I doubt Tommy made it through college
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
Apparently, whoever Tommy cut, pasted and plagerized the opening comments from, is not familiar with that old Progressive game called, "College Students' Dual Registration Fun & Games":A case of duplicate voter registration?
Scott Thistle, Regional EditorMaine |Friday, July 29, 2011LEWISTON — Brendan O'Brien, former chairman of the Maine College Republicans, believes that plenty of students from away vote in Maine while living and attending college here.
"I'm not sure this is right and I'm not saying I fully support it, but a lot of college students do it," O'Brien said.
O'Brien, who is from Mont Vernon, N.H., graduated from Bates College in May. At the tail end of his junior year in 2010, he ran for elective office in the Maine primary, seeking the District 73 seat representing Lewiston in the House of Representatives.
O'Brien's experience shows how the transient college population can get caught up in choosing where to vote. According to Lewiston city records, O'Brien registered as a Republican in June 2009 and voted that year in Lewiston. He remains on the city's active voter list but, on Thursday, said he now lives in Greene and will soon be moving to southern Maine to attend law school.
"The way that people live now," O'Brien said, "it's very hard to say what your residency specifically is."
He may also be registered to vote in New Hampshire, where he voted last November because he wanted to be among the Granite State residents casting votes for William O'Brien, who is Brendan O'Brien's father. The elder O'Brien serves as speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
While he registered in both places, O'Brien said he never voted in both places "at the same time." He did say, though, that he cast his vote in the town where he thought it would have the most impact. In November, that was New Hampshire. Before that, it was Maine.
Out-of-state students claiming residency in Maine for purposes of voting, even though they are not recognized as residents for purposes of tuition at public schools, has Maine Republican Committee Chairman Charlie Webster claiming voter fraud is highly likely among college students.
On Tuesday, Webster handed a list of 206 names of out-of-state University of Maine System students who are registered to vote in Maine to the Secretary of State's Office for investigation of possible voter fraud.
The request for an investigation is part of Webster's campaign against an effort to repeal a new law eliminating Maine's same-day voter registration. Specifically, Webster said students are violating state law by being registered to vote in two places at the same time.
O'Brien could be registered in two places. He's aware that's not legal, but said the dual registration was not purposeful.
When he registered to vote in New Hampshire for November's election, New Hampshire election officials should have reported that registration to officials in Lewiston so they could take his name off the voter rolls here. But as of Thursday, that had not happened. It may be that his hometown or the state has not forwarded his new voter registration information to Maine, city voting officials said, even though it's been more than seven months since O'Brien completed the paperwork.
And while O'Brien registered and voted in New Hampshire last year, he said he is unlikely to vote there any time in the near future because he considers Maine his home.
"There's no question about it," he said, "my residency is in Maine."
O'Brien said he doesn't agree with Webster's campaign targeting college voters.
"I don't have strong feelings that there is that much voter fraud going on in that regard," O'Brien said. "I don't see why it should be an issue in Maine. I think there are bigger issues for the party to focus on."
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Voter Suppression 2012 - Right Wing/Tea Party Conservatives say You
will not vote if Black, Old, Young, or Democrat
In Texas, the Voter ID law (which, fortunately, got tossed out by the
Federal court) specifically was going to outlaw the use of out-of-state
drivers
licenses (even though government-issued, with a photo, signature, birthdate
and
name) as an adequate ID for establishing identity.
The law was intended, of course, to disenfranchise (among others)
out-of-state
students... who commonly move from one dorm room or apartment to another
once or
twice every year, so usually just maintain their drivers license at their
more
stable parents' address until they finish college and set up their own
homes.
Meanwhile, of course, they will be at college both for the main elections in
November, and for the spring elections... since they live on campus for 9 or
10
months of the year, it makes sense for them to register and vote on campus.
The
Texas law specifically allowed only a TEXAS-issued drivers license.
One could go on and on, but the more you look at these lame voter photo ID
laws,
the more obvious it is that the intention has nothing to do with preventing
"voter fraud" and everything to do with voter suppression.
