Montana Democratic Party executive director Art Noonan says this week's challenges of voter residency by his Republican counterpart Jacob Eaton represent a direct attempt to intimidate and suppress Democratic and Native American voters. He also told me that his party recently conducted a 56-county survey of election supervisors and concluded that there are no concerns about voter lists, the registration process or anything else regarding Montana elections.
Noonan told me the party is reviewing legal options and might try to halt the challenges of some 6,000 voters in seven counties. However, time is running out since county election officials have until Monday to mail notification letters to affected voters. Noonan also said Democrats might offer to help voters cope with the challenges. In Missoula County, voters who have been challenged must fill out a residency affidavit, get it notarized (which some associates have told me is the most challenging part of the process) and send it back to the county. Then, voters who have changed their residence must re-register in the precinct, county, or state to which they've moved.
Eaton has said the challenges are a direct response to Governor Brian Schweitzer's remarks to an audience of lawyers in Philadelphia that he influenced the outcome of the 2006 U.S. Senate election. The governor has apologized for those remarks, saying they were a joke. Noonan says the GOP simply is using the remarks as an excuse to target voters in Democratic counties and, rather than embarrassing the governor, is embarrassing Secretary of State--and fellow Republican--Brad Johnson. Noonan says since Johnson is the state's top election official, is responsible for the voter registration system now in place, and was responsible for certifying the 2006 vote, the challenges and the rationale for them are slaps in the face.
With Republican Roy Brown now basing a television campaign ad on Schweitzer's Philadelphia remarks, expect this issue to come up the next time the two face off.
By the way, full interviews with Missoula County elections administrator Vickie Zeier, Jacob Eaton and Art Noonan will be posted on the KPAX website later today.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
THE "F-WORD"
Montana Republicans are using the "F-word" more often these days.
Fraud. As in "election fraud."
Get used to it. We're going to hear a lot more of it, perhaps from both parties, all the way to election day and, maybe, beyond. For now, though, the GOP is the side using it.
On Monday, the executive director for Montana's Republican Party, Jake Eaton, dropped more than 3,400 challenges of registered voters to Missoula's elections office. In other words, Eaton is challenging whether 3,400 Missoula County voters are eligible to cast a ballot in November. (To put it in context, Missoula has about 68,000 active registered voters.) He's also filed challenges in Lewis and Clark, Silver Bow, Hill, Glacier, Deer Lodge and Roosevelt Counties, involving some 6,000 voters in all.
What's the issue? Where registered voters live. The state GOP compared U.S. Postal Service "change of address" requests with county voter lists. And compiled lists of registered voters who reported changes of address to the post office without doing so to the county. What Eaton wants to know is whether those people only had their mailing address changed temporarily (think college student or contract worker who leaves home for a given period of time) or whether they truly have moved their residence. If they have moved, they very well may not be eligible to vote in the county where they are currently registered. In Eaton's worst case scenario, voters might be registered in two places and could vote twice. Or they might simply be allowed to vote on a ballot they have no right to get.
Missoula County had the largest list of "discrepancies" of all 56 counties, so Eaton made sure it was among the first to be tested. The result is that the county elections office must generate more than 3,400 voter notification letters (plus residence affidavits and other information) that must be mailed by next Monday. By the way, that's the same day the county will send out more than 12,000 absentee ballots, begin "late registration" and open up the courthouse polling place for in-person absentee voting. In other words, Eaton's challenges could hardly come at a worse time.
Voters who receive letters will have an opportunity to resolve their residency status by filling out the enclosed affidavit, getting it notarized and then returning it. Residents who have moved within the county and haven't filed a change of address can do so and vote for a final time at their former polling place before officially changing precincts. People who acknowledge that have moved out of the county for good will be removed from the county's voter lists and will have to register in their new location. (There are exceptions, notably for people who already have requested an absentee ballot. I won't go into that here.)
It may be that Eaton's challenges actually point out shortcomings in state election and voter registration databases. I sense, however, there's another point to this exercise--to embarrass Gov. Brian Schweitzer and, presumably, rouse public outrage over the governor's much-discussed remarks about monkeying with the 2006 U.S. Senate election. The governor has said he was joking, but the GOP and its gubernatorial nominee, Roy Brown, are not laughing. Eaton told me the challenge project is a response to Schweitzer's remarks and an effort to make sure every voter in the state is registered according to the law. Sooner or later, however, I expect their message to inconvenienced voters and harried election administrators will be "blame it on Brian."
Eaton isn't the only one talking about possible irregularities in the election process. Republican primary also-ran Patty Lovaas continues to claim that fraud in absentee ballots delivered the GOP Senate primary to Bob Kelleher. So far, she has not filed suit to nullify the vote, but she told me she will. (Her main legal effort of late was a pro se effort to get on the November ballot as an independent Senate candidate. The Secretary of State turned her down; federal judge Sam Haddon of Butte agreed on Tuesday and threw out her petition.) Lovaas says she has evidence to prove her claim; whether that evidence is anecdotal or analytical, how extensive it is, and whether it's been interpreted correctly are questions yet to be answered.
Missoula County elections administrator Vickie Zeier also told her elections advisory committee Wednesday that the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns are calling regularly with questions about polling places, election judges and other aspects of the November vote. She expects unprecedented numbers of poll watchers and election attorneys--of both parties--to be closely monitoring polling places on election day.
And what will they be looking for? The "F-word."
Fraud. As in "election fraud."
Get used to it. We're going to hear a lot more of it, perhaps from both parties, all the way to election day and, maybe, beyond. For now, though, the GOP is the side using it.
On Monday, the executive director for Montana's Republican Party, Jake Eaton, dropped more than 3,400 challenges of registered voters to Missoula's elections office. In other words, Eaton is challenging whether 3,400 Missoula County voters are eligible to cast a ballot in November. (To put it in context, Missoula has about 68,000 active registered voters.) He's also filed challenges in Lewis and Clark, Silver Bow, Hill, Glacier, Deer Lodge and Roosevelt Counties, involving some 6,000 voters in all.
What's the issue? Where registered voters live. The state GOP compared U.S. Postal Service "change of address" requests with county voter lists. And compiled lists of registered voters who reported changes of address to the post office without doing so to the county. What Eaton wants to know is whether those people only had their mailing address changed temporarily (think college student or contract worker who leaves home for a given period of time) or whether they truly have moved their residence. If they have moved, they very well may not be eligible to vote in the county where they are currently registered. In Eaton's worst case scenario, voters might be registered in two places and could vote twice. Or they might simply be allowed to vote on a ballot they have no right to get.
Missoula County had the largest list of "discrepancies" of all 56 counties, so Eaton made sure it was among the first to be tested. The result is that the county elections office must generate more than 3,400 voter notification letters (plus residence affidavits and other information) that must be mailed by next Monday. By the way, that's the same day the county will send out more than 12,000 absentee ballots, begin "late registration" and open up the courthouse polling place for in-person absentee voting. In other words, Eaton's challenges could hardly come at a worse time.
Voters who receive letters will have an opportunity to resolve their residency status by filling out the enclosed affidavit, getting it notarized and then returning it. Residents who have moved within the county and haven't filed a change of address can do so and vote for a final time at their former polling place before officially changing precincts. People who acknowledge that have moved out of the county for good will be removed from the county's voter lists and will have to register in their new location. (There are exceptions, notably for people who already have requested an absentee ballot. I won't go into that here.)
It may be that Eaton's challenges actually point out shortcomings in state election and voter registration databases. I sense, however, there's another point to this exercise--to embarrass Gov. Brian Schweitzer and, presumably, rouse public outrage over the governor's much-discussed remarks about monkeying with the 2006 U.S. Senate election. The governor has said he was joking, but the GOP and its gubernatorial nominee, Roy Brown, are not laughing. Eaton told me the challenge project is a response to Schweitzer's remarks and an effort to make sure every voter in the state is registered according to the law. Sooner or later, however, I expect their message to inconvenienced voters and harried election administrators will be "blame it on Brian."
