St. Louis election officials reject proposed settlement of voting rights case

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 8/12/02 | Post-Dispatch staff

[Diddle E. Squat]

The St.Louis Election Board has rebuffed a proposed out-of-court-settlement with the Justice Department designed to settle a dispute over irregularities during the 2000 presidential election, saying the federal government has not gone far enough to protect the rights of St.Louis voters.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Looks like the Clay machine is dragging their feet, trying to maintain a fig-leaf of disorder from which to work their scams this November.

[an amused spectator]

In November 2000, a judge [a Democrat minion of Richard Gephardt] ordered the polls to remain open after the 7 p.m. closing because of the problems over the inactive voter list. An appeals judge ordered the polls closed at about 7:45 p.m.

==================================

The Democrat-controlled Board of Election in St. Louis City is alleged to have left some names off the list of registered voters. Democrats Lacy Clay, his mother and a member of his staff gave testimony that the polls should be kept open till 10pm. Judge Evelyn Baker, who gave the order, was Gephardt's former Chief of Staff. Guess that fell out of the story. ;-)

"An employee of the Board of Election explained that the confusion brought about by keeping the polls open makes it impossible to prevent someone from voting multiple times. Only if the election results were challenged would any duplicate voting be uncovered, and even then it would be hard to determine. "

[TheEngineer]

... And algore called KMOX-AM St. Louis radio at around 10pm to tell St. Louis voters to keep going to the polls because they were still open. All of this was evidently a pre-arranged setup. Now, the St. Louis democrats claim that they were disenfranchised by (and here's the funny part)... the democratically-controlled board of election commissioners. Their arguments, in my opinion, amounts to a complaint that the St. Louis election commissioners were not sufficiently efficient in allowing widespread voter fraud.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"An employee of the Board of Election explained that the confusion brought about by keeping the polls open makes it impossible to prevent someone from voting multiple times. Only if the election results were challenged would any duplicate voting be uncovered, and even then it would be hard to determine. "

Very amusing, spectator . . .

[o_zarkman44]

The day of the election is a very well publicized event, giving potential voters every opportunity to check on their registration status, should they be so inclined. There is no excuse for the kind of bureaucracy revealed in the St Louis election Board.

The instructions to voters is clear. It is the responsibility of the individual voter to check on his/her status and have it upgraded before election day. Failure to comply with the rules may disqualify the voter regardless of the best effort of the Election Board to help correct the problem.

The rule is clear. So is the instructions on the ballot. St Louis is home to a lot of intelligent people, but alas, the dumb ones seem to rule. How can it be?

[grumpster-dumpster]

IMHO this has nothing to do with voter rights. It's about getting someone else to pay for the "laptops" the election board wants.