Letter is bid to intimidate Latino voters

[uk_dave]

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- What we have here is an attempt to intimidate.

There is no question that was the intent behind a toxic letter sent to an estimated 14,000 Spanish-surnamed voters in Southern California's Orange County. Just as there is no question that the letter came from the campaign of Republican congressional candidate Tan Nguyen, a Vietnamese immigrant who hopes to defeat Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-California, in the November 7 election.

Written in Spanish, the letter threatens: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

The only question is whether Nguyen authorized the mailing, or whether he's telling the truth in blaming the whole mess on a renegade staffer who has since been dismissed.

Calling the letter "grotesque and obnoxious," Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh is convinced that Nguyen orchestrated the whole thing. Baugh claims the mail house that sent the letter told him that Nguyen was personally involved in the mailing. The local GOP has asked Nguyen to resign his candidacy, saying through a spokesman that the candidate is "not a welcome member of our party."

Nguyen won't withdraw. Instead, he hired a lawyer to help him answer questions from the Justice Department and the California Attorney General's Office, both of which are looking into whether any federal or state voting rights laws were violated.

The letter is reprehensible, and whoever is responsible for it should be punished -- harshly.

First, it contained false information. While illegal immigrants are prohibited from voting, legal immigrants can vote if they've become naturalized citizens. The letter also stated that the federal government had installed a computer system to verify the names of new registered voters and that anti-immigrant groups (of which there is no shortage in California) would be able to access that information. According to the Justice Department, there is no such database.

Besides, the letter was an exercise in ethnic profiling. Let's be clear: This mailing wasn't aimed just at illegal immigrants, or even legal immigrants. Some recipients may have been U.S.-born Latinos whose names happened to show up on a database of Democratic voters to which, Nguyen claims, the staffer gained access. According to a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, recipients included "longtime registered voters in California" and possibly even "fourth-generation Californians."

No wonder California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the letter "racist" and urged Lockyer to prosecute those responsible with a hate crime.

Arnold's right. This was a slap against all Latinos and an indication of how afraid some people are now that they're becoming more numerous and acquiring more political power.

The good news: Stuff like this helps clear the air. Those folks who are afraid of changing demographics always talk about how Mexican-Americans in particular should stop thinking of themselves as "Mexican" and just consider themselves plain ol' Americans.

It's a sweet idea, but one in which, apparently, not everyone puts much stock.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/index.htmlexternal link.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/23/navarrette/index.html

So this letter is (thought to be) sent by an unelected Republican candidate.

Should he withdraw?

[Rob Lister]

"You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

Good advice if you ask me.

[EBU]

His own party thinks he should withdraw from the race. I suppose that means that the democratic party would be very happy if he stays in the race.

[Skeptic]

Written in Spanish, the letter threatens: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

Er... that's true, isn't it? Non-citizens cannot vote, so far as I know.

Rude, obnoxious, yes; but where's the "intimidation"?

[EBU]

Good advice if you ask me.


I don't think being an immigrant disqualifies you from voting.

[brodski]

Good advice if you ask me.

So legal immigrant's aren't allowed to vote? How did one end up Governor of California then? Those barred from voting are usually barred from holding elected office.

[Grammatron]

I must have missed it, when did they prove Tan Nguyen has anything to do with this letter?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Citizens who immigrated can vote, just not illegal immigrants.

[Skeptic]

Citizens who immigrated can vote, just not illegal immigrants.

I think that by "immigrant" the letter means legal immigrants who are not (yet) citizens, e.g., those on work visas or permanent residents.

[brodski]

I must have missed it, when did they prove Tan Nguyen has anything to do with this letter?

Well, either he's telling the truth and he is incapable of even managing his campaign staff, or he is lying and he did send out this letter. Neither looks good.

[EBU]

[QUOTE=Grammatron;2038582]I must have missed it, when did they prove Tan Nguyen has anything to do with this letter?[/QUOTE

Calling the letter "grotesque and obnoxious," Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh is convinced that Nguyen orchestrated the whole thing. Baugh claims the mail house that sent the letter told him that Nguyen was personally involved in the mailing. The local GOP has asked Nguyen to resign his candidacy, saying through a spokesman that the candidate is "not a welcome member of our party."

