Skip to main content

Prevention of "Voter Fraud" is a dominant electoral strategy within the GOP. Although there are numerous examples of REGISTRATION fraud, actual casting of illegal ballots is rare. As such, political manipulation of the DOJ and efforts to enact voter ID laws and other ballot security measures are largely based upon partisan beliefs, rather than facts.

The cost of these “anti-fraud” efforts to our Democracy is disenfranchisement. The side-effect (and perhaps the goal) of these efforts is suppression of voters who traditionally vote for Democrats.  When suppression of Democratic voters disproportionately affects minorities, it violates Civil Rights laws and court-ordered consent agreements prohibiting this activity.

A cadre of young, idealistic Republican "fraud warriors" has been appointed at the DOJ, and there has been an exodus of career lawyers committed to civil rights from the DOJ voting section.  Reshaping the DOJ to aggressively pursue voter fraud and deconstruct the DOJ department charged with protecting voter rights appears to be a two-pronged approach to manipulate the electoral process and ensure Republican advantage at the polls.  The recent Prosecutor Purge at the DOJ undoubtedly has its origins in this philosophy.

After contributing to cause a fracas based on an initial review of Greg Palast's reporting on caging and USAGate, I sought to comprehensively research the issues of caging in the 2004 elections.  To get the facts right, I went to ePluribusmedia for help.    During these efforts, larger themes emerged.  Several members of ePluribusmedia (especially standingup) helped sculpt the original research and reporting linked below:
ePluribusmedia article

Note: Paul Kiel TPM published a similar, but less comprehensive analysis this morning and reached similar conclusions.  Thus 2 independent research groups have confirmed the bias of caging in 2004.
Beacuse of the last minute rush, another article at ePluribusmedia still in Copy editing will follow shortly.

The short story is as follows:

  1.  "Caging" was employed in 2004 in Duval County, Florida.
  1.  The process of caging in Duval County acquired addresses from "Black" precincts more efficiently than from "White" precincts.  The resulting caging list contained more Minority voters than White voters.  As such, the method of caging is racially biased.
  1.  Although reporting on the issue of caging in Duval County has to date in many cases not been accurate, caging is indeed part of the widespread GOP efforts that effect voter suppression under the rubric of preventing "voter fraud".
  1.  Caging lists were not used to make Election Day challenges in Duval County.  This was clearly an intended use for the list, but a ruling based on an Ohio caging case and the reporting of Greg Palast bringing attention to the RNC role in Florida caging apparently thwarted this plan.
  1.  Caging lists were not restricted to Florida and Ohio.  They were also collected in at least Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.  Use of these other lists to effect voter suppression in 2004 is not yet known.
  1.  In 2004, caging was initiated and organized by the RNC, with the complicity and co-direction of the Bush/Cheney campaign, in knowing violation of the court-ordered, 1982 Consent Decree.

Below are salient points from the linked article, that include my opinions, apart from what is published in the ePluribusmedia article:

2004 Caging Was Racially Biased
(See ePluribus media article and further discussion below) Based on population statistical data, the process of caging employed in Duval County in 2004 identified Democrats much more efficiently than Republicans, and the almost certain purpose of that (and all caging by Republicans) is to generate a tool to be used to suppress Democratic votes.  
Possibly as a side effect of the caging process, Black voters, who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates, were caged at a higher frequency than white voters.  As such, caging is racially biased (See below for exact numbers).  Whether this is intentional or simply a byproduct of the caging mechanism, it is a fact.

Racially Biased Ballot Security Measures violate the 1982 consent decree
Because involvement of the RNC in measures that disproportionately discriminate against a racially defined population of voters is prohibited by a 1982 Consent Decree, and because the RNC was clearly involved in widespread caging in 2004, the RNC was clearly in violation of the consent decree.  However, in a sworn declaration to the US District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 81-3876, which pertained to 2004 Ohio Caging lists, Deputy RNC Chairman Maria Cino swore under oath that the RNC "has not been involved in any efforts to suppress voter turnout...."

Link to Cino Declaration

The RNC and Bush/Cheney 2004 were involved in caging
Documents obtained during limited discovery in the above cited Ohio caging case revealed indisputable RNC involvement in caging (Tim Griffin and others), as well as concern about "GOP footprints" if the caging efforts were brought to light.  

Link to "footprints" concern emails

Further, Bush/Cheney campaign National Field Director Coddy Johnson suggested use of caging lists to challenge absentee ballots in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.  This email was sent to Terry Nelson, Political Director of the 2004 Bush/Cheney Campaign.  

Link to widespread caging email

Additionally, Tim Griffin (and other RNC operatives) is the recipient of the Duval County caging list, to which he responded "thank you, perfect".  This is probably a big reason no one wanted Tim Griffin to be subject to a confirmation hearing when appointed to be US Attorney in Arkansas.  If he told the truth, America would learn that the RNC and the Bush/Cheney campaign was indeed involved in caging in 2004.  However, there are indications Tim Griffin will not be truthful about his involvement in ballot security measures.  At a recent speech at the Clinton School of Public Service, Griffin told questioners that "I didn't cage votes, I didn't cage mail and I didn't cage animals", and that he had to look up the term "caging" to find out what it means.  Importantly, Mindy Tucker Fletcher’s response to a BBC report on the Duval County caging list in October 2004 stated that “caging is a commonly used term in the political process by which someone opens a large amount of mail and logs it into a database.”  Considering that Ms. Fletcher was the RNC Communications Director in 2002, and Mr. Griffin was the RNC Research Director/Deputy Communications Director in 2004, that he would not know the definition of caging strains credulity.  Furthermore, documentary evidence has firmly established his key role in caging as a ballot security measure in the 2004 election.

Preventing Caging List use in Ohio and Florida was a Victory for Voter's Rights
Despite the apparent “best laid plans” to enact ballot security measures and challenge voters in the 2004 elections, caging lists were not used to make Election Day challenges in Duval County, and there is no evidence of caging-based challenges in Ohio.  Although it was stayed in the afternoon of Election Day, the decision in the Ohio case precluding election day challenges based on caging lists probably played a role in preventing caging list use in Florida.  According to Daniel Tokaji, an election Law expert at Ohio State University, there were also three other pre-election legal cases “challenging the challengers” in Ohio that added to the confusion over whether polling place challenges would be permitted.  Combine 1) these legal challenges and 2) an affidavit by the RNC that they were not involved in voter suppression, with 3) Greg Palast’s BBC report on the Florida caging list and the 4) Clear RNC role in caging operations, and one can surmise the reluctance to call further attention to caging by making election day challenges Duval County.  
There were certainly other Election Day issues (especially in Ohio), but voter challenges based on caging lists were apparently not among these.

Potential errors in Prior Reporting on Caging
Despite his possible role in helping thwart voter suppression, Mr. Palast's reporting on caging since 2004 contains numerous claims about the GeorgeWBush.org "caging lists" that cannot be confirmed by publicly available evidence:
Claims about the number of caging lists from GeorgeWBush.org cannot be verified (We got them all, and  there is one comprehensive list from Florida and one from Nevada).  Claims about the number and location of caged voters on GeorgeWBush.org caging lists cannot be verified (There are 1833 and 21 in Florida and Nevada, respectively).  Alarming claims that GeorgeWBush.org caging lists were "made up entirely of voters in African-American neighborhoods" or that most addresses "were in African-American majority ZIP codes" cannot be substantiated based on the available evidence.  Furthermore, in what appears to be a poorly researched test case to illustrate African-American voter suppression, Mr. Palast cites one name from the caging list, Randall Prausa, in Armed Madhouse and multiple press releases such as this:  

From GregPalast.com, June 15, 2007:

So here’s a hanky, Mr. Griffin. This unnamable reporter would rather you save your tears for Randall Prausa. The African-American soldier was on active military duty when he ended up on one of your caging lists, what you term a suspected ‘fraudulent’ voter subject to GOP challenge because he was not home to get his fraudulent, ‘Welcome, voter,’ letter from the GOP.

Can you guess, Mr. Griffin, why Prausa wasn’t at home? Well, unlike Messrs. Rove and Bush, Prausa was serving his country overseas.

And that’s what caging is all about. If you’re Black, you get shipped to Baghdad and you lose your vote. Mission Accomplished, Mr. Griffin. Mission Accomplished, Mr. Rove.

However, Mr. Prausa is White and voted in the 2004 election.  And according to Duval County voter records, his absentee ballot in 2004 was counted.

 title=

Further, of 50 sailors residing at Duval County’s Naval Air Station, a group that Palast suggests are “African American Servicemen” in Armed Madhouse and on his website, 43 have publicly available data defining their race.  Over half (23 of 43) are White, whereas only 23.3% are Black (10 of 43).  Thus characterization of caged servicemen as “Buffalo Soldiers” seems poorly considered.

There is no reason to exaggerate claims about caging
Regardless of apparent errors with Palast’s work, the Duval County caging lists were undeniably racially biased.  We obtained the entire file of registered voters (Compiled June 8, 2007) from Duval County in response to a request for public records.  We also got the list of all the voters removed.   For all of these individuals, their race and political party affiliation is publicly disclosed.  Of the list of 1833 unique caged names and addresses, 1522 remain on the voter rolls and another 132 are listed as being removed from the voter rolls (although 24 removals were based on felony convictions, none of the 132 were removed due to returned mail).   Thus, the ethnicity of 1654 voters (90.2% of the caging list) is available for researchers.   Duval County has 548,551 registered voters, and these voters are racially identified as 147,365 Black (26.9%), 352,302 White (64.2%), and 16,108 Hispanic (2.9%).  The below table and figure illustrate the selective bias for inclusion of minorities and exclusion of Whites into the caging list.

 title=
 title=

Based on the number of identified voters, a selection of 1654 names should have 1063 white voters if they were selected randomly from the list.  However, the Duval County caging list contains only 586 White voters.  
Based on Binomial Probabilities assessing White versus Non-White voters, the probability that 586 or fewer White voters would be picked randomly from Duval County voter rolls in a list of 1654 names is 1 in a number followed by 125 zeros.  

The truth should speak for itself. Not even the most partisan observer could rationally deny that caging, as employed in Duval County in 2004, is intrinsically racially biased.  Caging by the Republican Party is a conspiracy, but it is one part of the Global War on the Constitution manifest in schemes to suppress voters.  That said, caging should certainly be investigated further as an unethical and probably illegal scheme to suppress voters, and it should not be a tool of political machinations in our Democracy.

I hope that this research and analysis establishes a verifiable foundation for the very real, very biased, method of Republican caging in Duval County in 2004, and the political machinations associated with its use by the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, state Republican Parties and the RNC.  
This research sourcing and analysis will be made freely available to any and all parties interested in confirming and continuing the work.  
.
.
.
.
Note to the many Greg Palast Fans
In closing, I'd like to emphasize that this effort was not undertaken with the purpose of discrediting or otherwise damaging Mr. Palast's reputation as an award-winning journalist on many issues important to Democratic principles and justice.  Nor was it intended to minimize the importance of his primacy in bringing the issue of caging to public attention or to discredit the role he may have played in thwarting caging efforts in 2004.  Greg Palast’s focus on the issue of caging indeed may help prevent unethical or illegal voter suppression in future elections- it certainly helped to get me interested in the issues.  However, because efforts to suppress voters by caging are serious and possibly illegal, and because the interest in the caging controversy extends to the highest levels of government, reporting on caging should be restricted to the facts, the truth, and be free of exaggeration or misinformation.

