Michigan And ACORN: When At First You Don’t Succeed

Project Vote has been causing mischief in the Midwest since before President Obama was their community organizer, but this last decade has seen an evolution in the number and sophistication of state cases. We start in Michigan, where The Secretary of State Project (SoSP) has endorsed progressive Jocelyn Benson for Michigan Secretary of State. The following is how the endorsement should read:

“Progressive scholar and DNC organizer Jocelyn Benson is running for an open seat to replace Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who prevented us from adding unsupervised provisional ballots to your elections. In 2004, Benson ran a voter ‘protection’ campaign in 21 states for the DNC, deploying 17,000 starving lawyers at minimum wage to coerce low-income voters. In Michigan in 2008, Benson helped lead the progressive fight to stop Secretary of State Land from cleaning the voter rolls. We plan to sue the state of Michigan no matter who wins, but it will hurt less if she is elected.”

At least that is how I read their endorsement, but maybe I am getting ahead of myself. Let us go back to June 16, 2004.

A directive issued by the Michigan Director of Elections established provisional ballots would not be counted for (1) first-time voters who register by mail and who cannot provide identification on election-day, and (2) voters who vote at the wrong polling place. Provisional voting is required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), and applies to an individual that does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the precinct in which that individual wants to vote. HAVA allows for “voter registration procedures established under applicable State law,” in regards to compliance. In fact, much of HAVA allows for states to establish the procedures necessary to implement the policies.

Of course, we know that progressive contempt for state law and practice is only surpassed by progressive contempt for well-run elections.

That is why ACORN’s complaint was not filed with the federal district court until a little over a month before the 2004 elections, and then refiled ten days later. The amended complaint reads like a law review article or an amicus brief filed before the Supreme Court. Realizing that the violations alleged were not clear under the plain meaning of the law, ACORN’s attorneys quote the intent of the law from the likes of Senators Chuck Schumer (D) and Paul Wellstone (D), and the relevant statutory provisions are selectively quoted with ACORN’s interpretations. The complaint utilizes the “shotgun approach” where every conceivable violation is alleged. If we sift through all of the fluff, we can see that their claim, essentially, is that a provisional ballot should always count if the person allegedly voting is a real person. The result is that ACORN can then transport as many people as it wants to any location, and as long as the individuals claim to be people actually registered to vote in Michigan, even without identification, their votes should count.

Read that again. ACORN wanted provisional ballots to count prior to their certification as actual votes. What this means in practice is that in close elections, a judge would have to explicitly go back through provisional ballots and toss them out. That is significantly more difficult to agree to than allowing provisional ballots that have been verified to be added to vote totals. Voter protection means you don’t get to cut votes – you only get to add to them. And under ACORN’s reasoning, a provisional ballot should be a vote, nullifying the need to call it “provisional.”

On October 7, 2004, the Director of Elections agreed to revise the identification requirement so that individuals could present identification within a week after the election, though he did not budge over the polling place issue. Despite ACORN’s attempt to catch Michigan officials off-guard, the state responded forcefully and thoroughly. In one of the best defenses we’ve seen, Secretary of State Land even points out that her Director of Elections was involved with the drafting process of HAVA. The relevant legal authorities, laws and cases on point, are identified immediately and concisely. To counter the alleged intent of HAVA, according to ACORN, the state points out legislative history in opposition to the aforementioned senators. The relevant statutory provisions are identified in full, rather than “cherry-picked” as in the complaint. And to follow it up, Michigan cites the Tenth Amendment; HAVA only applies to federal election regulation, since the states still have the authority to regulate their own elections under the Constitution. Basically, ACORN was claiming HAVA pre-empted state law, despite the fact that HAVA requires states to establish their own procedures for implementing parts of the act.

Judge David M. Lawson disagreed with Michigan. He claims that sensible election laws “ought to focus on two goals: maximizing the participation of eligible voters and eliminating fraud.” While we can certainly agree that the latter principle is compelling, the former is perplexing. Why do we need laws encouraging those already registered to vote, to actually vote? Should we go further and offer everyone a beer coupon if they vote? That worked in the state of Missouri, until they got caught. Lawson points to a Constitutional provision (Article I § 4) allowing states to establish time, place and manner of elections for federal office, while reserving Congressional authority to alter those procedures, but he does not address the issue of a state’s control over its own election procedures (10th Amendment & HAVA). As far as background and facts, he relied on the loose assertions of the complaint, rather than the concise facts of the answer.