Eaton isn't the only one talking about possible irregularities in the election process. Republican primary also-ran Patty Lovaas continues to claim that fraud in absentee ballots delivered the GOP Senate primary to Bob Kelleher. So far, she has not filed suit to nullify the vote, but she told me she will. (Her main legal effort of late was a pro se effort to get on the November ballot as an independent Senate candidate. The Secretary of State turned her down; federal judge Sam Haddon of Butte agreed on Tuesday and threw out her petition.) Lovaas says she has evidence to prove her claim; whether that evidence is anecdotal or analytical, how extensive it is, and whether it's been interpreted correctly are questions yet to be answered.
Missoula County elections administrator Vickie Zeier also told her elections advisory committee Wednesday that the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns are calling regularly with questions about polling places, election judges and other aspects of the November vote. She expects unprecedented numbers of poll watchers and election attorneys--of both parties--to be closely monitoring polling places on election day.
And what will they be looking for? The "F-word."
Thursday, September 25, 2008
MY DEBATE QUESTION
The candidates for governor debate again tonight in Helena and I wonder if it will be a repeat of what we heard in Missoula--Brian Schweitzer touting his record ("the best in 16 years, if not ever"), Roy Brown trying to undermine those boasts, and Stan Jones poking his finger in the eye of both parties. I hope not and I hope the questioners make sure it's not.
To that end, here are the questions I would ask the candidates in light of last week's University of Montana debate.
To Governor Schweitzer:
State Senator Brown has compared himself to you by saying he's a "work horse, not a show horse." It seems to me that "show horse" is a euphemism. What he's really saying is that you're a "show-off", "windbag" and "blowhard." And that you are more concerned with self-promotion and creating a cult of personality than with governing. Would you have us ignore your personality as we evaluate your administration, or should we embrace "Brian being Brian"?
To Roy Brown:
You've pledged "the most open, honest and accountable administration in Montana's history." We can see that you don't approve of what Governor Schweitzer has done over the last four years. But your statement also indicates that recent Republican governors have fallen short of your standard. I'd like you to specify where Governors Martz, Racicot and Stephens fell short and what specifically you would do better.
To Stan Jones:
There are many in Montana who would question whether you really belong in a debate such as this. Although the Libertarian Party in Montana is a legitimate political organization and has earned its place on the ballot, it has yet to make a significant showing in any statewide race. And your perennial candidacy for governor and U.S. Senate has, frankly, made you more of a gadfly and an annoying diversion than a real candidate. Isn't it time for you to step aside and let us hear more from the candidates who actually have a chance of winning?
To that end, here are the questions I would ask the candidates in light of last week's University of Montana debate.
To Governor Schweitzer:
State Senator Brown has compared himself to you by saying he's a "work horse, not a show horse." It seems to me that "show horse" is a euphemism. What he's really saying is that you're a "show-off", "windbag" and "blowhard." And that you are more concerned with self-promotion and creating a cult of personality than with governing. Would you have us ignore your personality as we evaluate your administration, or should we embrace "Brian being Brian"?
To Roy Brown:
You've pledged "the most open, honest and accountable administration in Montana's history." We can see that you don't approve of what Governor Schweitzer has done over the last four years. But your statement also indicates that recent Republican governors have fallen short of your standard. I'd like you to specify where Governors Martz, Racicot and Stephens fell short and what specifically you would do better.
To Stan Jones:
There are many in Montana who would question whether you really belong in a debate such as this. Although the Libertarian Party in Montana is a legitimate political organization and has earned its place on the ballot, it has yet to make a significant showing in any statewide race. And your perennial candidacy for governor and U.S. Senate has, frankly, made you more of a gadfly and an annoying diversion than a real candidate. Isn't it time for you to step aside and let us hear more from the candidates who actually have a chance of winning?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
OBAMA WINNING MONTANA MONEY RACE
By any standard, Barack Obama has received more money from Montanans than any other candidate for president this year. According to the Federal Election Commission, Obama's campaign has brought in more than half a million dollars in Montana through the end of July. John McCain is a distant second, with less than half that amount. And until July, McCain was third in fund-raising in Montana behind Democratic runner-up Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, Republican Ron Paul finished fourth in the money contest, with more than 100 thousand dollars. Well ahead of caucus winner Mitt Romney. Obama has a similar lead in figures published by the Center for Responsive Politics. Although its overall numbers are lower than what are on the FEC's website.
