adler has identified an issue he deems vital to the Republic (Democrat Bill Stinson "literally stole the election"!!!!!!)

Fine. Let's change the rules so everyone who is entitled to vote gets to vote. I'm not even that against requiring ID, so long as we actually let everyone who is entitled to vote do so.

But let's get over the rules in the middle of the game. Saying someone who "resides" in a state for a short period of time can't vote is ridiculous. It deprives too many legit voters from voting.

Is it possible that a person (over 18, not a felon) would not be eligible to vote in any state? It seems like a fundamental right, but I guess I don't know where it would be guaranteed in the Constitution. If each state gets to determine the eligible voters (and I think they do), the states could have inconsistent rules and completely disenfranchise a person.

Also, it seems like a person should not get to vote twice, but if both of the states are okay with it, is there a law against it?

Any campaign operative with a modicum of intelligence from either party can just say "I think I'll stay here. I like it here." That makes their voter registration legitimate. [It also means they would be committing a crime to vote in their old state as well, but that's another matter.] What makes the "Vote from Home" group distinguishable is that they advertised their intention to be in Ohio for just a few weeks pre-election and not return to Ohio at all. Too clever by half, to say the least.

As far as voting by the homeless, I know of 2 cities in the Los Angeles area with tiny populations and large municipal budgets, due to most of the city being comprised of commercial/industrial property - Vernon and City of Industry. [Vernon has less than 60 registered voters and CoI has less than 200 registered voters, IIRC.] A fairly small group of homeless people could completely take over both cities and reorient the city finances to their personal benefit. [A group of 8 non-homeless people tried to do that in Vernon a couple years ago, and the city government's responses were grossly illegal and resulted in the city losing several lawsuits, but that group was too small to flip the election.]
I don't have a good solution to prevent an orchestrated takeover of that nature. Homeless people don't get to vote is not a good solution.

Nick

-- Is it possible that a person (over 18, not a felon) would not be eligible to vote in any state? --
.
Yes, by failing to take the steps the state law requires for registering. The typical requirement for registering (county by county (parish by parish in Looziana?) is how this goes) is to be an of-age resident (see extended discussions above) in that county.
.
-- Also, it seems like a person should not get to vote twice, but if both of the states are okay with it, is there a law against it? --
.
Yes. Many of them. Each state has a "register here only if you aren't registered elsewhere" law.

"Yes. Many of them. Each state has a "register here only if you aren't registered elsewhere" law."

That didn't answer the question. If two states passed a law allowing voters to vote in both, at least for local and possibly state elections, it doesn't seem like that would raise any federal constitutional concerns.

-- That didn't answer the question. If two states passed a law allowing voters to vote in both, at least for local and possibly state elections, it doesn't seem like that would raise any federal constitutional concerns. --
.
But no state has passed a law that says it's okay to vote in two states (or two towns, or counties, or even on some sort of limited ballot). Does that answer the question in a form that you understand?

"Does that answer the question in a form that you understand?"

No, it doesn't address whether such a proposal would be legal if adopted which is what MG was asking.

Is it possible that a person (over 18, not a felon) would not be eligible to vote in any state? It seems like a fundamental right, but I guess I don't know where it would be guaranteed in the Constitution.

At the time of the 1976 election, I was leaving graduate school. I cast my absentee vote in Iowa and was driving a U-Haul to a job in California on election day and watched the election returns at a motel in Wyoming. I don't know that part of Iowa election law, but I may not have been legally eligible to vote anywhere. From what I read here, in some states I would have been ineligible to vote as soon as I accepted a job in a different state.

The Ohio tax authority ought to send these people letters requesting tax returns be filed, as required of all residents. The perpetrators may not owe taxes, but they'll sure get some Ohio tax attorneys &CPAs work wading through the domicilary and residency issues.

-- From what I read here, in some states I would have been ineligible to vote as soon as I accepted a job in a different state. --
.
The eligibility requirement is typically eligibility to register. You registered to vote in Iowa. At the time, you either had (or lied about) an intention to stay in Iowa until you formed another definite plan for relocation. E.g., at the time you registered to vote, you weren't looking at a slew of out-of-state job offers. You were staying put, in that apartment (or whatever) until something came along.
.
I've also entered employment arrangements that involved, by design, a series of 6-9 month stints, each of them in a different state. I knew going in to a state that I had no intention to stay there. I'd claim as "domicile" the place I'd go if I got fired. Just another way to look at it, I'm sure that issue is answered different ways by different people; and that very few have no idea of "the place they call home."