Updated 120pm central:  better editing of figure and text to reflect Duval County, rather than Jacksonville City information.  Rush to publish to compete with TPM piece prompted my editing problems.  Apologies.

Originally posted to drational on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:40 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Reporting on Voter Suppression (213+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sj, pb, Mogolori, DC Pol Sci, taylormattd, eleming, AlanF, lipris, rhfactor, asimbagirl, xy109e3, Categorically Imperative, BigOkie, Robespierrette, Emerson, rincewind, billlaurelMD, Xan, GayHillbilly, eeff, Woody, frisco, Ahianne, Plays in Traffic, exNYinTX, Creosote, strengthANDwisdom, madhaus, Boston Boomer, joynow, cardinal, JLongs, Wee Mama, leveymg, pucklady, whenwego, Dont Just Stand There, MisterOpus1, roses, javelina, Ignacio Magaloni, standingup, Miss Blue, jigsaw68, thingamabob, wonmug, rioduran, enough already, Hootenanny, Cixelsyd, mayan, pat bunny, MTgirl, etorrey, cometman, susie dow, TXsharon, churchylafemme, NYFM, niteskolar, DSC on the Plateau, joan reports, On The Bus, cat chew, Catte Nappe, never forget 2000, The Termite, HollywoodOz, Cliff Talus, Dood Abides, walkshills, count, WV Democrat, YetiMonk, kfred, Lefty Mama, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, bronxdem, kd texan, AaronBa, avahome, decitect, sawgrass727, Jersey Joe, rapala, angrybird, Fabian, paige, jrooth, DianeNYS, jfdunphy, newfie, PBen, andgarden, frandor55, Simplify, Ranting Roland, volballplr, Turkana, Back in the Cave, Chaoslillith, pasadena beggar, Buffalo Girl, dunderhead, GreyHawk, MoronMike, hilltopper, bmaples, mswsm, HiBob, MajorFlaw, paddykraska, Five Thirty, wiscmass, desordre remplir, sbdenmon, dsteffen, Ghost of Frank Zappa, Team Slacker, LisainNYC, Ekaterin, Dania Audax, Over the Edge, dus7, pico, Major Danby, trashablanca, buddabelly, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, highfive, vigilant meerkat, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, Ellicatt, Dvalkure, deha, fromer, Naniboujou, Jerry 101, carolita, sailmaker, kck, sullynyc, MJ via Chicago, erratic, Lashe, DiesIrae, condoleaser, DSPS owl, Terminus, CTLiberal, myrealname, Dinclusin, ShowMe Indie, JugOPunch, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, kurt, MadMs, Snarcalita, Friend of the court, Temmoku, sasher, BentLiberal, DBunn, AmericanRiverCanyon, DrSteveB, out of left field, KatHart, dotsright, donnamarie, Cronesense, Loudoun County Dem, dmh44, ColoTim, 0wn, FishOutofWater, adamschloss, greenchiledem, ezdidit, DWG, Uwaine, dconrad, NoMoJoe, ubertar, gchaucer2, PrgrsvArchitect, Mrs Panstreppon, MadAsHellMaddie, madgranny, Snakes on a White House, keikekaze, feelingsickinMN, roguetrader2000, zenobia, MKinTN, kafkananda, fayeforcure, skymutt, Shahryar, Baron Dave, wayoutinthestix, brklyngrl, zerone, Involuntary Exile, Mother of Zeus, Lujane, TH Seed, IceJustIce, vanyel, fool mee once, dantyrant, Tropical Depression

    needs good documentation.

  •  I would still like to know (16+ / 0-)

    what charges were brought against Rove in 82 (and the RNC). I think this is key, because I think the Dems have Rove-they've already gotten Griffin. Of course I hope more charges will come out of the prosecutor purge-but my gut tells me that Rove was key in the caging isssues-since he was the one with experience in it before. even if not in name-he worked closely with Griffin and could have groomed him to be the fallguy.

  •  a point about language (20+ / 0-)

    The way these "fraud warriors" and their activities are described has always seemed ineffective at capturing how deeply criminal they are.  Would it be useful to turn the tables on them, accuse them of "election fraud"?  Election theft?  Suppression?  "Caging" always needs an elaborate explanation, and "violation of civil rights" is a worn out legalism.  I'm just wondering if we need to play around with the terminology in order to make this issue come alive in the public consciousness.

  •  Superb Research & Clear Summary Presentation (14+ / 0-)

    After reading your analysis, I'm left with this question -- why haven't black political organizations banded together and filed a class-action civil rights lawsuit over this?  Especially the offices in Florida and Ohio?

    I'd think the ACLU would be interested, too.  In your investigation did you become interested in the legal response of those impacted by voter caging?  I'm interested in the victims' actions, knowing that the government -- the entity that should crack down on the caging conspiracy -- is the perp.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:06:38 AM PDT

    •  No one Impacted in 2004 (19+ / 0-)

      That we know of or that is documented.
      Eddie Hales of Advancement Project went to Ohio to be With Ebony Malone at the polls.  She was a litigant in the Ohio caging case.  No challenges.
      And No challenges in Duval.

      I think the heroic story is how SEIU lawyers and civil Right groups challeged the challengers in Ohio.  Also palast shining a beacon on Duval had to have played a role in discouraging list use.

      However, we also found they were collecting caging lists across the country.
      so we don't really know that noone was challenged based on caging lists, but at least in ohio and Duval, no one was to our knowledge.

      But they will if given the chance and that is why they are gutting Civil Rights at DOJ and Purging prosecutors

      •  Was caging used pre-election? (5+ / 0-)

        IOW, was it used to remove voters from the rolls prior to the election instead of being used to challenge voters on election day?  I thought that it was primarily for the latter purpose, a la Cruella's pre-election purge of "felons" in 2000.

        BTW, the fact that Kerry lost FL by a solid margin has caused people to forget that Betty Castor lost to Sideshow Mel by only 87k votes.  The margin of the presidential race led people to forget that the Senate race was close enough for chicanery to make a difference.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:40:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No evidence (7+ / 0-)

          tried in ohio, but pre-election challenges were blocked.

          In florida, Duval, most of the caging list is still registered:
           title=

          The removals were mostly moving out of county, 24 felons, and none were removed for returned mail and inactivity mandated by NVRA.
          Also none removed by hearing, which a challenge would initiate.

          so no one on the caging list was purged for the RNCs wish, before or after the election, and no one challenged at the Ballots.  Palast reporting and the Ohio cases saved the day, but they will be caging again, for sure.  It works and it is allowed when state parties and campaigns do it without the RNC.

          Arizona allows changing the voter rolls based on canvassing by political parties.
          Texas allows changing the rolls based on "any information provided to the registrar".  Many states allow challenges at the ballots.

        •  Florida did have some (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drational

          problems with registrations and purges in 2004.  The state had another "flawed list" that was supposed to be used to purge felons from the voter rolls.  

          See Florida scraps felon vote list - The list of 47,000 people is too flawed to be used to strike felons from voting rolls. County election supervisors express relief..  The state dropped the list in July but by October when the early voting started the Florida Republican party began making charges felons were voting illegally.  Small problem, they were using a flawed list too. Also from the St. Petersburg Times:

          Using two controversial and flawed state databases, Republicans also said they identified an additional 13,568 felons expected to vote by Election Day, based on their participation in the 2000 or 2002 elections or their recent registration as a new voter.

          The list of 921 felons who have already voted ... The party plans to give all its information to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for investigation.

          "We believe this is simply the tip of the iceberg and there could be potentially additional felons who have registered," said Mindy Tucker Fletcher, spokesman for the Florida Republican Party

          But it appears the local reporters were doing good  work and exposed the problem quickly:

          But within hours of the Republicans' announcement came indications that the GOP list may suffer some of the same problems that caused Secretary of State Glenda Hood to scrap her controversial list of 47,763 suspected felon voters in July.

          Reporters for the St. Petersburg Times quickly found two Tampa Bay area individuals on the GOP list who say they have had their voting rights restored.

    •  Well, after the NAACP 'settled' with Florida (4+ / 0-)

      after the 2000 "felon" lists, we do have to wonder.
      That settlement, as far as I know, was agreed by all parties not to be made public.

      •  Saddening To Contemplate (5+ / 0-)

        that the settlement of a lawsuit involving the most fundamental principle of democracy -- one man, one vote -- should be a secret arrangement.  The sweet smell of justice seems befouled, even if that's not the case.  

        If ever there were a time for government in the sunshine, civil rights cases intimately tied to voting rights would seem to be it.  How can a people know they're free and fully enfranchised when the machinations needed to (we hope) secure that freedom are cloaked?

        I'm disappointed to learn this.

        They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

        by Limelite on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:11:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In defense of Greg Palast. (14+ / 0-)

    First of all, this is a great write-up.  It exposes yet more of the caging viciousness coming out of the Rove machine.

    But as far as Greg Palast, there's a reason why he doesn't show all his cards.  He's an investigative reporter, who makes use of insider sources, and he needs to protect those sources.

    So we're going to see things from him, but not a complete bibliography for the time being.  Some of the people he talks to would lose their jobs, or worse, if they got outed.

    Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

    by meldroc on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:07:51 AM PDT

    •  Fair enough (22+ / 0-)

      But I suggest if he is going to Decry African American disenfranchisement from the GWB.org lists, Black Soldier disenfranchisement from the GWB.org lists and talk about a single named individual from the caging list as an "African American serviceman" disenfranchised by caging, he should base those claims on confirmable reality.

      •  Very well said (8+ / 0-)

        I've defended you in your previous diaries on this topic for the very reason you mention here.  If we grant Palast the necessity to keep his sources unnamed for various reasons, so be it.  But as you say, he should then be very careful at HOW he is presenting those claims publicly, because failure to have publicly supportable evidence to such claims does him no favors (esp. when such claims are incorrect like Prausa).

        Like you stated, there's no need for Palast to exaggerate (or be flat-out incorrect).  Nicely done.

        We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

        by MisterOpus1 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Err on side of caution dealing with Bu$hitCo (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inky, LesIsMore, corvo, Ranting Roland

          and the RNC?  After the last 6 years?  Yeah, that sounds real good--NOT!!

          Palast isn't a lawyer presenting evidence to a Judge, that's for others to do.  He also isn't incorrect in his agitations and overall claims, and we are all the better for it!  

