I am shocked (yeah, right) to learned that you failed to check into the facts regarding some of the allegations in the American Center for Voting Rights Report on fraud.
No. 1 - Had you check the archives of both the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News from October 2004 you would have learned that some of these allegations were covered in articles by your corporation.
1. I had spoken to Inquirer reporters at length at the time. Rose Ciotta was covering the events regarding mailings from Republicans to "new" registrants that were returned undeliverable. My understanding is that they repeated requested that the Republican operatives provide them with copies of the returned envelopes or the names and addresses of the registrants to attempt to determine the facts. I do not believe the operatives provided them more than a handful of name, if any.
Although it is possible, we shouldn't assume that paid canvassers completed applications with the names and address of deceased. I explained to the Inquirer reporters some of the reasons why it may appear that a deceased individual submitted a new application according to data files (more on that below in my answer to a Pittsburgh reporter). At least they asked us. Victory 2004 failed to even attempt to check the facts, inquire as to the records, or provide the Inquirer or the Commission the names and addresses of the individuals for whom mailed was returned undeliverable.
Victory 2004 also failed to check Federal law, the National Voter Registration Act regarding the process for removing names from the files of eligible voters. At least the Inquirer reporters asked about the process. One of the primary reasons the NVRA was enacted was because jurisdictions were cancelling records merely because mailings were returned undeliverable without using alternative methods to verify the facts regarding the eligibility of the voter to be registered at the address. Federal Law prohibits the Commission from cancelling a record merely because mail is returned undeliverable. The Commission must first investigate. Federal Law also mandates that ALL voter removal programs be concluded no later than 90 days prior to an election. Within the 90 day period, Federal and State laws, and a 1998 Agreement in US District Court permit the counties to reject an application after investigating returned mail, however that process can only be used when the mail is returned within ten days of mailing; most are not.
The intent of Congress in the NVRA in administering voter registration files can be found in the Senate Conference Report 103-6 on Pages 3, and 18 - 20. Information on the process for Counties to investigate and reject applications can be found in Directives issued by Dick Filling, the Pennsylvania Commissioner of Elections, in June 1996, and again in September and October of 1998. These Directives were issued pursuant to a Settlement in US District Court in ACORN v. Ridge, and US v. Pennsylvania on the NVRA.
2. The 43 polling places listed in the ACVR Report are from a list of 63 polling places that the Republican operatives tried to have changed in the 2 weeks before the election. I will let the Inquirer and Daily News articles speak to that:
Daily News, October 19, 2004: A tally of election semi-dirty tricks - By WILLIAM BUNCH
Daily News, October 18, 2004: GOP fails in effort to move pollsLast-minute bid tried to relocate 63 mostly black polling places - By CHRIS BRENNAN
Inquirer, October 19, 2004: Accusations fly as GOP seeks to shift polling placesBy Michael Currie Schaffer
Daily News, Oct. 20, 2004: Elmer Smith GOP TACTIC: KEEPING BLACKS FROM VOTING
Daily News, Oct. 21, 2004: GOP loses poll shift planCity Commission refuses to change 63 locations - By CHRIS BRENNAN
The request to move the 63 polls included a request to move one from Senator Fumo's District Office, which is accessible due to a ramp, to a school which was located 5 voting Divisions away.
3. As far as the fact that the number of registered voters was nearly equal to the number of voting age citizens in Philadelphia, the authors of these reports failed to take into account the fact that the files included approximately 134,000 records designated as INACTIVE. These are records which are designated for cancellation after waiting the mandated 2 Federal General Elections of non-activity by the registrant. In December 2000 Philadelphia canceled approximately 22,400 of these Inactive records; in December 2002, approximately 119,000; and in December 2004 we canceled more than 68,000.
Once a record is designated INACTIVE we are prohibited from removing that record from the files of eligible voters unless the voter fails to contact our office or vote in any election in the period between the date the record was designated Inactive and the date of the second Federal General Election afterward, usually 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years after designation.
Philadelphia uses and fully complies with every single mandated and optional voter removal program to keep its files current.
As listed in the City Commissioner's 95th Annual Report for Year 2000: - In the 2000 Presidential General Election, Philadelphia had 1,025,498 records in the files of eligible voters, 848,903 were designated Active, and 176,595 Inactive. The voting turnout on these two designations clearly tell the story - 549,777 or 64.8% of Active registrants voted, while only 10,402, or 5.9% of Inactive registrants voted - It's simple, estimates are that approximately 75% - 80% of the Inactive registrants are no longer in Philadelphia and are not even here to vote. These records are merely waiting for the Federally mandated 2 Federal Election time clock to expire when the will be removed.