@BrianG:

In response to several other people, all I know about Florida in 2000 is that Bush won under any circumstances.

BrianG, you may find your belief comforting, but it's just not true. Even the article you linked to states that it's not true. e.g.,

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush. . . .

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review. . . .

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive ''dimpled chad'' standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin. . . .

Using the most restrictive standard -- the fully punched ballot card -- 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

The article does report that Bush would have won even if the recount hadn't been stopped, given the way the recount was analyzing the ballots. But that is not the same thing as "Bush won under any circumstances."

Even a "common sense" standard shows that Bush did not "win" more votes in any real-world "intent of the voter" sense . . . unless you believe that all those South Florida Jews intended to vote for Buchanan, or that all those citizens whose names were sorta kinda similar to the names of felons intended to vote for Bush.

-- Why should that matter though with national elections under the Electoral College? --
.
Are you serious? That's tantamount to an argument that the Electoral College is unconstitutional in light of equal protection. Now, you may be all for abolition of the Electoral College (be against it is all the rage these days, among enlightened progressives), but for the time being, there is is, aiming to keep each of 50 states on equal footing, even though they differ in population, resources, abilities and needs.
.
We each get to choose which state we reside in, and that state will tally our ballot. There's nothing to keep one from moving to a state with small population, so your vote will "have more impact."
.
Under the scheme that you think is hunky dory, some people would get to cast two ballots, by picking an arrangement of "we don't care how many times you vote" states.

Deoxy, you can talk about chads if you want, but the stubborn facts remain: No state in American history, other than Florida, has ever hired a private company to strip voters from the voter rolls. As Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris hired a company to do just that, and the company stripped approximately 50,000 voters from the rolls. The great majority of these voters were African-American. Thousands of these stripped-from-the rolls citizens were not felons at all, but had the misfortune of having names identical to, or similar to, other felons. This illegal disenfranchisement &mdash each of which is a crime — was deliberately perpetrated by Katherine Harris, who ought to be in jail for thousands of terms, served consecutively. And I don't hate her. I just want her in prison!

Eyesay wrote:

Those who aided and abetted this fraud on the nation, including Governor Jeb Bush and (in an outrageous conflict of interest) Secretary of State cum Florida Bush Campaign Manager Katherine Harris, may be criminals[.]

I wonder what law eyesay thinks Jeb Bush violated. The Civil Right's Commission's Executive Summary (sorry, I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the entire report) suggests NONE:

Florida’s governor insisted that he had no specific role in election operations and pointed to his secretary of state as the responsible official. After the election, however, the governor exercised leadership and responsibility in electoral matters in the commendable action of appointing a task force to make recommendations to fix the problems that occurred.

While the summary is more critical of Kathleen Harris, it points to no actions on her part that could be considered crimes.

I would also note that Jeb Bush, as George's brother recused himself from even the ministerial role of certifying Florida's electoral votes.

Yet Eyesay doesn't hate anyone, he or she just defames them.

The solution is easy: purple fingers.

Many African-Americans reported police roadblocks that turned them away en route to attempting to vote in 2000.

I believe that Gov. Jeb Bush had some role to play in allowing those roadblocks to exist.

This belief is supported, among other things, by the fact that, after the first news accounts called Florida for Gore, W. was recorded saying to Jeb something like, "I thought you fixed Florida." I believe that I know what this meant.

If this sounds like a conspiracy theory, fine. I don't have proof in hand that can convict Jeb (but I don't think a full investigation has ever been conducted).

I still think Katherine Harris is a kilofelon, and I still don't hate her.

I did not have time to read all 76 posts so someone may have already posted on this.


It seems in Nashville you can drive up with a busload of non-English speakers march them into the voting booth and have your own interpreter go in the booth with them - Voting Fraud in Nashville

I recommend reading the complete article. However, the following is included as a teaser:

"Accordingly, Ray Barrett, Davidson County Administrator of Elections, instructed his employees to refuse to allow any of these individuals to vote.

However, someone prevailed upon Mr. Barrett to call the state in order to verify the Commission's decision. Brook Thompson, the Tennessee State Election Coordinator, then ordered Mr. Barrett and the Davidson County Election Commission to allow these non-English-speaking individuals to vote through their bilingual interpreter despite their lack of any sort of identification and total unfamiliarity with the English language"

"Many African-Americans reported police roadblocks that turned them away en route to attempting to vote in 2000"

The above was never verified.

Do we really have to go through this crap forever?

So, what you are proposing is to let out of state residents vote on in-state matters.

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP): Frequently Asked Questions: Questions for Overseas Citizens:

Can I vote absentee?

