We should probably give Alberto Gonzales, Wan Kim and the rest of the Bush administration some lead time on this oversight thing. Remember - this is all new to them. They've done pretty much as they pleased (or as George Bush pleased, at least) for the last five years without anybody calling them on their bullshit, so they're probably in a pretty steep learning curve.

On the other hand, this is the Justice Department that continues to fight tooth and nail to deprive us of fundamental civil rights that date right back to the Magna Carta, so they've pretty much burned up any leeway they might have deserved as far as I'm concerned. What they really need is a drill sergeant to get up in their faces and give them the short course in what it means to serve the United States. I imagine that there are several scores of millions of us who'd be happy to take on the job.

No slack. Like you say, they've had six years, and that should have been part of their job description from day one.

The GOP got turned out largely from being such slackers who gave Bush carte blanche. Let's get some investigations rolling, let's show the public what six years of see no evil has done. I want lessons so full of horror that the public doesn't forget this lack of oversight or a long long time. I want the public to always vote for congress and the executive being different parties.

I propose a new law- any politician, corporation (CEO, CFO, etc read DIEBOLD), citizen or non-citizen found guilty of intentionally denying citizens the right to vote either through fraud, voter intimidation, intentional miscounting, skewing or any other imaginable or not yet imagined means regardless of poltical affiliation will serve a mandatory sentence of life without parole in a maximum security prison

Robocalls, voter intimidation, misrepresentation of a candidate's political party affiliation, nuisance "challenges", and more, need to fall under a revised federal law: Interference in any way with the conduct of an election redefined as a federal felony, prosecutable under RICO statutes.

Hard time for interfering with the conduct of an election, coupled with asset seizure, might finally make a dent in the sorry history of voter suppression.

On the other side of the coin, revising election law, nationalizing elections, mandating paper ballots nationwide in all elections, same-day voter registration with proper ID, and possibly even the Australian model of fining non-voters.

Public campaign financing might be nice, too - hey, a guy can dream!

Addendum to the above: and any corporation involved in denying actual human beings the right to vote should get the death penalty (revocation of charter).

And any public official at any level found to be guilty of participating in any effort to deny voter rights should immediately be expelled from office and banned from running for public office at any level...regardless of whether a court finds him or her guilty of a criminal offense.

A rose by any other name...

If someone is stupid enough to be suckered in by these "sample ballots," then one can hardly say their vote is a loss, since they clearly didn't have enough of a formed opinion to have any claim to a say in our elections. It doesn't speak well of the Democratic party that it believes that voters such as this are so key to its electoral success.

And I hope it is a sign of much bigger things to come. Federal standardization of voting- machines, rules, training, etc. and campaign finance reform. Real campaign finance reform. I know i'm tilting at windmills but so many of the problems with our electoral process- from robo-calling to negative ads to constant fundraising at the expense of governing and the list goes on- could be solved relatively easily and justifiably by fundraising deadlines and a central corporate contribution fund. It would be nice, at least.

needed ia an admendment to the Constitution:

Amidst the divisiveness of the United States Supreme Court's second foray into the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the Court's earlier, unanimous ruling of December 4, 2000. A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. The fact that the state in which you reside even permits you to vote for electors is purely a matter of legislative grace.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20001213.html

A matter of legislative grace? Crap.

Amendment XXVII

• Section 1. The Right of the Citizens of the United States to vote in all Federal and State elections shall not be denied. No state shall make or pass any law designed to disenfanchise any Citizen, nor shall excessive procedures or requirements to the voting process be required, or any identification not issued free of charge by the state allowed.

• Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

it should read: Amendment XXVIII

War Room gave as an example of vote fraud...

"In Arizona, three men were observed intimidating Hispanic voters by stopping and questioning them outside a Tucson polling place."

For historical perspective we need look no further than a Salon article from Joe Conason article of October '04.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/10/29/injustice/index.html

----------------

Testifying before the Senate against Rehnquist's elevation to chief justice in 1986, former Assistant United States Attorney James Brosnahan described an earlier encounter with him, circa 1962. As a Justice Department lawyer, Brosnahan visited Phoenix polling places to investigate alleged civil rights violations:

"The complaints we received alleged in various forms that the Republican challengers were aggressively challenging many voters without having a basis for that challenge ...

"Based on my interviews with others, polling officials, and my fellow assistant U.S. attorneys, it was my opinion in 1962 that the challenging effort was designed to reduce the number of black and Hispanic voters by confrontation and intimidation ...

"When we arrived, the situation was tense. At that precinct I saw William Rehnquist, who was serving as the only Republican challenger. The FBI agent and I both showed our identifications to those concerned, including Mr. Rehnquist ... The complaints did involve Mr. Rehnquist's conduct. Our arrival and the showing of our identifications had a quieting effect on the situation and after interviewing several witnesses, we left. Criminal prosecution was declined as a matter of prosecutorial discretion."

Under oath, Rehnquist denied Brosnahan's charges, and based on conflicting testimony from other witnesses, the issue was left sufficiently murky for the Republican-dominated Senate to confirm him....

In 1971 and 1986, when those accusations emerged against Rehnquist, he took pains to deny that he had ever participated in challenges to black and Latino voters. Whether he was telling the complete truth or not may matter less today than the fact that he and his supporters realized such behavior was shameful and unacceptable. Today's Republicans give lip service to equal rights, but seem confident that they can get away with the kind of conduct that Rehnquist tried to conceal.