So they didn't prove it (or they didn't tell the media what their proof is), but for some reason the republican officials think he was behind it.

[brodski]

I think that by "immigrant" the letter means legal immigrants who are not (yet) citizens, e.g., those on work visas or permanent residents.

But that is not what the word "immigrant" means, is it?

[Steven Howard]

Should he withdraw?

Everybody who isn't Tan Nguyen seems to think so. If I recall correctly, both the state and county Republican parties have called on him to withdraw, and the Governator called it a hate crime.

Nguyen, for his part, is doing the usual two-step of "I didn't do it"/"Even if I did do it, I didn't do anything wrong."

He's now saying that the English translation that the newspapers have printed is incorrect and misleading. He says the word they're translating as "immigrant" actually refers to permanent residents who are not US citizens. Native Spanish speakers and professors of Spanish disagree. (The actual phrasing in the letter is "si es emigrado" -- literally "you are emigrated.")

Of course, that's not the only thing in the letter that's incorrect or misleading, and even if the entire thing were factually accurate, it's still a transparent attempt to scare Latino voters away from the polls.

Nguyen's also implying that Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez is behind the charges. "I don't speak Spanish, but Ms. Sanchez does. There has been no crime committed so why is there a criminal investigation three weeks prior to a very important election? What is going on? Who is fueling this investigation?"

[drkitten]

Er... that's true, isn't it? Non-citizens cannot vote, so far as I know.

Rude, obnoxious, yes; but where's the "intimidation"?


No. There are certainly "immigrants" (people not born in the US) who have become citizens and as such have the right to vote.

Threatening such people with jail time is definitely intimidation.

[back2basics]

His own party want him to stand down so i beleive he should. Hopefully he will be arrested soon as he should be for trying to subvert the democratic process.


State Attorney General Bill Lockyer told Nguyen's opponent, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove, that details should become clearer in the next few days and that his office "would be making arrests," Sanchez said.

<snip>

But Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh didn't believe Nguyen's denial and continued to call for him to bow out of the race.

"I've learned that Mr. Nguyen was involved in expediting that mailer," Baugh said. "I've had conversations with the attorney general and folks involved with the mail house. He called the mail house himself and told them to expedite the mailing."


http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1325512.php

[Grammatron]

So legal immigrant's aren't allowed to vote? How did one end up Governor of California then? Those barred from voting are usually barred from holding elected office.

You are missing something here. You are reading a translation of the letter in English. In Spanish the word used is "emigrado" which has multiple meaning.

Also, the letter starts of with "If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting." Pretty clear to me.

Finally, Tan D. Nguyen himself is an immigrant from Vietnam.

Below is the link to the actual letter if you want to take a look yourself.

http://www.theliberaloc.com/pdf/theletter.pdf

[Skeptic]

But that is not what the word "immigrant" means, is it?

Well, there's a double meaning to the word. One sense of the word is that "immigrant" is someone not yet a citizen--i.e., the "immigration and naturalization service": once naturalized, you're no longer an immigrant as far as they are concerned and they have no further authority over you. That's the way I intuitively understood that phrase.

The second meaning of the word is anybody, including citizens, which were born in another country. In that case, it is indeed intimidating to those who are naturalized citizens, trying to make them think they are still not allowed to vote. But since the letter also said that "if you are a citizen, we ask you to participate in the democratic process of voting", It seems to me unlikely that that's what the sentence quoted meant.

If it's an intimidation attempt, it's an extremely odd one.

[Darth Rotor]

So legal immigrant's aren't allowed to vote? How did one end up Governor of California then? Those barred from voting are usually barred from holding elected office.
He is a citizen. He has long since been a citizen. His status as resident alien (legal immigrant) was superceded by citizenship ages ago.

DR

[Steven Howard]

I must have missed it, when did they prove Tan Nguyen has anything to do with this letter?

He's admitted that his campaign staff mailed it out, and on Sunday he was handing reporters copies of what he claimed was the original English version.

[back2basics]

You are missing something here. You are reading a translation of the letter in English. In Spanish the word used is "emigrado" which has multiple meaning.

Also, the letter starts of with "If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting." Pretty clear to me.

