Category: Uncategorized

Documentary Irregularities and Why they Matter

in the Houston Election Challenge

By Greg Moses

Counterpunch / ILCA Online
IndyMedia Austin , Houston
OffTheKuff / GlobalResistanceNetwork

It’s not the first time I’ve occupied a room filled with state documents in Texas, but it is the first time that I’ve been treated to full-time surveillance while I thumb through everything, and actually I’m kind of happy about this. The chaperones have been altogether polite and quiet. And the surveillance itself is the best sign the state could send me that I’m probably taking notes on the right documents Tuesday.

The most significant section of this ten-foot row of notebooks set up in front of me is a group of original depositions taken from Houston-area residents who were accused of stray voting in the November election when they cast ballots in the district that elected Vietnamese immigrant Hubert Vo to the state house.

Page after page of these depositions tell mundane stories of voters who once moved from Houston to Sugar Land but who didn’t keep up with their paperwork, went back to Houston to vote, and then two months later got their doors knocked on by people with pens, carrying threatening documents that said in dandy legal language, you better answer these questions or we’ll throw you in jail: Where do you really live and who did you vote for?

“Told us not to come back,” is the pointed note that one process server makes on threatening documents that were intended for delivery to a voter in Katy, Texas at 4:30 p.m. on New Years Day. Since she told them to get lost, and refused to incriminate herself as a voter who crossed back to her old neighborhood on election day, attorneys went to work on her file. They showed that according to the tax district she owned the home in Katy and that according to Mapquest the home was 6.58 miles away from the elementary school where she voted. And of course they had a copy of her signature at the voting place and a copy of the statement of residence that she was asked to fill out there. Two days before the hearing, they went back and got their deposition from her, too. In the end, she never gave a clear answer about who she voted for.

This is the kind of thing you see over and over again, the kind of thing that put everyone to sleep during two days of public hearings that failed to overturn the election. Time after time, dedicated voters got caught failing to keep their registrations in order, and people just dozed off. So the hearing room was pretty much cleared out by the morning of Jan. 28 when Master of Discovery Will Hartnett (R-Dallas) sat silently looking at the deposition of a citizen from Fresno, Texas.

“Um, I’m just going to point this out, I don’t know what to make of it, but this one has different ink and maybe different handwriting. I’m no handwriting expert but I think the parties should look at this. It definitely has two different pens on it, and I don’t know the handwriting is hard to tell, you all just need to look at this.”

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/legal/elec_contests.html

At which point (1:26:31 into the Friday morning broadcast archived online) Republican attorney Andy* Taylor walks briskly to the Master, retrieves Ms. Wyatt’s deposition, and flips the pages dramatically.

“I’d just suggest contestee look at it to see if there’s any possible irregularities,” says Hartnett, index finger on chin. “The main answer appears to be in the same ink as the person’s name, so that’s my primary interest, but it’s just odd, it looks that the N/As (indicating that a question is not applicable) are in a different pen. But you all can look at that later if you want, I’m just pointing it out.”

By this time, attorney Larry Veselka (representing contestee Hubert Vo) is saying that the N/As are indeed in different ink, different handwriting, and appear to match certain other N/As found on other depositions that have been turned in only days before the hearing. Meanwhile Republican attorney Taylor is huddling with his client, the deposed incumbent, saying something very close to his ear.

My own notes from reviewing the deposition in question on Tuesday suggest that the N/As are not in the flowing cursive style that the voter uses for the rest of her answers. And her signature is written in the same ink that the server of the deposition uses to write his own name.

“We really need a brighter light to look at it,” said Hartnett on the day of the hearing.

“Yeah,” said Veselka, pointing out that the deposition had been signed Jan. 21, less than a week before the hearing, and six days after the close of the discovery period, Jan. 15.

The very next deposition taken up on Jan. 28 by Hartnett also had N/As that Hartnett and Veselka agreed fit a pattern of looking more like each other than the handwriting of the voters in question.

My notes show that there are at least two more depositions with N/A look-alikes submitted into the record on Feb. 1, the Tuesday after the hearing ended, along with another deposition that has two colors of ink.

I also found in the batch of Feb. 1, two returns of service, both dated 9:30 a.m. Jan. 26 and signed by the same voter. The most likely explanation would be that the voter was served with two subpoenas at once. But why was one service receipt printed on a fax machine while another was not? And why were two subpoenas needed?

I ponder the puzzles of these documents, their careful protection, and their lack of public attention as I walk out of the state building past television trucks that are set up for live shots on the evening news. I know what they won’t be reporting again.

