Nev. Move to Purge Some Dem Voters Fails

[The1calledTKE]

LAS VEGAS - Elections officials have rebuffed an attempt by a former GOP operative to purge about 17,000 Democrats from the voter rolls in the battleground state of Nevada, where the two presidential candidates are in a dead heat.

Dan Burdish, former head of the state Republican Party, filed a challenge last week claiming the Democrats should be removed from the rolls because they were inactive voters.


But Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax rejected the move Tuesday, saying Burdish could only challenge voters in his precinct, and then only if he has personal knowledge that they are inactive.


"I don't think pulling names off a database equates to personal knowledge," Lomax said.


Under state law, voters are placed on "inactive status" if they move and don't update their addresses within 30 days of receiving notice to do so. Their registrations are then canceled if they don't vote in two consecutive federal elections.


Democrats have criticized Burdish for trying to influence the hotly contested congressional race between Republican Rep. Jon Porter (news, bio, voting record) and his Democratic challenger, former casino executive Tom Gallagher, in the 3rd District.


State Republican officials have also distanced themselves from Burdish.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...oter_challenge

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Oh Snap! Looks like Nevada might be the Florida of 2004. Not only the above, but this as well

[Sistermadly]

Any GOPers want to defend this action? This is reprehensible. Beyond reprehensible. After Florida in 2000, I thought that things would have to get better because the American public wouldn't stand for blanket disenfranchisement of an entire group of people. Turns out I was an optimistic fool.

[AXEAM]

Originally posted by Sistermadly
Any GOPers want to defend this action? This is reprehensible. Beyond reprehensible. After Florida in 2000, I thought that things would have to get better because the American public wouldn't stand for blanket disenfranchisement of an entire group of people. Turns out I was an optimistic fool.

Don't feel bad it could happen to any of us, we would like to believe this kind of stuff no longer happens but it does. I'm never surprised how low these guys will stoop in order to win.

[Optimist Prime]

Originally posted by Sistermadly
Any GOPers want to defend this action? This is reprehensible. Beyond reprehensible. After Florida in 2000, I thought that things would have to get better because the American public wouldn't stand for blanket disenfranchisement of an entire group of people. Turns out I was an optimistic fool.

Welcome to the Optimistic fool club

Look on the bright side, they cought this before the election.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
Welcome to the Optimistic fool club

Looks like I'm in good company.

Look on the bright side, they cought this before the election.

True, but it doesn't seem to be having that much of an impact, if the media (under)reporting of this is any indication.

[AnchorAlum]

True, but it doesn't seem to be having that much of an impact, if the media (under)reporting of this is any indication. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's because there would then be pressure to give equal coverage to places like, oh, Ohio, where the number of people who have registered to vote exceeds the population.

Franklin County is one of them. That is the Cincinnati area.

I hate this on both sides. I honestly do. But more than that, it frightens me. What are we coming to here?

One person = one vote. One AMERICAN CITIZEN = one vote.

May the best candidate win. Am I being naive here? Seriously?

[Tom Earp]

Being Naive is no sin, what is the sin is the wealth spent on Elections for a small payed Position, or is it for power?

"Battle Ground States ad I Approve this Ad"!
Well, I wonder why this terminology is popping up?

Mud Slinging, Iraq and Ahfganistan wars.

Pardone Oui, key board Problems!