Finally, Tan D. Nguyen himself is an immigrant from Vietnam.

Below is the link to the actual letter if you want to take a look yourself.

http://www.theliberaloc.com/pdf/theletter.pdf

The letter was sent to legally registered voters, which is where they got the list from. So why the need to send it?

Leaders of Orange County's Republican and Democratic parties said Braniff's claims were irrelevant since the letter was sent to thousands of people who were legally registered voters and had adopted the letterhead of an anti-illegal immigration organization
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1327836.php

[Skeptic]

The letter was sent to legally registered voters, which is where they got the list from. So why the need to send it?

Ay, there's the rub. The reason is that in some places, especially in areas with many immigrants (legal or illegal) the voters' list, amazingly, actually includes some non-citizens and even illegal immigrants, despite the fact that it of course shouldn't.

[Grammatron]

The letter was sent to legally registered voters, which is where they got the list from. So why the need to send it?
Because not all of the people on that list should be voting.

[Steven Howard]

Because not all of the people on that list should be voting.

Evidence?

[back2basics]

Ay, there's the rub. The reason is that in some places, especially in areas with many immigrants (legal or illegal) the voters' list, amazingly, actually includes some non-citizens and even illegal immigrants, despite the fact that it of course shouldn't.

So this is a case of activist policing and activist Republican leaders in OC who say what he did was illegal? Dam activist OC Republicans.

[Rob Lister]

The real rub is the lack of political experise in drafting the letter: for that the aid (or whoever) should be fired.

I would have phrased it something along the lines of:

"As you know, my opponent supports the current law which means that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.

I'd work for you in making changes to that law."

[Tony]

Er... that's true, isn't it?


No, immigrants can vote.

[back2basics]

Also it was mailed to Democratic voters, which is why it illegal. Of course Republican immigrants don't need to be sent the letter.

14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County

[Steven Howard]

The real rub is the lack of political experise in drafting the letter: for that the aid (or whoever) should be fired.

I would have phrased it something along the lines of:

"As you know, my opponent supports the current law which means that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.

I'd work for you in making changes to that law."

But that would give away that it was sent by a candidate. The actual letter makes no mention of any particular candidates and is presented on the letterhead of an "immigration reform" organization. (http://www.ccir.net/)

[PogoPedant]

Not that its my business or anything, but shouldn't americans be more concerned with getting more people to vote, rather than even fewer?

[Rob Lister]

Not that its my business or anything, but shouldn't americans be more concerned with getting more people to vote, rather than even fewer?

More of which party?

[back2basics]

Not that its my business or anything, but shouldn't americans be more concerned with getting more people to vote, rather than even fewer?


Thats in neither parties interest. Its far too unpredictable, they like a predictable electorate it makes their jobs easier. They could change voting to be on a weekend, but of course they wont.

[Grammatron]

Evidence?

Ok. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp105&sid=cp1052qZ1Q&refer=&r_n=hr416.105&item=&sel=TOC_194280&)

[Grammatron]

Not that its my business or anything, but shouldn't americans be more concerned with getting more people to vote, rather than even fewer?

Why?

[HeavyAaron]

Not that its my business or anything, but shouldn't americans be more concerned with getting more people to vote, rather than even fewer?

Heavens no!

Good golly, I definely want fewer people voting.

By what distorted reasoning does one reach the conclusion that more people voting would result in better governance?

How about only informed people vote? That could at least have the potential to result in better governance. That's why I advocate a simple poll test. (How many people are on the Supreme Court? Name one. What article of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Executive? Which of the following are rights granted under the Bill of Rights?)

Aaron

[back2basics]

Ok. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp105&sid=cp1052qZ1Q&refer=&r_n=hr416.105&item=&sel=TOC_194280&)

You didn't read it did you?


The Minority's independent analysis demonstrates that the Majority is wrong when it describes the 624 voters as `Documented evidence of illegal non-citizen voting.' For a matter as sensitive as the charge that non-citizens cast ballots in 1996, terms must be used with great care; in this case, the Majority has shown great carelessness.