(And here in Texas, we have some two-thirds of a million registered voters
who
do not have Texas drivers licenses.)
Seniors, Black & college kids not welcome to vote! The only way the
right
wing/republicans/tea baggers can win is to cheat.
Voter Suppression 101
How Conservatives (tea baggers, Rabid republicans) Are Conspiring to
Disenfranchise Millions of Americans
Conservative legislators are introducing and passing legislation that
creates
new barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
period,
imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs the
Electoral
College in select states.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/voter_suppression.html
The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
barriers
for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting period, imposes new
requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs the Electoral College
in
select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons to enact these laws—voter
fraud
is exceedingly rare
<http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf>—in their
efforts
to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups, such as
college
students, low-income voters, and minorities, as possible. Rather than
modernizing our democracy to ensure that all citizens have access to the
ballot
box, these laws hinder voting rights in a manner not seen since the era of
Jim
Crow laws enacted in the South to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction
in
the late 1800s.
Talk about turning back the clock! At its best, America has utilized the
federal
legislative process to augment voting rights. Constitutional amendments such
as
the 12th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th have steadily improved the
system by which our elections take place while expanding the pool of
Americans
eligible to participate. Yet in 2011, more than 30 state legislatures
considered
legislation to make it harder for citizens to vote, with over a dozen of
those
states succeeding in passing these bills. Anti-voting legislation appears to
be
continuing unabated so far in 2012.
Unfortunately, the rapid spread of these proposals in states as different as
Florida and Wisconsin is not occurring by accident. Instead, many of these
laws
are being drafted and spread through corporate-backed entities such as the
American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, as uncovered in a previous
Center for American Progress investigative report
<http://campusprogress.org/articles/conservative_corporate_advocacy_group_alec_behind_voter_disenfranchise/>.
Detailed in that report, ALEC charges corporations such as Koch Industries
Inc.,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and The Coca-Cola Co. a fee and gives them access to
members of state legislatures. Under ALEC's auspices, legislators, corporate
representatives, and ALEC officials work together to draft model
legislation. As
ALEC spokesperson Michael Bowman told NPR
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130891396>, this
system is
especially effective because "you have legislators who will ask questions
much
more freely at our meetings because they are not under the eyes of the
press,
the eyes of the voters."
The investigative report included for the first time a leaked copy of ALEC's
model Voter ID legislation, which was approved by the ALEC board of
directors in
late 2009. This model legislation prohibited certain forms of
identification,
such as student IDs, and has been cited as the legislative model from groups
ranging from Tea Party organizations to legislators proposing the actual
legislation such as Wisconsin's Voter ID proposal from Republican state Rep.
Stone and Republican state Sen. Joe Leibham.
Registering the poor "to vote is like handing out burglary tools to
criminals."
-Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum
Similar legislation had been proposed during the early 2000s in states such
as
Missouri, but the legislation frequently failed to be passed. Seeking new
avenues, the George W. Bush administration prioritized the conviction of
voter
fraud to the point where two U.S. attorneys were allegedly fired in 2004 for
failing to pursue electoral fraud cases at the level required by
then-Attorney
General John Ashcroft. In fact, three years after first prioritizing
election
fraud in 2002, Ashcroft's efforts had produced only 95 defendants charged
with
election-fraud, compared to 80,424 criminal cases concluded in a given year.
These efforts were dismal in terms of effectiveness and convictions, but
news
reports from 2007 pointed out that simply "pursuing an investigation can be
just
as effective as a conviction in providing that ammunition and creating an
impression with the public that some sort of electoral reform is necessary."
With this groundwork laid, ALEC today is spearheading these efforts anew.
These
new antivoting laws are being challenged legally by a variety of nonpartisan
organizations ranging from Rock the Vote to the League of Women Voters to
the
Public Interest Research Group. Additionally, the Department of Justice is
reviewing some of the new state laws for possible violations of the Voting
Rights Act, which freezes changes in election practices or procedures in
nine
southern states due to their history of voter suppression in the past.
