Voter Disenfranchisement in Ludington November 2014

[XLFD]

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, in an otherwise quiet election cycle where the most interesting race was between two judicial candidates running blasé campaigns, there were two instances of voter disenfranchisement in Ludington.  One that has been institutionalized by the city council and administration in the Fourth Ward, and the other almost initiated by ignorance of the voting laws by the polling employees.

The Fourth Ward:  No Public Vote for Representation

 

I have hit on this at each city council meeting after the Ludington City Council's appointment of a Fourth Ward Councilor in September.  They have the authority to do so, but they also have the duty to abide by the clear wording of the city charter and by the state law that this charter must follow. 

 

 

Tuesday, I brought a young protégé of mine who lives in the Fourth Ward to the polls, a person who showed promise into voting for almost everything I endorsed.  I learned while there that there was no place on the ballot for a fourth ward councilor to be elected.  I confirmed this was the case with my smart acolyte.  The city attorney and clerk seem to believe that the charter says something it doesn't.  They have not sought to validate this position with the state, yet they attempt to authorize their decision by saying that the state would.  The law and its definitions say otherwise. 

The first authority Ludington Charter Sec. 5.2 regarding vacancies in a city council position says: 

 

"No vacancy need be filled if it occurs within sixty (60) days preceding a City election. Elective officers so appointed shall serve until the next regular election, at which time an election shall be held to fill the remaining period of the term of office.  Multiple vacancies shall be filled by a special election."

 

One could say this passage speaks for itself, but let's recognize a few definitions.  In classifying elections there are only two types, a regular election and a special election.  If an election is not a regular election, it is a special election and vice versa.

A regular election as defined by state law (MCL 168.3) "means an election held on a regular election date to elect an individual to, or nominate an individual for, elective office in the regular course of the terms of that elective office."  By this definition, November 4, 2014 was a regular election; Ludington's charter has no definition.

According to the state (MCL 168.4) a "Special election" means an election to elect an individual to, or nominate an individual for, a partial term in office or to submit a ballot question to the electors.  The city charter (Section 4.4) says that "a special City election shall be held when called by a resolution of the Council, such resolution being adopted at least sixty (60) days in advance of such election, or when required by this Charter, or by the general laws of the State." 

 

The particulars on this case was that the ex-councilor officially resigned just over 60 days before this election, which isn't a regular city election (before or after the vote the city made earlier this year to change from odd to even year elections) but is a regular election, by state definition.

 

So meshing the data says that the council should have adopted a resolution for a special election to be held at this November's regular election by mandate of section 4.4 combined with section 5.2.  Failing this obligation, they have allowed their appointee to become illegitimate. 

If this is still fuzzy, look at charter section 3.3 which has much of the same language of 5.2, but says the mayor position will be filed at the next "regular city or county election" which is a weaker statement than a "regular election", which could cover a regular schedule of state elections not coincident with city and/or county elections. 

 

Beyond all the definitions, a special election for the fourth ward on this regular election date would have added negligible costs to this election; the worst cost to the city is that there is now an illegitimate holder of the office, Michael Krauch, who should be the first to have demanded his name go on a ballot.

 

Challenging Disenfranchisement at the Polls

 

Back in August 2013, I headed to the Ludington City Hall after a bicycle ride armed with my 'bicycle wallet' which had a couple pieces of identification in it, but not my driver's license-- because I don't need a driver's license for my bicycle.  One of those IDs was a card issued by the Federal Department of Homeland Security with my name, picture, and a microchip with everything they know about me on it. 

 

I was challenged that day by an election worker that said my card was not proper identification to vote.  I challenged them right back by saying it was, flustered that they would try to stop me from voting with a card that is much harder to get than a MI ID card or Driver's License.  The immediate supervisor agreed with the worker, and unsure of the laws, I decided to travel the three blocks back home and get my driver's license. 

 

On Tuesday, I was faced with a similar problem.  My driver's license was recently lost or misplaced, and I have yet to get around with replacing it, so I went to the polls with my Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) with my picture on it issued by the aforementioned federal department.  Once again, the worker, a different one than in 2013, would not allow it, although they said I could sign the affidavit on the back of the form that declared I was voting legally. 

 

Yet in reading the back, I could not sign it, because it said I was voting without proper picture ID being presented, and I could not swear to what I knew was false.  The TWIC card was allowed by Michigan law to serve as proper identification as a "Federal or State Government Issued Photo ID" (see this SOS document). 