The fact remains, however, that nothing in the process conducted by the Majority proves widespread voter/registration fraud, and certainly nothing coming close to the 748 votes they claim contributed to Congresswoman Sanchez's victory. Furthermore, the Majority grossly mischaracterizes and slanders Ms. Sanchez's election by suggesting that the `illegal' votes they have identified came out of her margin of victory. We do not know for whom any `suspect' voters voted. The Majority cannot present a shred of evidence that would support such an irresponsible characterization.

[Grammatron]

You didn't read it did you?

Did you? Pretty sure it doesn't dispute that some on the list shouldn't be there.

[Steven Howard]

Ok. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp105&sid=cp1052qZ1Q&refer=&r_n=hr416.105&item=&sel=TOC_194280&)

You linked to the record of the dismissal of Bob Dornan's challenge against Loretta Sanchez's 1996 election victory. It's true that the basis of Dornan's complaint was his allegation of widespread voter fraud, specifically that illegal immigrants voted for Sanchez, but in the end Dornan could produce no evidence for this.

In fact, the individual page you linked to actually shows the flaws in the methodology the Dornan campaign used to "find" the thousands of illegal voters.

[Grammatron]

You linked to the record of the dismissal of Bob Dornan's challenge against Loretta Sanchez's 1996 election victory. It's true that the basis of Dornan's complaint was his allegation of widespread voter fraud, specifically that illegal immigrants voted for Sanchez, but in the end Dornan could produce no evidence for this.

In fact, the individual page you linked to actually shows the flaws in the methodology the Dornan campaign used to "find" the thousands of illegal voters.

Which does not dispite that there are illegal voters on the list, merely the grounds for the lawsuit and its claims.

[Steven Howard]

Which does not dispite that there are illegal voters on the list, merely the grounds for the lawsuit and its claims.

It doesn't dispute that there may be illegally registered voters, but neither does it confirm it. In the end, I think the official Congressional investigation found on the order of 700 "suspicious" ballots, with of course no way to determine how many of those suspicious votes each candidate received. Also, this was ten years ago.

I'll concede that it's plausible, even highly likely, that there are illegally registered voters in the 46th District, some of whom are illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents. However, if anybody knew for a fact that there were such people, then we'd know who they were, and they'd be stricken from the rolls.

But even given that highly likely event, it's not the Nguyen campaign's place to try and enforce the election laws. It's certainly not permissible for them to send out a misleading letter, in Spanish, without identifying themselves as the source, to registered Democrats only. That's clearly an attempt to intimidate registered Democrats into not voting, and clearly a violation of California's election laws.

[varwoche]

Which does not dispite that there are illegal voters on the list, merely the grounds for the lawsuit and its claims. Either I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) or else SH has shown your evidence to be bogus and you are clumsily evading that fact.

[WildCat]

Evidence?
I don't know how it works in Orange County, but here you don't have to provide any proof of identification in order to vote. You simply state you are a citizen and that's that. There's really nothing to prevent a non-citizen from voting here.

[Tony]

More of which party?

What a stupid question.

[Beeyon]

While this does seem like an attempt to intimidate; that anyone feels this letter could have any effect is much more troublesome to me.

I'm not in favor of making the naturalization process terribly difficult... but a naturalized citizen should be pretty darn sure about their right to vote.

[Grammatron]

Either I'm missing something (which is entirely possible)

Yup.

[drkitten]

While this does seem like an attempt to intimidate; that anyone feels this letter could have any effect is much more troublesome to me.

I'm not in favor of making the naturalization process terribly difficult... but a naturalized citizen should be pretty darn sure about their right to vote.

A lot of Latinos come from cultures where arbitrary abuse of authority by police and politicians are the norm.

[Grammatron]

It doesn't dispute that there may be illegally registered voters, but neither does it confirm it. In the end, I think the official Congressional investigation found on the order of 700 "suspicious" ballots, with of course no way to determine how many of those suspicious votes each candidate received. Also, this was ten years ago.

I'll concede that it's plausible, even highly likely, that there are illegally registered voters in the 46th District, some of whom are illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents. However, if anybody knew for a fact that there were such people, then we'd know who they were, and they'd be stricken from the rolls.

