Vote caging: A story to watch

[mburbank]

Monica Goodling mentioned it in testimony.

Senators didn't focus on it much, beyond one admitting she didn't know what it was, and Monica's vague non explanation of the term was accepted.

Vote caging is an illegal method of knocking the poor off voter registration roles by sending them registered mail at places the mailer is pretty sure they won't be. Last addreses of homless people, home addresses of college student, and soldiers residences.

Several blogs, including RFJ Jr's and a BBC guy who's specialty is voting made noise, but today Dahlia Lithwick at slate picked up the ball, making her the first main stream meadia journalist to shine some light on the issue. (I think we're into the internte age enough to call Slate MSM)

How and to what degree was the Justice Department involved in vote cageing? Why has it become neccesary for the very screamy and often untrustworthyt and easily ignorable 'blogosphere' to get main stream journalists to be anything more than stenographers?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I heard something about this on Air America (God help me) about two weeks ago...

Now, having unfortunately worked in direct mail, I know that caging is a pretty common term. So if they have Rove or somebody simply referring to "caging," then it isn't necessarily anything illegal. I probably used that word five times a day, it's a reference to sorting and purging lists.

But I know Greg Palast claims to have e-mail evidence of some nefarious "caging," so we'll see.

Damn me, I leave direct mail just when a word gets sexy!

[mburbank]

Yeah, it's a question of what the used the 'caged' list to purge. It's (I gather, and you know WAY more about this then I do) That caged kists are generally used to purge the original mail list itself, so you don't send more mail to folks who won't get it. The accusation is that the 'caged' list was then used to purge the registered voter list, which is quite illegal.

And if Greg Palast has proof, why isn't the NYT, CNN, etc. asking to see it? Which now that Lithwick mentioned it, they might.

For me, it's all about the stenography mentality the Main stream media has fallen to. They say 'cow', we print "A presidential spokeperson on conditions of anonimity said 'cow' " Where's the damn digging? Where's the damn fact checking and background?

And I hasten to say, should Hillary Clinton be our next president, I would want media to dig just as deeply if not deeper. The job of the press should make be to make it as hard as possible for the administration to say 'Cow' and get it out as a message without a thorough analysis of what 'cow' means, if there's any 'cow' there at all and who pays the 'cow's salary.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

And if Greg Palast has proof, why isn't the NYT, CNN, etc. asking to see it? Which now that Lithwick mentioned it, they might.

He was apparently sitting on the emails until he met with John Conyers, which he did this week...

[kahljorn]

I haven't received information about voting for two-three years now, despite registering on more than one occasion.

[Perndog]

I've thrown away my voting registration information for four years now because I hate democracy. I wish I, as a young person of relatively low income, were subject to vote caging so I'd get less mail.

[mburbank]

Yesterday...


June 18, 2007 Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
We write to request that the Department of Justice promptly investigate allegations that the Republican National Committee engaged in "vote caging" during the 2004 elections. We also ask that you investigate whether any Department officials were aware of allegations that Tim Griffin had engaged in caging when he was appointed United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and whether appropriate action was taken. Caging is a reprehensible voter suppression tactic, and it may also violate federal law and the terms of applicable judicially enforceable consent decrees.
Caging is a voter suppression tactic whereby a political campaign sends mail marked "do not forward" to a targeted group of eligible voters. A more aggressive version involves sending mail to a targeted group of voters with instructions to sign and return an acknowledgment card. The campaign then creates a list of those whose mail was returned undelivered and challenges the right of those citizens to vote - on the ground that the voter does not live at the registered address. There are many reasons why registered mail might be "returned to sender" that have nothing to do with a voter's eligibility. A voter might be an active member of the armed forces and stationed far from home, or a student registered at his parents' address. Even a typographical error during entry of the voter's registration information might result in an address that appears invalid.
The Republican Party has a long and ignominious record of caging - much of it focused on the African American community. For example, in 1981 the RNC sent a mass mailing into predominantly African American neighborhoods in New Jersey and used the resulting 45,000 letters marked "undeliverable" to challenge those voters' eligibility. In 1986, the RNC used similar tactics in an effort to disenfranchise roughly 31,000 voters, most of them African American, in Louisiana. These tactics led to litigation and the RNC's eventual signing of two consent decrees, still in effect, which bar the RNC from using "ballot security" programs ostensibly intended to prevent voter fraud as a tactic to target minority voters.
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.) Two years later, Mr. Griffin was appointed, without Senate confirmation, as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Such actions appear plainly to violate the consent decrees signed by the RNC in 1981 and 1986. We ask that you investigate whether in these circumstances Mr. Griffin or others may also have violated the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the mail fraud statute, or any other federal statute.
It also appears that high-ranking officials in the Department knew of Mr. Griffin's involvement in caging. Monica Goodling recently testified to the House Judiciary Committee that she discussed concerns about Mr. Griffin's involvement in caging with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty during a session to prepare for Mr. McNulty's Congressional testimony. It is very disturbing to think that Department officials may have approved the appointment of a United States Attorney knowing that he had engaged in racially targeted vote caging.
Moreover, it is very disturbing to think that senior officials were aware of this practice and did nothing to refer their information to relevant officials within the Department for investigation and a determination as to whether it was a violation of a consent decree or law within the Department's jurisdiction to enforce.
We, therefore, ask the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility to conduct an investigation to determine who in DOJ knew about Mr. Griffin's potentially unlawful activity before he was named interim U.S. Attorney, and whether appropriate action was taken on that knowledge, and to recommend whatever action is appropriate.
At a time when the Department's political independence and its commitment to enforcement of civil rights statutes have been called into doubt, it is vitally important that the Department thoroughly investigate these allegations of unlawful voter suppression, and the apparent failure of Department employees to forward to the appropriate authorities information they had about this practice.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senator
cc:
Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General
Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General
H. Marshall Jarrett, Director, Office of Professional Responsibility