          The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

          by FightTheFuture on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:03:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Palast doesn't need to be a lawyer (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            standingup, DSPS owl, drational

            to present evidence that's credible and supports the claims he's making.  If he has reputations and identities to protect, that's understandable.  But when he makes certain claims that he is unwilling to support with evidence publicly, combined with having a few inaccuracies with his claims here and there, that undermines his credibility to me.

            I agree with you that his larger overall claims are substantiated and correct, and I think drational states that as well.  But these charges are not small potatoes, and we should expect the Republican smear machine to be in full attack mode at all times.  As a consequence, it's caused me to play devil's advocate all the time, which I think is crucial to do regardless.

            We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

            by MisterOpus1 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:59:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps Palast is rattling the cages to see (0+ / 0-)

              what other rats come out!  Hmmm.... did yo ever hear of that strategy?  He's one of the early ones who started this whole ball rolling, when evidence was not all that easy to come by, and it came by mostly by luck!

              Palast is where he is, who he is.  I care only that he is substantially correct on the allegations and issue, which he has been time and time again!  Crossing "T"s and dotting "I"s is better left to the one who have the power to actually do something about these investigations, like Conyers or the DOJ (Whoops, forget that!).

              It's nice that you, this diarist, others insist on exactitude and total accuracy, but try to keep in mind the threat, the criminal cabal, this nest of traitors that must be confronted.  If a fact is strectched here and there in the outer layers of peeling them away, I could care less.  It's when it gets to the core that you might want more exact facts.  Even then, evidence is being destroyed with systematic planning, against the law, every day so you may have to presume the worst!

              This is for anyone who is whining and dittering about Palast's methods: pull your heads out of your asses and see the bigger picture here.  I'll make my apologies if, and when, we get our country back!

              The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

              by FightTheFuture on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:24:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe it's my head (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drational

                that's not seeing the light of day, sir.

                Again I'll agree with you and Drational about the overall message of Palast being correct.  But please tell me you remember 2004?  Please tell me you remember all the incredibly ridiculous smears by the Smear Boaters against Kerry, and how unbelievably effective they were at attacking each and every little word he stated.  They hung and clung on to everything he said, waiting and waiting to find the right piece to blast out of the Noise Machine in blatant character attacks.

                Of course there could have been much better strategies that Kerry could have performed, as well as any candidate that was successfully smeared by the GOP slime machine.  But my point is a simple one - IF accusations are going to be made, they had better be able to back them up and support them.  Because if we cannot support our PUBLIC (KEY WORD: PUBLIC) statements made when confronted to supply evidence, we become no better than the GOP smear meisters themselves.

                I like facts.  I like evidence.  I like being able to support arguments ON THE SPOT when confronted, just as Drational has successfully done (in his pajamas, I'm sure :D).  It does not give strength to any argument when that argument cannot be supported for whatever reason, whether it be to protect sources or otherwise - that argument is unsupportable nonetheless.

                So when a GOP slimeball confronts you with evidence to support your argument of their caging tactics, and he begins nitpicking your argument apart on every single item you have to support it, are you going to give him Palast's argument and tell him to "just wait on the details because, oh boy, they're a coming soon I promise," or will you give him Drational's evidence that has everything needed to back up each and every aspect of his arguments?

                Forgive me if I choose the latter, sir.

                We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

                by MisterOpus1 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:12:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You choose a loosing path... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MisterOpus1, drational

                  You see, truth or not, they will pick it apart, of was that lost on you with Kerry?  

                  Palast's facts will only be part of what the real  investigations with teeth will uncover.  What I am saying is what Palast has done is MORE than good enough.  Nail all the facts down you want to, demand absolute 100% evidence before proceeding, and I will wish you good luck but not waste my time for some vague hope!!

                  What Palast has provided is enough to start the real questioning; he is confirming one of the prongs of a multi-pronged attack on our election systems.  Remember FL in 2000 and all the people that were purged from "felon" lists?  94,000 people, as pointed out by Palast back then in a fishy caging scheme.  So I do think Palast may be pushing the envelope to see what else falls out and that is an excellent strategy, no matter how much it causes some the vapors!

                  What Palast has will added too and sharpened to the spear needed to pierce this criminal enterprise called the RNC and Republican Party.  As we all know, what Greg Palast has said is not incorrect, on the whole!!!   That is what I am saying to people who attack him on this; and there have been plenty over several diaries.  Whether you think you fall into this, or are simply trying to hone the facts, I leave that for your self-judgement!

                  The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

                  by FightTheFuture on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:33:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Fair enough (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FightTheFuture, drational

                    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the details, but understand that while I want support of arguments made publicly, rest assured I will continue to support Palast's overall investigations.

                    And I think we both agree on the one detail that spans across all arguments by Palast and Drational - this shit is illegal and disgusting, but we really expect nothing less from the GOP at this point!

                    We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

                    by MisterOpus1 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:52:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Areas targeted were predominantly Black (0+ / 0-)

        Palast's observation - in his book ARMED MADHOUSE - was that the RNC caging lists, which at one point they claimed were donor lists, concentrated on predominantly  Black areas.  In the book he mentions reviewing the lists by zip codes, and finding they corresponded to poor areas, he calls them ghettos, of Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Plantation FL, Edward Waters College - a Black college - and the Jacksonville State St Rescue Mission.

        Maybe not exclusively black, but like the military base list, predominantly black and moreso than the general population.

        20 black voters from a group of 43 is far higher than the national percentage of black voters.

        Targeting voters by race is a crime.

        And as for overseas voters, here's the NYTimes recent report, which includes this:

        anywhere from a quarter to half of overseas voters fail in their attempt to vote, say voting experts at the National Defense Committee and the Overseas Vote Foundation .

        •  Evidence Required (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MisterOpus1, HudsonValleyMark

          We evaluated all of the ZIP codes on the comprehensive caging list, “Caging-1.xls”, using year 2000 census information. “Caging-1.xls” contains addresses from all but two Jacksonville residential ZIP codes (33 of 35). Of the 33 ZIP codes with caged addresses, 6 (18%) are ZIP codes with >50% of the population identified as black (“Majority Black”).  26 (79%) are ZIP codes with >50% of the population identified as white (“Majority White”). In the 2000 census Jacksonville population was 29% Black and 64.5% White. Of the 33 ZIP codes with caged addresses, 11 (33.3%) are ZIP codes with higher than 29% black population (“High Black”), whereas 21 (63.6%) are ZIP codes with higher than 64.5% white population (“High White”).  Similar to precinct analysis, the ZIP code data indicate that the mailings used to “cage” voters in Duval County in 2004 were indeed likely to be sent diffusely, rather than uniquely or predominantly to “Black Majority” areas.

          Whereas the caging list demonstrates that the acquisition of caged addresses was not restricted to “black” ZIP codes, the effect of caging identifies addresses in “black” ZIP codes at a higher frequency.  However, in total, Only 579 of the 1826 addresses (31.7%) for which a ZIP code was listed were located within “Majority Black” ZIP codes.

        •  Naval station demographics (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          standingup

          The military base if Jacksonville does not have a majority Black population according to the census bureau.

          THree of the spreadsheets in the emails were caging lists. The rest of the spreadsheets were things like donor lists, list of people attending events and prep lists for get out the vote phone calls. see this list of all of the spreadsheets.
          http://www.epluribusmedia.org/...

          Yes, people with addresses from the rescue mission, the college and the military base are the highly represented on the list.

          Plantation, Pompano Beach and Lauderdale are not predominantly Black or poor. Five minutes on google or at the census bureau reveal this.

          Wikipedia on Pompano Beach

          Wikipedia on Plantation, Florida

          Wikipedia Entry for Fort Lauderdale--lincludes links to neighboring communities.

    •  Let's not turn this diary into a Palast (18+ / 0-)

      fight. drational has done some great work and we need to keep this discussion about the his work, which by the way is excellent.

    •  If He'd Open Source Some We Could Fact-Check nt (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Xan, bronxdem, mswsm, drational
  •  Please Add A Column To The Table... (4+ / 0-)

    ...listing the percentage numbers for the general population in Jacksonville (black, white, dem, independent, etc.).  That would go a long way towards helping establish at a glance that the representation is disproportionate.

  •  Applause for hard work. (16+ / 0-)

    Clap, clap.

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

    by highfive on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:33:40 AM PDT

  •  When did Cino make this statement under oath? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, Xan, frisco, boofdah, drational

    The critical issue is when Cino made this statement made this statement under oath.

    It was clearly perjury. and -- as clearly -- it won't be prosecuted befor 2009. Will the statute of limitations run out that soon?

  •  Vote suppression and voter fraud... (7+ / 0-)

    ...are tantamount to treason because they undermine the most elementary foundation of democracy.  There's no justice until the people engaged in stealing Americans' right to representation are locked away in some dank fucking hole.  I don't care what party they come from.

    "Don't you dare speak to us like we work for you." - Ben Harper

    by The Termite on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:53:05 AM PDT

  •  finessing disenfranchisement (5+ / 0-)

    It appears that the caging process stops short of confronting people at the polls - making it that much harder to understand.

    I'm glad you pointed out the inaccuracies in the reporting, sunshine is a good disinfectant!

    In a democracy, everyone is a politician. ~ Ehren Watada

    by Lefty Mama on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:53:06 AM PDT

  •  Nice work, but it leaves me agitated (9+ / 0-)

    As the evidence for caging and voter disenfranchisement grows, the inability or unwillingness of the House/Senate to go for the throat of the Bush administration leaves me shaking my head.  They have been practicing this crap since Florida in 2000 under Katherine Harris and every election since.  However, as we approach the 08 election, I see no indication that these practices will not continue, especially since the Bush scum will be in control of the DoJ in November of 2008.  

    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

    by DWG on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:55:13 AM PDT

    •  I think that the DoJ has become suspect (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DC Pol Sci, count, drational

      in all that they do and don't do. In this current environment it is very difficult for them to prosecute Dems, just as it very difficult for them to not prosecute Repubs.

      I heard Bobby Kennedy interview Sen. Whitehouse last night and Whitehouse said that the internal investigation at DoJ would probably be very damaging to Gonzo, becausse DoJ realizes this report is their only chance to save the DoJ.

    •  Just Wait (8+ / 0-)

      we are building a foundation for reality-based challenegs to voter suppression.
      One problem is that prior work appears to have been poorly sourced and documented.  You cannot build a legal case on wishful thinking and half-truth.

      •  A few questions: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronBa, drational, DWG
        1. Does the law say that caging is illegal if the effect is racially biased, or the intent is racially biased?
        1. Based on the data, how much actual impact did caging appear to have on the '04 Ohio and Florida elections?  (what percent of the difference in the margin of outcome?)
        1.  What evidence is there for similar caging in 2000?  Is there an investigation into caging in that contest, or have inquiries been limited to the issue of disqualifying "defective" ballots?

        I guess the bottom line question is this - did caging materially effect the outcome of the 2000 or 2004 elections?

        Thanks.

        •  From What I Can Tell... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leveymg

          ...and I am no statistician or expert, very little, if any at all.