But even given that highly likely event, it's not the Nguyen campaign's place to try and enforce the election laws. It's certainly not permissible for them to send out a misleading letter, in Spanish, without identifying themselves as the source, to registered Democrats only. That's clearly an attempt to intimidate registered Democrats into not voting, and clearly a violation of California's election laws.

I can agree with that, if Nguyen was responsible.

[Metullus]

I don't know how it works in Orange County, but here you don't have to provide any proof of identification in order to vote. You simply state you are a citizen and that's that. There's really nothing to prevent a non-citizen from voting here.That's how it is here as well. You are not required to present any ID (much less proof of citizenship) either to register to vote or to cast a vote.

[pipelineaudio]

Its not intimidation. If someone is too stupid to know whether or not they have the right to vote, would you REALLY want them voting???

[Dr Adequate]

Nguyen's also implying that Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez is behind the charges. "I don't speak Spanish, but Ms. Sanchez does." ... adding: "And I can't type, and I don't know how the photocopier works, but Ms Sanchez used to be a secretary."

This guy is my official Moron Of The Week. Unless they restart the Hovind trial, in which case all bets are off.

[Steven Howard]

Its not intimidation. If someone is too stupid to know whether or not they have the right to vote, would you REALLY want them voting???

These two sentences don't seem to have anything to do with each other.

[back2basics]

These two sentences don't seem to have anything to do with each other.

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Its not intimidation. If someone is too stupid to know whether or not they have the right to vote, would you REALLY want them voting???

Steve you are wrong, because people who don't know what Democracy means, should not be allowed to vote.

And pipelineaudio clearly has no idea what democracy means.

[Skeptic]

How about only informed people vote? That could at least have the potential to result in better governance. That's why I advocate a simple poll test.

The practical problem is that, once such a test is made, whoever makes the test in effect controls who gets to vote. Similar tests were used in the past to exclude blacks (or course, they also had "special" questions for them--e.g., "how many bubbles are in a bar of soap?", etc.)

[PogoPedant]

More of which party?

Thats in neither parties interest. Its far too unpredictable, they like a predictable electorate it makes their jobs easier. They could change voting to be on a weekend, but of course they wont.

Why?

Heavens no!

Good golly, I definely want fewer people voting.

By what distorted reasoning does one reach the conclusion that more people voting would result in better governance?

How about only informed people vote? That could at least have the potential to result in better governance. That's why I advocate a simple poll test. (How many people are on the Supreme Court? Name one. What article of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Executive? Which of the following are rights granted under the Bill of Rights?)

Aaron
Wow. Okay, so maybe my ideas of democracy are a bit on the naïve side.

I get that the two ruling parties have nothing to gain from a more active voting base, but they are not USA. Am I the stupid one here, or would the nation gain from a more politically interested public? As to having only the informed vote, that would be a betrayal of the democratic principles, so why not approach the problem from another side: Get as many of the voters as possible informed? I know, I know, naïve again...

I'm dreaming of a time when starry-eyed idealism drive people to vote (or run!) for the principles they think are the best for everyone.

[pipelineaudio]

Steve you are wrong, because people who don't know what Democracy means, should not be allowed to vote.

And pipelineaudio clearly has no idea what democracy means.

I at least know the USA isnt a democracy, but a republic

[Mephisto]

Also it was mailed to Democratic voters, which is why it illegal. Of course Republican immigrants don't need to be sent the letter.

:) Good point. Republicans don't immigrate; unless it was on the Mayflower or in the case of Mr. Nguyen on a different boat. ;)

[Mephisto]

How about only informed people vote? That could at least have the potential to result in better governance. That's why I advocate a simple poll test. (How many people are on the Supreme Court? Name one. What article of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Executive? Which of the following are rights granted under the Bill of Rights?)

Aaron

Great idea! I'm sure I fall into your "non-informed" category, and you'd have the fact that I'm part Hispanic as a bonus (Hispanics have traditionally voted Democratic until the GOP tied themselves to the abortion issue).

Under your conditions, the only people likely to answer those questions correctly ARE the legal immigrants. You're grossly overestimating the knowledge of the average American.

[HeavyAaron]

The practical problem is that, once such a test is made, whoever makes the test in effect controls who gets to vote. Similar tests were used in the past to exclude blacks (or course, they also had "special" questions for them--e.g., "how many bubbles are in a bar of soap?", etc.)