This issue brief focuses on both the current status of various antivoter
measures throughout our country as well as the legal challenges they face.
Readers will learn how conservatives want to return to past practices of
voter
suppression to preserve their political power, and looks at several
instances
where progressives are fighting back successfully.
Registration restrictions
Let's begin with voter registration restrictions. In a handful of states,
legislators aren't just making it more difficult to vote; they're making it
more
difficult for citizens even to register in the first place. Lawmakers in
half a
dozen states made a variety of changes to the registration process in 2011.
These include limiting when citizens can register, restricting who is
permitted
to help them, and implementing tougher bureaucratic requirements to
register.
Nowhere has the war on registration been more controversial than the state
of
Maine. Since 1973, Mainers have been permitted to register to vote at the
ballot
box. For nearly 40 years, the system worked smoothly—separate lines for
registering and voting are used to prevent congestion—and just two instances
of
voter fraud were found in the entire span.
Nevertheless, when an unusually conservative group of lawmakers took over
both
statehouse chambers and the governorship in 2010, one of their primary
orders of
business was to repeal the state's law permitting citizens to register on
Election Day. Fortunately, in the ensuing weeks citizens of the state
rallied to
collect tens of thousands of signatures and force a vote on the matter. In
November 2011, 61 percent of Mainers rebuked the legislature and voted to
restore Election Day registration in their state.
"I don't want everybody to vote."
-Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Alas, voting rights proponents in other states have not been as successful.
In
Florida and Texas, for example, lawmakers succeeded in placing onerous new
restrictions on nonprofit organizations that help register new voters. Voter
registration drives by groups such as the League of Women Voters have been a
staple of our democracy for years, helping thousands of citizens to
register,
regardless of their political affiliation.
In the Sunshine State, however, those may now be a thing of the past. Last
July,
the League of Women Voters announced it would no longer operate in Florida
because of new antivoter legislation—including complicated new filing
requirements and a mandate to submit completed registration forms within 48
hours of completion or face a hefty fine—made it nearly impossible for them
to
continue their work.
The Lone Star State also placed unnecessary new requirements on groups and
individuals interested in helping register others. Texas lawmakers in May
passed
legislation requiring that people who help register voters, known as
volunteer
deputy registrars, must also be eligible Texas voters themselves. The new
law
has a number of unintended consequences. For instance, legal permanent
residents
who are in the process of obtaining their citizenship would be barred from
learning the political process by helping register others. Many such
immigrants
are currently employed as deputy registrars; this new law would likely
result in
their firing.
What's more, disabled Texans who are considered full guardians of the state
and
ineligible to vote would be shut out as well. One disabled gentleman had
carried
voter registration forms in his wheelchair for years, eager to register
others
for a democratic process he himself could not participate in. Under the new
law,
it would be illegal for him to continue registering new voters. As of
February
2012, Texas's new law remains not in effect while the Justice Department
determines whether it complies with the Voting Rights Act.
Kansas, Alabama, and Tennessee took a slightly different route, augmenting
the
required documentation necessary to register to vote. Each passed laws
requiring
residents to prove their citizenship before registering, either by
presenting a
birth certificate or passport. Less than a third of Americans currently own
a
passport, and citizens who don't have access to their birth certificate
would be
forced to pay for one in order to vote—an almost certain violation of the
24th
Amendment's ban on poll taxes. The problem is not small; at least 7 percent
of
Americans don't have easy access to a birth certificate or similar
citizenship
document.
Arizona and Georgia also passed similar legislation prior to 2011. The
Justice
Department is currently reviewing Georgia and Alabama's changes for
compliance
with the Voting Rights Act, and Arizona's law is being challenged in the
Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Residency restrictions
Another avenue where conservatives are proposing to limit voting rights is
tightening the residency requirements. The intended effect of these measures
is
to make it difficult, if not impossible, for out-of-state college students
to
vote where they attend school.
