Philly Democrats can cheat without worrying about getting caught
By Dana R Pico Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I noted in a previous article that the Democrats who run the City of Brotherly Love were very much opposed to having federal poll observers in precincts with heavy Hispanic populations, observers who were checking to see if Philadelphia was providing adequate assistance for legitimate voters with limited English skills. the federal government had to file a lawsuit to try to get its way -- and lost.
-
U.S. will not watch city polls
A Department of Justice suit requested observers, claiming Phila. violated the rights of its Spanish-speaking voters.
By Marcia Gelbart, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer
City officials yesterday dodged a U.S. Department of Justice effort to place court-ordered federal observers at Philadelphia polling places during next week's general election.
The Justice Department had alleged that in past elections the city had violated the rights of its Spanish-speaking voters and that the observers were needed during balloting Tuesday.
But a panel of three federal judges, two from U.S. District Court and another from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District, denied the federal government's request for an injunction that would have forced the observers to be posted. The judges did not offer an explanation for their ruling.
The request for the injunction stems from an Oct. 13 Department of Justice lawsuit that alleged that Philadelphia had violated the rights of its Spanish-speaking voters by not providing sufficient translators at polling places. The suit also raised questions about the adequacy of those translators provided, as well as the sufficiency of the city's bilingual signs and election materials. The department sought observers to be appointed from this election through 2009.
The city had rejected the allegations as unfounded.
Well, perhaps the allegations were unfounded. But, if so, why oppose the placement of the election observers? After all, if what they were there to see proved to be adequate, then such would support the city's position, and be a testament to the great leadership of Mayor John Street. If it turned out that the allegations of inadequacy were reasonable, such would be an outside confirmation for the city as to which areas needed improvement. And our Democratic friends have been most insistent that we make sure every voter gets to vote and that every vote is counted.
- Nevertheless, city officials unveiled during yesterday's hearing a comprehensive plan to protect the rights of Spanish-speaking voters. Some elements of the plan go further than the city has gone before.
In past elections, for instance, the city had targeted 169 voting divisions as those in need of translators. For Tuesday, that number has been upped to 258 - and as of yesterday, one translator had been hired for each division. Recommended largely by ward leaders and committee people, those translators will each be paid $75 and receive training this weekend from a company that specializes in translation services, City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. told the judges. That company, Global Philadelphia, will also make sure those translators are sufficiently fluent, he said.
So, the city recognized that its past efforts were, if not inadequate in the past, inadequate for this election. Why, then, was the city and its Democratic leaders (Philadelphia is controlled by the Democratic party machine, lock, stock and barrel) so opposed to federal observers seeing those increased efforts? Try as I might, I cannot come up with any rational reasons save one: that the Democrats did not wish for any federal observers to be witnesses to vote fraud.
No other explanation makes the least bit of sense, while the concealment of vote fraud makes perfect sense.
________________________
Cross posted on Common Sense Political Thought.
The article explains both sides of the issue very well, you do not have to try to find a rational reason when one is given by one of the Judges - the chilling effect that observers can create.
This event looks like political maneuvering from both sides to me.
From the article:
The fast action reflected concerns voiced repeatedly by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge D. Brooks Smith about the proximity of the lawsuit to Election Day.
The lack of time "is actually a relevant factor to consider" and "a personal concern of this panel," the judge said.
Similarly, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle asked, "How as a practical matter would the city hire interpreters four days out?"
A Justice Department attorney, Eric Eversole, blamed the city for the department's filing actions so close to the election. He said the city did not provide certain requested documents, such as a voter-registration list, until July, seven weeks after first asked. He also referenced three weeks' worth of failed negotiations to settle the matter out of court in September.
Abbe Fletman, an attorney for the city, countered that the federal government "engaged in a game of gotcha," but failed.
Besides the timing issue, the judges also asked questions about the effect of federal observers on voters, including how they would dress and where they would stand at polling places.
Eversole said the observers would "serve as a deterrent to the misconduct" of poll workers who, for instance, might say derogatory things to Hispanic voters. But Smith wondered if just their presence would create "possibly a chilling specter of interference with the voting process."
Later, while the city was making its case against the observers, Bartle questioned the opposite, saying, "How is there any intimidation if there's an extra person standing there in business casual?"
Mayor Street had raised the issue earlier this week, saying: "We don't need a bunch of people out there with a bunch of pins and... blue blazers and possibly discouraging people from voting."
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight