Getty Images
Even by Scott Brown standards, this one's odd.
US Senator Scott Brown today criticized the state's welfare department for sending voting registration forms to 478,000 people on public assistance, saying the mass mailing was a ploy to boost the ranks of Democratic voters and benefit rival Elizabeth Warren's campaign.
The state's Department of Transitional Assistance last month sent registration forms, along with prepaid return envelopes, as part of a settlement over a lawsuit accusing the Patrick administration of violating the federal "motor voter" law.
It requires states to provide voter registration at motor vehicle and public assistance offices.
"I want every legal vote to count, but it's outrageous to use taxpayer dollars to register welfare recipients as part of a special effort to boost one political party over another," the senator said in a statement. "This effort to sign up welfare recipients is being aided by Elizabeth Warren's daughter and it's clearly designed to benefit her mother's political campaign."
As a rule, any sentence that begins, "I want every legal vote to count, but..." isn't going to end well.
The story, which Josh Israel summarized well, isn't "outrageous" at all. Under the Motor Voter law (or more formally, the National Voter Registration Act), Americans are offered a chance to register to vote when they get a driver's license or apply for social services. Massachusetts was falling short of the law's requirements, a lawsuit was filed, and state officials settled the case.
Massachusetts, as part of the court-endorsed settlement, took the next obvious step of righting the wrong -- the state began sending out voter-registration paperwork to the thousands of people who applied for social services, but who weren't offered the documents before.
In Scott Brown's mind, this is "outrageous." Why? Because Elizabeth Warren's daughter works with one of the groups that filed the lawsuit against Massachusetts and other states that weren't fully implementing Motor Voter.
Israel's ThinkProgress posted concluded, "It is surprising that a U.S. Senator would object to a state complying with federal law and attempting to remedy its mistake when it may not have done so. It is also surprising that Brown would, in effect, say that having more eligible welfare recipients registered to vote would automatically mean more votes for Warren."
Leave a Comment:
Sounds to me like he's also saying that people on welfare don't deserve to vote.
It sounds that way because that's exactly what he is saying.
"...Brown would, in effect, say that having more eligible welfare recipients registered to vote would automatically mean more votes for Warren."
Brown like the rest of the GOTP only believe that "land-owning gentry" need to vote...
If it wasn't for missteps, this campaign would have no steps at all. It's like both sides keep Romney's campaign manager on speed dial for advice.
I can see why you were banned before - who needs another Republican idiot when we have a sufficient quota of daily demonstrators of how stupid stupid has to be to be stupid enough to be one of you morons.
yes, your erudite and sophisticated post speaks very well of your own abilities.
If the poor are as powerful voting bloc as Brown fears he should at least lie to them as Mitt does.
but Mitt doesn't even deign to lie to the poor with his infamous "I don't care about the poor" line (since they have such a great safety net to take care of them)
Who believes there are no Republican welfare recipients. Yet the social stigma of welfare remains with the left and the conservative dog whistling continues.
Who believes there are no wealthy and corporate welfare recipients? Apparently the Democrats and Republicans, neither of whom raise the subject since then Senate Leader Trent Lott said he'd go after corporate welfare after passing the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
In northern CA where I reside, most of the welfare recipients are GOP. Just like on a national level, they vote against their interests because FOX news and Rush tell them to do so. How anyone needing government assistance, is female, gay or a minority can vote Republican is something I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.
HELLO?!?!? Hey Scott, Elitist much? You Rethugs are in for such a BIG shock this November, when all these "little people" - the poor, the disenfranchised, the welfare queens and kings, ---- when they all get to the polls en-mass and show YOU who is in charge of this democracy!
Why doesn't the senator just introduce a bill which would deny voting rights to anyone not supporting him? Republicans know the numbers are against them and they are desperate.
And that's why the teapubs are rigging the elections so much this year. They know they can't win otherwise.
I think I may have sarcastically suggested this before now, but Republicans could make their voter-suppression efforts so much easier for them if they would simply disenfranchise anyone who registered anything other than Republican. It's so obvious that's what they really want to do. They should just go that route. It's not as if they have any respect for the opinions of other people, so I can't imagine what's holding them back.
The more people who vote, the less likely it is a Republican can win.
I wasn't aware of this law before and, if my experience is any guide, it isn't being implemented in North Carolina. Since 1995, when compliance was first required, I have been on various forms of public assistance and renewed my driver's license 3 or 4 times each, and I've never been asked about voter registration. Can they can see, by entering my SSN, that I'm already registered? I'll have to look into this. I wonder if non-compliance is happening elsewhere?
There is a common sense argument to limit the vote in the post "Too Many People Vote" at the "Grumbles From an Old Grouch" blog. (grumblesfromanoldgrouch.com). It would have the added benefit of giving us better laws and (hopefully) better politicians.
The Republicans probably wouldn't like it, because it doesn't discriminate on the basis of minority status, poverty level or particular political party. Plus, the effect of all that campaign cash would be lessened a great deal.
When I moved to where I live now I sent for a DMV change of address for my diver's licence. There was a voter registration form attached to the change of address form so I filled it out thinking I would be registered by the time of the CA primary which was in February in 2008. January came by and I received no voters guide. I looked online and saw I was not on the voters roll so I registered online. This was way before the deadline to register for the primary.
When election day came I went to the polling place where my housemate votes figuring if we both live in the same house we must share a polling place. I wasn't on the voting rolls again! Not even on the last minute handwritten add-ons. I even showed my DL to prove I was a resident and still had to vote on a provisional ballot. So much for Voter ID laws. I showed them my state issued photo ID and I had to vote provisionally.
So even though a voter registration is attached to a state form (DMV or welfare) it still might not get through the system. Now hopefully the citizens of MA who receive welfare will not have the same problems as I did.
hell, these clowns don't want people on welfare to LIVE, let alone vote!