Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MICHIGAN GOP SETTLES OVER FORECLOSURE CHALLENGES.
A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by the Obama campaign against the Michigan GOP after a reporter from the Michigan Messenger quoted a local Republican chairman saying they would use foreclosure lists to challenge voters at the polls:
In the statement, Democrats say they alleged that Republicans were planning to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters on Election Day, and Republicans say they never intended to do that."To clarify the matter for all voters, all parties are pleased that they agree that the existence of a person's address on a foreclosure list does not provide a reasonable basis for challenging the person's eligibility to vote and that none of these parties will challenge any voter's eligibility on that basis," the joint statement went on to say.
Macomb County Republican Party Chairman James Carabelli denies he ever made the statement. The problem is that at least one other Republican brought up the possibility in Indiana.
County GOP Chairman Tom John said foreclosure opens the door to a residency challenge, but he said his party has no plans to pursue such challenges. However, he wouldn't rule it out."We might end up challenging on that," he said. "It's entirely possible. I think it would be a solid basis for asking someone to vote provisionally."
A provisional ballot is essentially a "placebo vote," as Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center put it at a conference at the Press Club earlier today.
Even if the settlement means that Michigan Republicans won't pursue the disenfranchisement of voters based on foreclosure lists, clearly other Republicans are mulling over this approach. I think it goes without saying that it's immoral to deny people the right to vote on the basis of someone losing their home.
--A. Serwer
COMMENTS (3)
I know from immortal, and I would never deny someone the right to vote on the basis of losing his home. I just wouldn't do that.
Posted by: Connor MacLeod of the clan MacLeod | October 20, 2008 4:26 PM
"I think it goes without saying that it's immortal to deny people the right to vote on the basis of someone losing their home."
I would say immoral, not immortal. :)
Keep up the good work. I just recently discovered TAPPED and enjoy it immensely.
Posted by: hardpressedjess | October 20, 2008 4:27 PM
"I think it goes without saying that it's immoral to deny people the right to vote on the basis of someone losing their home."
Sure, *you* say that, and *I* would say that, but for John McCain and a desperate Republican party, you have to balance doing something "immoral" with "losing" -- and it's not hard to figure out which one they'll choose. In totally unrelated news, the fact that this post is followed by "McCain Supporters Protest Voting" should tell anyone who thinks mere "immorality" is enough to deter Republicans that, um, no, it's not.
Getting their ass handed to them by Democrats in a court of law is a stronger deterrent.
An even stronger deterrent would be getting memorialized in commercials that say something along the lines of, "Republicans got us into this economic mess. Now they want to keep you from doing anything about it. (and explain in a couple sentences the scheme and statements)."
Remember, just because we caught some Republicans red-handed and they've agreed to stop, doesn't mean (1) we've caught anywhere near all of them, (2) they're not going to pull this crap elsewhere, and (3) it doesn't still have a chance of working.
Because "immoral" or not, it's all that stands between them and losing.
And they'll do anything to avoid losing.
Posted by: Chris | October 20, 2008 11:12 PM