          That does not justify setting up the possibility of using caging data--just in case--as may have been the case.

        •  Intent (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DC Pol Sci, leveymg

          is not required by the Consent Decree, just Bias.  Federal law, such as NVRA, is a different story.  but this didn't stop RNC in 2004, and they are now using state parties and campaigns to end around the decrees and cage.  the consent decree should be expanded to include these organizations, or new litigation or laws are needed to stop ANYONE from caging voters.

          There is no evidence caging had any impact in florida, at least with respect to duval.  And i am not aware of anyone in Florida being challenged at the polls based on a caging list, anywhere.  A challenge in florida requires affidavit by challenger, forces provisional ballot, and a hearing.  if rejected law mandates a letter sent to the rejected voter.  Advancement Project does not have any evidence that this occurred.

          Other monkey business is a different story, especially Ohio, but caging, no data.

          •  Was all the data available to you from '04? (0+ / 0-)

            Is there any specific data for the '00 election?

            What are you basing your conclusion, "There is no evidence caging had any impact in florida, at least in Duval?"  

            I take it you are referencing caging lists for Duval, '04?  What about the other FL counties?

            What do we have for Florida. '00?  Has anyone looked into caging in the '00 election and Florida, in particular?

            Finally, how is "caging" any different from voting challenges at the polls?  Is caging not simply the identification of persons on the rolls believed to be unqualified voters, and steps to purge or disqualify those voters, either before the election or on the day of the election?  Isn't that routine?  Or, is there something specific about the '04 caging that's different in terms of the techniques used that might indicate racial bias?

            Thanks again.  

            •  Gerald Herbert (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              leveymg, drational

              recently posted one of the best explanations of "caging" that I have read.  The entire piece is very informative on caging.  Campaign Legal Center Blog - Inside the Vote Cage: Griffin, Goodling and McNulty (No, Not Another Lawfirm):

              "Caging" is a direct mail technique used to clean up a mailing list. A political organization sends first class mail to a list of voters (or donors) marked "do not forward." Sometimes, the mail is sent return receipt requested. Voters whose mail comes back undeliverable, or who do not return the receipt, are removed from the list – caged, in direct mail parlance.

              "Vote caging" is when a political organization, typically a political party, compiles a "caging list" of voters whose mail came back undeliverable or who did not return the receipt, and uses that list to challenge those voters as not being validly registered. The challenges can occur prior to Election Day or at the polls.
              ...
              Despite the fact that many voters who might end up on a caging list are validly registered, there is nothing illegal per se about compiling a list of voters. What is illegal under the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution is targeting vote caging at minority voters, i.e., directing mail to them, and only challenging their attempts to vote on Election Day.
              [emphasis added]

              We have an email from the Duval County Election Office stating "there were no 'challenges' of voter registrations or provisional ballots in the 2004 general elections." There are news reports to support the same.  

              Jacksonville was expected to be a hotbed of voting-rights disputes, with Democrats claiming Republicans would try to intimidate black voters by
              challenging their registrations at the polls. It didn't happen.

              "I predicted that there would be no challenges, and there were no challenges," said Bill Scheu, interim elections supervisor for Duval County.

              After thousands of votes from minority precincts were tossed in 2000 because of voter errors, Jacksonville voter Palma Promise was pleased Tuesday.

              Source:  Palm Beach Post, November 3, 2004
              NO SWEEPING PROBLEMS; RESULTS SLOW
              By George Bennett

              In Duval County, election officials Wednesday were finishing counting a pile of 2,700 provisional ballots, about 5,000 write-in ballots and 50 absentee. The elections office reported only a handful of mechanical problems, no poll challenges and no reports of intimidation of minority voters.
              ...
              U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., agreed there was nothing close to a repeat of the situation in 2000 in which 27,000 votes were rejected in Duval County.
              Brown spent the day at polling places in Jacksonville and attributed Tuesday's success to Scheu, who had replaced former Supervisor of Elections John Stafford.

              "It went a lot better than expected," Brown said. "We started out behind, but a lot of things could have gone wrong and didn't. I had said for a long time that we needed a change of leadership in that office."
              Source: Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville) November 4, 2004, "Florida basks in smooth voting; About 7.5 million Floridians cast votes in a relatively flawless election."
              By J. Taylor Rushing

               

              Duval County was one of the worst counties in the 2000 Election for rejected ballots and allegations of intimidation/suppression.  They were expecting more of the same in 2004.  I haven't looked at every county in Florida for 2004 but based on what I have read there was great improvement over what took place in 2000.  

               

        •  Remember FL in 2000 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LesIsMore, leveymg, chuckvw

          It was decided by about 500 votes.  Most of the people dumped off the voter rolls at the last minute with no time to effectively respond were African-Americans.  

          A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

          by DWG on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:07:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, that is what I was driving at - FL in '00 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LesIsMore, chuckvw

            The margin of outcome was so small, that caging of this same magnitude would have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

            What is the evidence of similar caging-type activities in FL in 2000, and how would that impact Federal and State election law at the time?

            Anyone?

            •  Leveymg, you’re probably familiar with the (0+ / 0-)

              so-called "felon list" in Florida 2000?  It was used to purge thousands of names from the voter rolls before the election; those people were not able to vote.  The "felon list" was made up of black males; race and gender were noted on the list.  According to research done by Palast and his team, the great majority of them were not felons at all; and I don’t think there’s any doubt that it did in fact make the difference.  Even if you drop all the other funny stuff that went on on Florida 2000 (voting machines that counted a high percentage of ballots as spoiled in heavily black Gadsden, etc) – and the hanging chads and all the rest – the so-called "felon list" by itself was enough to throw the election.

              You can find details on this in Palast’s book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."  If I recall correctly, the US Civil Rights Commission looked into this incident and called for criminal investigations, but the Justice Department under Bush did not follow up.

              As for caging specifically, I haven't heard anything about that in FLorida in 2000.  But the GOP has been doing it off and on since the 80's (hence the consent decree against them), so it would not be surprising.

  •  Did you take a look at TPMMuckrakers today? (9+ / 0-)

    They have a story about just this subject on their site this morning.

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...

    I listen to wingnut radio so you don't have to!

    by Sharon on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:02:35 AM PDT

  •  Problems with language (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, vigilant meerkat

    When you begin a diary with "ORIGINAL RESEARCH," it implies that the original research is yours.  Is this what you're claiming?  Because it's very difficult for me to figure out what research is yours and what is from ePluribusmedia.  Also, "original" research, as opposed to just plain research, or "secondary" research, implies the documentation of facts by first-hand experience, as opposed to the analysis of facts already documented.  So again, I'm not sure what you're claiming by "original".

    Also, I think it's confusing to give "voter fraud" the very narrow definition as the "actual casting of ballots" to distinguish it from what you call registration fraud.  The RNC uses it in a much broader sense, and so do academic researchers on the subject:

    Voter fraud is the "intentional corruption of the electoral process by the voter." This definition covers knowingly and willingly giving false information to establish voter eligibility, and knowingly and willingly voting illegally or participating in a conspiracy to encourage illegal voting by others. All other forms of corruption of the electoral process and corruption committed by elected or election officials, candidates, party organizations, advocacy groups or campaign workers fall under the wider definition of election fraud.

  •  Excellent work! (10+ / 0-)

    Between you and Standing Up, you've nailed this.

  •  What is a challenge? How is a voter challenged? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational

    Examples?

    OTOH, many voters, upon arrival at the polls were told that their names had been 'flagged' in the poll books, and were forced to vote on 'provisional ballots'. A study of the pattern of provisional ballots and whether they were counted or thrown out would be even more useful IMO. Were provisional ballots used much in states that were not swing states, or which had Democratic SoS?

    •  In ohio (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xyz, Halcyon, carolita, IceJustIce

      A Challenge forces a voter to fill out a 10U affidavit.  This slows down the ballot process creating long lines.
      Very few in Ohio, and apparently none based on caging Lists.

      In Florida, the challenger has to fill out an affidavit, the voter votes provisional, and there is a hearing.  If the vote is denied, the voter is required by law to get a mailing stating this and why.

      there were no challenges PERIOD in Duval County, and no reports of any other Florida Provisional voters denied right to vote because their name was caged.

      Motor Voter NVRA 1993 REQUIRES states to Cage voters to maintain registrations.  All states that are subject to NVRA (all but 6) send letters to registrants.  If returned, the voter is flagged or removed from the registrations.

      Although there is no discriminitory intent in NVRA, there may be a problem with this method to prune voter lists, as we have shown caging is biased.  But the real problem is when a biased caging list is in the hands of a partisan poll worker who can look at their list, look at the race of the voter, and file a challenge.

  •  How dare you denigrate the work of the greatest, (12+ / 0-)

    ... living reporter?

    Kidding.

    Great post, d.  Thank you for setting the record straight.

    Hey, has Palast produced the "500 Rove e-mails" he claimed to have and claimed he shared with Conyers?

    The guy is good at something... Self-promotion.

  •  drational, I always enjoy your well-organized and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    standingup, drational

    nicely analyzed diaries.  I do have one question: I don't quite understand exactly how you can get race data from the registration and voter lists.  Is that info  required on voter registration forms, or what?  

    •  Another question: what are the odds that (0+ / 0-)

      any of these RNC criminals will be indicted?  I'm getting tired of the sound and fury from the House and Senate, signifying nothing!

      •  They get higher each time (3+ / 0-)

        we have facts to back up our charges.

        •  How can you get race data from the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          feelingsickinMN

          registration and voter lists? I thought that was a good question.

          Let your conscience be your guide.

          by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:31:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you have to call (4+ / 0-)

            Beth Fleet in the Duval elections office.
            She will send you a .csv file of all the voters and their individual data, including party, race, registration date, and voting history (whether they voted or were challenged etc.)
            She also can give you a list of every voter ever purged, with similar data.

            Public Records.

            •  To clarify my question: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              feelingsickinMN

              What I was meaning was to ask is how do they know what race I am?

              I don't remember having to list my race when I registered to vote. And I just looked at my voter registration card and that info is not on there.

              How would that information be on the registration and voter's list if they don't collect that data from voter registration forms?

              Let your conscience be your guide.

              by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it's a voluntary question (3+ / 0-)

                in some cases. You can choose to answer or not.

                I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

                by Buffalo Girl on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:37:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I wonder if it is different depending (0+ / 0-)

                  on the state?

                  When I registered to vote, there wasn't a section (voluntary or mandatory) that asked about my race. So in that case how would they collect that information?

                  And in states that do list that as a voluntary question, how do they get the race data if the applicant chooses not to answer it?

                  Let your conscience be your guide.

                  by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:46:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Its self reported in florida (0+ / 0-)

                Not everyone identifies themselves in a specific category, but enough do to do the analysis.

                •  Since it is voluntary in Florida (0+ / 0-)

                  for the applicant to answer the race section on the voter's registration form, then how do they get the race data if the applicant chooses not to answer it?