In Maine, young voters are being targeted even more brazenly. In September
2011 Maine's secretary of state sent a threatening letter to hundreds of
college
students who were legally registered to vote in the state, implying that
many of
them were in violation of election law and suggesting they correct this by
unregistering in Maine. The list of college students targeted for this
letter
came directly from the Maine Republican Party Chairman, underscoring just
how
partisan the voter suppression effort in Maine has become. New Hampshire is
now
considering stricter residency requirements for Granite State voters as
well.
All of this is especially surprising given the Supreme Court's decision in
/Symm
v. United States/, where it upheld a lower court decision establishing that
states cannot place obstacles unique to college students between those
students
and their right to vote.
Limiting early voting
Following widespread voting problems in the 2000 election that had nothing
to do
with voter fraud—from extraordinarily long lines to hanging chads—many
states
moved to ease the burden on clerks and citizens by allowing people to vote
prior
to Election Day. Ohio and Florida were the epicenter of these problems, and
both
states moved to prevent similar problems in the future by allowing early
voting.
early voting in florida
Among conservatives, then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was a major proponent of
such
reforms, calling them a "wonderful" way to "provide access to the polls." As
a
result, over half of Sunshine State voters cast their ballot before Election
Day
in 2008.
Yet three years later, lawmakers in the state moved to limit the
availability of
early voting. In Florida voters had previously been permitted two weeks of
early
voting prior to the election; lawmakers rolled that back to eight days. Ohio
lawmakers went even further, reducing the state's early voting period from
35
days to just 11. Ari Berman also notes in Rolling Stone that "both states
banned
voting on the Sunday before the election—a day when black churches
historically
mobilize their constituents."
Other states have successfully rolled back their early voting periods as
well.
Georgia reduced early voting from 45 to 21 days, Wisconsin shortened their
period by 16 days, West Virginia by five days, and Tennessee by two.
In one bright spot, voting rights proponents in the Buckeye State are
fighting
back against the new changes. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans signed a
petition
to hold a referendum on the voting changes, suspending the law until voters
decide its fate in November 2012.
Voter ID laws
The chief sponsor of Georgia's voter ID legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister
(R-Augusta), told the Justice Department the bill would keep more African
Americans from voting, which was fine with her since "if there are fewer
black
voters because of this bill, it will only be because there is less
opportunity
for fraud."
The most common type of voter-related legislation in 2011 was the mandate
that
individuals must show certain kinds of government-issued photo ID at the
polls
before being allowed to vote. To date, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,
Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin have all passed such
laws, and similar measures have been proposed by 24 more.
But with more than 1 in 10 voters (over 21 million Americans) currently
lacking
these photo IDs, it's clear that such laws could have a disastrous effect.
Voter
ID laws have the potential to exclude millions of Americans, especially
seniors,
students, minorities, and people in rural areas. One example is Osceola,
Wisconsin: A small town in the northwestern part of the state with a
population
of under 3,000 people. The town is 30 minutes away from the nearest DMV
offices
and both are rarely open.
Defenders of these laws claim they are necessary to prevent voter fraud. In
reality they are a solution in search of a problem. There's virtually no
such
fraud in American elections— and it's not even remotely close to being the
epidemic that some elected officials have made it out to be. In the 2004
election, for example, about 3 million votes were cast in Wisconsin—only
seven
were declared invalid—all of which were cast by felons who had finished
their
sentences and didn't realize they were still barred from voting. As a
result,
Wisconsin's overall fraud rate came in at a whopping 0.00023 percent.
The only kind of voter fraud that is supposed to be prevented by these laws
is
one voter impersonating another. Not only would impersonating other voters
one-by-one be an absurd strategy for stealing an entire election, but the
already-existing penalties—five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—are doing
an
effective job at preventing such fraud.
Yet, while these laws would prevent few if any actual cases of voter fraud,
they
could disenfranchise millions of ID-less voters. And they are clearly
illegal
under longstanding voting rights law. The Voting Rights Act not only forbids
laws that are passed specifically to target minority voters but also strikes
down state laws that have a greater impact on minority voters than on
others.
Because Voter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, they
clearly
fit within the Voting Rights Act's prohibition.
