NY-20: Don't forget the military. The state board of election did

It looks like Jim Tedisco may have pulled off the victory in NY-20 after all. And there is good reason to think that the remaining absentee ballots should favor Tedisco. That said, there was a serious problem.

The state Board of Elections seesm to have deliberately disinfranchised military voters. Heritage's Hans von Spakovsky describes how the Democrats on the Board of Election actually voted to reject a Department of Justice recommendation to send out ballots.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the federal statute that guarantees the right of overseas citizens and military personnel to vote by absentee ballot, contacted the New York State Board of Elections and requested that they issue their ballots sooner for this race. The two Republican members of the board voted to support this request. Yet the two Democratic members of the board, shamefully enough, voted against doing so. Were they trying to disenfranchise military voters?

So the DoJ actually had to file suit against the NY State board of Election. Hans explains why that suit was still inadequate because, ultimately, the Civil Rights Division at DoJ doesn't take the issue of voting rights seriously for the military.

In the end though, there are about 1,000 military absentee votes outstanding. In spite of Democratic attempts to disenfranchise our soldiers, some of our troops will get to vote. And it looks like we will win the race.

But we need to stop this coniving next time.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Would that be

.. The OBAMA Department of Justice who filed and won this suit against the NY Board of Elections?

If so, what a difference from the Bush DoJ that was full of people like von Spakovsky, a notorious kiniver.

can you get someoen who isn't Spakovsky on the line?

I'm not sure I trust him to be portraying this accurately. Why didn't they want to print earlier? Is it because there were some structural reasons why not to? (aka would take away from getting other ballots printed, or that's what state law is?)

Was this just an example of "stupid judge"? (whereby it was just a really dumb decision, though hardly representative of the Democrats in general?

Concur

Von Spakovsky is not a credible source, considering how many shady things he has alreasdy been involved in.  If this is the only source, this story needs to die before it blows up in someone's face.