Florida Purge

[John of Phoenix]

Sounds fair, so, if after a 12 month investigation, it is discovered that enough illegal votes were cast to turn an election, what happens?

Once an election is certified, that's it, the winner serves the term. I can't imagine a 12 month investigation could actually happen but if it did it would delay certification.

[johnw]

Once an election is certified, that's it, the winner serves the term. I can't imagine a 12 month investigation could actually happen but if it did it would delay certification.

In the case of a House member, that's half a term.

[wardd]

OK, so if one side wins an election, and their man serves his term even if it is discovered that the victory was a result of fraud, wouln't it be prudent of the other side to proactively scrutinize the voter rolls if fraud is a proven possibility?

scrutinizing is one thing removal without due process another

[pefjr]

		JUNE 12, 2012 In Emergency Session, U.N. Declares Florida a Rogue State Status of Democracy ‘Fragile,’ Spokesperson Says Calling the status of democracy in the Sunshine State “fragile at best,” the United Nations met in emergency session today to declare Florida a rogue state. The actions by Florida Gov. Rick Scott to purge the voter rolls in his state might have inspired the vote by the U.N., but as the spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary-General said, “We’ve had problems with elections in Florida before.” The vote means the U.N. could soon dispatch a team of observers to Florida, led by diplomats from such democracies as Egypt and Libya. Gov. Scott’s voter purge was only the latest in a series of events “that reveal a near-total breakdown of the rule of law in Florida,” the U.N. spokesperson said. “This is a state where people have been killed for carrying Skittles and iced tea, or had their faces eaten off by zombies high on bath salts,” he said. “And now this thing with Rick Scott.” In other Florida news, former Gov. Jeb Bush yesterday risked alienating his fellow Republicans by making what Fox News called “a series of dangerously sane remarks.” In stating that the current Republican Party would not be hospitable to the likes of Ronald Reagan, Fox reported, “Jeb Bush displayed a level of sanity that makes most of his fellow Republicans extremely uncomfortable.” Mr. Bush was said to be huddling with his advisers to come up with a statement unhinged enough to win his way back into the hearts of the Republican mainstream, perhaps by advocating legal marriage between a man and an assault rifle. Elsewhere on the political scene, President Obama today said he “misspoke” when he said last week that the private sector of the economy was fine: “What I meant to say was that Mitt Romney is a dick.” And after a woman was arrested for cooking meth in a Missouri Walmart, the company released the following statement: “Walmart has a strict policy against American-made products.” Borowitz Report

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

A lot of wind here.
The Feds are onto the state of Florida's scam as we speak. Florida is one of those states that, because of it's segregationist past, has to OK with the Feds any tinkering it wants to do with it's voting rules.

[pefjr]

A lot of wind here.
The Feds are onto the state of Florida's scam as we speak. Florida is one of those states that, because of it's segregationist past, has to OK with the Feds any tinkering it wants to do with it's voting rules.

Cuyahoga could probably tell us which state does not have a segregationist past, but he is too cocky to do so.

[ccmanuals]

OK, so if one side wins an election, and their man serves his term even if it is discovered that the victory was a result of fraud, wouln't it be prudent of the other side to proactively scrutinize the voter rolls if fraud is a proven possibility?

Why would the "other side" do anything. If fraud was committed wouldn't that be a matter for law enforcement and the courts?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

OK, so if one side wins an election, and their man serves his term even if it is discovered that the victory was a result of fraud, wouln't it be prudent of the other side to proactively scrutinize the voter rolls if fraud is a proven possibility?

What are you talking about? An election in a Cub Scout pack? Producing enough fraudulent voters to control most elections would involve a lot of people and a huge organizational effort. Keeping such an effort hidden would be beyond most organizations. And nobody with any knowledge would even attempt it. The perps woud have to get a hold of the votes or the voting apparatus and doctor it to their benefit. Not something that coud be attempted by an organization like ACORN that's run by do-gooders and survives on handouts.

The carping about voter fraud is itself a fraud perpetrated by right-wing money that supports ALEC. ALEC is so notoriuos even Walmart cast off from them.

[Hank Rearden]

What I have read on this topic is that Florida checked their voter registration data against their driver's license data and identified a large number of registered voters who weren't US citizens. A large number of them have voted in past elections. Florida attempted to obtain access to another database that Homeland Security has that would permit them to check the suspected non-citizen voters more accurately. The Obama administration wouldn't give them access, so Florida is suing Homeland Security. It seems to me it would be in everyone's best interest to ensure that non-citizens aren't permitted to vote. If you don't think it's a good idea to take all possible measures to prevent non-citizens from voting please explain why.