I understand all of that. That's why one would have to be very careful about controlling the law that designates the mechanism for generating questions.

The questions certainly couldn't have anything to do with soap as that's not relavent to governance. In fact, I'd say any topics not covered in a high school civics class (which we ALL had to take) would not be allowed.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Great idea! I'm sure I fall into your "non-informed" category, and you'd have the fact that I'm part Hispanic as a bonus (Hispanics have traditionally voted Democratic until the GOP tied themselves to the abortion issue).

Spare me the racial tripe you're so fond of.

Under your conditions, the only people likely to answer those questions correctly ARE the legal immigrants. You're grossly overestimating the knowledge of the average American.

Most of the legal immigrants I've met are EXACTLY the people I'd want to see voting. They generally have a clue and are among the most patriotic Americans in my experience.

And I'm not overestimating the knowledge of anyone. I'm fully aware that the majority of the voting public doesn't have a bloody clue about the Constitution or their representatives, etc. (despite the fact that they HAD to learn it to get out of high school). That's exactly the problem I want to fix. Either learn the relavent material or stop thinking you're in a position to make decisions. Uninformed decisions are not helpful.

Aaron

[back2basics]

I at least know the USA isnt a democracy, but a republic


Actually it's a Democratic Republic.

[Snide]

Its not intimidation. If someone is too stupid to know whether or not they have the right to vote, would you REALLY want them voting???That's the same line they tried to pull WRT the butterfly ballots in FL. The problem with that line of thinking is this: Of course you don't want people that stupid to vote. But there are people that stupid on all points of the political spectrum, and a system that isolates (read: effectually negates the intended voting choices of) only the stupid who were voting for one particular candidate, but not the other(s), is unfair.

The butterfly ballots only affected the stupid Gore voters, not the stupid Bush voters. It seems like the same type of dynamic may be occurring here.

[HeavyAaron]

That's the same line they tried to pull WRT the butterfly ballots in FL. The problem with that line of thinking is this: Of course you don't want people that stupid to vote. But there are people that stupid on all points of the political spectrum, and a system that isolates (read: effectually negates the intended voting choices of) only the stupid who were voting for one particular candidate, but not the other(s), is unfair.

The butterfly ballots only affected the stupid Gore voters, not the stupid Bush voters. It seems like the same type of dynamic may be occurring here.

Completely valid point. This particular example aside, how would you propose to prevent this sort of thing?

Aaron

[ponderingturtle]

So legal immigrant's aren't allowed to vote? How did one end up Governor of California then? Those barred from voting are usually barred from holding elected office.

There is a difference between a legal immigrant and a naturalized citizen.

So immigrants can become citizens.

[Pescado]

Just thought I'd post a translation of the letter here for all to read. It's at the bottom of this post. I'm not a fluent speaker, but I did my best. Feel free to make corrections to my translation. Hopefully this will shed some light on the issue instead of having to argue hypothetically, or going off of what the letter supposedly said. I also have added my 2 cents.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the content of the letter per se. However, apparently Tan Nguyen did forge the letterhead and name at the bottom. He also made threats of deportation in the letter which obviously were not going to be backed up, at least not to his knowledge, even if an illegal immigrant did vote in the election. He blundered again by denying the fact that his campaign sent the letter.

However, let me also say that he probably truly saw this as an issue he needed to combat. I don't know the specifics for amount of voting fraud committed by illegal immigrants, but I don't think it is so far fetched that it could be an issue, especially in southern California. He approached it the wrong way, so I don't condone this letter, but if he would have sent it in his own letterhead, omitted the threat of deportation to those who vote illegally, and put his own name at the bottom, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as targetting it towards Democrats, it was probably a matter of economics as much as anything else. Being from California myself, from a community that is largely Mexican, and with a Mexican-American girlfriend of 6 years, I really doubt that there are all that many Mexicans that vote Republican in Nguyen's district. In my experience, which I admit may be biased, I have noticed that Mexicans usually vote Democrat. Personally, I feel that if not for agreement with Democrats on immigration, many more would jump ship to the Republicans, who share a lot of the same beliefs that Mexicans do, in my opinion. But I digress. In any case, it was his Democrat rival that supposedly was registering illegal immigrants to vote, so why send the letter to anybody besides those Mexican people who were newly registered to vote as Democrats in his own district? Why should he spend the additional campaign funds? Just so he can be politically correct?