For example, they won’t be reporting the deposition of one 49-year-old Houston voter who I will name with the initials MP. Somehow MP’s deposition didn’t make the final list, and my guess is that the case was dropped like a hot potato because MP testified with such clarity that the Republican attorneys did not want to discuss the deposition in public.

But in order to get in the mood for MP’s deposition you have to first read the subpoena that like all the others is signed by Republican attorney Andy Taylor and commands: “HEREIN, FAIL NOT, but have you then and there before me, at said time and place this writ, with your return thereon, showing you have executed the same.”

And next you have to read the Jan. 11 letter from Hartnett that says, “If you do not cooperate, I, working under the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on Election Contests, have the power to cause you to be taken into custody by law enforcement, and held until you answer the requested questions.”

And then you have to read how you are ordered to appear at your own home at 5:00 p.m. on Jan. 15 (the last day of discovery) to submit your answers in writing to the questions that have been handed to you. Now you are ready to read MP:

Question 12: “Has anyone ever tried to intimidate you in any way or accuse you of breaking the law when asking you about voting in the Nov. 2, 2004 general election?”

MP: “Not until I got this notice from Mr. Heflin” (the deposed Republican incumbent who demanded this election contest).

Question 13: “What did they say or do to you?”

MP: “It seems like I’m accused for cheating. I don’t think I did anything wrong on that day. I went to vote as one of my duties as an American to support the country. I feel sad to fill out this paper. Those candidates are not pur
suing their career for the cou
ntry but for their own fame and money? How sad it is!” And just to make clear how she feels about her candidate, she answers elsewhere: “I’m glad I did vote for Mr. Hubert Vo.”

Intimidation is what MP calls the election contest, and that experience of intimidation is what makes irregularities in ink color and handwriting vibrant issues for all of us. If the law is serious about calling voters to account for their irregularities, it should be just as serious about the irregularities that crop up wherever voters are pursued. If we are entitled to fair elections, we are also entitled to fair election contests. Which is why I am pleased to be watched every minute that I handle the sacred depositions of the voters from House District 149. And why I look forward to returning once again to hear the stories they tell…

Note: Frist reference to Andy Taylor corrected 2/17–gm

Why are Top Republican Attorneys in Two States Suddenly Working on Voter Integrity?

By Greg Moses

CounterPunch

In light of our recent interest in the de-registration and criminalization of the voters of West Houston, news from Georgia comes timely. Last Friday, the Democratic Caucus of the Georgia Senate staged a symbolic walkout following that chamber’s passage of a bill that would limit the kinds of ID that can be used to register and vote.

The Georgia bill eliminates twelve forms of ID previously allowable: employee picture ID; student picture ID; gun license; pilot’s license; birth certificate; social security card; naturalization document; a court paper approving adoption, name change, or sex change; utility bill; bank statement; government check; or other government document. Surviving the purge are five forms of government issued photo ID: state driver’s license; government ID; passport; government employee ID; or military ID.

From the point of view of the Texas Civil Rights Review, the Georgia Senate adds to a Repbulican pattern of treating voters more like suspects than citizens. So we checked with the office of the bill’s sponsor, Georgia State Senator Cecil Staton (R-Macon) to find out what support might be cited for the Senator’s stated fear that, “we don’t end up with all the lawsuits or all the voter irregularities we’ve heard about.”

An aide to the Senator explained over the phone that Staton had given no supporting evidence whatsoever in his address on the floor, because there wasn’t enough time. Yet said the aide one example that might be offered was that more than 2,000 “questionable ballots” had been cast in Fulton County during last November’s election. So we asked for his contact source.

Atlanta attorney Frank Strickland picked up the phone right away. He is the powerhouse Republican attorney who won a Supreme Court reversal of the state’s Democrat redistricting plan, and he now serves on the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (FULBORE). He wants it known right away that he can’t speak for that board. But he can tell us that Sen. Staton’s aide was probably confused. On election day, “there were very few reports of irregularity” in Fulton County, says Strickland. “The system is not perfect, but we didn’t have a great deal of difficulty at that stage.”

Strickland suggests that the aide might have intended to cite a case of 2,400 voter registrations that were handed over to FULBORE by the Georgia Secretary of State, because they were “apparently fraudulent.” FULBORE in turn handed the evidence to the local District Attorney and Federal Attorney, but Strickland is not aware of any action taken on the evidence so far. He suggests this would be a bad time to bother the District Attorney about voter registration issues and I decide he’s probably right about that. The story of the Atlanta courthouse shootings is still top news this week.