You can vote absentee in any election for Federal office if you are a U.S. citizen 18 years or older and are a U.S. citizen residing outside the United States.

If I do not maintain a legal residence in the U.S., what is my "legal state of residence"?

Your "legal state of residence" for voting purposes is the state or territory where you last resided immediately prior to your departure from the United States. This applies to overseas citizens even though you may not have property or other ties in your last state of residence and your intent to return to that state may be uncertain.

U.S. citizens who are no longer residents of any state —and have no intention returning— do vote in local elections.

See this Jerusalem Post story “Israel to become ultimate swing state” (23 Oct 2008):

Approximately half of some 42,000 registered US voters living in Israel are voting in swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and could have an effect on the turnouts of those elections, according to Shimon Greenspan, director of the nonpartisan Vote From Israel organization, which helps Americans living in Israel to register and cast their absentee ballots.

"It seems in Nashville you can drive up with a busload of non-English speakers march them into the voting booth and have your own interpreter go in the booth with them - Voting Fraud in Nashville"

If you're going to post this stuff, can we at least get a story that:

1) Has an actual source who actually can vouch for what happened at the polling site.
2) Not repeat the lie that the voters had no ID.
3) Claim it as proof of voter fraud when you've produced zero evidence of voter fraud, even from the details that you've provided.

I noted that you conveniently left out this little bit of the story which definitely should be flagged:

"The Davidson County Election Commission, including its Democrat members, decided that the individuals would not be allowed to vote on the grounds that since they were unable to speak, understand, or read English, they could not possibly be citizens, and therefore were not qualified to vote."

Last time I checked, the ability to speak English is not a requirement to vote or to be a citizen. Does it make it harder for those people? It sure does but that's scary that an Election Commission intended to disenfranchise those voters based on the fact that they can't speak English.

-- U.S. citizens who are no longer residents of any state -and have no intention returning- do vote in local elections. --
.

I'm not arguing, just fleshing out observations.
.

The first link you provided, Federal Voting Assistance Program, includes something referred to as a "back-up Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB)." Within that (where ALL entries are write in!) is a space for writing in the names of state offices, and indicates that some state permit the FWAB to be used to cast votes for state races. It also recites, "Consult your state section in the Voting Assistance Guide to determine your state's policy."

.

The Federal Registration and Absentee Ballot Request (FPCA), sent to the local (state) officials, asks to be provided with ballots "for all elections in which I am eligible to vote." Following that, there is a series of mutually-exclusive checkboxes, one of which indicates an indefinite presence outside the US.

.

I wonder if states provide ballots with limited choices, to out of country individuals who assert that they are out of the state indefinitely.

.

The second link, Israel to become ultimate swing state, is referring only to the US National election contests, so sheds no light on the question of permitting an out-of-state resident from voting on an in-state issue.

.

Agreed full, there are some in-state residents who are physically absent for long durations. But whatever state they claim residence in, it is supposed to be only one.

-- There is no such thing as a "National Election." --
.
Point taken. Sloppy rhetoric on my part, repeated several times. I was referring to election contests where the office in question was a federal office, i.e., Congressional Rep, Senator, US President and VP. Obviously, Reps and Senators are statewide (or smaller) elections, even though the person winning the contest takes office as part of the federal government. And president and VP elections are indirect. The people choose electors - candidate names on the ballot are useful guides, but the voter does not vote for the office of President or VP.

-- Still think Florida didn't disenfranchise black voters? --
.
Never did think that. I figure election activity is like most bureaucratic activity, not immune to error.
.
But I think you are an obsessed crank who borders on derangement. Good to read for a laugh, but not worthy of engaging in serious debate. You hold that SoS Harris should be in jail for her performance in election 2000, etc. Simply not serious.

* The punch-card machines used in African-American neighbourhoods rejected about 4 per cent of their ballots. More affluent neighbourhoods dominated by white voters tended to use a more reliable optical scanning system, which rejected only 1.4 per cent of theirs.

* In Miami-Dade County, one of three areas where the Gore campaign is contesting the election results, predominantly black precincts saw their votes thrown out at twice the rate of Hispanic precincts and nearly four times that of mostly white precincts. The New York Times estimated that Mr Gore lost almost 7,000 votes in Miami-Dade alone.

* Election officials in Miami and Tampa sent emergency supplies of laptop computers to some precincts to help poll workers to verify whether voters were registered. The computers were sent to more affluent areas that tended to vote for Mr Bush. In poorer neighbourhoods where many African-Americans live, poll workers had to call county headquarters to verify registrations and for much of the day found the lines busy.