                  We obtained the entire file of registered voters (Compiled June 8, 2007) from Duval County in response to a request for public records.  We also Got the list of all the voters removed.   For all of these individuals, their race and political party affiliation is publicly disclosed.  Of the list of 1833 unique caged names and addresses, 1522 remain on the voter rolls and another 132 are listed as being removed from the voter rolls (although 24 removals were based on felony convictions, none of the 132 were removed due to returned mail).   Thus, the ethnicity of 1654 voters (90.2% of the caging list) is available for researchers. Duval County has 548,551 registered voters, and these voters are racially identified as 147,365 Black (26.9%), 352,302 White (64.2%), and 16,108 Hispanic (2.9%).

                  But from what you said, the race of all the individuals on the registered voters list was disclosed. If disclosure of race is voluntary, where did they get the information?

                  Its self reported in florida (0 / 0)

                  Not everyone identifies themselves in a specific category, but enough do to do the analysis.

                  Now I am confused here. In your comment, you are saying that not all the voter's on the list disclosed their race. But in the diary you said the race of all the individuals on the voter's list was disclosed. Which is correct?

                  In your comment, you said there was enough to do the analysis. What is enough? What percentage of voters on the list did not disclose their race and what percentage did? Why isn't that explained in the diary?

                  Let your conscience be your guide.

                  by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:47:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Clarity (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Limelite, Over the Edge, carolita

                    There is Race data entered for everyone.  There is a race code on the lists that is 1 amer indian, 2 asian, 3 black, 4, hispanic, 5 white, 6 other.
                    I am not sure what they do if someone leaves the race code blank when they register, but our list had a code for everyone we could identify, and the stats are above.  There were 9 indians, 15 asians, 747 blacks, 79 hispanics, 519 whites and 153 others.  I assumed nondisclosure is scored 6, but will ask beth fleet in duval elections office when she gets back from vacation.

                    •  alright, so I understand this (0+ / 0-)

                      For all of these individuals, their race and political party affiliation is publicly disclosed.  Of the list of 1833 unique caged names and addresses, 1522 remain on the voter rolls and another 132 are listed as being removed from the voter rolls (although 24 removals were based on felony convictions, none of the 132 were removed due to returned mail).   Thus, the ethnicity of 1654 voters (90.2% of the caging list) is available for researchers.

                      9 indians, 15 asians, 747 blacks, 79 hispanics, 519 whites and 153 others (I am assuming) is referring to 1522 of voters who remained on the voting rolls. And then there is the 132 who were removed. Out of the 1833 names, there are still 311 names left. Is their ethnicity unknown? How do they fit into the picture? Were they on the voter rolls or removed? I can't find where you say either way.

                      --

                      I agree it would be very important to find out how they label applicants that don't disclose. If "other" indicates non-disclosure, then that would put a pretty big margin of error in figuring out racial-make-up of the voters on the list.

                      Hmmm...that doesn't seem quite right- if you were filling out the race section of the voter registration form would "other" mean "decline to answer" to you?

                      Let your conscience be your guide.

                      by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:45:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'll find out. (0+ / 0-)

                        the purgees have race data.
                        The only ones without race data are the ambiguous 98 and missing 81.  so 179 of 1833.
                        they are unlikey to be different than the rest of the list.
                        If you want a list of the names to try to figure out, email me and I will send.

                        •  Isn't knowing the race of all the purgees (0+ / 0-)

                          central to one of your arguments - that the percentage of blacks that were purged from the voter rolls wasn't as high as BBC reported?

                          Shouldn't that be noted in the diary?

                          Let your conscience be your guide.

                          by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:38:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  If you apply online in florida (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IceJustIce

      self reported by the registrant and logged in the voter rolls, along with political party affiliation so they can figure if you are eligible to vote in primaries.

    •  Yes it is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      susie dow, feelingsickinMN, zenobia
      Call me naive or sheltered, but I was deeply shocked to discover (in Nov 2000, at the age of 47) that FL and quite a few other states require "race" info on voter registrations. I've thought for years that the way we do registration here in MN would eliminate some of the most egregious opportunities for vote suppression (we don't even declare a party affiliation). Note: Kiffmeyer had to blatantly single out tribal-issued photo ID's -- on its face a racial bias -- in her attempt to suppress native American voters, because our reg system doesn't leave many exploitable loopholes.

      Geography could still be a factor, possibly surnames in heavily Hispanic areas, but I fail to see any justification whatsoever to require "race" info.

  •  Sent to John Conyers? (9+ / 0-)

    I hope you sent this update to John Conyers.

    He is investigating Palast's claims. I'm sure that an update would be helpful.

    As for your running battle with Greg Palast:

    Well, the more the two of you battle, the more the evidence of this issue gets exposure, so as they might say at the BBC: carry on!

  •  correction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buffalo Girl, pico, drational

    Jacksonville has 545,895 registered voters, and these voters are racially identified as 147,179 Black (26.9%), 351,962 White (26.9%), and 16,068 Hispanic (2.9%).  

    Becomes

    Jacksonville has 545,895 registered voters, and these voters are racially identified as 147,179 Black (27.0%), 351,962 White (64.5%), and 16,068 Hispanic (2.9%).

  •  Let's call the Rethugs what they are: traitors n/ (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LesIsMore, drational

    We Changed The Course!

    by hcc in VA on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:42:45 AM PDT

  •  But are you in your pajamas? (n/t) (9+ / 0-)

    What did you do with the cash Joe?

    by roguetrader2000 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:46:10 AM PDT

  •  Is a class action suit pending? (0+ / 0-)

    I guess I keep wondering when the &*(O will hit. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Where are the lawyers?

  •  Excellent research, drational. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jigsaw68, carolita, drational

    You've put so much work into this.  Thank you.

    JAR

    The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at patriotictruthteller.net

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:17:51 AM PDT

  •  Excellent excellent excellent drash (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frisco, AaronBa, Buffalo Girl, drational

    Both in the research, presentation and your integrity. Recommended.

  •  recommended (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronBa, drational

    "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary."-Handmaid's Tale

    by JLFinch on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:15:46 PM PDT

  •  great job, as always (7+ / 0-)

    imagine what you could do if you didn't have to use your sister's computer, and weren't wearing pajamas...

    © 2007 "one must pay back from this secret deposit of exquisite moments" - virginia woolf

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

  •  great work (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronBa, drational

    I expect there will be truly massive vote suppression efforts in 2008, and the DoJ will be backing it 100%.  I expect some creative methods, that will be effective because they will be unanticipated. I can imagine that minority-dominated voting places will be all but shut down by GOP activists/criminals.

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behaviors will not be ignored at Over the line, Smokey!.

    by seesdifferent on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:26:04 PM PDT

  •  wrong about voter 'challenges' (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cho, standingup, corvo, Izzzy

    drational:
    ..and there is no evidence of caging-based challenges in Ohio....

    There were certainly other Election Day issues (especially in Ohio), but voter challenges based on caging lists were apparently not among these.

    Sure, the courts threw out most of the challenges, but how many Ohio voters lost their right to vote??  Also, how many people had to vote provisional because of such lists?  Outragous numbers of provisional ballots were not counted.

    Ohio Republican accusations proved false and will be rejected. Today, the Columbus Post Dispatch reports, "many of the 35,427 challenges the Ohio GOP filed Friday against newly registered voters statewide will be rejected." The Republican accusation was based on returned mail from a computer-generated mailing, which they tried to prove the addresses where invalid, but it turns out the computer program itself was faulty. The GOP has withdrawn all 4,718 challenges filed in Hamilton County and about two-thirds of the 4,219 challenges filed in Franklin County, admitting these were invalid accusations. [Columbus Post Dispatch, 10/25/04]

    And more... http://www.tanasijournal.com/...

    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

      Evidence suggests that any voters flagged by Ohio were flagged because of returned mailings mandated by NVRA, sent by the State of Ohio, to all voters. This is also problematic, but is different than Republican Poll-watchers making challenges at the polls with lists in hand making decisions about who to challenge based on their list and whimsy.  These challenges did not happen in Ohio.  Or Duval.  And there is no fact-based reporting to support claims it happened elsewhere.

      •  ok (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cho, Izzzy

        well rather than lump "challenges" into one statement, there were planned mailing based challenges and I'm not sure if 100% of the GOP challenges filed with 10U or whatever it is where all tossed out.

        The other case is poll location challenges, and I agree except in a few cases, the majority of GOP 'Challengers' did not challenge voters at the polls in 2004.  

  •  I recommended the diary, but... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LesIsMore, corvo, Izzzy

    When I read your diary, it struck me that you were unnecessarily harsh on Greg Palast, presumably because he called you a teenager in pajamas in a previous diary (or something like that).

    I don't have a dog in this fight.  I don't know your or Greg Palast, and I have no reason to read things into your piece that aren't there.  

    •  BTW: This is constructive criticism: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, drational

      What struck me most was the identification of Greg Palast in the bold printed section headers, among other things.

      It would have appeared less personally motivated if you started off with "other reporters", or "prior reports", or some generic term, instead of calling Greg Palast out in bold print.  You could have generalized about prior reports, and then cited Palast as a specific example, instead of making him the direct target of your diary.

      Again, just trying to give constructive criticism.  You don't want your audience thinking a well researched, thorough piece of journalism (which I think it was) is a hit piece (an impression I was sorta left with).

      •  Changed emboldening (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HollywoodOz

        Thanks for comments.

        •  No prob. BTW: Can we compare and contrast (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, FightTheFuture

          caging states with attorney purge scandal states?

          Sorry if its already been mentioned - I'm working and can't keep up with all the comments.  

          You reference "Florida and Ohio.  They were also collected in at least Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania".

          I seem to recall that many, if not all of those states were attorney purge states.  Does that sound about right?

          It would make sense.  First, purge the voter roles, with the assistance of the state U.S. Attorney.  Second, make sure you can't be prosecuted for it because the U.S. attorney is very much an active member of your scheme.  

    •  Sorry you feel I am harsh on him (9+ / 0-)

      I tried to just present the facts here.  Since his claims contrasted with what we found, I felt that reporting the analysis of his claims was reasonable, so that the misconceptions are not perpetuated on Randi Rhoades, JFK Jr. letterhead, Conyers, Kennedy, or Whitehouse letterhead, etc.  And lo and behold, Whitehouse and Kennedy cite claims of African American servicemen disenfranchisement 1 week ago, based, from what I can tell on Palast reporting.  Unfortunately some of his claims cannot be supported by public data and some of them are wrong, like the buffalo soldiers.  I also make it clear in the article my opinion that he was a hero to bring the lists to light and may have influenced non-use of them.  But the danger, and I think people may see this now, is that we base big-time allegations on incorrect information.

      •  Do you mean this one? (0+ / 0-)

        From Vyan's diary, Sens Kennedy, Whitehouse demand investigation
        into "Caging"

        In 2004, BBC News published a report showing that Griffin, the former Rove protege who was placed as a U.S. attorney in Arkansas, led a "caging" scheme to suppress the votes of African-American servicemembers in Florida. In response, Griffin said recently, "I didn’t cage animals, I’m not a zookeeper." Former RNC researcher Monica Goodling, who dismissively characterized "caging" as a "direct-mail term," acknowledged discussing concerns about Griffin’s involvement in caging with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in preparation for his testimony before Congress.

