Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is fast breaking news. The Obama campaign and the DNC have reached an agreement with the RNC and the Michigan Republican Party to dismiss the lawsuit they filed based on the Michigan Messenger's story about the GOP using foreclosure lists to challenge voters at the polls. They released the following joint statement:
"Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee and individual Macomb County residents have alleged that the Republican National Committee, the Michigan Republican Party and the Macomb County Republican Party were planning to use foreclosure lists to challenge certain voters on Election Day. The Republicans have denied the allegations and have stated that they never intended to challenge voters based on any such list. To clarify the matter for all voters, all parties are pleased that they agree that the existence of a person's address on a foreclosure list does not provide a reasonable basis for challenging the person's eligibility to vote and that none of these parties will challenge any voter's eligibility on that basis."
And here is a CNN report about the lawsuit:
There is much more to this story, though, and I just published an article on the Michigan Messenger with statements from both parties as well as one of the attorneys in the case and a leading election law expert. My concern is that the settlement does not really eliminate the possibility of using foreclosure lists to challenge voters. Michigan law does not require the challenger to reveal the source of the information on which a voter is challenged, which means the GOP can simply incorporate the foreclosure lists into a larger challenge list and use that larger list at the polls to challenge voters. The DNC's attorney seems to think they wouldn't dare do that now after agreeing in court that this is not a valid reason to challenge a voter. I'm not convinced.
I also have a problem with Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer saying that the settlement acknowledges that the GOP had plans to use foreclosure lists in this manner. In fact, the settlement statement says precisely the opposite. Brewer says that he thinks it's "tacit" or "implicit" in the agreement, but that is an inference. I have little doubt that the Michigan GOP did have such plans, but it is dishonest to claim such an inference has been acknowledged by the other side. Both sides are spinning like a top to make their side look better.
Politics
Comments
The Republican political machine is not to be trusted under any circumstances. If the Democrats truly believe that these GOPers are going to abide by this agreement, I've got this great bridge here in Philly I can sell to them cheap. Everyone needs to keep a keen eye open this election day, because the Republicans are beginning to reek of desperation.
Posted by: gary l. day | October 20, 2008 4:43 PM
Showing my ignorance...even if the challenger doesn't have to reveal the source of information, don't they have to state a cause for challenge? Otherwise the voter wouldn't know what proof to offer in response. If large numbers of voters are challenged regarding their addresses following a foreclosure, well, that would make the lie pretty obvious.
Posted by: BobApril | October 20, 2008 5:12 PM
Posted by: CW | October 20, 2008 6:28 PM
My suspicion is that the RNC has given up on the lawsuit because they have decided that the McCain cause is hopeless in Michigan and that they would be better served by putting resources elsewhere where the possibility of stealing the election is better (e.g. Ohio).
Posted by: SLC | October 20, 2008 6:38 PM
Not being an American I must be missing something here, but how can any citizen in a democracy by ineligible of voting to begin with? What would be a valid reason to take that right away from anyone?
Posted by: Lumen-Second | October 20, 2008 7:09 PM
Lumen-Second,
The Republicans are taking advantage of a technicality to remove voters from the rolls who they think have a proclivity to vote against them. In most states (maybe all), you must have a legal residence in order to vote. One reason for that is your legal residence determines which state and local candidates you vote for and the ballot issues, such as sales-tax and property taxes, that you can vote on.
The Republicans are working on the premise that if your house has been foreclosed, then you've probably moved, and are no longer eligible to vote from that residence.
For national and state level elections it doesn't matter where you live, so you should probably be allowed to vote. I believe that the rules do not allow this in Michigan. (I'm sure they don't allow this in other states that I've lived in.)
Whether these kind of challenges are morally correct is something different from whether they are legal. I'm sure that the lists they have compiled are for use in heavily Democratic precincts. I'd be willing to bet that they were targeting inner-city precincts which in Michigan are predominantly black, so there is a racial aspect to it as well.
It appears that the theory is that if you can't get people to vote for you, then prevent people from voting for your opponent.
Posted by: JScarry | October 20, 2008 8:52 PM
Lumen,
JScarry covers the answer pretty well. We do have a few examples of where these issues have become problematic. For example, it is estimated that a handful of New Yorkers who winter in Florida cast votes in both states, sometimes including voting for president in both states. It's not enough to turn any elections, but it does mean that (a) at the presidential level they get twice as many votes as the rest of us, and (b) they are voting for local officials in a district in which they are not actually a resident.
So it's not about whether they have the right to vote, but where they have the right to vote. And certain political organizations who believe "real" democracy requires that they win the election are not above taking advantage of these reasonable rules to disenfranchise those who would vote for their opponents.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 21, 2008 12:04 PM
thank you for the explanations, I at least understand the basis of this now. It still seems odd to me that someone could actually be stricken from a voter registry for this reason though (even disregarding the specific and biased why in which this may be being abused in this instance)
Shouldn't the prospective voter simply be able to provide proof of their current residence, even if it is a temporary one?
I say this because I was recently in a similar situation myself during the recent Canadian election.
I had to move into a temporary sublet situation just prior to the election and needed to prove my new residence and identity simply with my Provincial ID and a bank statement postmarked to my new address.
Posted by: Lumen-Second | October 21, 2008 1:48 PM