what a coincidence

From United for Peace and Justice:
As if losing their homes, jobs, and family members were not enough, displaced Katrina survivors are now at risk of being denied their Constitutional right to vote in Louisiana elections.

Under Louisiana's current election plans, a high percentage of the state's registered voters who have relocated to other cities and states are in danger of being excluded from the voting process. Many of them are low-income African Americans and immigrants.

Few of Louisiana's displaced residents are in a position to return to New Orleans and other Louisiana cities to vote. For instance, on Monday, February 13th, FEMA's short-term hotel program expires for most of the 26,000 displaced hurricane survivors, yet most of these evacuees have not been provided with long-term, or even transitional, housing solutions. To protect evacuees' right to vote, it's vital that Louisiana set up satellite voting centers in other parishes and states where large numbers of displaced residents are temporarily residing.

For satellite voting to be incorporated into Louisiana's election regulations, Governor Kathleen Blanco must act by early next week, but until now, she's waffled on the issue.
Here's how you can help.

Comments

  1. Scott M.13 February 2006 at 15:21

    Forgive my naivete, who runs the elections in the states? Is it an independant body responsible to the state legislature (similar to Elections Ontario or Elections Canada) or is it a department? Who is the "head" of elections?

    Are the elections authorities not mandated with making elections as convenient for voters as possible?

    Again, my apologies, I have no idea how the system down their works and can only compare it to our own.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andrea13 February 2006 at 16:19

    wow that is just wow, like
    wow
    same question as scott though, I am a little lost in understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  3. laura k13 February 2006 at 17:23

    who runs the elections in the states? Is it an independant body responsible to the state legislature (similar to Elections Ontario or Elections Canada) or is it a department? Who is the "head" of elections?

    Oh my, that's a big Kettle Of Fish. Remember Florida in 2000? Ohio (and many other states) in 2004?

    One of the things Canadians asked over and over was, Why doesn't the US have something like Elections Canada, an independent nonpartisan body to oversee elections?

    Why indeed.

    In the US, elections are run state by state, and in large enough cities, city by city. The Board of Elections in each state is headed by a political appointee.

    Remember Katherine Harris (Florida)? She helped throw the election for W and was rewarded with a big fat job in the White House. In Ohio in 2004 it was Ken Blackwell, who tried to have a quarter-million newly registered voters DQ'd. Most people had never even heard of the Secretary of State, didn't even know the position existed...

    Are the elections authorities not mandated with making elections as convenient for voters as possible?

    No, they are not. Republicans have voted down numerous bills that would have made voting easier and more convenient.

    Voter registration is different in every state - the requirements, the procedure, the degree of thicket one has to cut through. It's an utter, utter mess. Don't even get me started on electronic voting...

    I could go on, but I will try to cut myself off here... with some difficulty...

    ReplyDelete
  4. teflonjedi13 February 2006 at 18:51

    Hmmn.

    This is not a good thing, that which you describe.

    I've just returned from NOLA. As widely reported, it's the good, more affluent parts of town that are up and running. (barely) 2/3rd of the population haven't returned, and they'll be left with no voice about re-zoning, recovery plans, etc.

    Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Crabbi13 February 2006 at 19:16

    Thank you, L-girl for posting this. I've sent my e-mail. This just makes me sick.

    Again, my apologies, I have no idea how the system down their works and can only compare it to our own.

    Hey, most Americans have even less understanding of how Canada's system works. Sadly, many don't let this lack of knowledge prevent them from making their own comparisons. It's the whole "we're number one" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Granny14 February 2006 at 09:10

    I've written to my own elected officials about many of the problems. I'll be glad to send an email to the governor but I don't know how much attention LA will pay to CA.

    Here, they probably could have voted absentee with no problem.

    I'd say we need some federal regs but sometimes that makes things worse, not better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. laura k14 February 2006 at 12:11

    Hey, most Americans have even less understanding of how Canada's system works. Sadly, many don't let this lack of knowledge prevent them from making their own comparisons.

    Is that ever true. Good point, Crabbi.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

sharia

This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia . This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario. I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this. In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province. McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration. "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency. "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." The announcement prompted t...
Read more

can of worms

I'm opening a sticky subject here, my need to understand causing me to throw caution to the wind. It's about Alberta. Alberta vs. the rest of the Canada. The Globe And Mail runs something about Alberta's gripes every day, and I try to follow along. If it weren't for wmtc's resident Albertan , and the ensuing arguments in comments, I would've had no warning. It's not something Americans know about. As is, observing for more than a year, I have only the smallest of clues. Here's what I know. Please pardon my ignorance and oversimplification, but I have to start somewhere. The province of Alberta is rich, because it has oil. The province of Alberta is conservative, relative to the rest of Canada. Hmm. Funny how those two go together. Because of its great oil wealth, Alberta revenue helps fund services in the rest of Canada. (These are transfer payments?) Apparently many Albertans resent this. They want to keep Alberta's money in Alberta. They don't...
Read more

low confidence

I'm excited about today's no-confidence vote . Only three months after moving here, we'll get to see a government fall, a campaign, and an election, in a system very different from what we're accustomed to. Even the expression "the government will fall" strikes us as oddly dramatic and revolutionary. My sense of current Canadian politics, for what it's worth, tells me that very little will change from the upcoming election. I'd be surprised if the Liberals didn't win. So it's kind of cool to see this happening without a lot at stake. On a semi-tangential note, have I mentioned I'm completely down with "Corner Gas"? Excellent show; I love the deadpan humour. (Great website, too; check it out .) So was that really Finance Minister Ralph Goodale ragging on Brent Butt's camera last Saturday night?
Read more