A Fairfax County registrar's attempts to disenfranchise soldiers voting by absentee ballot is one step closer to being reversed thanks to a legal opinion issued yesterday by Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell (R). Although the Old Dominion is a hard-fought battleground state in the 2008 presidential election and John Kerry-backing Fairfax County should be a true-blue source of Obama votes, the story was given just five brief paragraphs on the page four "Virginia Briefing" feature of the October 28 paper's Metro section.
The fact that the registrar, Rokey W. Suleman II, is a partisan Democrat who has worked hard to register inmates at the county jail was unreported in both Christian Davenport's Oct. 28 brief and his full October 27 online article. In fact, Suleman's name itself was missing from the print edition squib.
Washington Examiner staffer William C. Flook reported on October 8 about Suleman's efforts to register jail inmates to vote. While not illegal, his push to register misdemeanor convicts stands in stark contrast to his hair-splitting read of Virginia state law to toss out military absentee ballots for lack of a witness's address (emphases mine):
Inmates at the Fairfax County jail were encouraged to register and vote last week by elections officials making what the county’s sheriff called the first visit of its kind in his 30 years with the county.
That voter turnout effort is now being defended by county officials, but blasted by Republicans who called it an attempt to influence what could be a close presidential election in the commonwealth.
Both Fairfax County General Registrar Rokey Suleman and Sheriff Stan Barry deny any wrongdoing in the decision that granted Office of Elections on-site access to the Adult Detention Center in downtown Fairfax. Barry did, however, say it was unprecedented in his 30-year career with the county.
“We’d never run into it before, honestly,” Barry said. “They contacted us last week and we were not willing to take any role in it, but basically they were just asking for access to the prisoners who were eligible to vote, and we gave them that.”
The visit came as presidential campaigns were making feverish attempts to sign up voters ahead of the Oct. 6 deadline. The state is considered critical to the White House aspirations of Barack Obama and John McCain.
Felons are not eligible to vote in Virginia without having their rights restored by the governor. Suleman said his office, at the request of criminal defense attorneys who approached his staff, delivered registration forms and absentee ballots to inmates with misdemeanor convictions and those awaiting felony trials.
Suleman, who is listed as a founder of the Trumbull County (Ohio) Young Democrats, ran for office in the Buckeye State as a Democrat earlier this year. He said the office he holds in Virginia is nonpartisan.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, another paradigm bites
October 28, 2008 - 11:43 ET by SickofLibsWell, another paradigm bites the dust.
Democrats = voter fraud, Republicans = voter suppression.
Revise to Democrats = voter fraud + voter suppression.
Sick of libs
October 28, 2008 - 11:47 ET by NorthCoasterThanks from the Buckeye state for noting that change.
NC:
October 28, 2008 - 11:53 ET by SickofLibsAnd a hearty you're welcome from the Garden State, proud home of the soon-to-be-reelected-yet-again, 84 years young, Frank 'The Cadaver' Lousenberg.
"hair-splitting read of Virginia state law?"
October 28, 2008 - 11:50 ET by j. frank wilsonThis is known as "black letter" law - clearly stated and easy to understand. Virginia law requires a witness to provide an address. That's not Registrar Suleman's notion - it's the law.
It has nothing to do with his other activities to get as many eligible citizens as possible to vote.
Finally, based on politicial donations to the campaigns, the majority of US military personnel is going to vote for Sen. Obama. But that's not the issue. Personally, a Registrar who is interested in following the state law is a good thing.
That law is overridden by
October 28, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Ken ShepherdThat law is overridden by federal law on the matter. The overseas ballots for military, diplomats, et al are different from those issued for civilians living in the Old Dominion who may be traveling or too sick to vote in person, etc.
Mr. Shepherd:
October 28, 2008 - 12:36 ET by j. frank wilsonThe system worked. The Registrar did his job and attempted to uphold the state law. The Attorney General apparently appropriately came in and made the - legal, if you will - ruling that Federal law trumps state law. Do you suggest the Registrar should have turned to Federal law first? That doesn't seem very workable. Elections have always been a state matter (with the obvious exception of Bush vs. Gore, of course).
On the note of the Registrar actually getting out there and registering voters. For weeks the right wingnutz have tried to scare us with stories of false voter registrations. The obvious cure for third-party abuses is to have the local governments actually get out there and register voters. And that is what Registrar Suleman has been doing.
No, the Registrar must follow Federal law as well
October 28, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Captain KirockDon't be silly. Of course the Registrar must follow Federal and State law when doing his job. He must follow both. When State law conflicts with Federal law, Federal law trumps.