Let's see if I understand your point here. Democratic dominated elections boards in these majority Democratic counties somehow decided to throw the election to Bush by denying their own party members the vote.

I must have been those Rovian death rays causing them to do it. No other explanation makes sense.

Democratic dominated elections boards in these majority Democratic counties somehow decided to throw the election to Bush by denying their own party members the vote.

Please supply a source for the claim that the elections boards were dominated by (loyal) Democrats.

By the way, the supposedly-Democratic Palm Beach County official who designed approved the infamous butterfly ballot ... was not a real Democrat. Theresa LePore, who approved the butterfly ballot, re-registered as "Decline to State" shortly after the 2000 election.

cboldt: If a state elections officer contrived to remove one eligible voter from the voter rolls, with the intent to interfere with the outcome of an election, don't you think this would be a crime? On what theory is removing thousands of eligible voters from the voter rolls, with the same intent, not thousands of crimes?

Obviously in Eyesay's world, someone isn't a "real Democrat" unless some totally unimpeachable source--I nominate Kos for that job--calls them one.

BDS at its finest.

cboldt,

Hold on a sec, please—let me get your views straight here.

• Citizens sleeping in cars: Shouldn't be allowed to vote. Moral issue for you.

• Citizens sleeping in Israel: Whole country receives public money. Vote for branch that votes them the dollars. Not moral issue.

Is that right? Fairly sums up your moral sense?

news reader --Citizens sleeping in cars: Shouldn't be allowed to vote. Moral issue for you. --
.
Your accusation is also unfair because that is yet another misrepresentation of my comments. I'm not going to "clarify" specially for you. I suggest we engage our mutual "twit filters" toward each other, and get on with life.

-- There is a missing address on account of there's no place to put the address. Fed law requiring it changed but VA's did not. --
.

When asked how many ballots had been rejected, Herrity responded, "Out of the 260 military federal write-in ballots received to date, only five included an address for the witness. The other 255 have been set aside for rejection."

.
The instructions for the FWAB include a statement for the oath and signature at block 7 that some states require a witness or notary, and refers the voter to The Voting Assistance Guide.
.
There is no space in block 7 for signature/name of a witness/notary, nor does that block indicate the possibility that a witness/notary may be required. That is, the form doesn't lead the voter, but the instructions for completing the form do (sort of - they refer to the Voting Assistance Guide)
.
The part of the Voters Assistance Guide for VA says, "No notary or witness required except when a voter is unable to sign the application due to a physical disability or inability to read or write."
.
Not to say that VA law doesn't recite a requirement that a witness signature/address is required, or can be misconstrued to say something to that effect.

Interesting, one set of Instructions for VA military members in Section 7 is different from the instructions at the Voting Assistance Guide, Virginia section.
.
http://www.fvap.gov/ ... /fed-write-in-absentee-ballot/states/va/index.html recites:
.

Block 7: Sign and date in the presence of one witness. The witness must sign and date the form.

.
http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/vagVA.pdf recites:
.

No notary or witness required except when a voter is unable to sign the application due to a physical disability or inability to read or write.

There is this pair of statements too (appearing just like this, one above the other). I'll need to spend some time in the weeds to figure what the requirements actually are. Tough to tell from the instructions.
.

II. Uniformed Services ...
C. Notary/Witness Requirements
FPCA: No notary or witness required except when a voter is unable to sign the application due to a physical disability or inability to read or write.
.
Returning a Ballot: The oath on the envelope must be witnessed and the address of the witness included.

Virginia Miliary Absentee Ballot Problem Will Be Solved - Marc Ambinder

The problem is that the Fairfax County government had originally interpreted Virginia law to require all Federal Write-In Absentee ballots to have a witness' signature, printed name and address on the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. However, the underlying Virginia law only requires this witness signature, printed name and address if they are taking advantage of the special Virginia provision that allows the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot to ALSO serve as the absentee ballot application. Because that's different from what the federal Voting Assistance Guide says, hundreds of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots received to date were potentially going to be rejected. ...
.
I've been in contact with the Fairfax County Registrar, Rokey Fulman, and he accepted my recommendation to contact the Virginia State Board of Elections to confirm this interpretation of the Virginia statute, as Sam's letter points out the Fairfax interpretation is likely incorrect. I'm happy to report that he has received guidance from the State Board of Elections that the witness name and signature requirement do indeed only apply if the FWAB is also being used simultaneously as an absentee ballot application. Therefore, so long as a Federal Post Card Application is received by election day, the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot will count, which is the normal process for military absentee ballots to be cast.