Strickland is excitable on the question of photo IDs. He explains that photo IDs are required to rent movies or to “cash welfare checks” so they should be required to vote. But isn’t voting a right, unlike renting movies or cashing checks? And don’t citizens expect to have their rights without barriers? “I agree with that,” says Strickland, “just identify yourself.” Which logically circles us right back around to why this well-placed FULBORE lawyer is so strident on the question of government issued photo ID.

I tell Strickland that I think fears of widespread voter fraud are over-hyped. In the case of Fulton County, someone may have attempted 2,400 fraudulent registrations, but it wasn’t 2,400 voters. And even he admits that election day ran pretty smoothly among voters. He tells me that protests over photo IDs are what’s over-hyped. There are four million registered voters in Georgia, compared to six million drivers licenses and 600,000 other state- issued IDs. And then he admits that he can’t connect those numbers logically into a complete argument. But he says he doubts that a hundred thousand voters will have trouble producing photo ID and he does not think that narrowing the form of ID constitutes a civil rights violation.

Strickland goes on to use the analogy of home security. Protecting an election is like protecting your home. Just as you need to be safe in your house, we need to protect the integrity of the voting process in every respect. And your right to vote depends upon your age and registration. You have to register to vote. So it is time to thank the man for his time and hang up. Frankly, I’m nervous when a powerhouse such as Strickland thinks about our public elections the way he thinks about his home security. After all, I do keep my doors locked. But, election day should be an open house affair, unlocked, with windows and doors thrown open. But now that Srickland has my caller ID, I’ll probably have to tell him this via voice mail.

With only two phone calls to Georgia, troubling parallels to Texas are already laid to view. And this is not good news for America. First there is the eerie coincidence that each of the state’s top Republican attorneys has shifted motion from redistricting to “election integrity.” Like Strickland in Atlanta, Houston’s Andy Taylor spent much of the past year in court, winning redistricting battles for Republicans. Suddenly, in 2005, he’s all about tracking down illegal voters in West Houston and making them repay their miscast ballots for Democrat Hubert Vo (a battle that Taylor finally lost).

The second parallel is the issue itself, never mind the two lawyers who seem to be square dancing the same call. In Atlanta and Houston alike, a new day of “voter integrity” is upon us. In Atlanta we have the photo ID law churning up bad energy. In Texas we have brand new software that can spit names in wads big as you need of voters gasp who on election day gasp while traveling from home to polling place gasp cross over a county line. About 150 voters were tracked down and subpoenaed for their election day irregularities, and 110 saw their votes subtracted. Whether it’s the “front end” ID fight in Atlanta, or the “back end” ballot fight in Houston, Republicans seem hard at work this year installing brand new election filters.

And then we have the homeland security fearmongering. Because I’m trying to figure out just what do Strickland and Taylor think that gangs of fraudulent voters are going to do on election day besides vote? When Taylor led the crackdown on West Houston voters, he discovered that one voter in 400 dared to return to an old neighborhood to vote. And Strickland says that on election day in Fulton County, things went pretty well. So in his worst nightmare, I wonder what does Strickland fear could happen? Does he get all sweaty like Taylor at the very idea of a filthy 400 to 1 ratio of voters whose lives outpace their registrations?

Finally, in Georgia and Texas alike, we have public claims of voter fraud that turn out not to involve voters at all. In Fulton County, somebody may have tried to turn in batches of voter registrations that were not actually filled out by voters (we’ll call the D.A. about that sometime soon). In West Houston, the trick might have been tried on a much smaller scale. In both cases, the number of voters affected should not be confused with the number of voters involved. In addition, the “irony” of West Houston was that whoever pulled that trick, did it in an attempt to export voters out of districts where they lived. Not only was the “fraud” not committed by voters, but it made them ineligible to vote at home. Yet in both cities, high powered Republican attorneys spread fear about illegal voting based on what? Nothing but fear itself. Neither Strickland, Taylor, Staton, nor the aide ha
ve a
fact to go on.

What I forgot to ask Strickland is why Georgia had such a remarkable rate of rejecting provisional ballots during the last election. According to a briefing by ElectionLine.Org, the state rejected 70 percent of nearly 13,000 provisional ballots cast. ElectionLine explains this as a possible consequence of statewide voter registration. A central database might allow election supervisors to more easily check voter registrations. Indeed, at the time of the Election Line report last December only six states had higher rejection rates than Georgia, and four of them (Delaware, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) had statewide registrations. But come January 1, dear reader, all states will be required to have central databases in place.

