| Working on the walls under the first floor bedroom... |
| ...and under the service porch door. |
Pat tells Sharon he received his registered letter today, Sept. 9. It was postmarked Sept. 2 (not Sept. 1) in Gaylord, which seems very slow delivery. In any case, Pat now has 72 hours to compose a 200-word rebuttal of the charges against him, the text of which will appear on the ballot.
A challenge to the validity of the recall petitions is going forward as I write, with a hearing scheduled for a few days hence. In addition, Pat's group has identified four people feel they were misled into signing the petition and want their names removed. Under the circumstances the clerk's public announcement seems a bit premature. Pat's group is trying to get hold of the list of names which the clerk disqualified. Initially, she said she had reviewed all the names on the petitions and found them valid. However, after Pat's group compared the petition signatures with the voter registration records, she seems to have amended her original blanket approval. Pat's group wants to know what's going on.
During the cross-checking of names, some people were found to have two addresses listed on the voter registration records — for example, Presque Isle and Flint. These folks appear to have two homes, with Presque Isle probably being their summer home. That raises interesting questions: first, where are these people voting? and second, are these people voting in more than one jurisdiction? Remember the "voter fraud" flap involving the now-defunct ACORN urban action group? Consider, if you will, the potential impact, both locally and nationally, of people voting by absentee ballot in one jurisdiction, and then voting again "back home." Who would know, because who would check? With the electorate narrowly divided, and some elections decided by wafer-thin majorities, the possibilities here are disturbing. •••
No comments:
Post a Comment