 

I told them I could not honestly sign the affidavit, and politely but firmly demanded that they accept my legitimate ID, pointing to some of their own literature they had posted on the walls (I had looked at these in the fourth ward polling location while waiting) for further justification.  The immediate supervisor once again was perplexed at this and went to the City Clerk Deb Luskin for some ruling. 

 

In a couple of minutes, I was finally allowed to get my ballot without signing falsely on an affidavit, as Clerk Luskin saw that I was in the right.  But if I had not been disenfranchised by this same local government in the past when they used intimidation and the color of law to keep me from voting in 2011 and early 2012 (done knowingly via the Workplace Safety Policy ), I may just have done what other voters may have done in the same situation, and just walked away or signed the affidavit. 

 

If I did sign that affidavit, and swear falsely that I had no proper picture ID, the ballot could have later been challenged for authenticity and potentially nullified.  The poll worker didn't mention that.

[wildfire]

Well that was a good thing you rode back for  your ID at least you had some proof who you were XLFD, Which I have a question for you or who can answer. Why is it the prisoners are not aloud to "VOTE TO" I think their  "VOTE" SHOULD count to, what does anybody else think on that?  and   just because they are Incarsirated shouldn't mean their "VOTE" doesn't count to, cause if you think of it thats still not a fair vote cause that's now many for votes that the states, governments n citys, n towns can get, so what if they might have a bias appenin  i'am sure a lot of us do but that don't go on these ballets, and its not like its going to hurt anything by them men n women begin able to vote to.  I just belief they are all good in them people sure some may have don't some bad things in their time,  but their are some who never did anything as to eat a spider, and got paid 5.00 for proving it to their friends,  but not alouding them to "VOTE" to me surely is very important, I have herd it all my life growing up your vote is very important, over n over. So yesterday "I VOTED"  So it's my turn to say it is very important to let them all "VOTE" they are people to, breathe the same air, walk on the same ground,they use water to shower n wash with, they can see day light n dark time, why can't their be something their to them to "VOTE TO"

[XLFD]

First off, Wildfire, I would like to commend the voters of Mason and Lake County on doing the right thing and voting for Susan over Paul in a seven point plus percentage victory.  I don't know how they would have handled who would be the next prosecutor for the county if Spaniola won, but they would probably just have replaced Spaniola with his most loyal assistant for the next two years and justice would have been non-existent in Mason County courts for those seeking it with the collusion.

In Maine and Vermont, prisoners can vote while incarcerated by absentee ballot, yet in eleven states, the right to vote can be taken away forever, even after incarceration, for some felony offenses.  Michigan falls within the two extremes, where it allows prisoners to vote after being released.  Here's a handy chart telling about felon voting laws of each state:  http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

This of course suggests that the way to change the status quo is to urge and elect state representatives that will support less restrictions on voting.  In Michigan's current political climate, with Republicans in charge of the three branches of state government, I don't see that happening anytime soon.  There is a perception among them that the majority of prisoners would be votes for Democrats.

[Johnny]

The only reason you are glad susan won is because you dislike paul because you didn't get your way a few times with him like you have pointed out.  Paul's resume is way better and shows more experience than susans so you cannot say that she is better for the job.

You want to complain that a 4th  ward councilor not being on the ballot?  How many times do they have to explain to you tommy that they didn't have to vote on it?  Here comes another stupid lawsuit I'm sure.  It would be fitting since the Holiday season is upon us and I am sure your "protege" will be looking for gifts.  Tom, you have zero contribution to the city of Ludington and the citizens of Ludington, but you want to make a name for yourself by bringing up silly topics and file silly FOIA requests that I and others who actually work and pay taxes, YOU ARE WELCOME by the the way.  I don't know if its scary or sad that there are people that follow you on here and AGREE with you.  Its either there are more uneducated people out there than I thought OR you just have that much time on your hands to make multiple accounts on here.

I also do feel that having more restrictions on voting should be going on.  Such as having prisoners voting should not be happening.  It goes along with people who live off the Government should not have the right to vote.  