What the Registrar should have done was seek an opinion from the County Counsel regarding the issue. If he did not do that and just lept at the chance to disqualify the ballots, that would suggest he was politically motivated. An opinion from county counsel supporting his actions would provide him with some cover.
I suspect no such opinion was sought.
Captain Kirock:
October 28, 2008 - 18:57 ET by j. frank wilsonIsn't it the job of the Virginia Assembly to pass laws that do not conflict with Federal statute?
I seriously doubt the average County Counsel is completely familiar with every Federal law. Isn't that the job of the Attorney General?
I'm old enough to remember when each state ran its own election.
Laws often conflict
October 28, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Captain KirockFederal and state law often conflict, sometimes intentionally but usually by accident.
As for your other point, NO ONE is familiar with all Federal law, not even federal judges who have been on the bench for 20 years. County Counsel is staffed by competent attorneys who can do the research and render an opinion. They often do. The Registrar could of also asked the state AG for an opinion, which I assume did not happen here.
I suspect the Registrar was politically motivated, just as I suspect the Deomocrat Ohio Secretary of State was politically motivated when she tried to reject a bunch of McCain registrations because they did not check a superfluous box on the form.
Yes, some Democrats do try to suppress votes.
j.frank ... check the Bill of Rights
October 28, 2008 - 19:32 ET by LionKingRefer to the 10th Amendment. State law supercedes Federal law unless specifically addressed in the Constitution or its Amendments.
Wrong again frank
October 28, 2008 - 12:03 ET by cocodrieYou and the other left-wing extremists want to deny our military, those that volunteered to give their lives to defend this country the right to vote. You truly are a "tete de merde".
cocoDeranged:
October 28, 2008 - 12:40 ET by j. frank wilsonNo, I don't. I absolutely support the right of US Military personnel to vote. What could possibly be wrong with that?
PS: I sincerely hope the vast majority of people who volunteered for military service in this country did not do so to "give their lives." I thought the idea was that we supposed to win - including, if necessary, letting the enemy give their lives. Didn't you see Patton? Since you write such fluent cliche, couldn't you have said something about the brave men and women "in harm's way?"
Good evening frank
October 28, 2008 - 13:17 ET by cocodrieI also do not want a single soldier to lose his life, I should have been clearer. A true soldier's life belongs to Uncle Sam who has complete control over it. Ever aspect of a soldier's life is secondary to his duty. I pray for our soldiers regularly. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". - Jesus Christ. God bless you frank.
cocodrie:
October 28, 2008 - 14:05 ET by j. frank wilsonWith one week to go until a rather important election - let's end on a positive note. Your statements are something I can agree with 100%.
frank
October 28, 2008 - 20:08 ET by cocodrieThe denial of the military vote by the Florida and other democrat areas is a sore subject with me. I apologize for accusing you of approving of it. The democrats are already trying to do it again in some places this time. One thing almost unbelievable - down here in Louisiana our voting machines are amongst the most trouble free and reliable available. Will wonders never cease.
Law is the Law
October 28, 2008 - 12:19 ET by allanfThe "law is the law" is a typical left wing aphorism used as cover for perfidy.
The absentee ballots contained no provision for a witness to sign or provide an address. Unless all similarly situated absentee ballots in the state are disqualifed an Equal Protection claim is likely to prevail if litigated before a disinterested trier of the facts. But Federal Law also covers the Registrars behavior.
Here is 42 USC § 1971
Save the homilies for the ill informed ideologues
allanf:
October 28, 2008 - 12:41 ET by j. frank wilsonYes, I do think our system works so much better when government officials do their best to follow clearly written law and not just haul off and make it up on their own.
Yes The Law is Very Clear
October 28, 2008 - 12:47 ET by allanfGoverning law is very clear here. The Registrar is wrong.
ethics example
October 28, 2008 - 13:00 ET by dtaJ. Frank Wilson is giving us a textbook example of the left's flexible ethics here. He truly won't acknowledge the wrong of throwing out the votes of our soldiers fighting for our country. He is willing to accept a far "out-on-a-limb" state-law argument to defend such actions as long as it is a means to promote his party.
I think examples like this give insights into how when the left gains control of a country, human rights violations soon follow.
dta:
October 28, 2008 - 13:15 ET by j. frank wilsonAn Obama Administration's human rights record will be far, far better than the two Bush Administration's. Nationally and internationally.