[Ian McColgin]

As I am sure Hank knows from reading the papers, the DHS list is well understood by both federal and Florida state officials to be no more reliable for the purpose of weeding out voter fraud than the state's DMV list. Just to take a small example, someone listed on either the DMV or DHS list as "Jorge Fernandez Jr.", but listed on the voter list as "Jorge Fernandez, Jr", gets removed from the rolls.

[Keith Wilson]

Hm. I wonder if the same fellow would be removed if one listing was 'George Fischer Jr.' and the other was 'George Fischer Jr'.

If you don't think it's a good idea to take all possible measures to prevent non-citizens from voting please explain why.

"All possible measures" means that some of those with a legal right to vote will be prevented from doing so. If anyone legally entitled to vote will be denied that civil right, measures to prevent fraudulent voting need to be proportional to the size of the real problem, and must balance the harm done against the supposed benefit. The evidence shows that fraudulent voting is a very, very rare occurrence. The evidence also shows that the methods used by Mr. Scott will result in many people being removed from the lists in error. Those who would be prevented from voting are considerably more likely to vote for someone other than Mr. Scott's party.

This certainly looks like an attempt to suppress voting to benefit one political party, rather than an attempt to correct any real problem.

[Norman Bernstein]

If you don't think it's a good idea to take all possible measures to prevent non-citizens from voting please explain why.

Simple: if, in the process of insuring that some non-citizens are prevented from voting, you wend up denying the voting rights of many MORE legitimate citizens, then you've made a VERY bad judgment.

In the law, we have a principle which has seemingly turned into a banal cliche; it's been said that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free, than to falsely convict a single innocent man. In voting, it's the same story; denying the voting rights of one citizen is infinately worse then letting 100 non-citizens vote......

....but first, you'd have to presume that there are far more non-citizens voting, than legitimate citizens being denied the right to vote.... and countless studies and examinations simply don't bear this out.

But all of this presumes that you actually believe that the Republicans behind the voting purge are being sincere and honest.... if so, read my other thread.

In short, the right to vote is as sacred as any other constitutional right. If you would vigorously defend youer Second Ammendment rights, and your First Ammendment rights, then why would you be cavalier about voting rights?

Is it perhaps because YOUR voting rights aren't being threatened, so it's not YOUR problem?

[Hank Rearden]

Simple: if, in the process of insuring that some non-citizens are prevented from voting, you wend up denying the voting rights of many MORE legitimate citizens, then you've made a VERY bad judgment.

In the law, we have a principle which has seemingly turned into a banal cliche; it's been said that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free, than to falsely convict a single innocent man. In voting, it's the same story; denying the voting rights of one citizen is infinately worse then letting 100 non-citizens vote......

....but first, you'd have to presume that there are far more non-citizens voting, than legitimate citizens being denied the right to vote.... and countless studies and examinations simply don't bear this out.

But all of this presumes that you actually believe that the Republicans behind the voting purge are being sincere and honest.... if so, read my other thread.

In short, the right to vote is as sacred as any other constitutional right. If you would vigorously defend youer Second Ammendment rights, and your First Ammendment rights, then why would you be cavalier about voting rights?

Is it perhaps because YOUR voting rights aren't being threatened, so it's not YOUR problem?

However, this is not the case in Florida. They have a pretty well designed process to ensure no legal voters are prevented from voting.

And you do NOT have a constitutional right to vote. This is another misguided liberal untruth that's thrown around by people who don't know any better. If your state legislature decided to pick a name out of a hat to decide who gets their electoral vote there's nothing in the Constitution to stop them. If your state laws do permit citizens to vote, the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on specific criteria in restricting this privilege. You do not have a right to vote. You are granted a privilege.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

However, this is not the case in Florida. They have a pretty well designed process to ensure no legal voters are prevented from voting.

And you do NOT have a constitutional right to vote. This is another misguided liberal untruth that's thrown around by people who don't know any better. If your state legislature decided to pick a name out of a hat to decide who gets their electoral vote there's nothing in the Constitution to stop them. If your state laws do permit citizens to vote, the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on specific criteria in restricting this privilege. You do not have a right to vote. You are granted a privilege.

How about this from #34?

"A lot of wind here.
The Feds are onto the state of Florida's scam as we speak. Florida is one of those states that, because of it's segregationist past, has to OK with the Feds any tinkering it wants to do with it's voting rules."