Gaming the Electoral College
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett recently proposed changing the way his state
allocates electoral votes in a presidential election. Should his proposal
become
law, it could alter the outcome in 2012 and significantly increase the
possibility that a candidate who loses the popular vote in his state still
receives more electoral votes overall.
fast facts on voter suppression
Although the Constitution permits each state legislature to decide how the
winner of its electoral votes will be selected during a presidential
election,
all but two of the states follow the same process—whoever wins the state as
a
whole receives all of that state's electoral votes. The two remaining
states,
Maine and Nebraska, allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each
congressional district, plus two additional votes to the overall winner of
the
state. Because these are both very small states, however, their unusual
process
is unlikely to alter the outcome of presidential elections.
The same cannot be said of Pennsylvania. As the nation's sixth most populous
state, Pennsylvania commands 20 electoral votes in the 2012 election. Gov.
Corbett's proposal would allocate these votes according to the
Maine/Nebraska
system, potentially swinging the election in the process.
President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 10 percentage points in 2008,
but
if Pennsylvania had allocated votes in the same way as Maine and Nebraska
then
he would have only earned only more electoral vote from the state than his
opponent Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). In 2012 President Obama could win the
state as
a whole and still lose twelve of the state's twenty electoral votes due to
Pennsylvania's heavily gerrymandered districts. This is more than enough to
change the result of next year's election. Consider that after the Supreme
Court
awarded Florida's electoral votes to George W. Bush after the 2000
presidential
election. Bush received only five more electoral votes in 2000 than his
opponent
Al Gore, who won the majority of the national popular vote.
Gov. Corbett's plan risks absurd results where the overall winner of a state's
popular vote becomes the loser of its electoral vote. Worse, it undermines
the
legitimacy of any president who takes office solely due to Pennsylvania
conservatives gaming the Electoral College. Although the Pennsylvania plan
is
probably constitutional, it is no less an attack on our democratic system of
government. The winner of the 2012 presidential election should be the
person
chosen by the American people, not by arbitrary differences between various
states' election laws.
For the moment, Gov. Corbett's proposal appears to be dead due to infighting
between the proposal's supporters and some of Pennsylvania's members of
Congress
in Washington who fear it could cause more campaign resources to be directed
toward their districts. There is nothing preventing its supporters from
reviving it—potentially even on the eve of the election—should the 2012
election
appear close enough to be swung by manipulating the Electoral College.
Moreover, at least one Wisconsin lawmaker has jumped upon this proposal,
creating the risk that it could spread to other states. If similar swing
states,
such as Florida or Michigan, took up this plan, it could fundamentally
transform
the next election into a contest to see who can best game the system.
five worse states for voting rights
Voter suppression in personal terms
In a representative democracy, it is important to point to individuals who
would
be prevented from exercising their right to vote due to these efforts at
targeted voter suppression. Here are some real-life examples of the
consequences
of these voter suppression laws.
Ricky Tyrone Lewis
Ricky is a 58 year-old Marine Corps veteran. Despite the fact that he was
able
to offer Wisconsin voting officials proof of his honorable discharge from
the
Marines, Milwaukee County has been unable to find the record of his birth
that
he needs in order to obtain a voter ID card.
Ruthelle Frank
Ruthelle is an 84 year-old former elected official who voted in every
election
for the last 63 years, yet she will be unable to obtain a voter ID unless
she
pays a fee to obtain a birth certificate from the Wisconsin
government—despite
the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids any voter from being
charged a
fee in order to vote. Worse, because the attending physician at her birth
misspelled her name on her original birth certificate, she may need to pay
hundreds of dollars in court fees to petition the state judiciary to correct
her
certificate before she can obtain a voter ID.
Paul Carroll
Paul is an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio
town
for four decades. Yet when he attempted to vote in the recent Ohio primary,
he
was told his photo ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs was not good
enough because it did not include his address.
Dorothy Cooper
Dorothy is a 96-year-old African-American woman who says she has voted in
every
election but one since she became eligible to vote. Yet when she attempted
to
obtain a voter ID she was turned away because she did not have a copy of her
marriage license. In a subsequent interview Dorothy said that she didn't
even
have problems voting in Tennessee "during Jim Crow days —only now under
Voter ID.
