« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Failing our service men and women

Our warriors are just as much citizens with the right to vote as a person standing in the voting line waiting their turn. The only difference is that our soldiers do not have the luxury to stand in line to vote and are reliant on ballots being shipped to them in a timely manner. If they can not receive the ballots in time to put their choices down and ship them back to be counted, their vote is excluded from the count.

More than one week after its extended deadline, New York still hasn’t mailed out absentee ballots to all its 320,000 military servicemen and women and overseas voters, in clear violation of the MOVE Act, FoxNews.com has learned.

This is a problem, a big problem. History shows that our military tends to vote Republican at a rate of roughly 66%. While this is a national average and does not reflect the split in New York, the issue at hand is not how they vote, but that they are given the right to vote. It is a right that they are dying for and they should not be denied their opportunity.

But what should really worry everyone is how the neglect of the law and the rights of our soldiers could influence who wins or who loses.  In New York City alone, around 50,000 soldiers stand a good chance of not having their voices counted. With elections being decided many times by a difference of a few hundred to a few thousand votes, 50,000 missed votes could and will change who would have won. It matters little who wins, the point that should bother everyone from both sides is they did not win fairly. I do not care if we as a party benefit from the missing ballots, it still remains a travesty.

New York was granted a waiver to this deadline by the Department of Justice and given an additional 15 days — until October 1 — to send out all its ballots. On October 5, New York State Board of Elections co-directors informed federal officials that the state had not fully met their extended deadline, according to an e-mail posted online at FVAP.gov, the website of the Defense Department agency tasked with overseeing military voting.

In an e-mail sent October 5, New York State Board of Elections co-directors Robert A. Brehm and Todd Valentine wrote:

“County Boards of Elections have reported to our office that UOCAVA ballots have been transmitted to voters within their respective jurisdictions except in the City of New York, and the following counties: Erie, Niagara, Putnam and Westchester.”

And, as of Oct. 9, these ballots still have not been mailed to voters in these counties, who will now have less than 25 days to receive, mark and return their ballots, federal and state officials told FoxNews.com. New York City alone has about 50,000 servicemen and women and overseas voters.

“The gravity of New York’s failure cannot be overstated. With approximately 50,000 military and overseas voters in New York City alone, there is no doubt that the November elections could be altered by this failure,” said Eric Eversole, a former Justice Department voting section attorney who recently started a nonprofit organization, Military Voter Protection Project, to protect military voting rights.

I do not know how efficient this law is or if there are items in it that need to be adjusted. But what I do know is that the very one fighting and dying for our country should be respected enough to be given full opportunity to have their vote count. If the law needs to be fixed, then fix it. But no race in the state of New York should count until our men and women of the military get their right to vote respected. Excluding 320,000 of our finest from the voting process when they are the ones defending it is immoral and un-American, period.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

    No….. Never.

    Not a change chance.

    This isn’t going to be something that could “fundamentally transform the United States” appear negatively towards New York.

    Don’t know why I’d ever think like that of the state where I was born…… and the county too – Westchester.

    /snark
    [If you didn't realize it.]

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

      If you’re still of the “our soldiers are war criminals” mindset.

      No more defensible, of course, I was just trying to offer an alternative definition of despicable.

      • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

        Maybe I’m just reading something wrong in your reply, but do you think I’m of the mindset that our men and women at the tip of the spear and those standing at their side and backline are war criminals ?

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

          It’s that d*mn ambiguity in English between the generic “you” – which is what I meant here – and the you “Kenny” which is absolutely NOT what I mean.

          In other words, the “you” here was referring to the mindset of despicable New York officials, not to Kenny Solomon who comments at RedState.

          We are on the same side, buddy.

          • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

            No worries.

            It’s the decades-lost Noo Yawka in me gettin’ all woiked up ova nuttin’ as usual.

            ———–

            Did some range time earlier today and having a fully taken-down-for-cleaning AR in front of me while also online isn’t a good thing.

            Makes my mind wander a bit away from the task at hand, which should be only my toys until done……. soaking parts is the time on my hands – ’bout 20 minutes – and there ya go.

