Posted on 01/30/2016 1:07:24 PM PST by springwater13
Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a "voting violation" based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.
Additionally, the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never "grades" voters. Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation. Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials. Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not "distribute" voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code." - Paul D. Pate, Iowa Secretary of State
(Excerpt) Read more at oskynews.org ...
The only situation I know of that ballots may not be secret is for absentee or mail ballots in which voter signature and possible birthdate are on the outside of the envelope, compromising voter’s privacy and security. It is possible to use double envelopes, the second one blank but they don’t do that where I live probably because it adds to the cost.
“I like Cruz and would be my second choice, but he never cleared up his Canada issue which should have taken 5 mins and his cozy relationship with G Sachs is an issue.”
I don’t think he can clear up his Canadian issue. I don’t think he has a CRBA. He’s hiding something here. He will not release his records.
It will be all over the MSM tonight and tomorrow. You can always count on CNN and MSNBC. Fox will likely pile on also.
And anyhow, Trump IS changing. Let’s assume the “worst,” that he alerted the SoS. Is there any “here” here?
I think this looks like a Cruz who has been too clever by half. Embarrassing, “hell yes.” (Literally... the devil tempted them to do it.) Fatal? The jury is out on that, and it will depend on how Cruz follows up.
I suspect so .. may be terminal.
“The story is irrelevant to anyone who wasn’t sent the mailer.”
Uh, yeah. Right.
First of all, millions have ALREADY seen it online, which is pretty much like having it mailed to you. In case you didn’t know this, everyone with Internet access has the opportunity to read trillions of documents online that haven’t been directly mailed to them. You can watch an apartment building fire on a local news show without actually being at the fire to get a pretty good idea about how the apartment building burned down.
Second, the real damage will come when local news stations in Iowa run with it and at THE worst possible time for Cruz, namely one day before the caucuses. While there will be a generalized negative national fallout for Cruz, that might not matter a whole lot anyway if Cruz can’t demonstrate significant momentum in Iowa, and then in NH and SC.
I swear this might be a death blow to Cruz’s campaign, and once again, like the “New York Values” crack, Cruz will have done it to himself. This may be equal to Howard Dean’s insane scream. Several good people like Walker, et. al. who were fine at the state level fell apart at the national level; maybe that’s what we’re seeing with Cruz: he’s just not quite ready yet to play on the national stage.
So perhaps all of these debates and this intense media coverage are good things after all, putting intense pressure on candidates and seeing how they handle the heat. The weaker ones fold and the stronger ones remain standing.
Oh, and this story is already going national btw:
Within 24 hours very major media outlet will be covering it. They’re all desperate for some new angle on the election to cover, and something this juicy fills the bill perfectly.
(Oh, and I’m not really posting this for YOUR benefit since I know that’s a waste of time, but for the benefit of the rest of FReeperdom who still retain the capacity for rational thought.)
On the part of Cruzbots?
The fatality is not even in the misstep, in most cases.
It’s in the inability to follow up appropriately, which often can reflect a lack of flexibility.
.
So, Paul Pate says that voting more than once is OK?
I don’t think he can get that idea past any court.
.
Don’t be stupid, voting twice is not legal.
We can trust you to come up with a more off the wall mischaracterization than the garden variety politician, no matter how venal.
You’ve sold out... to your ego.
“I swear this might be a death blow to Cruz’s campaign”
Yes this is what slitting your wrists looks like.
Ooooh, it’s red now. It was black before. LOL!
.
This “secretary of state” must be a Democrat if he thinks voting more than once is legal.
Perhaps he thinks the dead are free to express their desire through a living relative?
editor-surveyor: not as smart as I hoped he might become.
Where did he ever claim it was.
He was talking about primary voting scores. How many primaries were voted in over the last X years.
You are most, most, most disingenuous.
Like your spiritual father, Satan, I am very close to saying.
Cheap is my favorite!
I do what you told me ;) I fill the pan halfway with water and boil it while scraping the bottom with a spatula. Then I dump that out and it usually looks pretty good. If it still looks gunky, I’ll take a sponge and wipe it clean, then rinse (no soap ysed) then dry in the burner.
What did you find?
.
Only a Trumpet could think voting more than once is legal, or honest.
This is very revealing about the Trumpets here.
.
Nobody brought that up but you.
I suggest you preach to yourself about what is legal or honest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.