Republican Party Collects Absentee Ballot Applications in Virginia

The Republican Party of Virginia mailed applications for absentee ballots to some Virginia voters, including me.

When compared with the applications provided by the Virginia State Election Board, there are two major problems.

First, the State Election Board application includes a page of instructions, including deadlines for when the application and absentee ballot needs to be turned in and special instructions for military members.

Second, the State Election Board includes a list of General Registrar addresses where the absentee ballot application needs to be mailed.  The Republican Party's absentee ballot application is mailed to the Republican Party of Virginia, P.O. Box 12025, Richmond, VA 23241-0025.

Why are absentee ballot applications being mailed to the Republican Party and not the General Registrar, where they are processed?  Why does the Republican Party need to intercept the applications?  It would have been just as easy to have the address of the General Registrar's Richmond office printed on the mailings.

Al Spradlin, the General Registrar for Chesapeake, Virginia, also received an absentee ballot application from the Republican Party of Virginia. He told News Channel 3 that groups can legally collect absentee ballot applications, "...but I don’t like it. Whether it’s Republican or Democrat, it’s outside of what we consider to be the normal channel."

The Republican Party of Virginia hired a company with a reputation for voter fraud: Strategic Allied Consulting. Strategic is owned by Nathan Sproul, who was paid about $3 million for work in five states, including Virginia. The Virginian-Pilot reported that the state's Republican Party paid Strategic Allied $500,000 to "provide new voter and absentee ballot registration services".  The Republican Party of Virginia recently fired Strategic Allied after it was involved in voter fraud in Florida.

Apparently, the firing did not come until after the applications for absentee ballots were mailed.  The question now becomes, can we trust an organization that has a reputation for voter fraud?  And can we trust anyone associated with that organization who know they have this reputation?

Strategic Allied's owner, Nathan Sproul, owns at least five companies involved in voter registration drives and political polling for the Republican Party.  The New York Times reported that, since 2004, Sproul and his various companies have collected "$17.6 million from Republican committees, candidates and the “super PAC” American Crossroads, mostly for voter registration operations, according to campaign finance records".

In addition to voter fraud in eleven Florida counties, Strategic Allied was connected with complaints of voter fraud and intimidation in Nevada, Oregon, and Pennsylvania (New York Times).

The Florida voter fraud is especially detrimental to civil rights because it involves changing a voter's address so they are assigned to a new precinct without their knowledge, and when they go to vote, they will not be able to.  According to the Miami Herald, the "Florida Division of Elections has received more than 1.3 million forms from third party organizations of voters who registered for the first time or changed their information".  If even 2% of the third-party voter registrations prevent some from voting, that would be 26,000 people who are denied their right to vote.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/08/3040961/in-voter-registration-fraud-case.html#storylink=cpy"

Governor Rick Scott of Florida, the torchbearer of purging voter rolls and self-appointed defender of a person's right to vote (as long as that person meets certain criteria), is still silent on the actions of Strategic Allied. (Huffington Post)

What will happen to the people who receive the same mailing I received and decide to mail it in?  If they are Democrats (and Republicans and Democrats have lists of party affiliations), will their application be tossed?  Or their address changed to a different precinct?  (The application includes a change of address section.)

Interesting dilemmas we voters face when trying to engage in civic participation.

Peaceful Protestors Arrested

Ladies, do you think your civil rights are the same as gun rights activists?  Let's compare.

On January 18, 2010, gun rights activists marched on Richmond, Virginia, to support laws that would allow concealed guns on school property, in courtrooms, and in houses of worship.

A pro-gun, pro-states rights rally at the state Capitol this morning drew roughly 1,000 people who were encouraged afterward to file into the General Assembly Building to lobby their legislators. (Richmond-Times Dispatch)

Some in the crowd were carrying weapons.  Riot police were not called and no one was arrested.

On March 3, 2012, women's rights activists marched on Richmond, Virginia, to protest laws that would force a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion.  Most of the protestors were women.  When women walked around police officers telling them they could not protest in front of the Capitol, riot police were called. 

Disobeying police orders is often a good way to get in trouble, but things spun out of control remarkably quickly, as the video shows. The protestors, remaining peaceful and chanting, "This is what democracy looks like!" march up to the building, plant themselves on the steps, and lock arms. Suddenly, the handful of cops are supplemented by a squad of heavily armored riot police. After them come combat-fatigued, masked officers with what appear to be shotguns and automatic rifles. (the Atlantic)

Riot police "controlled" the crowd by holding plastic shields, and 31 protestors were arrested for trespassing. (Video) 

Since the Capitol is public property, how were they trespassing?  And if the gun rights advocates were allowed to protest at the Capitol building, and were even invited inside, why were the women's rights advocates not allowed on the Capitol steps?  Both groups appeared to be peaceful, however, as far as we know, none of the women's rights activists were carrying guns.

What is obvious from the 2010 and 2012 events is the extent Gov. Bob McDonnell and his conservative legislators will go to get what they want.  They use their power to silence those who do not agree with them.  Is this democracy?  Is this the kind of leadership we want in government?

Virginia Governor McDonnell Blinks on Ultrasound Bill

According to a Washington Post story, some Virginia legislators had no idea how invasive an ultrasound can be.  REALLY????  They didn't even think to Google it?

Some Virginia Republicans are demanding pregnant women seeking an abortion go through a medical procedure that they know nothing about.  They want government to dictate what doctors should do, but are ignorant of medical procedures and have complete disregard for the patients, who, by the way, are all women.

Whether you believe abortion is moral or immoral, government should never be allowed to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. Years ago, forced sterilizations were the result of government interference in the lives of men and women.  From the 1930s into the 1970s, state governments approved the sterilization of men and women legislators believed would be incompetent parents (Compulsory Sterilization).

Sterilization continued in North Carolina into the 1970s, but in every state government officials targeted not only the mentally disabled, but the poor, mainly people of color, and those the state considered "promiscuous".  This is what can happen when government demands medical procedures based on the religious, moral, or personal beliefs of those in power.

Virginia's Governor McDonnell said he would sign the bill until Democrats noted that doing an ultrasound against a woman's will is equivalent to rape with a foreign object and violates Virginia's object sexual penetration law.  While this may have caused McDonnell to blink, he needs to reassess how this bill violates the doctor-patient relationship and forces big government into the examination room. This bill is simply bad legislation.