So where is Obama's support based? A CNN analysis shows that through June 30th, Obama led McCain in every major Montana county. And raised more money in Gallatin County than any other place in Montana. More than 116 thousand dollars. That's more than a third of his statewide total at the time. Missoula County was next, but generated less than half that amount. And actually provided more money for Hillary Clinton. Next in line for Obama, Yellowstone and Flathead Counties. Both coming in under 25 thousand dollars.
So what about McCain? Like Obama, his greatest support also came from Gallatin County, followed by Yellowstone. Flathead County was next in line, but McCain not only finished behind Obama there, he also was $10,000 behind money champion Ron Paul.
Looking across western Montana, Obama was the overall fund-raising leader in Lake and Ravalli Counties. While Clinton won in Missoula and Mineral. Ron Paul took honors in Flathead, Lincoln, Sanders and Granite Counties. While McCain did not win the money battle in any county west of the Continental Divide.
So where is Obama's support based? A CNN analysis shows that through June 30th, Obama led McCain in every major Montana county. And raised more money in Gallatin County than any other place in Montana. More than 116 thousand dollars. That's more than a third of his statewide total at the time. Missoula County was next, but generated less than half that amount. And actually provided more money for Hillary Clinton. Next in line for Obama, Yellowstone and Flathead Counties. Both coming in under 25 thousand dollars.
So what about McCain? Like Obama, his greatest support also came from Gallatin County, followed by Yellowstone. Flathead County was next in line, but McCain not only finished behind Obama there, he also was $10,000 behind money champion Ron Paul.
Looking across western Montana, Obama was the overall fund-raising leader in Lake and Ravalli Counties. While Clinton won in Missoula and Mineral. Ron Paul took honors in Flathead, Lincoln, Sanders and Granite Counties. While McCain did not win the money battle in any county west of the Continental Divide.
Friday, August 29, 2008
POLITICAL YIN AND YANG
It's that rare combination in politics that can make the difference for a successful campaign. The perfect combination of contrasts in running mates. Conventional wisdom is that the lead candidate--for governor or president--should pick someone with appropriate contrasts, either in political philosophy, regional identity, or experience. And if that person brings a certain bloc of voters along for the ride, all the better.
Occasionally, there's the rare winning combination of people very alike--think Stan Stephens and Allen Kolstad in 1988. (Both conservative High Liners who served together in the Senate.) More likely, though, a running mate brings something the lead candidate doesn't have and should appeal to people not necessarily in the lead's corner.
This year, we have seen a remarkable use of those contrasts. Skin color. Hair color. Gender. Age. Geography.
Of course, visual symbolism can only go so far. Ideas do matter and a candidate's words and deeds can make or break a campaign. As September opens, I think about the teams that will be competing for Montanans' votes in November.
Schweitzer and Bohlinger. This team still plays on what it considers the ultimate contrast--a life-long, if moderate, Republican playing second-in-command to a fiery, passionate, Democrat. Bohlinger the avuncular gentleman with his shock of white hair and bow ties, running with the youthful, jeans-and-bolo-wearing Energizer bunny. Together, they seem to delight in the harrumphs that their partnership has drawn from people in both parties who just don't approve. And they seem to have more fun than any other chief executive team ever.
Brown and Daines. In the limited times I've seen them together, Roy Brown represents thoughtful solidity, while Steve Daines presumably brings the energy and restlessness that every campaign needs. Brown seems to move and speak slowly. And to eye and ear, he's not typical. The hair is nearly a pompadour, the voice in an upper range that is hardly commanding.
Daines offers a more standard look and sound, and I'm sure Brown & Co. hope that--and his link to the electronic world that today's youth inhabit--will be an asset to younger voters who will turn out to vote for president but who aren't sure about the governor's race.
McCain and Palin. This is a picture we've never seen before. The aging and scarred warrior whose face and story we all know, backed by the young and, let's face it, attractive female confidante who bursts on the scene from nowhere. This is not Mondale-Ferraro. It's something different. Radically different, coming from the Republicans. Putting aside what each half of the team represents in policy and potential voter appeal, the picture of McCain and Palin together must make political cartoonists drool. Even if it's just the older man, younger woman stereotype. And the combination of two such iconic western states--Arizona with its Grand Canyon and Alaska with Mt. McKinley--should give satirists and campaign image-makers alike a lot to work with. Add in all the news about Palin in the last few days, and cartoonists must be dizzy.
