U.S. Justice Dept. will file suit against St. Louis Election Board - Vote Fraud 2000

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 08/08/2002 08:34 PM | Karen Branch-Brioso

[rface]

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department told the St. Louis Election Board, city and state officials that it will file a voting rights lawsuit against them Friday, despite last-minute efforts by the board Thursday to avert it.

"It's going to happen first thing in the morning," said Rex M. Burlison, chief counsel for the Missouri attorney general's office in St. Louis, reciting the afternoon phone call from a Justice Department lawyer. "He told me that the state of Missouri and the secretary of state are going to be named as defendants, along with the board and the city."

[rface]

I haven't heard if suit was filed this morning - I expect it was.

Ashland, Missouri

[Miss Marple]

Look at this!

[eureka!]

Carnahan's campaign must be scrambling right about now...

[Rockiesrider]

Well St Louis happens to be in the same state that the Attorney General is from and he was the victim of the alledged wrong doings. Hmmmmmm...becareful of whom you cheat. Payback is a MF.

[rface]

The only thing that is any concern for me is that they have dragged Rep. Blunt into this....althought I don't think this will affect him

[MrB]

Somebody help me here. This is not addressing the 103% turnout in Democrat dominated precincts... this is addressing the turning away of people in those same precincts... I believe these are opposite problems, and not likely to lead to a big finger pointing directly at Democrat vote fraud.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If Jay Nixon is wondering why he was named, he ought to take a closer look at St. Louis. Its his turf.

[MattinNJ]

Nice.

[KC Burke]

You mean Jay (Headline-Hound) Nixon didn't bring this matter to the bar of justice already? The Feds have to do it? I guess Jay was just busy with Party matters.

[FreeTally]

The Justice Department is expected to allege that eligible voters' rights were violated when they were turned away at the polls because their names appeared on the inactive list - and were sent to long lines at election headquarters for an opportunity to vote there.

I don't quite understand this. Wasn't it in St. Louis where polls were kept open after closing time? But the suit is because they wouldn't let people who's names were on the inactive list vote?

And this:

Tate's position paper, representing the views of the Election Board, included offers to hire more election judges to staff the polls and to buy more voting machines for use at headquarters itself for eligible voters who happen to be on the "inactive voter list."

If they are on the inactive list, they are not eligible. This makes no sense.

There are still 55,000 people on the list, created from voter identification cards returned in the mail as undeliverable.

This means that the person has moved, and did not value the voting process enough to re-register or make sue the elections board had their new address. I have no sympathy for them. The other reason why the cards were "undeliverable" is because the person is either deceased or non-existent.

Folks, I think this is all a scam. Neither party seems to want to do anything about REAL voter fraud, i.e. dead people voting, multiple voting, precinct workers pubching ballots, illegals voting, "bussing" in people who had no intention of voting, giveing homeless people money and cigs to vote etc...

This is all lip service to the big problem.

[FreeTally]

See my #10. I thought the same thing!

[vollmond]

I think there is a bait and switch going on here. The Justice department is saying that there are valid voters being turned away at the polls. They need to step in and make sure everyone gets to vote. And they need to watch the next few elections to make sure everyone is treated fairly. Who could be against that? Of course, the remedy will be a complete overhaul of the voting lists, and oversight by the Justice Department, which will hopfully have the effect of decreasing vote fraud. At least I hope they're that smart.

[Miss Marple]

If I remember correctly, and perhaps someone more familiar with this can shed some light, there were TWO problems. One was the holding the polls open in certain key (democrat precincts). The other problem was this one.

If Justice files a suit against an election board (like this one) I believe the election board will be very careful on the next go-around. Note how they desperately tried to avoid this suit.

Once Justice starts a suit like this, they get to go over all sorts of records. Sort of like the Florida suit filed against the whining democrat counties for civil rights violations...only the violations ended up being against the Haitians and some others, not the Jesse Jackson type complainers.

[rface]

I suspect that it is the fact that the spotlight on St. Louis will force the 'Rats into hiding for a while -

[rface]

Bait and Switch BUMP

You and I see this the same way.....lets hope we are right.

[Desdemona]

This is what happens when the competant people flee the city, for phantom reasons, for the county. Not that the county election people are all that much more competant, but at least they're thorough. It's time to put the city back in the county. It's going to be expensive, but we've got to do it. And I'm just on the county side of the line. I'd go to the city in a heartbeat if they'd kindly fix the potholes.

Please, understand that the city boards (election, police, school) have been affirmative actioned to death. Also, a good chunck of what happened was that people showed up to vote without being registered because they didn't bother to register before the election. That's not the board's fault. The real problem was the judge who kept the polls open after hours. As a sort of aside, the biggest fish in the democratic delegation here (and one of the people who pushed for the polls to stay open) passed away since this happened, so a suit is sort of stupid.

Plus, Ashcroft might be from this state, but time and again, St. Louis and Kansas City go it alone on many things, and Ashcroft is not from either city. The outstate will never admit it, but that's the way it is.

[A Citizen Reporter]

The two problems were actually a result of each other. The suit that was filed, in which a judge ruled to keep the city precincts open until at least 10:00 PM was filed on behalf of someone who had alledgely not been allowed to vote, earlier in the day....(due to the inactive voter list----however, it turned out that the RAT's name used on the suit, was dead) Senator Bond has sinced showed that the whole thing was pre-meditated because immediately after the judges ruling came down that evening, automated telephone calls went out to RATS in the city, (Jesse Jackson's voice) saying......"You still have time to vote....polls open late, especially for YOU!"

[A Citizen Reporter]

On a related note, during primary day on Tuesday, all of our local news stations were reporting that "many polling places in the city" had opened an hour to an hour and a half late, Tues. morning. My guess is that they're still trying to make the case for keeping the city polls open late......

[bandleader]

Right On!What about the fact that urban polling places were kept open past 8:00pm to ensure that Carnahan would eke out a slim victory against Ashcroft??????

[eureka!]

Right on is right. As to the late voting, I think that horse left the barn and the perps got away with it...