        Let your conscience be your guide.

        by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:56:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Error (0+ / 0-)

          The letter quotes Palast about predominantly Black Neighborhoods, which is also not supported by the analysis.

          In 2004, however, allegations of caging by Republican officials arose again — this time over an effort to suppress votes in Florida. Emails sent in August 2004 by Tim Griffin, then Research Director and Deputy Communications Director of the RNC, demonstrate his knowledge and approval of a spreadsheet listing caged voters in predominantly African American neighborhoods in Jacksonville, Florida. (See attached.)

          Conyers asked about African American Soldiers scrubbed from Voter Rolls in McNulty testimony.

      •  Rove (0+ / 0-)

        misleading on voter fraud to muddy the waters.

  •  Thank you for bringing more facts to the table! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational

    I personally believe that the Republican caging of votes has changed this country.  This is no small matter and I think we need to demand that the corporate media cover this story.

    If all who were eligible and wanted to vote had been allowed to do so since 1982 when the Republican Party was placed under court supervision for the practice, we would have Healthcare For All, No Irag War, George Bush and Dick Cheney would never have headed our government.

    We would have better schools.  There would be more assistance to pay for college.  We would have excellent daycare and care for seniors.  How do I know this?  Because the majority of voters who are caged are minorities.

    These are some of the things that minorities overwhelmingly support that would benefit every American.

    Lets bring democracy, freedom,the right to vote for all citizens and peace to America too!

    by Blogvirgin on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:45:34 PM PDT

  •  Terrific work (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, pico, drational

    This is the finest bit of original research I've seen on this site since I've been here.  

  •  great article!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, drational

    thank you.

    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

    by Einsteinia on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:07:19 PM PDT

  •  Who is Jack Christopher (6+ / 0-)

    I haven't seen too much on this, from the Griffin email: (emp mine)

    From: Tim Griffin
    Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2005 6:01PM
    To: Christopher Guith; Cody Johnson; Blaise Hazelwood; Terry Nelson
    Cc: Shawn Reinschiedt - Research/Communications; Christopher P. McInerney - Research/Communincations
    Subject: RE: Cuyahoga Returned List

    chris mc says like this:

    Jack Christopher and I have already tasked our IT person with creating a match list between BoE's return mail list and the AB request list.  Jack though this would be a good idea to have - to reference as part of the larger DenHerder press strategy.  We should have results of this match later tonight.

    I can't speak to other states, but if they don't have flagged voter rolls, we run the risk of having GOP fingerprints...

    -CM

    This email was brought to the attention of Congress in Dec 2004.  And read from by panelist JUDITH BROWN

    Voting in 2004: A Report to the Nation on America’s Election Process
    Tuesday, December 7, 2004
    Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building

    Could the "DenHerder" strategy be this guy: (I would looks at Direct Impact and PR flacks.)

    IA native Dave DenHerder, who was the campaign's Midwestern political director, is now the COO of Direct Impact, a strategy firm. '08 campaigns have him in their cross-hairs to run political and field programs in the Midwest.

    And here's the bio on COO Dave DenHerder:
    Prior to joining Direct Impact, DenHerder spent 18 months as a regional political director for Bush-Cheney ’04. He was responsible for developing, planning and managing all political and grassroots operations in seven states, including Ohio, West Virginia and Michigan. He also acted as the campaign’s liaison with state political and elected leaders.

       Prior to the campaign, DenHerder was the White House Liaison and Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor. His extensive political and campaign experience includes BC ’00, Illinois Victory 2000, Lightfoot for Governor in 1998 and Lightfoot for Senate in 1996. In addition, he has experience as a staff member on the Hill working for Representatives Leach and Christensen.

    So who the hell is this Jack Christopher and Chris McInerney (chris mc?)!

    Jack Christopher is still the Majority Legal Counsel for Ohio House

    This AP article might help.

    AP - Grand Jury Seeks Records From Householder, Buerck
    Friday, February 25, 2005
    ...
    The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported Friday. Jack Christopher, legal counsel for the House Republican caucus, said paper records, a desktop computer assigned to Buerck, a laptop assigned to Householder and three compact discs have been turned over. Although Buerck worked on at least one state computer, he kept his political work on a laptop purchased by the campaign committee, he said. "I'm very confident that during my service to the state, all rules and regulations were followed," he said. A federal investigation started in March after Householder was targeted by an anonymous memo that accused him and two of his consultants — Buerck and Kyle Sisk — of laundering campaign contributions for personal use. No charges have been filed and Householder, Buerck and Sisk have denied the allegations. But that didn't stop Householder from firing Buerck and Sisk, who also were dropped by several other high-profile GOP candidates after the memo emerged. Householder's attorney, Bill Wilkinson, said the former speaker has not been interviewed by any investigators and continues to maintain his innocence. "He's always welcomed the investigation as the best way to clear his name," Wilkinson said. The Ohio Democratic Party is still offering a reward for "a 1½-inch-thick group of papers, including a downloaded Yahoo calendar, business documents and 10 to 12 handwritten pages on yellow legal pad," that Kyle Sisk claims were "stolen" from the billiards room in his Upper Arlington home in early June. Sisk filed a theft report June 11, about two weeks after receiving a federal subpoena for records pertaining to fund raising he has done for Householder, the Ohio House Republican Campaign Committee and other current and former political clients. Sisk reported nothing else was "stolen" from his home, and reported there were no signs of forced entry. No word on whether the Upper Arlington police checked Sisk's paper shredder.

    Looks like McInerney is a good 'Bushie'
    from Hobart and William Smith Colleges fall 2004 alumni blurb

    For Chris McInerney ’01, joining the political fray was a complete leap of faith. After graduation, McInerney went to work for a mutual fund clearinghouse in New York City, but found that less than fulfilling. So, in April 2003, he gave two weeks notice, forfeited his apartment lease, moved to D.C. and began working as a volunteer intern in for Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Since then, he has secured a full-time position with the RNC and has risen through the ranks.

  •  btw, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational

    who is the man in the photo and where did it come from?

    •  Randall Prausa (5+ / 0-)

      I checked voter roles.  prausa is listed as white.  along with over half of the identifiable names residing at the naval air station on the list.

      I found him online, emailed him, and found his number in public directory in jax and called him.
      I called him and asked him about whether he had any proof he was disenfranchised.  he said he voted and was white and was dumbfounded he would be cited as being black.  voter rolls confirmed his vote by absentee ballot in 2004.  he offered to send picture, and gave written permission to post online, which is what you see.  i also spoke with his wife who spoke with a BBC researcher in 2004.  no one else since.  she said she was never asked whether prausa was white or black, then or ever after til i called.
      people at epluribus called to confirm as part of vetting.
      anyone could have done what i did.

      •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LesIsMore, drational

        I still think your focus on discrediting Palast is destructive and that you could've accomplished more by treating it as an honest mistake, but thank you for clarifying your methods in any case.

        •  Respectfully (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          taylormattd

          I think basing congressional inquiries on erroneous reporting is destructive.  This is so important that these issues would undoubtedly come to light sooner or later.
          Better us here than Tim Griffin under oath on CSpan answering questions about caging Black servicemen that are mostly white.
          You think Republicans can't find this stuff out?

          •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LesIsMore

            with you that erroneous reporting should be corrected.  That's not my beef with you.  I think the factual work you've done is good.  As I keep saying and you keep failing to understand, what I object to is not the questioning or the fact-checking, but your characterizations of Palast as "dangerous", dishonest, not credible, etc.  

            When you question someone's honesty, credibility, and motivations, that's not simply fact-checking or asking questions, that's smearing them.  I think it's wrong and it detracts from your work.

            •  I agree with you Izzzy (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              A Siegel, drational, Izzzy

              When I read drational's diaries, my defense mechanism is already up, because it is usually couched in attack language about Palast. Labelling Palast as "dangerous" in the headline of drational's previous work was a major turn off for me. That said, I think the work here today is very valuable. I only wish that drational would report issues as "inconsistencies" with Palast's work and going beyond his work with further research. Instead drational appears to make judgements that something is incorrect because it can't be verified by publicly available resources. Not verified is different than not true. For instance, drational says here:

              Despite his possible role in helping thwart voter suppression, Mr. Palast's reporting on caging since 2004 contains numerous claims about the GeorgeWBush.org "caging lists" that cannot be confirmed by publicly available evidence:

              The clear implication is that since drational can't verify it, it is erroneous and fabricated for Palast's own purposes.

              I think derational goes a long way here to lower the tension between the pro- and anti-Palast camps and I applaud that...that is great progress.

              Note to the many Greg Palast Fans
              In closing, I'd like to emphasize that this effort was not undertaken with the purpose of discrediting or otherwise damaging Mr. Palast's reputation as an award-winning journalist on many issues important to Democratic principles and justice.  Nor was it intended to minimize the importance of his primacy in bringing the issue of caging to public attention or to discredit the role he may have played in thwarting caging efforts in 2004.  Greg Palast’s focus on the issue of caging indeed may help prevent unethical or illegal voter suppression in future elections- it certainly helped to get me interested in the issues.  However, because efforts to suppress voters by caging are serious and possibly illegal, and because the interest in the caging controversy extends to the highest levels of government, reporting on caging should be restricted to the facts, the truth, and be free of exaggeration or misinformation.

              I only wish that he or she could think of the work as collaborative with Palast's, taking the work further, adding detail, correcting errors, enhancing the meme etc.

              I thought the example of Prausa was great. That's a valid and valuable correction. I think that drational is thinking that the repugs will pick apart this sort of thing and use it against us. True, so it is important to get it right. But, does it do a lot of good to discredit Palast publicly as drational does here at dkos????? I don't think so.

              All drational's great work could be reframed in this way: "I've been fascinated by the work of Greg Palast and others on caging. I've been frustrated to find that much of Palast's work is unverifiable by public sources, so I set out to verify what I could. In the course of this, I found the following inconsistencies and believe Palast to be in error, but the overall issues that are raised by Palast were vastly supported and so I am digging further. I personally don't like Palast's style and find that some of his data and examples are flimsy. I view his work sometimes to be sloppy and I certainly don't want the only information on this vital topic to be sloppy. To remedy this, I have decided to research this subject more fully so that all available evidence can be brought to light. My further, and original research, uncovers X, Y, and Z. While Palast may bring style, BBC clout, and clever investigating techniques, I bring solid research and a band of collaborators to further investigate this serious matter. Our efforts thus far have weeded out some of the errors of the initial reporting as well as expanded upon earlier efforts."