I would refer you to a paper from the Committee of 70 at:
http://www.seventy.org/nycu/2000/relocated.htmland this October 2004 response to Fox News:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410250006As a final note on this issues I would be much more concerned if the number of voters casting ballots exceeded the number of citizens registered. The highest turnout % per registration in recent years in Philadelphia was in Nov 1992 at 72.9%. Since the three ACVR officials mentioned in your article all had official campaign roles for Bush / Cheney 04 perhaps they should explain the election and registration statistics listed on the following sites for Wyoming first:
Nov 2004 - Number Registered = 232,396
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2004/gen-reg.htmNov 2004 - Total Number Votes Cast for President = 245,789
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2004/results/04-gsum.htmI am making no assumptions regarding the above and I would guess the Wyoming Election Officials could explain the discrepancy if they were asked. That's my point. Before spreading urban legends maybe someone show check.
4. I can add nothing to the incident of the use of cheese in enticing voters as I was not involved in reviewing the issue and not aware of the facts. It does however remind me of an article I once read in the early eighties about someone giving twinkies and kool aid to voters at a senior citizen home in Minnesota.
5. Finally, when this ACVR Report surfaced I was contacted by a reporter from one of the Pittsburgh daily papers, either the Post-Gazette or the Tribune-Review, Below is what I told him:
One of the Pittsburgh newspapers called today regarding the release. I told him that these events were covered by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News in October 2004, shortly before the election. He wasn't aware that these were old reports. I also explained that RSC issued a Press Release regarding these same polling places the day before the May 17, 2004 Primary.
I set him straight on the contents of request to move polling places, telling him to review the Philadelphia coverage that even local Republican Party officials distanced themselves from the request and the claims about the fraudulent registrations.
I told him that they wanted to move two divisions from an accessible facility, to a church two voting districts away that had ten steps (43rd Ward).
I told him that in S. Philadelphia they wanted to move two divisions from an accessible community room to a location two or three divisions away.
I explained that many, many Philadelphians walk to the polling places in the denser, older neighborhoods and that moving the polls further from the district would present barriers to seniors who may be able to walk two or three blocks but cannot walk 7 - 10 blocks.
I told him the Inquirer spoke to voters in the division where the bar was used and the voter told them it was no problem as the bar was closed and didn't sell alcohol during the time it was used for voting. I also told him how they failed to request to move a polling place out of a bar in a majority non-minority area. I also said they failed to address how many polling places in suburban or rural counties are located in VFW or sons of Italy Clubs that dispense liquor.
I also explained to him how one might think a deceased persons turned in a "new" application and that the Victory 2004 committee never provided the Inquirer with the names on the undeliverable mail as to enable them to determine the facts. I also explained that Victory 2004 never checked our records to determine the facts.
He asked if I was saying it wasn't true that 15 deceased individuals submitted "new" applicants and I said no, no one knows because no one checked the records.
I told him of the likely scenario:
15 new registrations for deceased individuals? Victory 2004 needed to check into the facts - besides not providing the Philadelphia Inquirer with the names of these purported new registrants they failed to check to determine why a deceased individual may have been mailed a new voter id card with a new date of registration.
Assuming that they mailed correspondence to the deceased "applicant" and it was returned to them undeliverable marked "deceased".
Without me knowing the names of the individuals - Want the likely answer to this mystery?
Simple - The deceased "new" registrants could merely be a deceased registrant's record being transferred to the home of a child or family member based upon change of address information submitted to the Post Office to transfer the deceased individuals mail so the family can take care of their personal affairs.
We run the NCOA program match, the NCOA vendor reports a change of address for the individual, we mail an NCA, and AVN and when family doesn't respond informing of that the individual is deceased and that the NCOA change was for them to continue getting the mail, then according to Federal and State law we transfer the record.
A new id card, with the new address, with a new date of registration is then mailed to the NCOA address. It is usually then that the family will call and since we can track the reason for the change we explain the process, they acknowledge they submitted an address change.
We inform them to mark the response form as "Deceased", sign it and note their relationship to the individual and mail it back.
When we get it we check the family members signature to confirm they are who they say they are and if so we cancel the record as deceased.
See, everyone jumps to conclusions without checking the facts first.
I also told him that the news coverage in Philadelphia on the polling place change request apparently resulted in USDOJ contacting me and requesting that if anything further occurred to contact them and that they would have a presence in Philadelphia on election day.
At least the Pittsburgh paper took the time to call.
Unfortunately most just jump to conclusions without checking the law, the facts and the records.
As you have duly noted, the ACVR is far from being "non-partisan". The Report is merely another rehashed attempt to turn some of the allegations into fact, without the benefit of reviewing ALL of the facts and factors involved.
Bob LeeVoter RegistrationPhiladelphia County
Posted by:
Bob August 6, 2005 11:02 AM