Well, that remains to be
October 28, 2008 - 13:31 ET by dtaWell, that remains to be seen and depends on your definition of human rights.
If you choose to define it as giving foreign aid to Africa, I think he will do well.
If you choose to define it as increased taxes to help the less fortunate, I think he will do well.
If you think of pushing global warming as a human rights issue I guess you could say he'll do well. (I have serious reservations about the human costs of carbon restriction myself)
If you choose to define it as defending the bill of rights I think he'll do poorly. I expect the fairness doctrine will be reimplemented which to my mind is a clear 1st amendment issue. I expect anti-gun laws to be increased as well; this being the 2nd amendment issue.
I also think in the future we might see more on restrictions on personal decisions like what we eat. Maybe a sugar tax or junk food tax.
What human rights do you specifically have issue with under the Bush administration?
dta:
October 28, 2008 - 14:08 ET by j. frank wilsonJust the usual ones - invasion of privacy. Holding American citizens and foreign nationals for years without a hearing - let alone a trial. Huge expansion of government powers into areas that have always been reserved for the states. Contending that a foreign military base is not US soil. Nothing new.
That's a big subgroup the pollsters missed
October 28, 2008 - 12:19 ET by SickofLibs...the Convicts/US Military For Obama voting block
Who the Military Supports..
October 28, 2008 - 12:31 ET by GilActive Troops Disagree with Powell. Support McCain 3-to-1 Over Obama
By JB Williams
MichNews.com
Oct 21, 2008
Every American claims to “support the troops,” even those who have actively worked around the clock for years to “undermine the troops.”
Well known left-leaning media giant Gannett News Service, which owns a multitude of newspapers, radio stations, and other publications in the U.S. and the UK, also has a long history of supporting the Democrat Party.
Gannett also owns Military Times, Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times, among others. They have on many occasions published anti-war and anti-Iraq articles across the mainstream press and in the military publications, much to the dislike of troops who have told a very different story about Iraq for years now.
But finally, Gannett and Military Times decided to allow the real troops’ voice to be heard by publishing a military wide presidential election survey of active duty soldiers from all branches.
With the obvious exception of the racial slant in the black vote, which like the civilian black voting bloc trends heavily towards the candidate running as an African-American, no other sector of the military comes even close to supporting Barack Hussein Obama for Commander-in-Chief.
Active troops support John McCain 3-to-1 over Barack Obama.
There is no ambiguity in the results of the military poll that shows despite a very heavy racial slant among blacks, all branches combined still support McCain by 68% over only 23% for Obama.
What does this mean about Americans back home who do not have their lives on the line, when they vote against the troops?
Who is better qualified to choose the next Commander-in-Chief? The troops “we support,” or the millions back home who have never put on a uniform or taken up a weapon in defense of this nation?
Who has more at stake than our troops in harm’s way, when deciding who the next Commander-in-Chief will be?
What does it say about you if their opinion doesn’t matter to you?
Read those numbers above. Think about the men and women who answered those surveys. Try to imagine what this election means to them. Then ask yourself why they won’t support Barack Hussein Obama for their next Commander-in-Chief...
Then ask yourself, how can you?
You can stand with leftists attempting to serve themselves if you like...
I, on the other hand, will SUPPORT THE TROOPS who support McCain!
(Click on url for a breakdown of the results, further statistic details.)
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_21595.shtml
Thank you Gil
October 28, 2008 - 12:43 ET by cocodrieIt upsets me something awful to read how little some of the trolls here think of the military. God bless you for posting that.
Gil:
October 28, 2008 - 12:45 ET by j. frank wilsonThat newspaper article was written by an idiot. Sen. Obama is not running "as an African-American." That's obviously untrue in both senses of the statement (if, indeed, it has any sense at all).
#1. Sen. Obama has never positioned himself as the African-American in this race (or any other); and
#2. By the unfortunate established standards, Sen. Obama actually is an African-American.
Race
October 28, 2008 - 12:51 ET by allanfObama or his surrogates have used race when it suits them. Yes he is "not like all those other presidents on the dollar bills"
I prefer to think of Obama as the socialist candidate.
"By the unfortunate
October 28, 2008 - 12:57 ET by NL207"By the unfortunate established standards, Sen. Obama actually is an African-American"
It appears that he is not an African-American, just an African.
I'm at one of the largest
October 28, 2008 - 15:32 ET by SlicksterI'm at one of the largest military bases overseas and have yet to find more than a small handful who support obama. It's mostly the civilian employees who support the socialist.