If Florida is in compliance why has it been announced the Justice Department is taking an active interest ?

[Hank Rearden]

As I am sure Hank knows from reading the papers, the DHS list is well understood by both federal and Florida state officials to be no more reliable for the purpose of weeding out voter fraud than the state's DMV list. Just to take a small example, someone listed on either the DMV or DHS list as "Jorge Fernandez Jr.", but listed on the voter list as "Jorge Fernandez, Jr", gets removed from the rolls.

That's not my understanding at all. Where did you get this from?

[Hank Rearden]

How about this from #34?

"A lot of wind here.
The Feds are onto the state of Florida's scam as we speak. Florida is one of those states that, because of it's segregationist past, has to OK with the Feds any tinkering it wants to do with it's voting rules."

If Florida is in compliance why has it been announced the Justice Department is taking an active interest ?

I don't think requiring someone to be a US citizen to vote is "tinkering with the voting rules". What I read was that they looked at a sample of 2600 people. Of those, approx 50 were verified to be non-citizens who had voted in past elections. That's about 2%. I would say that's enough to justify a much closer look at WTF is going on down there.

[pefjr]

Simple

Simple: if, in the process of insuring that some non-citizens are prevented from voting, you wend up denying the voting rights of many MORE legitimate citizens, then you've made a VERY bad judgment. norm

Simple, only one political party has ever been caught red handed and spanked for attempting to steal an election, and only one party rumored to steal an election and in both cases that is your very own DNC.

In the law, we have a principle which has seemingly turned into a banal cliche; it's been said that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free, than to falsely convict a single innocent man. In voting, it's the same story; denying the voting rights of one citizen is infinately worse then letting 100 non-citizens vote......norm

Norm , would you say this principle applies to innocents our Prez. is directing to be killed in the name of an undeclared international war anywhere on this rock he says, just because he declares it in our National Interests"?

.but first, you'd have to presume ,norm

no need to presume , assume, etc. it's in the records, hundreds , maybe thousands innocents have been killed by drones and continue to be killed . This is the man I voted for to change this policy, and this is the man you are still backing.

Is it perhaps because you or your family, friends, political chums are not in the target range of these drones , so it's not YOUR problem? pefjr

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

That's not my understanding at all. Where did you get this from?

You first. If we are going to post sources you will have to pony up yours too, Henry.

[Hank Rearden]

How about this from #34?

"A lot of wind here.
The Feds are onto the state of Florida's scam as we speak. Florida is one of those states that, because of it's segregationist past, has to OK with the Feds any tinkering it wants to do with it's voting rules."

If Florida is in compliance why has it been announced the Justice Department is taking an active interest ?

Thats should be obvious to anyone with at least a room temperatoure IQ, Chuckles. The Justice Dept is run by Obama. Obama is a Democrat. Odds are that the illegal voters in FL vote for Democrats. Any other questions?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I don't think requiring someone to be a US citizen to vote is "tinkering with the voting rules". What I read was that they looked at a sample of 2600 people. Of those, approx 50 were verified to be non-citizens who had voted in past elections. That's about 2%. I would say that's enough to justify a much closer look at WTF is going on down there.

The real test is the number of convictions they get.
The secretary of state for Kansas said they had collared about 300 fraudulant voters and that's why the voter ID law was needed. . When E.J. Dion asked him directly how many convivtions they got he said,"about six".
Another thing is how do they know someone isn't a citizen? Citizenship is not confered by the state. Naturalization is a procedure. One day you ain't and the next you are. Plenty of room for a bureaucrat to mess up. Especially if they are under the gun to come up with some wrongdoers to satisfy the party in power.

[Hank Rearden]

The real test is the number of convictions they get.
The secretary of state for Kansas said they had collared about 300 fraudulant voters and that's why the voter ID law was needed. . When E.J. Dion asked him directly how many convivtions they got he said,"about six".
Another thing is how do they know someone isn't a citizen? Citizenship is not confered by the state. Naturalization is a procedure. One day you ain't and the next you are. Plenty of room for a bureaucrat to mess up. Especially if they are under the gun to come up with some wrongdoers to satisfy the party in power.

You haven't done your homework as usual Chuckles. If you had you wouldn't ask such ignorant questions.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

You haven't done your homework as usual Chuckles. If you had you wouldn't ask such ignorant questions.