              Once drational stops attacking Palast, he or she can simply refer to past work as "Palast and other reporters investigating caging have concluded..." or something similar. drational's work and that of other collaborators can stand on its own. For instance, if this piece simply stated all of its new findings, I would be have been really impressed. Instead, the focus on Palast to me is publicity hounding in its own right since Palast is a public figure and drational is not.

              drational, if you're reading, and I know you are because you are very thorough, keep up the good work, just drop the Palast rivalry. I look forward to your next piece which will simply pick up where you left off and discuss all the new findings. Perhaps you'll be the next emptywheel with a book on this important subject. Good or bad, you don't need to carry around Palast as your luggage (except to properly cite his work as necessary).

              Izzzy, that maybe more than you bargain for as a response to your comment, but your thoughts triggered mine. Thanks.

              •  I really appreciate your thoughtfulness (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LesIsMore, A Siegel

                My involvement all along has been a focus on USAGate and voter suppression.  I have no personal beef with Palast, the man, just elements of his reporting on caging.  This was really a sidebar of my interest.

                I really tried as best I could to be fair here to him and offer him the respect deserved for a lifetime of committed work, part of which I believe was very important in combatting voter suppression.

                But the fact is that his reporting is THE REPORTING on caging thus far, and there were so many apparent errors, that I felt it necessary to evaluate and document them.  I understand why this is construed as an "attack".  I do not intend to pursue Palast's claims any further.  

                •  Great drational, I'll look forward to reading (0+ / 0-)

                  of your future findings!

                  I appreciate your following through on these issues and I'm sure your work will help further the media and Congressional probing on this matter. I hope when you say you are not pursuing Palast's claims further, you mean that you are still working on caging and voter suppression, just not his specific claims.

                  Thanks,

                  LesIsMore

                  PS: Are you female or male? I feel awkward always referring to Kossacks as "she or he wrote blah, blah, blah." If you have already said which, I missed it or it if you don't want to say, that's okay, too.

                •  keep evaluating Palast's work when relevant (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drational

                  You may already have taken that as far as it needs to be taken. But the notion that you shouldn't say that some of Palast's claims "cannot be confirmed by publicly available evidence," because by "clear implication" that is "attacking Palast," just isn't working for me.

  •  Beware of casuistry (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonmug, A Siegel, drational, Izzzy

    The road to hell paved with ostensibly good intentions.

    We have to be very wary of pedantic and meaningless hair splitting when Republicans are called to task over this.

    I say this with respect to this item from the above:

    Deputy RNC Chairman Maria Cino swore under oath that the RNC "has not been involved in any efforts to suppress voter turnout...."

    Technically, caging does not necessarily suppress voter turnout. A person who is not qualified to cast a vote in a precinct is not, after all, a voter.

    This is the point Republicans will make when they are called to account on this, a crime that is an inexcusable betrayal of American democracy.  They will attempt to distract from their crime by objecting that their intention was to safeguard the integrity of the system.

    We in turn should be ready with two objections of our own.

    First objection: they were fully aware that they were suppressing voter turnout by choosing such sloppy methods.   Reckless disregard for the rights of others does not excuse vote suppression.  It is still a crime.

    Second objection:  the ostenisble purpose of the program makes no difference to its legality.   It doesn't matter how many ways you have to justify your actions, if what you are doing and how you are doing it violates somebody's right to vote, you are commiting a crime.

    Congress was aware when it passed the Voting Rights Act of a long history of ostenisbly "race blind" measures that "just happened" to disenfranchise blacks.   The poll tax was one, which you could get out of if you had an ancestor who was entitled to vote at a historical (pre-emancipation) date.

    It doesn't matter that the poll tax laws do not mention race.  It doesn't matter that there are various justifications that could be argued for them.  The people who passed them knew very well what the effect would be.

    It doesn't matter that the Republican plans do not mention race.  If they carry out caging in a way that disproportionately disenfranchises minorities, it is a crime.

    The Republicans will be over the top with sanctimonious outrage that we question a program with such "good intentions".  This is pure theatrical distraction.  We know what they were doing, and they know we know.  It doesn't matter how wounded they act.  They have committed a crime.

    The crime is worse than drug dealing.  It is worse than theft.  It is worse than espionage. The only crime of comparable seriousness is treason, for it strikes at the very existence of our country as a free and democratic nation.

    We must see that crime clearly, and speak of it clearly.

    I've lost my faith in nihilism

    by grumpynerd on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:32:27 PM PDT

  •  Work marred by anti-Palast attacks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LesIsMore, corvo

    Okay, Drational, you've now done work to provide more evidence of caging by the Republicans.  However, to my mind, this work is seriously marred by your anti-Palast attacks.

    To start with, you write "After contributing to cause a fracas based on an initial review of Greg Palast's reporting..."  Is this a fair and accurate statement of the situation?  In reality, you wrote a diary accusing Palast of being dishonest, based upon what even you now admit was incomplete investigation.  That is not "contributing", that is out-and-out causing.

    Then, more seriously, you write that Mr. Prausa voted in the 2004 election, as if this was evidence that Palast was wrong.  However, as anyone familiar with this story would know, Greg Palast broke the story BEFORE the election, and Republican officials were questioned about it.  So, of course Mr. Prausa's vote wasn't challenged afterward.  You claim to be investigating the caging lists, how come you didn't know when Palast broke the story?

    You still seemed to be fixated on that one graphic, which is unreadable in the book, despite the fact that as you've been told several times already, the most likely explanation is that the graphic artist missorted the "E" column alone.  

    Even though your work actually backs up Palast's work, you still make insinuations against him.  And, if you can't even get basic facts about when Palast broke the story correct, why should we believe you?

    •  Palast broke the story in 2004. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd, jigsaw68, HollywoodOz, HiBob

      But he did not report Prausa as black until Armed Madhouse first draft, as far as I can gather.  And he wrote this 7 days ago:

      So here’s a hanky, Mr. Griffin. This unnamable reporter would rather you save your tears for Randall Prausa. The African-American soldier was on active military duty when he ended up on one of your caging lists, what you term a suspected ‘fraudulent’ voter subject to GOP challenge because he was not home to get his fraudulent, ‘Welcome, voter,’ letter from the GOP.

      There has been ample time for his researchers to follow up to make sure he was on track with his original reporting.  How did he figure Prausa was Black?  An important question would be whether anyone caged was actually prevented from voting, which I have not actually seen him pursue.  I have never seen him report that the elections were not stolen because of his involvement, which is what I strongly suggest here.  Do you not see that I think his reporting was critically important in that regard?

      And no where in this piece do I say anything about the graphic sorting issue.
      I say there is a list of 50 servicemen at Naval Air Station on the list, exactly as he describes.  43 are identifiable on the voter rolls from the ORIGINAL list, not Palast's missorted list.  23 out of 43 are white.  Yet Palast calls them Buffalo Soldiers.  Either he was mistaken somehow or he did not check voter rolls to get their identity, or what?

      •  Strange claims (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LesIsMore, corvo

        So, you are saying that even though the Republicans were asked to explain the caging lists before the election, they continued to use them, except for the people that Greg Palast explicitly mentioned by name?  I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.  Can you prove that the caging lists were used at any of the polling stations?

        How did he figure Prausa was Black?

        Well, he talked to his wife.  Why do you think it is so mysterious, then, that he knew Prausa's race?

        An important question would be whether anyone caged was actually prevented from voting, which I have not actually seen him pursue.  

        As I already pointed out to you, he broke the story BEFORE the election.  Again, do you think the Republicans would use those lists after being questioned about them, and with the Democrats already aware of them?

        And no where in this piece do I say anything about the graphic sorting issue.

        But you link to that graphic.  I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your claims.

        Either he was mistaken somehow or he did not check voter rolls to get their identity, or what?

        As you know, he said that his assistants called people on the lists.  Why do you say "or what"?

        And, by the way, there is a large difference between  disproving a claim, and not having enough evidence to prove it.  You keep saying that Palast's statements "cannot be confirmed by publicly available evidence", which is hardly a disproof of it.  Have you really obtained ALL "publically available evidence"? This is an insinuation, especially since you know he said that people were called as part of his fact-finding.

        Yes, you did a lot of work here digging up facts.  However, it looks to me like you had an anti-Palast angle, which is certainly marring your piece.

        •  the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly

          Well, he talked to his wife.  Why do you think it is so mysterious, then, that he knew Prausa's race?

          the point is that he didn't know Prausa's race: Prausa is white, not black as Palast claimed.

          Quick! Man the Blogs!

          by HiBob on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:45:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Prausa's race (0+ / 0-)

            Well, Drational says that Prausa is white, Palast says he's black.  Hours ago I asked Drational for his evidence of this, and where he got the picture from, and he hasn't responded yet.

            So, it seems that that is up in the air.  

            •  how did drational not respond? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HiBob

              here.

              What is it that you think is up in the air?

              •  responding (0+ / 0-)

                I sent him email asking, almost thirty minutes before the post you link to. He never responded to the email, and I didn't spot that particular post.

                Okay, so it seems Palast was wrong about Prausa's race.  Let us not lose track though, that the main point of his report was that the Republicans put on caging lists voters from largely minority districts who were on military duty.

                Notice, though, that Drational is still is having some strange misconceptions about the events surrounding the caging lists.  He asked Prausa whether he had any proof that he was disenfranchised, which is crazy!  Nobody is claiming that Prausa was disenfranchised, because Palast broke the caging list story BEFORE the election, so the Republicans weren't able to use it.

                So, yes, Palast was wrong about this minor point.  And so is Drational.  I'm sorry, but it seems to me that Drational is more interested in fighting with Palast, than getting the facts straight.

                •  One suggestion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drational

                  Palast could have requested the same information from the Duval County Election office and run an analysis on the caging list.  He did break the story in 2004 but why hasn't he gone further to check the the caging list against the information on the voter rolls that would have provided factual information?    

                •  I got the email just now. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bronxdem

                  I forwarded you one of his email responses to me sans his personal info.  You can get to the same place I started using Google.  You can find his phone number, current address and military info in 5 minutes.

                  From the Duval County Voter Rolls
                  Prausa, Randall
                  Voter ID:103669412
                  Registration Date:07/23/2004
                  Party: Rep
                  Race: 5 (White)
                  Vote History:  2004 General election:  A (Absentee)
                  2006 General election: N (No vote cast)

                •  You're really grasping at straws now, eh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bronxdem

                  Well, Drational says that Prausa is white, Palast says he's black.  Hours ago I asked Drational for his evidence of this, and where he got the picture from, and he hasn't responded yet.

                  So, it seems that that is up in the air.  

                  So beceause he didn't respond to your email even though he repsonded right here where we all can see it that means he didn't respond?

                  And the picture is what, fake?

                  So, yes, Palast was wrong about this minor point.  And so is Drational.  I'm sorry, but it seems to me that Drational is more interested in fighting with Palast, than getting the facts straight.

                  Who's interested in fighting? lol.

                  •  Can't edit posts. (0+ / 0-)

                    So beceause he didn't respond to your email even though he repsonded right here where we all can see it that means he didn't respond?