The parallels between Texas and Georgia raise questions that can be asked of other states in turn. Are your top Republican lawyers hyping issues of registration integrity, raising specters of nefarious voters planning massive acts of fraud, playing up fears that have no basis in election facts, installing new filters into law that will make voting even less hospitable? And your local election activists? Are they so obsessed with issues of verified counts that they remain blind to all other issues in voting rights?

Like the peace movement before it, the election movement seems to have gone flat. Comprehensive voter reform bills by Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich) or Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) languish in Congressional committees. You can still find a hot thread about exit polls at your favorite progressive forum, but just as the peace movement crested and dashed itself against hard times, vote reform seems not to know what to do next. Both movements have been hooded and shackled by the one big spin that says America will do anything for democracy. In fact, there’s nothing America won’t do these days so long as so many Americans refuse to be the kinds of citizens that a democracy demands.

Dear Friends:

The current Supreme Court decision states that it is unconstitutional for a judge to determine a person’s sentence without the jury having knowledge. This violates one’s
constitutional right to a trial by jury. Ramsey was sentenced by a judge rather than a jury. He will be filing an appeal, but has been advised to wait, as others should do.
There will be many people filing appeals, and those appeals need to be studied in order to determine which ones will be granted
by the courts. This information should be shared with others who have hopes of obtaining their freedom.

Activists need to become involved in this issue, as it will affect many African-Americans and Mexicanos. Decisions made regarding
the sentencing guidelines should pertain to everyone, rather than being capricious, arbitrary decisions. If the current sentencing
guidelines are unconstitutional (and they are), then they need to be declared unconstitutional for everyone across the board.

Thank you for sharing this information with others.

Sincerely,
Irma Muniz
http://www.freeramsey.com
via email Jan. 15, 2005

By Greg Moses
Editor, Texas Civil Rights Review

BurntOrangeReport / OffTheKuff

Republican attorney Andy Taylor set out to prove that illegal and fraudulent voter behaviors were the main reasons behind the November election defeat of long-time incumbent Talmadge Heflin in the race for Texas House District 149. But according to archives of original documents that he submitted in support of his case, Taylor willfully ignored exculpatory evidence that showed a number of voters were more likely victims, not perpetrators of wrongdoing.

Several voters of Nigerian descent discovered when they tried to vote in the Heflin-Vo race, that they had been fraudulently re-registered into a neighboring House District without their knowledge. Sometime in late 2003, someone had submitted new registrations for these voters, placing them into a House district that would soon involve a candidate of Nigerian descent. The candidate lost to an incumbent in the Democratic primary election.

During public hearings in the Heflin-Vo election contest, attorney Taylor argued that these African-American votes in the Heflin-Vo race should be ruled illegal because they were cast in a House District other than where the voters were registered.

As we reported earlier this week, anyone with access to the original documents in the Heflin-Vo election contest (including attorney Andy Taylor who submitted the docs in the first place) would have been able to plainly read the explanation that “fraudulent addresses” for voters of Nigerian descent were allegedly submitted by a candidate in a neighboring district. In fact, the assertion was twice stated in handwritten explanations on provisional ballots submitted by a husband-wife pair of voters.

The provisional ballots were approved by Harris County election officials who accepted that the voters should be considered as properly registered. And legislative Master of Discovery Will Hartnett (R-Dallas) also ruled the ballots to be legal. Hartnett explained in the election hearing that he had taken the time to call up one of the voters and discuss the predicament.

While it appeared to someone viewing the hearing that Hartnett was being exceedingly perceptive in his discovery of the fraudulent pattern, in fact he was just reading what was plainly written, not once but twice, on the evidence submitted by the lead attorney for Talmadge Heflin. This plainly stated explanation, which was accepted by Harris County officials, never stopped Heflin nor his attorneys from trying to suppress the votes of these African-American voters nevertheless, along with their votes for Hubert Vo.

The significance of this finding is that Andy Taylor continued to pursue allegations in a public hearing that a number of Nigerian-American voters (4-9 cases according to my preliminary estimate) had cast illegal ballots, even as he placed exculpatory evidence on the record that plainly indicated they were victims not perpetrators of fraud.

Andy Taylor’s double bad faith counts as a Civil Rights infringement in two ways. First, it was an effort to criminalize voters of color by deliberately overlooking exculpatory evidence on the record. Second, it counts as a bad faith effort to overturn the election of a candidate of color. Going after voters of African descent in an effort to unseat a candidate of Vietnamese descent, accusing all parties of fraud when your own evidence indicates they have done nothing wrong, this is offensive, outrageous, indecent, and should cost Andy Taylor his license to practice law in Texas.