Thanks, Henry. Your comments are always a cornucopia of knowledge.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Thats should be obvious to anyone with at least a room temperatoure IQ, Chuckles. The Justice Dept is run by Obama. Obama is a Democrat. Odds are that the illegal voters in FL vote for Democrats. Any other questions?

A lot of innuendo there, Henry. If you are a searcher for the truth you have gotten off to a rather anti-intellectual start.

[johnw]

Thats should be obvious to anyone with at least a room temperatoure IQ, Chuckles. The Justice Dept is run by Obama. Obama is a Democrat. Odds are that the illegal voters in FL vote for Democrats. Any other questions?

So, if a Republican were in office, the laws in question would not be enforced?

[Chip-skiff]

The reptiles stole the 2000 election in Florida. No doubt they'd like to repeat their crime.

[Hank Rearden]

So, if a Republican were in office, the laws in question would not be enforced?

The Republican governor in FL is attempting to enforce the law. The Justice Dept is not cooperating with him.

[John Smith]

That's not my understanding at all. Where did you get this from?

Many sources. Those shows like Maddow's that deal with facts, the League of Women Voters and other groups.

This entire thing is an outrage and every voter should be outraged by it, as well as the voter ID laws. First FACT that needs to be taken into account is that those supporting all these new laws cannot point to voter fraud that they would get rid of. Documented voter fraud is 0.0003%. I've seen a number of people on to support the new laws, and they cannot point to even one case. They are worred about what "may" happen in the future.

Meanwhile, they are preventing many perfectly legal voters from voting, most of whom happen to be in the demographics that generally vote for Democrats. What to get rid of Medicare? Disenfranchise those voters who are on it.

The only people who don't see this are those who refuse to see it. Wake up and smell the facts. If you are a republican, smell all these facts and ask yourself why you are a republican. If you believe in smaller, less intrusive government, why are you in the party that's putting the government between doctors and female patients? I you believe in balanced budgets, why are you in the party that passed the bills that unbalanced the budget and is driving our huge deficit? Just because you've been a Republican and/or your parents were, doesn't mean you should stop thinking. This party has changed dramatically in recent years. Rather than defending it, ask yourself if it still represents your views.

[Sam F]

There's a lot of smoke being put out from Democrats about how unnecessary voter ID's are given that there is no voter fraud. Smoke, but there's no fire, eh?
No voter fraud is being perpetrated
Interestingly, and quite by accident, I had a long conversation with a couple of fellow bee keepers a couple of days ago and one of them, let's call him "Bob", mentioned witnessing voter fraud in south Florida. (Keep in mind that "Bob" is what one would call a natural constituent of the Democratic agenda) It so happens that Bob has an aunt who is not a US citizen - she's from somewhere south of the border. Yeah, I know that's an astoundingly rare circumstance in Florida, but it actually happens. Anyway, Bob went to vote in the Keys and happened to be driving his aunt somewhere at the time.

Along the way the topic of voting naturally came up and his aunt told Bob that she's already voted. Bob said: "But you aren't a US citizen! How can you do that?" The aunt said: "I always vote." Bob of course wondered how... The aunt said: 'Oh, I just wait in line, read off the first name I see on the voter registrations. If I can't see it I just speak with an heavy accent and they help me find a name. It's easy!" Bob was more than a bit horrified at the casual way his aunt committed voter fraud, but she's his aunt, so what could he do?
But wait, there's more. When Bob went in to vote, it was awfully hot outside so his aunt followed him in to keep cool. While she was inside, she decided to vote again, and she did.

Oh my, I guess a photo ID really isn't necessary, is it?

By the way Bob now lives in DC and he is convinced that Obama will win. When I asked why, he said: "You'd be amazed at how easy it is in cities to manufacture all the votes needed to win."
Well maybe I'm not totally amazed, but I am deeply saddened.
Meanwhile out here in Hicksville VA, I not only need a photo ID, but the folk marking me off the rolls when I vote already know who I am and probably know things about me that even I don't know.

[Keith Wilson]

Sam, you do realize an unverifiable anecdote isn't evidence, don't you? Reagan's welfare Cadillac? Every time this issue has been looked at objectively it's been shown that the type of voter fraud that ID laws would reduce is extremely rate, almost nonexistent.

[Sam F]

Sam, you do realize an unverifiable anecdote isn't evidence, don't you? Reagan's welfare Cadillac? Every time this issue has been looked at objectively it's been shown that the type of voter fraud that ID laws would reduce is extremely rate, almost nonexistent.