[XLFD]

Susan is better for the job.  If you want to talk experience, both candidates had zero experience in being judges.  If you think length of experience is the sole reason to choose Prosecutor Paul or any other elected official, you must be reeling about uber-experienced John McCain losing to newcomer Barack Obama back in 2008.  But chances are good that you, like the majority of Americans, picked Obama over McCain-- and have pulled for a bunch of other non-incumbents with zero experience at the elective position they sought over an undeserving, experienced person.

Ludington city officials can explain why they feel there doesn't need to be an election despite the law to me as often as they want, but if their argument doesn't match the law and the law's intent, then the points need to be properly arbitrated.  Consider, at the same time the council is remaining mute about the charter as it applies to the fourth ward situation, the majority of them speak out about why making the clerk and treasurer positions appointive is necessary because the people won't always make the right decision, but they and John Shay do. 

There aren't any pro-democracy sentiments coming from any Ludington official-- it's more of a bother and time-waster to them and a negative for the community according to their own orations.  Do you agree with them?

[Willy]

I totally agree with your assessment regarding the non election of the 4th ward councilor and I also agree he should have known this and put his name on the ballot. But this is just another of the City Manager and  Council's manipulation tactics to side step the law in order to promote their agenda.

The poll workers should have a list of what is considered acceptable ID's so there will be no future problems. I'm sure the clerk will rectify this problem.

As to prisoners voting, I also don't understand why they are not allowed to vote. Just because a person is in jail doesn't mean all of your rights should be removed.

[AQUAMAN]

Maybe the prisoner rule is akin to that of being in the armed services. There too, according to your oath, you voluntarily give up all your inalienable rights as an American. Regarding the TWIC card, I guess the poll workers need to be educated. I too, am a member of Homeland Security, and have same card. It takes a lot of work and time to gain that Federal TWIC card, plus expensive fees. They trace you back to birth and forward to present, then fingerprint you, your fingerprints are checked worldwide and with the FBI. And after about a 3 week background search, you will be informed as to whether it will be issued, or you start over, or get denied. Much much harder to get than an ordinary drivers license. Even a passport is easier to get. 

[Willy]

Sounds like the kind of card Obama should apply for. At least we would finally get a background check on him.

[AQUAMAN]

That's too funny Willy, but all too true. 

[XLFD]

If I remember correctly, Aquaman, the closest place you can normally pick up a TWIC card is in Muskegon, so there can be a lot of travel involved.  I fortunately got my first TWIC card when they initially were employed by the DHS, where Oxychem and Lake Michigan Carferry had DHS officials up for a couple of days getting local dock workers scrutinized and eventually outfitted.  

But you should be able to get to vote by Michigan voter ID law with as little as a community college or public school picture ID establishing that you're old enough.  

[Willy]

I want the law to require some substantial piece of ID, such as a drivers license or State issued ID  that is only issued to citizens. Anyone can get a community college or public school ID. If we are ever going to make sure that only citizens vote we have to get serious about people proving they actually are citizens and not illegals or someone voting in place of a dead person.

[AQUAMAN]

Great video's again Willy, funny, but, sadly true, video's don't lie. Speaking of deceptions and convoluted thinking, I see Johnny chimed in again with the usual poison, not worth responding to imho. Now that SS will be taking the judgeship, I wonder whom will replace her as "appointed FOIA coordinator"? Will some other common clerk, (NOT City Clerk), publicly employed person at city hall take over for a fraction of the cost of an attorney? Like the FOIA laws in Michigan say is best for this task? And demands per public law? Or will they follow suit into another attorney for $150/hr.+??? That in itself should be an interesting turn of the page, and if I was a betting man, I'd say they will hand pick another over-the-top priced person. So they (Shay & Holman mostly) can continue to point at how expensive it is to answer simple FOIA requests. And keep beating that old drum of incompetence and fixed agenda to achieve the higher goal. That of destroying in the public press and slander that some are abusing the FOIA system, and that sword points to the same person(s), time after time. Talk about vengeance, that's the Lord's imho, not our city officials that are being pushed into bad decisions by frauds like Shay! 

[XLFD]

Great points, Aquaman.  As for fighting voter fraud, I believe the best way to combat it is at the Secretary of State level, not at the day of the election in a local polling place with lightly-trained election workers.  If someone has a government issued picture ID showing they are someone on the voter rolls they should be allowed to vote without having to sign a false affidavit saying they haven't obeyed the 'picture ID law'.

And if they show up at the same polling place at least every other Monday to decry the local system for five minutes, there should be little doubt of the voter's identity, LOL.