November 01, 2004
(Updated) Defending Marriage By Redefining Voting?
Kelly Clark's Law Firm Tries A Little Voter Suppression
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Thanks to a post on Hunting the Muse, we've been pointed to an Associated Press article on an Oregon attempt to interfere with the ballots of young, first-time voters.
Democrats accused Republicans Sunday of trying to block thousands of young people's votes, following a formal request by GOP lawyers to review ballots cast by first-time voters in Oregon's most populous county.
In a letter issued Friday, attorneys for the Oregon Republican Party demanded that officials set aside ballots cast by new voters in Multnomah County who have not provided proof of identification.
...
The Republican challenge is set out in a letter dated Friday signed by Matthew Lowe, an attorney in the Portland law firm of O'Donnell & Clark, which according to the letter represents the Oregon Republican Party and the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign. It is addressed to John Kauffman, director of elections in Multnomah County.
"The purpose of this letter is to demand that those ballots cast by persons who have yet to provide valid identification be set aside so that voter's registration can be reviewed and verified, and the ballots challenged if necessary," Lowe writes.
"In the event we cannot reach agreement on this matter, our client's only option will be to challenge each and every ballot cast in which a voter's identity — and qualifications — are still in question," the letter said.
Two things you need to know here. First, as the article points out, there's an exception to the Help America Vote Act specifically designed to protect the ease of Oregon's vote-by-mail system, and so this is just a bunch of legal interference be run by this law firm in an attempt to suppress the vote.
But here's the second thing you need to know, and what the article doesn't tell you. You might have heard the name O'Donnell & Clark before, because the Clark is Kelly Clark -- who has been the legal face of the lies, distortions, and deceptions of the Defense of Marriage Coalition. We don't think that's an irrelevant piece of information.
Given the recent polling data which showed a mere 4% lead for Measure 36 supporters, the righteous wing might be getting a little nervous. So even outside of any par-for-the-course GOP voter suppression activity, it seems perhaps they struck on an idea. March into the most liberal county in the state, and challenge new voters many of whom are young and tend to support gay marriage more readily than older voters.
That last fact really irks the righteous wing. They launched an entire campaign based upon the premise that young people wont be "redefined" as being supporters of same-sex marriage.
It's nice that the organization which Clark and his law firm have represented in Oregon's same-sex marriage fight seem so concerned over young people somehow being redefined. Too bad they don't seem as troubled with the idea of denying young people their right to vote.
Update
You can get this in the comments, but I wanted to put it in the main item itself. Apparently the GOP and Bush-Cheney disavow the letter in question. But that doesn't surprise me, because my entire suggestion is that this attempt isn't about the GOP or Bush-Cheney, but about Measure 36.
Update
Indeed, the GOP and the Bush-Cheney campaign spent the day distancing themselves from the latter in question.
At whose feet do they place responsibility, then? Yes, that's right. Kelly Clark, and no one else. Further, the party/campaign appear to say that Clark is nothing more than a volunteer, despite Clark's own assertions that the campaign is a client (the reason, in fact, he cites for not offering a comment on the letter his firm sent to elections officials).
And yet, watching this story on KGW, they too simply refused to mention Clark's prominent role in the campaign for Measure 36. Why does the press think it's irrelevant to the story? Are we the only ones who think that's where the real motivation for Clark's letter resides?
Comments (9)
JP on 01 Nov 2004
I'm not sure how demanding votes be set aside actually suppresses the vote. The young people have already voted, its just whether their vote counts.
However, I truly dislike the Republicans picking on any specific voting group. If you want to verify ballots, verify every ballot not just first timers.
Here's hoping 36 goes down. And T-Nash loses his job.
Dave Lister on 01 Nov 2004
According to the early news on KOIN and KGW both the Oregon GOP and the Bush Cheney campaign have disavowed the letter. They claim the letter was issued by an overzealous volunteer.
The One True b!X on 01 Nov 2004
Which is precisely why I suggest that this is about Measure 36, not about the GOP or Bush-Cheney.
Jeff on 01 Nov 2004
It hardly bears mentioning, but the shenanigans of the GOP are really slimy. It's hard to imagine that anyone trusts this crowd.
Lea on 02 Nov 2004
I have heard a rumor, and I'd like someone who knows to confirm or deny, if possible.
Is it all first-time voters, or is it voters who registered by mail and did not then provide proof of identity? Does anyone have the full text of the letter?
someone on 02 Nov 2004
The text of the letter did not refer to first time voters, young voters or any other particular group. It refered to those that had not provided ID upon registration, which accounts for all those that registered to vote after Oregon adopted voting by mail.
GA - Keith on 02 Nov 2004
If the 'self-Righteous wing' weren't already famous for disavowing any connection to slimy tactics, they might have a little more credibility in their denials.
Dinah on 03 Nov 2004
To the people of Oregon:
How dare you? How dare you tell me I’m less than you? How dare you have me face every person I know, meet or interact with each day and wonder if they are part of the 56% of you who believe you are better than I – that you deserve rights I do not have.
How dare you hide behind school children and make this issue about their “protection”. What about the children in school who question their own self-worth, their own sanity, because they don’t fit the mold?
Do you feel safer now? Help me understand how preventing others from marrying protects your marriage? Are your marriages so fragile they can be shaken by the events of people you don’t even know?
In a state where “live and let live” has always been the forefront of every argument, how can you justify this?
Oregon has joined the ranks of Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Carolina (to name a few) in progressing the cause of discrimination. Don’t ever dare joke about those states being ‘backwards’ and ‘ignorant’ again. Don’t ever dare think of yourself on a higher ground than those states that put politics in pulpits and bedrooms – that plaster religious documents in their courthouses and courtrooms. Don’t dare look with distain and distaste at states that allow a confederate flag to fly above their capitals. You are no better. I am appalled by your hypocrisy.
Be ashamed of what you have done. Be ashamed of the level to which you have sunk.
Dinah Smith
Salem, OR
Chris on 05 Nov 2004
Yay Oregon! 57%!