P.S. You'll notice that I used the words "Mexican" and "Mexican-American" interchangibly in my previous thoughts. I'd like to avoid the PC police on this one, as it is the common usage that is used in everyday speech around these parts.


Greetings XXX,

You are receiving this letter because recently you registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, you are requested to participate in the democratic process of voting.

You are warned that if you are an illegal resident in this country or if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration, and you will be deported for voting without having genuine claim to it.

In the same manner, you are warned that the government of the United States is installing a new computerized system to verify the names of all of those who are newly registered to vote in the October and November elections. Organizations against immigration (?) will be able to ask for information about this new computerized system.

It is not like Mexico, here there is not any incentive to vote(?). In the United States there is not a voter registration card. Therefore, it is useless and dangerous to vote in any election if you are not a citizen of the United States.

Do not trust any politician that says otherwise. They only serve their own interests. They only want to win the elections, without the least concern about what happens to you.

Sincerely,
Sergio Ramirez

[Snide]

Completely valid point. This particular example aside, how would you propose to prevent this sort of thing?

AaronI'm afraid I don't follow...it depends. What position am I in? President? Ballot counter? Head of Democratic Party?

[Lisa Simpson]

Here in the OC, you don't need any ID to register to vote. In fact, the Republican party got caught scamming people into changing their registered party by having them sign a bunch of ballot initiative papers and then the last paper would be a blank registration form. Since the ballot initiative papers require a name and address, they had all the information they needed to change a person's political party. After that scandal, I can see why the Repub. Party of OC is dropping Ngyuen like a hot potato. They don't need any more scandal around here.

[UserGoogol]

How about only informed people vote? That could at least have the potential to result in better governance. That's why I advocate a simple poll test. (How many people are on the Supreme Court? Name one. What article of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Executive? Which of the following are rights granted under the Bill of Rights?)

Besides what has already been said, I think a big problem with only having informed people vote is that it means that government will become prone to be biased to serving the interests of informed people. A very large segment of the population will remain uninformed no matter what you do, so focusing on the informed people would be fairly injust. In a worst case scenario, there's nothing preventing the uninformed masses from just getting rounded up into camps and gassed.

[pipelineaudio]

Besides what has already been said, I think a big problem with only having informed people vote is that it means that government will become prone to be biased to serving the interests of informed people. A very large segment of the population will remain uninformed no matter what you do, so focusing on the informed people would be fairly injust. In a worst case scenario, there's nothing preventing the uninformed masses from just getting rounded up into camps and gassed.

WOW dude! You can REALLY think outside the box!!! Im not sure I agree, but man it is sure something to think about. Next time Im really stumped in the studio Im pm'ing you :)

[HeavyAaron]

I'm afraid I don't follow...it depends. What position am I in? President? Ballot counter? Head of Democratic Party?

Temporary dictator with the power to set election laws. Following that single action you then are relieved of power.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Besides what has already been said, I think a big problem with only having informed people vote is that it means that government will become prone to be biased to serving the interests of informed people. A very large segment of the population will remain uninformed no matter what you do, so focusing on the informed people would be fairly injust. In a worst case scenario, there's nothing preventing the uninformed masses from just getting rounded up into camps and gassed.

Has it occurred to you that this is already possible (or perhaps, depending on your state of paranoia, which evidently runs high, already happening)? Why would you assume that uninformed voters votes protect their own interests? They aren't informed about what they are doing, after all. It seems to me that a little propoganda and spin and you can get an uninformed voter to vote against his/her own interests under the status quo.

Aaron

[UserGoogol]

I was merely speaking hypothetically. Of course the chance of uninformed people being run into camps is extremely low; I only mentioned it because I find the idea perversely amusing, not because I think it's a serious threat. I may have said things in too sharp terms. I was merely trying to say that there are both upsides and downsides to having uninformed people vote, and to eliminate the uninformed voters entirely can at least in principle have negative consequences.

