ACORN canvassers are facing convictions for voter
registration fraud in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, so what does
ACORN do?
Sue to change the statute that outlaws the fraud, of course.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and ACORN's
get-out-the-dead-people-to-vote affiliate Project Vote filed
a federal lawsuit today in an effort to snuff out the
Keystone State's anti-election fraud law.
According to the ACLU the law has been misapplied by Allegheny
County's Democratic District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr.,
who filed seven charges against former ACORN workers for
falsifying voter registration forms. After preliminary hearings,
all seven have been ordered to stand trial.
In a press release, the
ACLU said the law has been misapplied "to prohibit an
organization from using flexible productivity standards and goals
to manage paid canvassers."
Translation: efforts to crack down on election fraud are bad
because, well, they crack down on election fraud.
"They already charged the employees, and they've hinted they
might go after ACORN next," the New York
Times dutifully quoted Witold Walczak of the ACLU
saying. "It's the ACLU's reading of this, that these kind of laws
that restrict an organization's ability to hire and pay
canvassers impacts on voter registration activities, which are
constitutionally protected actions."
The New York Times, of course, is a
business partner with one of ACORN's business partners, and
it covered up a potential scandal involving ACORN and the
Obama campaign.
Missy, I was just amazed he wasn't jumping all over me, but I
guess he cares more about CRA than ACORN.
Brad Schwartze| 7.26.09 @ 5:47PM
Matthew, I hate to tell you this, but ACORN and the ACLU may end
up winning this. See Meyer v Grant (1988), a case that struck
down Colorado's law making it a felony to pay
initiative/referendum signature gatherers. SCOTUS agreed with the
plaintiffs that the prohibition on payment was a violation of
their First Amendment rights.
The first district court that hears this isn't going to make a
distinction based on "productivity standards."
Matthew Vadum| 7.23.09 @ 11:47AM
Not a single comment? Where is Bob when we need him?
Missy| 7.23.09 @ 2:52PM
Matt, you need Bob like you need a hole in the head.
Matthew Vadum| 7.23.09 @ 4:52PM
Missy, I was just amazed he wasn't jumping all over me, but I guess he cares more about CRA than ACORN.
Brad Schwartze| 7.26.09 @ 5:47PM
Matthew, I hate to tell you this, but ACORN and the ACLU may end up winning this. See Meyer v Grant (1988), a case that struck down Colorado's law making it a felony to pay initiative/referendum signature gatherers. SCOTUS agreed with the plaintiffs that the prohibition on payment was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The first district court that hears this isn't going to make a distinction based on "productivity standards."