What this really boiled down to was the standard for granting a preliminary injunction, which would restrict the state’s ability to enforce its procedures. ACORN must establish (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the preliminary injunction will prevent irreparable injury, (3) the lack of substantial harm to others, and (4) the public interest will be served. How restricting a state’s ability to eliminate voter fraud protects the public interest and does not substantially harm lawful voters confounds me. Perhaps I am not quite as learned as the honorable judge who granted the preliminary injunction. Then again, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals must have been confounded as well, because they reversed his ruling without even writing an opinion.

In this case, ACORN failed at hijacking the electoral process. This would not be its last stand, though. Future cases focused on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, instead of HAVA. Project Vote began planning out its attack far in advance of elections. And the Secretary of State Project formed to oust uncooperative secretaries of state. In 2010, should Benson win, she will need to be carefully watched.

My Name Is Legion: The Secretary Of State Project(s)

The progressive movement is often difficult to pin down because allied groups use multiple names and organizations to spread confusion and give the appearance of both overwhelming numbers and independent expenditure. We should not be fooled by this host of political malcontents attempting to co-opt state and local politics in the name of a national agenda. Examining the tactics of these groups gives us the key to understanding the purpose of organizations like the Secretary of State Project, ACORN, and Project Vote. Our states are under concerted judicial assault from progressive lawyers, and they are many.

Let us first address the networks of influence. Project Vote is the legal arm of ACORN, and in the cases we’ll study, conducted all of the informational build-up to bring suits against potential swing states. It works like this: Project Vote files state versions of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, gathers relevant data, conducts studies, and contacts various state officials to coordinate these activities. Once Project Vote gathers the minimal amount of information needed, ACORN then files a complaint in federal district court. A rotating pinwheel of other progressive groups join the suit and, often, The Brennan Center for Justice provides additional help through legal counsel.

The lawsuits at issue all involve violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The NVRA requires states to conduct voter registration through (1) motor vehicle registration agencies, (2) mail, and (3) public assistance agencies. HAVA (1) provides funds to states to improve election administration, (2) establishes minimum election administration standards for states, and (3) creates the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). NVRA and HAVA require states to designate a “chief state elections official” to coordinate and implement state responsibilities under the acts. Most states have designated their secretary of state as the chief state elections official. Project Vote directs information-gathering to the secretary of state for each targeted state. If the secretary of state becomes a stumbling-block to the efforts of Project Vote, SoSP targets that secretary of state for removal. If the secretary of state aids and abets Project Vote, SoSP supports that secretary of state for re-election.

We start with a look at the past suits brought against the states.

MICHIGAN
In 2004, Project Vote targeted provisional ballot rules established in the state of Michigan. At issue were requirements for voter identification with the submission of provisional ballots and how those provisional ballots must be cast in the correct jurisdiction. Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (R) defended the lawsuit, which was filed one month prior to the election. The Director of Elections, under the Secretary of State’s guidance, agreed to revised rules allowing provisional balloters to provide identification within a week of the election, but did not budge on the requirement for provisional ballots to be cast in the proper jurisdiction. Judge David M. Lawson of the Eastern District of Michigan sided with ACORN on provisional ballots cast in an improper jurisdiction. The Appellate Court for the 6th Circuit promptly reversed. Secretary of State Land won re-election in 2006, prior to the Secretary of State Project getting full traction, so SoSP was not able to target her office until this year. SoSP has now endorsed candidate Jocelyn Benson (D), who has organized campaigns in opposition to Secretary of State Land’s efforts to clean up Michigan’s voter rolls.