Obama and Biden. Youth and energy head the ticket, age and wisdom back it up. Black skin and white skin--a first. Close-cropped black hair next to thick white hair. Winning smiles, both, with attractive spouses, also with contrasting hair and skin. Cartoonists may eventually portray this team in ways similar to Bush & Cheney, with the elder and more experienced VP controlling the man in the Oval Office. Rather than showing Biden as puppeteer, though, the satirical image I see is the coach driver holding the reins, not choosing the direction, but rather making sure his powerful horse doesn't run off the road or fly out of control while charging ahead towards his destination.
Occasionally, there's the rare winning combination of people very alike--think Stan Stephens and Allen Kolstad in 1988. (Both conservative High Liners who served together in the Senate.) More likely, though, a running mate brings something the lead candidate doesn't have and should appeal to people not necessarily in the lead's corner.
This year, we have seen a remarkable use of those contrasts. Skin color. Hair color. Gender. Age. Geography.
Of course, visual symbolism can only go so far. Ideas do matter and a candidate's words and deeds can make or break a campaign. As September opens, I think about the teams that will be competing for Montanans' votes in November.
Schweitzer and Bohlinger. This team still plays on what it considers the ultimate contrast--a life-long, if moderate, Republican playing second-in-command to a fiery, passionate, Democrat. Bohlinger the avuncular gentleman with his shock of white hair and bow ties, running with the youthful, jeans-and-bolo-wearing Energizer bunny. Together, they seem to delight in the harrumphs that their partnership has drawn from people in both parties who just don't approve. And they seem to have more fun than any other chief executive team ever.
Brown and Daines. In the limited times I've seen them together, Roy Brown represents thoughtful solidity, while Steve Daines presumably brings the energy and restlessness that every campaign needs. Brown seems to move and speak slowly. And to eye and ear, he's not typical. The hair is nearly a pompadour, the voice in an upper range that is hardly commanding.
Daines offers a more standard look and sound, and I'm sure Brown & Co. hope that--and his link to the electronic world that today's youth inhabit--will be an asset to younger voters who will turn out to vote for president but who aren't sure about the governor's race.
McCain and Palin. This is a picture we've never seen before. The aging and scarred warrior whose face and story we all know, backed by the young and, let's face it, attractive female confidante who bursts on the scene from nowhere. This is not Mondale-Ferraro. It's something different. Radically different, coming from the Republicans. Putting aside what each half of the team represents in policy and potential voter appeal, the picture of McCain and Palin together must make political cartoonists drool. Even if it's just the older man, younger woman stereotype. And the combination of two such iconic western states--Arizona with its Grand Canyon and Alaska with Mt. McKinley--should give satirists and campaign image-makers alike a lot to work with. Add in all the news about Palin in the last few days, and cartoonists must be dizzy.
Obama and Biden. Youth and energy head the ticket, age and wisdom back it up. Black skin and white skin--a first. Close-cropped black hair next to thick white hair. Winning smiles, both, with attractive spouses, also with contrasting hair and skin. Cartoonists may eventually portray this team in ways similar to Bush & Cheney, with the elder and more experienced VP controlling the man in the Oval Office. Rather than showing Biden as puppeteer, though, the satirical image I see is the coach driver holding the reins, not choosing the direction, but rather making sure his powerful horse doesn't run off the road or fly out of control while charging ahead towards his destination.
WOW!
Just when you thought the presidential campaign could not be any more ground-breaking, McCain picks his running mate. A woman! A first-term governor! Younger than Obama! Photogenic as heck! From Alaska no less!
Immediate first impression: on symbolism alone, it's an incredibily astute, bold move. For the short term at least, Sarah Palin may give a lot of women voters pause to think. And by choosing a running mate who also represents the far west of America, McCain could make western voters take notice. (You can bet the calls are coming in from state party organizations all over the Mountain and Pacific time zones, wanting Palin to visit.)