                    No, all it means is that we can't edit posts after they are written.  At the time I wrote that, I hadn't got any response to my email, and hadn't found Drational's post in the maze of little twisties.  Nothing worth making a federal case of!

                •  Imagine the hearing if drational hadn't done this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drational

                  Everyone pushing Conyers etc. to have hearings on the basis of Armed Madhouse. Finally they happen. Palast testifying. The first republican gets to ask a question.

                  Every democrat and voting rights advocate etc. looks idiotic.

    •  Dude, look past your hero colored glasses. (6+ / 0-)

      Palast got it wrong. Drational corrected it.

      That's how the reality-based community does things - we vet our heroes AND the villains so that we're dealing in truth, not blather.

      Palast would be well-served to give Drational a hat tip and change his own statements, now that we can see some are based on false assumptions.

      Fool me once, I'll punch you in the fucking head.

      by HollywoodOz on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:24:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep (8+ / 0-)

        and he would also be well served to apologize for his ridiculous "pajamas" diary.

      •  Vetting of Drational (0+ / 0-)

        Okay, I agree that vetting of Palast is okay (but not personal attacks, or insinuations -- let's leave those to the Republicans).  But somehow you seem to think that Drational is beyond vetting.  Why?  There seems to be a large double-standard here, where Drational is allowed to make insinuations, instead of basing statements on facts, and is immune to criticism.

        •  You're not vetting him. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BentLiberal

          You're saying because he says something about Palast, his facts aren't facts.

          And yet, there they are, all facty n'stuff.

          Fool me once, I'll punch you in the fucking head.

          by HollywoodOz on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:08:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Am too! *smile* (0+ / 0-)

            You're saying because he says something about Palast, his facts aren't facts.

            Go back and read my comment, which started this whole chain.  Did I say anything at all like that?  Nope.

            Let's go back over the initial post:
            I said, and still believe, that although Drational has done some good work here, it is marred by an anti-Palast bent.  I provided two examples of this bias.  Firstly, his describing his initial diary as just "contributing" to a fracas instead of starting it.  Secondly, and most importantly, he wrote that Prausa voted in the 2004 election, as if that disproved Palast in some way. In truth, as anyone who had been following this matter knows, this is not the case -- Palast prevented the caging lists from being used when he broke the news story.

            More generally, I observe that Drational makes insinuations, as if his inability to prove a statement of Palast is a indictment of Palast.

            So, where am I saying "You're saying because he says something about Palast, his facts aren't facts."?

            No, I'm saying that, instead of focusing attention on the voting issue, he seems to be focusing on Palast, instead.  And, furthermore, his credibility is damaged when he makes statements implying that Mr. Prausa voted in the 2004 election is somehow a disproof of Palast, when it is clear that it is no such thing.

        •  I am not beyond vetting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bronxdem, A Siegel

          I said I would make any and all research publicly available.
          gotta sleep here and there.
          ePluribusmedia fact checkers evaluated every single analysis I did for the ePluribus articles, including calling Prausa.

          I sent you info on how to find Prausa and posted his voter info above.  There are 2 Prausas registered to vote in Duval. Randall and his wife.   I provided his voter ID above.  No one named Prausa was removed from Florida voter rolls since 1/04.  This Randall Prausa lived at the address on the caging list.  Not sure how to remove your lingering belief that there is another Black Randall Prausa from Jacksonville, who lived at 1069 Valley Forge Ct in Atlantic Beach, FL in 2004, and who was deployed to the Arabian Gulf in 2004.

    •  No excuse for sloppy reporting (6+ / 0-)

      Sorry, simple fact checking is one of the things we should expect of reporters and editors.

      IMHO, what happened is that Palast let a good solid story in 2004 gradually grow and grow until he had his claims of 10s of thousands of people caged. I've heard him interviewed a lot on AAR, and he clearly enjoys the attention and wants to sell books by being funny and charming and a bit of an ego maniac as part of his schtick. Well, he talked himself into a mistake by thinking that if 1800 was a good number 18000 would be a better one.

  •  Do we need a third Amendment on voting rights? (0+ / 0-)

    The 15th Amendment guaranteeing minorities the right to vote (after the 14th outlawed slavery) in 1870 and the 24th Amendment outlawing poll tax in 1964 were necessary to prevent just the kind of racist misuse of basic American rights that you are detailing.  Both were passed over the major objections of conservatives during times of liberal ascendency.

    Conservatives are in power now, much like they were pre-Civil War and pre-Civil Rights.  Now that the tide is turning, perhaps a liberal ascendency requires more action so we don't repeat the resolute mistakes of right.  Does the country need a third Constitutional Amendment on Voting Rights?

    "What doesn't have credibility today is the truth." -- Bill Moyers, The Daily Show 6/22/05

    by Baron Dave on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:25:24 PM PDT

  •  Damm good. Less emotion is better. Daylight. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronxdem, HiBob, drational

    I am always astounded at the honesty and self-examination of folks like the author.  I must confess, I'm from the old school where exaggeration was taken for granted.  Your way is much better and takes a lot of work.  Thanks.

  •  Incredible job. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    standingup, bronxdem, drational

    You must be a real journalist. This is worthy of and should be given wide distribution.

    You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. - Lee Iacocca

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:10:53 PM PDT

  •  Question: Does caging = mailfraud? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LesIsMore
  •  Can you publish this in a MSM (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational
  •  So who / where ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronxdem, drational

    is taking action on this?

    Should the local Democratic Party committees sue the RNC?

    Should their be class action by those targeted, "caged" out of a vote, who were legitimate voters?

    What is the next step?

    Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

    by A Siegel on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:45:47 AM PDT

  •  Read the whole article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational

    I hope people will read the full article atepluribusmedia.

    While the Palast issue is an interesting sidelight, the  real dynamite is the discovery of the memo by Christopher Guith.

  •  It Wasn't Just Duval (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational

    The caging letters were going out around central Florida as well.  A number of the letters we brought in to various Kerry-Edwards HQs by folks that happened to get their mail.

    Although the Jax stuff was exposed, you can rest assured it was going on throughout Florida.

    The (form) letters themselves said that the GOP had records indicating that the addressee had been registered as a Republican, and they wanted to confirm that (s)he was still a registered Republican.

    Nice.

Meteor Blades, N in Seattle, Bob Johnson, Florida Politics, nick danger, bink, Frank, DavidW in SF, Ducktape, pb, Mogolori, tankej, DC Pol Sci, taylormattd, eleming, Sparhawk, Barbara, Thom K in LA, lipris, timber, Pen, Nina Katarina, Unstable Isotope, ScientistMom in NY, BigOkie, Winger, Bob Love, Robespierrette, Emerson, dengre, tommurphy, rincewind, m maddog, Xan, democat, GayHillbilly, Troutfishing, eeff, Duncan Idaho, freelunch, Woody, WI Deadhead, frisco, drobnox, Joe B, Ahianne, Plays in Traffic, bumblebums, mataliandy, exNYinTX, Poika, Creosote, mldostert, strengthANDwisdom, Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal, memberofthejury, JLFinch, Eternal Hope, RubDMC, eyeswideopen, NoisyGong, MC in NY, JLongs, Einsteinia, leveymg, annrose, pucklady, whenwego, Baldwiny, HippyWitch, jenifera, MisterOpus1, RobLewis, roses, samddobermann, amberglow, Ignacio Magaloni, cognitive dissonance, jukeboxgrad, standingup, bincbom, jigsaw68, BruinKid, Spindizzy, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, wonmug, ctsteve, rioduran, bewert, high uintas, Alna Dem, Cixelsyd, nitetalker, Tomtech, mayan, hhex65, Dallasdoc, astrodud, pat bunny, bogdanmi, Tracker, MTgirl, Rageaholic, susie dow, TXsharon, hoolia, churchylafemme, NYFM, niteskolar, DSC on the Plateau, joan reports, 42, cat chew, Catte Nappe, The Termite, rlharry, beachmom, Cliff Talus, RebeccaG, sommervr, 313to212, Dood Abides, Rxtr2, walkshills, count, mungley, kfred, Lefty Mama, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Mike Erwin, bronxdem, kd texan, AaronBa, avahome, bibble, thereisnospoon, faithfull, Limelite, roxy317, greeseyparrot, cohe, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Jersey Joe, memophage, Tirge Caps, julifolo, rapala, vcmvo2, Fabian, chumley, farleftcoast, Tinfoil Hat, jrooth, DianeNYS, jhancock, Ckntfld, T Rex, el dorado gal, m16eib, munky, LarisaW, newfie, HudsonValleyMark, InExile, OpherGopher, sc kitty, andgarden, sap, dantes, frandor55, Sinister Rae, zbctj52, i m bobo, mmcole, Ranting Roland, Laurence Lewis, ratzo, boofdah, eru, Chaoslillith, mojo workin, Frank Palmer, pasadena beggar, washingtonsmith, jimreyn, Buffalo Girl, dunderhead, GreyHawk, annefrank, MoronMike, bmaples, RickE, mswsm, HiBob, NewCon06, Shotput8, paddykraska, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, Silence is Complicity, desordre remplir, Lisa Lockwood, sbdenmon, deepsouthdoug, LithiumCola, sillia, dsteffen, Ghost of Frank Zappa, Brian B, Team Slacker, Ekaterin, hcc in VA, empathy, Dania Audax, Land of Enchantment, Eloi Scientist, fhcec, Over the Edge, CCSDem, SSMir, AceDeuceLady, dus7, pico, Major Danby, trashablanca, buddabelly, danmac, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, highfive, vigilant meerkat, Crestingwave, BlueInARedState, Themistoclea, Ellicatt, Dvalkure, buhdydharma, KenBee, Ohio 2nd, Naniboujou, Wary, carolita, KDANTEATER, sailmaker, kck, play jurist, sullynyc, MJ via Chicago, JCWilmore, erratic, A Siegel, Lashe, M Loutre, vickie feminist, taraka das, condoleaser, CTLiberal, Preston S, gabriella, Dinclusin, TayTay, minnesota max, JugOPunch, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, Stripe, MarketTrustee, creekobear, kurt, NYPopulist, MadMs, kurious, Snarcalita, Friend of the court, Temmoku, sasher, Aaa T Tudeattack, DBunn, AmericanRiverCanyon, DrSteveB, out of left field, The Other Steve, anue, donnamarie, Cronesense, peagreen, Loudoun County Dem, dmh44, ricsec7, kath25, greenchiledem, ezdidit, AppleP, DWG, james risser, Uwaine, dconrad, NoMoJoe, ubertar, vbdietz, blueisland, jhop7, gchaucer2, PrgrsvArchitect, madgranny, keikekaze, feelingsickinMN, nuketeacher, zenobia, MKinTN, fayeforcure, skymutt, aztecraingod, Kronos Blue, wayoutinthestix, zerone, xicara, Involuntary Exile, Mother of Zeus, Lujane, kN3eLb4Z0d, Runs With Scissors, IceJustIce, PJ Jefferson, vanyel, dantyrant, media whores, Tropical Depression

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site