Why would you assume that uninformed voters votes protect their own interests? They aren't informed about what they are doing, after all. It seems to me that a little propoganda and spin and you can get an uninformed voter to vote against his/her own interests under the status quo.

There are degrees of uninformedness. Even if you aren't entirely sure what the legislature even does, you can still have a vague idea that candidate A supports some things that candidate B does not, and judge accordingly. But yes, it's certainly wrong to assume that uninformed people will vote in their interests. But it's also wrong to assume that informed people will vote in the interests of uninformed people. (Depends on how nice the informed people are, and how much the interests of informed and uninformed people overlap.) It's a balance.

[Roboramma]

I can see plenty of problems with the idea of voter tests.

One problem, though, is that even if the tests are unbiased toward one party or the other, they're still going to be biased toward a specific set of facts.
So you ask questions about the supreme court and the methods of governance. Great, it's good for voters to know how the system works.

On the other hand I'm sure that there people who are informed about some of the important political issues of the day that don't know the answers to those questions.
Perhaps I am very concerned about the ban on stem cell research and have spent time finding out about why the ban has been put in place, and why other people think its a bad idea. I've also spent the time to find out who supports this ban and who doesn't.
I may not know all the issues, but this one is very important to me, and I want to vote in a way that impacts this particular issue.

But because I can't pass this test, I can't vote. You might say, "well, then go learn more so that you can pass the test." You could, however, say that about any politically biased test you contrive.

Similarly, and perhaps more importantly (and this echos UserGoogle's point), what if I am a member of a minority group that tends to be poorly educated or uninformed politically? Further, what if there are policies that are negatively affecting my group, and we are aware of this and pissed off?

So I (along with many people like me), want to go and vote in order to affect change in these particular policies that we are very concerned about. But we can't.

Finally, let's look at the people who want to enact legislation that negatively affects that minority group whose members tend to be poorly educated. Maybe by creating new taxes that impact upon them more than others, or in some other way. I know that this particular minority will be very against it, and might sway the vote against me in the next election. Except most of them can't vote, so I don't have to worry.

All of this is assuming that the questions are not biased toward any particular party.

[Skeptic]

The questions certainly couldn't have anything to do with soap as that's not relavent to governance. In fact, I'd say any topics not covered in a high school civics class (which we ALL had to take) would not be allowed.

Leaving aside practical issues, isn't it a violation of someone's civil rights to not let him vote? If so, it's just as much of a violation if the person is ignorant.

[joe1347]

Tan Nguyen is scum like most Republican candidates and deserves to be prosecuted. Withdrawing from the race isn't the appropriate response - more like jail time in my opinion.

Side note: I'm of Hispanic ancestry and guess which party I'm voting for. Some of us spic's used to be Republicans - but not anymore.


Edited to add following link. Looks like minority voter suppression is a key element of this years Republican playbook.

Hampering the vote
By Robert Kuttner | October 28, 2006

POLLS SHOW Democrats picking up between 20 and 30 House seats, enough to take control of the House. But brace yourself for a very long evening -- that could go on for days.

The Republicans' superior ground operation -- they spend more on targeting voters and getting out the vote -- has received some attention in the press. But far more ominous is the organized effort to suppress voter turnout, directed entirely against groups likely to vote for Democrats.

An exhaustive report, "Voting in 2006: Have We Solved the Problems of 2004?" by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Century Foundation, and Common Cause, catalogs new, sickening assaults on our democracy:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/10/28/hampering_the_vote/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Editorial%2FOp-ed+pages

[The Painter]

Maybe they should send out a letter to the dead Democrats in Chicago. Dead Democrats seem to have a history of voting there. Very illegal.

A letter to dead candidates in MO

The nation was shocked when Carnahan, his son, and a campaign aide were killed in a plane crash Oct. 16

A dead guy runs for senate and wins, what a country. I thought you had to live in the state for a prescribed period of time. He wasn’t living anywhere,

[Skeptic]

Tan Nguyen is scum like most Republican candidates and deserves to be prosecuted. Withdrawing from the race isn't the appropriate response - more like jail time in my opinion.

For what crime, exactly?