            But I’m done with that task now and because I “was acting stupidly” and had the computer on, I may or may not have been paying attention to the upper when I put it all back together…… The bolt didn’t fit too well – I think I ran it through the clothes dryer with the other parts and a few softener sheets a bit too long.

            We’ll see if it works again tomorrow at the range.

            ;)

          • qixlqatl

            But the (very common) generic ‘you’ is, I **think**, improper usage, at least as you used it there. One should use ‘one’ for the generic ‘you’ when ‘you’ would be ambiguous … at any rate, whether the ‘you’ there is improper or not, if you use ‘one’ in that situation it removes the ambiguity, even though it might seem a bit stilted. ;)

            Sorry, I’ve just been debating a guy with a PHD in philosophy, and me just a poor, redneck carpenter :D He’s got the formal argument thing down pat, so I have to be very careful and thoughtful in presenting my ideas. Generally takes me an hour to compose a paragraph….a **short** paragraph. ;)

            ASIDE: Can someone provide me a link to download the browser HTML formatting tool? I had to restore from backup, and that wasn’t backed up …(I’m using FF)

          • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

            https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4763

            If it’s not, don’t shoot the messenger.

          • qixlqatl

            I’m a whiz-bang carpenter…computer geek, not so much :D

          • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

            Must be getting kinda sorta maybe slightly semi-decent at this stuff.

            The last time I sent anyone to a link for installing some software, they were crazy enough to trust me…….. right up until a big chunk of The International Space Station landed in their backyard.

            ;)

          • qixlqatl
          • qixlqatl

            That’s the one I had, the one I wanted, but it hasn’t been updated for the newest version of FF…..Still, thanks for the effort, KS. Much appreciated.

          • qixlqatl

            It won’t install from mozilla, but it will from the dev’s site. Works despite the compatibility warning! You da MAN, KS :D

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            You’re not being a grammar Nazi – just a grammar martinet. :)

            Basically, my intuition here seems to be in keeping with general grammatical usage today, especially in colloquial speech as at RedState – at least according to a brief google search.

            “One” seems to have retreated largely to formal writing – and even there its use can prove quite awkward.

            I personally detest using “one” as it’s so awkward, impersonal, and pretentious – and I will go to extreme lengths to avoid it, even resorting the the passive voice if need be.

            Ironically, though, I actually did give some thought about using “one” here, but couldn’t stomach it and retreated to the more comfortable “generic you” not thinking at the time that someone else might misconstrue my meaning.

            Even more ironically, I had a different e-mail message around the same time this evening in which I used the “generic you” – but then felt I needed to clear up the ambiguity and so I added in brackets [the generic "you" here, not you NAME]. I can’t remember the last time I actually did that, if ever.

            What a bizarre coincidence, to have two adventures with the “generic you” in the same evening.

          • qixlqatl

            It’s usually pretty clear what one means when the generic you is used, and if not, a bit of reflection on the context will generally reveal it. I usually start with the generic you, scan it, and change it to one if it seems like one is more reflective of what I’m trying to communicate.

            I only brought it up because many people seem to have forgotten that one is acceptable as a substitute for the generic you (or never learned it at all).

            It just seems stilted because it’s no longer common usage.. but it does conjure up the mental image of a very rigid and proper English gentleman, in suit and tie, chin up… :D

            Sorry for the threadjack. This diary needs more love…(only 3 reco’s?)

        • cactusjack

          nothing gives me, born in the South, more pleasure in conversation than to hear someone from the North out of lack of anything else to get it right, lapse into a “you all” on occasion, sometimes unwittingly, because there is no inflected (specialized) second person plural pronoun in English to distinguish it from second person singular pronoun – both are just, “you,” and it can create confusion. Southerners have logically used syntax to create a workable construct, “you all” for addressing a group or plural, which has been shortened to “y’all.” Before anyone from the North starts snickering here, let me tell you I have been in a public meeting once in the north where the speaker, knowing that to say just “you” would be inadequate and confusing in the circumstance, addressed a group of predominately ladies, as “you guys.” Ouch.