It brings back such memories. Ah, the Washington State election just a few years ago. What fun that was!
And who can forget the Minnesota race, where Al Franken “won” the election.
Let’s hope the Democrat party fails to do the same in New Jersey:
This year, New Jersey’s registered voters can request a mail-in ballot for any reason. (Before 2005, voters needed to provide a reason for why they needed an absentee ballot.) The state received about 150,000 absentee-ballot applications this year.
On about 2,300 of those applications so far, the signature on the request form does not match the signature on the voter’s registration forms with the state.
In a development that is depressingly predictable, the New Jersey Democratic party is asking the state to provide provisional ballots for all these voters. Those ballots could, presumably, be used to overcome any narrow lead by Republican Chris Christie over Democrat Jon Corzine on Election Day.
A mass distribution of provisional ballots, at the request of a political party, would represent a significant change from established law. Currently, when a county clerk rejects an absentee-ballot request, the clerk tries to contact the voter — through mail, by phone, and in some cases, by attempting to contact the voter in person. And a person who has spoken to some of New Jersey’s county clerks says they’re granting wide latitude on signature styles; for them to reject a ballot request because of the signature, it has to be dramatically different from the one on file.
Someone from the left please explain this to me. Why, other than fraud, would the Democrat party lobby to have New Jersey look the other way if the signature on the ballot doesn’t match the signature on file:
Paul P. Josephson, a lawyer representing the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, wrote to Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, asking her to “instruct County Clerks not to deny (vote by mail) applications on the basis of signature comparison alone.”
Josephson claims that “the data reveal a troubling disparity in rejection rates — from hundreds of applications in Atlantic (271 rejections, or 5.84 percent) and Hudson (362, or 4.13 percent) to just a handful in counties such as Hunterdon (6, or .20 percent) and Mercer (35, or .49 percent). We also note that staff and unaffiliated voters are being rejected at a far higher ratio than Republicans by a ratio of three-to-one.” But a source who has seen the data disagrees, contending the number of rejections is consistently proportional to the number of absentee ballots requested. This source described the rate of rejections as within a normal range, and he saw no clustering in particular regions.
It seems the Democrat party is attempting to create an absentee ballot slush fund to compensate for people voting for Chris Christie.
Hat Tip: Barking Moonbat Early Warning System and Atlas Shrugged.
comments