Of course, Palin's record and experience (or lack of it) will be extolled, bemoaned and generally dissected over the coming days. And by November, her appeal to female voters, especially those who are not conservative, may diminish as they learn more about her.
It's also possible that over the next two months, Americans' unvarnished values and beliefs about race and gender will show themselves in ways that aren't pretty.
But for the moment, it's hard to look at what the American political system has shown the world in recent days and not say, "Wow!"
Immediate first impression: on symbolism alone, it's an incredibily astute, bold move. For the short term at least, Sarah Palin may give a lot of women voters pause to think. And by choosing a running mate who also represents the far west of America, McCain could make western voters take notice. (You can bet the calls are coming in from state party organizations all over the Mountain and Pacific time zones, wanting Palin to visit.)
Of course, Palin's record and experience (or lack of it) will be extolled, bemoaned and generally dissected over the coming days. And by November, her appeal to female voters, especially those who are not conservative, may diminish as they learn more about her.
It's also possible that over the next two months, Americans' unvarnished values and beliefs about race and gender will show themselves in ways that aren't pretty.
But for the moment, it's hard to look at what the American political system has shown the world in recent days and not say, "Wow!"
Thursday, August 7, 2008
FAREWELL TO THE DOG DAYS
The dog days of August are over now, and with the national convention scene almost to the halfway point, there are some things to talk about.
SCHWEITZER THE CHEERLEADER
Brian Schweitzer sure made an impression at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night. Too bad the major commercial networks condensed their coverage so much that we missed the fireworks. NBC's Tom Brokaw, who certainly knows Montana, helped steer his network's coverage toward Schweitzer's rallying, call-and-response, address. By the time NBC cut to the podium, the Montana governor was wrapping up. Brokaw and Brian Williams spoke a bit more about Schweitzer afterward, but the country missed quite a show. (I wasn't tuned in to public television or radio, but apparently, Schweitzer's entire appearance was broadcast live on those stations.)
Put simply, Montana has never had a governor who was in a position to make that kind of speech. Nor have we had a governor capable of pulling it off and bringing everyone in the arena, including Bill Clinton to Michele Obama, to their feet.
THE BROWN RESPONSE
How will Roy Brown & Co. respond to that kind of performance? My guess is that we'll start hearing the "work horse vs. show horse" theme on a regular basis, as Brown asks voters whether they really want a celebrity governor who performs for national audiences and television cameras or whether they'd prefer a quiet, thoughtful governor who stays home and tends to business. Expect a lot more of this theme if the Democrats' national organization puts Schweitzer on the campaign trail for Obama.
Brown also may go after Schweitzer in another way, by pointing out small issues, magnifying them and then hoping voters turn them into larger issues of character and trustworthiness.
SCHWEITZER THE CHEERLEADER
Brian Schweitzer sure made an impression at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night. Too bad the major commercial networks condensed their coverage so much that we missed the fireworks. NBC's Tom Brokaw, who certainly knows Montana, helped steer his network's coverage toward Schweitzer's rallying, call-and-response, address. By the time NBC cut to the podium, the Montana governor was wrapping up. Brokaw and Brian Williams spoke a bit more about Schweitzer afterward, but the country missed quite a show. (I wasn't tuned in to public television or radio, but apparently, Schweitzer's entire appearance was broadcast live on those stations.)
Put simply, Montana has never had a governor who was in a position to make that kind of speech. Nor have we had a governor capable of pulling it off and bringing everyone in the arena, including Bill Clinton to Michele Obama, to their feet.
THE BROWN RESPONSE
How will Roy Brown & Co. respond to that kind of performance? My guess is that we'll start hearing the "work horse vs. show horse" theme on a regular basis, as Brown asks voters whether they really want a celebrity governor who performs for national audiences and television cameras or whether they'd prefer a quiet, thoughtful governor who stays home and tends to business. Expect a lot more of this theme if the Democrats' national organization puts Schweitzer on the campaign trail for Obama.
Brown also may go after Schweitzer in another way, by pointing out small issues, magnifying them and then hoping voters turn them into larger issues of character and trustworthiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
