On foreclosures and voting rights
The NYTimes has a pretty good story on the GOP's plan to try to invalidate voters who have been foreclosed on. According to the NYTimes, it's a big number, up to a million nationwide, and you gotta figure that the "foreclosed on" demographic is very likely a solid Dem voting bloc.
Note: The state numbers cited in this article are change of address, not foreclosure, which is probably less Dem, but if you're watching the broader numbers game, this is a must read.
Note: The state numbers cited in this article are change of address, not foreclosure, which is probably less Dem, but if you're watching the broader numbers game, this is a must read.
posted by mikevotes at
7:18 AM
9 Comments:
I haven't read the article yet (and I know it's change of address not foreclosure) but....
Why is it presumed the foreclosure demographic is significantly more Democratic? I'm not so sure about that. The Repubs may be culling the foreclosure list FOR registered Dems, but I don't think the list itself is indicative of party preference.
By
-epm, at 7:34 AM
That's my assumption, but I could well be wrong.
My assumption is not that these folks were necessarily Dem voters before foreclosure.
My assumption is that being foreclosed on (assuming it's a primary residence) would likely make someone more of an economic voter which means Obama, and would also likely make them more angry at the national state of affairs which means more Obama.
Certainly, many Republicans went "go-go," and bought too much house as well, but I would think that the experience of losing your house would tend to skew neutrals and those towards the middle towards Obama and the Dem opposition.
I could be wrong, but that's why I'm making that assumption.
By
mikevotes, at 7:45 AM
Ah... I'll have to give that some thought. At least it's the first thoughtful reason I've heard.
By
-epm, at 7:53 AM
Again, that's not a block demographic, but coupling foreclosures with precincts, you could pretty well bet where the majority of those voters were going.
By
mikevotes, at 7:56 AM
They would certainly be angry. I don't know if that translates into a vote for Obama.
By
Anonymous, at 8:03 AM
Certainly arguable.
Just explaining my sense of it.
By
mikevotes, at 8:06 AM
It's gone even further than this in Colorado. And my registration (in Minnesota) was invalidated last year in a special election because of a "discrepancy": the street I live on has three different names, and there was a different street name on my ID than on my registration.
In Colorado, it's much worse.
Say that you registered as Mike Q. Votes, but you received a federal student loan years ago as Mike Quincy Votes. Well, that counts as a "discrepancy", and your registration is invalidated. Nobody notifies Mike Q. Votes that his registration has been invalidated, because it's presumably bogus.
Of course, it's a given that if either name were to show up in VoterVault, then he outcome is different.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:41 AM
Oh, man, that's nasty.
I know of some of the broad caging tactics, but since it all is conducted by state by state laws, it's really hard to keep track.
By
mikevotes, at 8:45 AM
Marilyn Johnson, California, just suggested a creating universal registration address per county for residents in foreclosure. This would entitle them to re-register, showing proof of prior residency plus foreclosure status, at a county-named address and allow them to retain their right to vote.
Another idea is to require banks and loan organizations to include, among the thousand other forms they are required to prepare, a signature-required statement advising the homeowner that they may be required to re-register to vote if their home is in foreclosure.
I think both ideas have merit. However, something needs to be done immediately to bring this issue to national attention as voting registration deadlines are upon us.
By
Anonymous, at 11:59 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home