OHIO
In 2005, Project Vote targeted Ohio for alleged violations of the NVRA requirement to provide voter registration applications at public assistance agencies. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (R) vigorously defended this lawsuit. Not only was he able to get ACORN dismissed as a party to the lawsuit, he was able to get the entire case dismissed. ACORN’s dismissal had to do with the intricacies of 3rd party suits. Essentially, ACORN alleged that it had to spend money to correct violations of the NVRA. The court found that ACORN would have spent that money anyway. The problem for Project Vote was that they did not understand the relationship between the secretary of state and the local public assistance agencies under Ohio law. Up against a secretary of state that was not going to “play ball,” ACORN lost. Unfortunately (and of major consequence), SoSP now targeted Ohio. Secretary of State Blackwell was replaced by SoSP endorsed candidate Jennifer Brunner (D) in 2006. ACORN subsequently re-filed the case, with a secretary of state ready to “play ball,” and won.

MISSOURI
In 2007, Project Vote targeted Missouri for alleged violations of the NVRA requirement to provide voter registration applications at public assistance agencies. Having learned their lesson from Ohio, and a previous case in Missouri that established local election authorities as responsible for NVRA requirements, Project Vote began their dirty work. This time they had Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), who was only in charge of coordinating state responsibilities under the NVRA. Judge Nanette Laughrey of the Western District of Missouri had absolved Carnahan of all responsibilities under the NVRA in a previous case. Carnahan had all the information Project Vote needed and none of the liabilities. The Department of Social Services and 3 local election authorities, faced with a secretary of state who failed to train them properly and whose staff actively worked with Project Vote and their allies, settled for $450,000 and 4 years of humiliating oversight. Subsequently, the Secretary of State Project endorsed Carnahan for re-election.

As Project Vote and their allies worked together to undermine clean elections, their approach grew more sophisticated and more targeted. Working hand in hand with other groups funded by large progressive donors like the Democracy Alliance, different groups like the Advancement Project now step forward in each state, working in tandem or in progression to push progressive electoral demands at the state level. As you will see, similar suits have been filed in states supported by the SoSP, and candidate support follows these suits when they are not successful. We are going to dig into the successes and failures of these multiple faces of the same malignant movement to understand where they’ve been and where they are going.

What you will first see is this: In Michigan and Ohio, faced with a Republican unwilling to provide Project Vote with the fodder to commence a lawsuit and raid state coffers, ACORN and its lawyers failed. After installing their favored candidate in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner, ACORN won. And to my personal disgust, ACORN was also successful in Missouri, aided by the “helpful” staff of Robin Carnahan. To the Secretary of State Project and ACORN, this provides a roadmap for future lawsuits and the raiding of state treasuries. For us, this will be our battle plan to defeat the plans of the progressive host.

Project Vote Pillaged The State Of Missouri, And I’ve Had Enough

Do you remember Katherine Harris? It is an article of faith for those on the Far Left that in the 2000 presidential campaign, a relatively minor state official “ruined” the hopes and dreams of the progressive movement and ushered in the “worst decade ever.” The Secretary of State Project ostensibly was started to address the issue of a future Katherine Harris. Their website states its goal is “to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to reform-minded Secretary of State candidates and incumbents in key battleground states.” They’re pretending to be a funding vehicle, but this is only one piece of the puzzle. Only when we examine the broader picture, a combination of the Secretary of State Project, Project Vote, ACORN, The Brennan Institute, etc., do we begin to understand the underlying goals of the progressive movement: a fundamental change in the electoral process to establish the dominance of progressive politics.

It is easy to miss the forest for the trees. SOS Project’s website is cluttered with information on donations and the various state candidates for secretary of state endorsed by the group. But when you look at the details of what the project actually does, you begin to see that the group is only one cog of the progressive plan to alter elections prior to the vote. Whether it be the stated goal “to establish state political committees that will conduct innovative independent expenditure campaigns,” the fact that SoSP’s endorsed candidates have carried the progressive banner across state-lines, the criteria for endorsement by SoSP, or the actual personalities involved, we begin to see the interconnected web of progressive politics. Don’t be fooled that this is some funding group to put Democrats in position to watch close elections. This is a broader plan to alter the very nature of our elections.

Take, for instance, an instructive series of events in the state of Missouri. In March 2007, Project Vote contacted Missouri SoS Robin Carnahan about possible violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). In the following months, employees of the SoS were in contact with Project Vote to address these possible violations. After various Sunshine Requests and “investigative” studies, Project Vote along with its allied organizations sued Deborah Scott, Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS). An initial court order in July of 2008 forced DSS to comply with Project Vote’s interpretation, but that wasn’t enough. Faced with a change in governor (and party), a judge with a history of favorable Carnahan rulings, a lack of money, and without the protection, guidance or assistance from Robin Carnahan’s office, Missouri’s Department of Social Services settled in June of 2009. Project Vote and its teams of lawyers were able to plunder $450,000 from Missouri taxpayers in attorneys’ fees for a case they never had to prove – namely a preposterous reading of the ”motor voter” law that puts the burden of registration on state officials as long as they aren’t the Democratic Secretary of State.

Robin Carnahan is a Secretary of State Project endorsed candidate because: 1) she is not a Republican, 2) she is a Carnahan (Missouri’s dumbed-down version of the Kennedy’s), 3) she is a willing executioner of the national progressive agenda, and 4) her campaign and government staff demonstrate the revolving-door of progressive organization employment. Again, she is only one cog of the progressive-wheel. In the example above, she was the vehicle by which the national progressive movement imposed its agenda upon Missouri state politics.

We’re going to be taking a closer look at the processes involved with the above-mentioned lawsuit. The NVRA was passed in 1993, and one of its provisions required various state social service entities to be designated as voter registration agencies. In Missouri, agencies under the DSS were to provide voter registration services to every person utilizing the DSS. Additionally, each state was to designate a State officer or employee as the “chief State election official to be responsible for coordination of state responsibilities under this Act.” Missouri designated the Secretary of State as the chief State election official and directed the Secretary to coordinate state responsibilities under the Act. The SoS was also responsible for providing voter registration applications in all offices that provide public assistance. To any reasonable person, that puts Robin Carnahan in charge of the process.

Robin Carnahan was first elected Missouri SoS in 2004. She had three years to correct electoral problems prior to Project Vote’s lawsuit, and in fact was campaigning in 2008 for another four year term while the suit was ongoing. SoSP endorsed her 2008 bid for Missouri SoS presumably because she is a reform-minded candidate, but after now four years in office, she had failed to reform the election process to the point that a national progressive group was able to raid state coffers and impose their will on state officials not powerful enough to fight back. If Carnahan agreed that there was a need to reform Missouri’s electoral system, why then did Project Vote feel the need to sue? Was Carnahan not competent enough to bring these reforms? Did she lack the ability to make the changes needed, or was she afraid to do so for her future political aspirations? As for Project Vote, was a lawsuit against the state, but not the secretary of state, the proper way to bring about reform? And how exactly does taking $450,000 from Missouri in attorneys’ fees help the state electoral process? It does not. And that is the point. $450,000 went to Project Vote and a host of other progressive organizations to pay their lawyers for bringing the suit, not correcting the problem. Consider it a reward for bringing it to the attention of the state of Missouri, with the help of course, of Robin Carnahan, whose staff failed to protect the state from a lawsuit designed to pay the legal arm of ACORN (keep in mind that Project Vote is ACORN, letterhead not withstanding).

Missouri’s case was unique because it involved the assistance and not the resistance of the state’s top election official. Buoyed by Missouri’s cash, Project Vote and its allies now plan assaults on other states. The conduct of Missouri SoS Robin Carnahan in the period leading up to the 2009 settlement is only one story, but it is instructive to the big picture. In upcoming articles, we’re going to connect the dots on how the progressive movement is attempting to co-opt state and local politics in the name of a national agenda. Examining the interconnected web of Secretary of State project beneficiaries, we’re going to expose the methods and purpose of this facet of the national progressive movement. There are a number of pundits, bloggers, and political operatives who have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming the Secretary of State Project is designed to prevent another Katherine Harris. That represents just a small portion of their real agenda. In the coming weeks and months, we will analyze the state focused political and judicial assault on our elections, so as to understand the nature of this beast, and thus gain the tools necessary to defeat it.