Thelma Mitchell
Thelma is a 93-year-old woman who cleaned the Tennessee Capitol for 30
years.
She never received a birth certificate, however, because she was delivered
by a
midwife in Alabama in 1918 and there was no record of her birth. When she
attempted to obtain a voter ID, she was turned away for lack of a birth
certificate by a clerk who suggested she could be an illegal immigrant.
Virginia Lasater
Virginia is a 91-year-old woman who has been active in political campaigns
for
70 years Because of her advanced age, however, she is no longer able to
stand
for extended periods of time. When she attempted to obtain a voter ID, she
was
confronted with lines that stretched for several hours and no place to sit
while
she waited—forcing her to abandon her effort to obtain an ID due to her
physical
constraints.
"Election Day registration leads to "the kids coming out of the schools and
basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal.
That's what kids do — they don't have life experience, and they just vote
their feelings."
-New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien
Darwin Spinks
Darwin is an 86 year-old World War II veteran. He was told to pay a fee
before
he could obtain a voter ID in Tennessee, despite the fact that charging
someone
to vote is unconstitutional.
Rita Platt
Rita is a Wisconsin resident who was turned away from her attempt to obtain
a
voter ID because she required either a birth certificate or a passport to
obtain one—both of which can only be obtained if the voter pays a fee.
Worse, in
Wisconsin, voters must fill out a misleading form that suggests that they
cannot
obtain the birth certificate they need to obtain a photo ID unless they
already
have a photo ID.
Jessica Cohen
Jessica is a Texas resident who lost her license and other identification
papers
in a burglary. She now must also pay an unconstitutional fee in order to
obtain
the birth certificate she needs to obtain a new voter ID. Because Cohen
lives in
Texas, she will likely be able to vote in 2012 because the Department of
Justice
blocked Texas's law under the Voting Rights Act—although there is a high
risk
that the Supreme Court's conservatives will declare the Voting Rights Act
unconstitutional.
These nine voters are representative of the millions of voters who could be
deprived of their right to vote after exercising that right for, in some
cases,
decades. Their problems will become more commonplace as additional states
continue to pass suppressive laws.
Conclusion
When speaking about this subject at the Campus Progress National Conference
in
2011, President Bill Clinton asked the young audience why these laws making
it
harder to vote were all being proposed in such a high rate and passed across
the
country. The answer, he said, was that "They are trying to make the 2012
electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate."
Conservatives are scared because each cycle more young and minority voters
are
entering voting age and their collective impact is growing accordingly. In
2008
about 48 million Millennial generation voters—those born between 1978 and
2000—were old enough to vote. By 2012, that number will be 64 million, or 29
percent of all eligible voters. According to analysis by the Center for
American
Progress, by 2020, when all Millennial voters are of voting age, about 90
million of them will be eligible to vote and will comprise around 40 percent
of
all eligible American voters. This parallels changes in minority voters—from
1988 to 2008 the percent of minority voters increased to 26 percent from 15
percent.
These young and minority voters are strongly progressive. They strongly
support
progressive staples such as investing in renewable energy and maintaining
Social
Security. This has translated into elections as well. In 2008 both young
voters
and Hispanic voters delivered two-thirds of their votes to President Obama.
Taken together, the growing influence of staunchly progressive voters has
conservatives scared to the point of extreme measures. Backed by large
corporate
donors, they are looking for any proposal or law that will help negate this
change in voting demographics. While this is their motivation, the right to
vote
is an American right that should be protected by those of all political
persuasions.
Right now, the protection of anti-voter suppression measures put in place
during
the 1960s is preventing the enactment of the law in key states. And in other
states the laws will become ballot measures where their outcome can be
decided
by the voters. In many states these laws have already been passed and must
be
aggressively challenged through legal and electoral measures to put our
system
of democratic elections back on the right track.
Download this issue brief
<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/pdf/voter_supression.pdf>(pdf)
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment