Otherguy Overby
member
On KABA this morning there was a link to a CSNS News article leading one to believe that GOA is anti voting rights.
So, without furher ado, here's what GOA really said:
Now for the CSNS News article...
So, am I reading impaired now or does the CSNS News article lead one to thing something different about what the GOA said? Or is it just another example of poor journalism?
Standing Wolf? How about all you in the peanut gallery?
So, without furher ado, here's what GOA really said:
http://www.gunowners.org/a071106.htm
Election Fraud-Friendly Bill Threatens Pro-Gun House Seats In Congress
-- Bill could lock-in ability of illegal aliens to vote
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
The House of Representatives is very close to a floor vote on legislation that would further restrict the ability of states to prevent voter fraud.
Vote fraud arguably cost gun owners two pro-gun members of Congress -- Bob Dornan (R-CA) in 1996 and John Thune for US Senate in South Dakota in 2002. Both of those losses would have been impossible were it not for the Motor Voter Law passed during the Clinton presidency.
As John Fund points out in his book Stealing Elections, there is "accumulating evidence that Motor Voter has been registering illegal aliens, since anyone who receives a government benefit may also register to vote with no questions asked."
Moreover, says Fund, an INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's 46th congressional district revealed that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." Representative Dornan lost that election by fewer than 1,000 votes.
Under the Motor Voter Law, anyone getting a driver's license or applying for welfare must be given a chance to register to vote. It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship, which of course, makes it VERY DIFFICULT to keep illegal aliens from voting. Several states, such as South Dakota, allow absentee voting with no identification needed to fill out the absentee ballot. Other states do not require identification to vote.
Now, HR 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, would lock in the abuses that are becoming prevalent under the Motor Voter Law. It would do this by prohibiting "any qualification or prerequisite to voting" that could have the effect of keeping just one law-abiding citizen from voting.
What are "qualifications" or "prerequisites to voting"? Well, consider that many states or localities require photo IDs to protect against voter fraud. But supporters of Motor Voter insist that requiring a photo ID to vote or execute an absentee ballot is a design to reduce voting. Similarly, some supporters of Motor Voter do not want dead people's names removed from the voter lists, because doing so might accidentally remove legitimate voters. Both measures -- requiring photo IDs and list clean ups -- are different ways to ensure against illegal vote fraud.
HR 9 would constitute a threat to many pro-gun members of the House especially, but even some Senate seats could be manipulated by locking in voter fraud protections currently in federal law.
Now for the CSNS News article...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200607/POL20060712c.html
Voting Rights Act Viewed As Threat to Gun Owners
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
July 12, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Who could possibly oppose the renewal of something as righteous sounding as the Voting Rights Act? Gun owners, for starters.
The group Gun Owners of America is urging Second Amendment supporters to let their lawmakers know they oppose H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. GOA specifically opposes a provision that might interfere with states' efforts to prevent voter fraud.
GOA notes that under the Motor Voter Law, anyone getting a driver's license or applying for welfare must be given a chance to register to vote. "It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship, which of course, makes it VERY DIFFICULT to keep illegal aliens from voting," GOA said in a press release.
The group contends that the Motor Voter Law has helped defeat at least two pro-gun members of Congress - Rep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif.) in 1996 and John Thune for US Senate in South Dakota in 2002.
"Both of those losses would have been impossible were it not for the Motor Voter Law passed during the Clinton presidency," GOA said.
The group argues that H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, would lock in abuses stemming from the Motor Voter Law by prohibiting "any qualification or prerequisite to voting" that might prevent even one law-abiding citizen from voting.
GOA and others believe that state laws requiring voters to show a photo ID before casting a ballot would be interpreted as impermissible "prerequisites" under the Voting Rights Act.
"Similarly, some supporters of Motor Voter do not want dead people's names removed from the voter lists, because doing so might accidentally remove legitimate voters," GOA warned.
Both measures -- requiring photo IDs and updating voter lists -- are different ways to ensure against vote fraud, GOA said.
In a suggested letter to lawmakers, GOA warns that the integrity of the voting process is under attack, and fraud will be made even easier if H.R. 9 is passed.
"If the [House] Rules Committee permits an amendment to strike this section, please vote for it. If the Rules Committee prohibits an amendment to kill this section, please vote against the bill," GOA says in the letter to lawmakers.
Gun Owners of America said it will count the Voting Rights Act as a "gun vote" in its rating of Congress.
The House is now moving toward a floor vote on H.R. 9, which could happen this week, depending on the outcome of behind-the-scenes wrangling.
While liberal and civil rights groups whole-heartedly support the bill - and while President Bush and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman also have called for its renewal -- some conservatives oppose provisions imposing federal oversight of southern states, which once had laws discouraging blacks from voting.
In modern times, such oversight is insulting and overlooks years of progress, critics say.
Another controversial provision would require bilingual ballots in districts with high immigrant populations.
The Voting Rights Act dates back 41 years. Lawmakers who vote against its reauthorization risk being labeled as racists -- or as people who favor vote suppression -- even if the opposite is true.
So, am I reading impaired now or does the CSNS News article lead one to thing something different about what the GOA said? Or is it just another example of poor journalism?
Standing Wolf? How about all you in the peanut gallery?