Do you realize that I just gave evidence of how easy voter fraud could occur by showing how it did occur?
Really Keith, you need to step away from the Democratic Party line and start judging evidence on its own grounds - not via ideological blindness.

[John Smith]

There's a lot of smoke being put out from Democrats about how unnecessary voter ID's are given that there is no voter fraud. Smoke, but there's no fire, eh?
No voter fraud is being perpetrated
Interestingly, and quite by accident, I had a long conversation with a couple of fellow bee keepers a couple of days ago and one of them, let's call him "Bob", mentioned witnessing voter fraud in south Florida. (Keep in mind that "Bob" is what one would call a natural constituent of the Democratic agenda) It so happens that Bob has an aunt who is not a US citizen - she's from somewhere south of the border. Yeah, I know that's an astoundingly rare circumstance in Florida, but it actually happens. Anyway, Bob went to vote in the Keys and happened to be driving his aunt somewhere at the time.

Along the way the topic of voting naturally came up and his aunt told Bob that she's already voted. Bob said: "But you aren't a US citizen! How can you do that?" The aunt said: "I always vote." Bob of course wondered how... The aunt said: 'Oh, I just wait in line, read off the first name I see on the voter registrations. If I can't see it I just speak with an heavy accent and they help me find a name. It's easy!" Bob was more than a bit horrified at the casual way his aunt committed voter fraud, but she's his aunt, so what could he do?
But wait, there's more. When Bob went in to vote, it was awfully hot outside so his aunt followed him in to keep cool. While she was inside, she decided to vote again, and she did.

Oh my, I guess a photo ID really isn't necessary, is it?

By the way Bob now lives in DC and he is convinced that Obama will win. When I asked why, he said: "You'd be amazed at how easy it is in cities to manufacture all the votes needed to win."
Well maybe I'm not totally amazed, but I am deeply saddened.
Meanwhile out here in Hicksville VA, I not only need a photo ID, but the folk marking me off the rolls when I vote already know who I am and probably know things about me that even I don't know.

I'd like someone to tell me what is wrong with the present system. I had to prove my citizenship when I registered to vote. That means I met all the criteria, including birth cerfiticate. Every election I get a sample ballot a week or so before. If I take that sample ballot to the polls, why should anything else be necessary?

I think those who support ID's need to do a little reserach on literacy tests and poll taxes. Then you've got to do a little research and have a little empathy. There are many people for whom getting a phot ID is not a simple, easy to do thing.

Then I'd ask you to ask yourself how many legal voters is it okday to deny the right to vote in order to prevent a single illegal voter from voting, although I've yet to see a documented case of that happening, but I'm sure it does.

I have suggested before support for grandfathering in a photo ID. It would get my support, however, ONLY if the state sent crews with mobile equipment to the counties and went to assisted living, nursing homes, and high schools. Arrange for non students to come to the school on days the photo ID people were there, and arrange transportation for those who need it.

Then I might support the ID requirement, but I would still ask why the sample ballot isn't sufficient? Over all these months that this issue has been discussed, I don't believe anyone as addressed that very simple question of the sample ballot being a ticket to the voting booth.

[Kevin T]

I've got a friend (lets call him Tim) who works for the GOP at the state level in an unnamed southern state. Anyway he was telling me over the weekend that during the 2000 Presidential election he and several of his fellow party operatives spent the last 5 weeks of the campaign printing up absentee ballots in his basement, filling them out for their candidate using the names of people in nursing homes, dead people, etc., and mailing them in by the thousands.

Tim said they did this because they wanted the insurance, just in case things didn't go their way. I was shocked I tell you, completely shocked!

[John Smith]

Do you realize that I just gave evidence of how easy voter fraud could occur by showing how it did occur?
Really Keith, you need to step away from the Democratic Party line and start judging evidence on its own grounds - not via ideological blindness.

No, you gave us a story. In order for a person to vote, they have to be registered. In order to register, they had to show some proof of citizenship, no?

I met all the criteria in place when I registered those many years ago. If you wish to change the crieteria, grandfather it in. Making it retroactive is simply wrong.

At this point, I've seen dozens of people come on suporting the new ID laws, and not a one of them has cited a single example of voter fraud this would eliminate.

[Sam F]

No, you gave us a story. In order for a person to vote, they have to be registered. In order to register, they had to show some proof of citizenship, no?

No they don't.

I've seen dozens of people come on suporting the new ID laws, and not a one of them has cited a single example of voter fraud this would eliminate.

Now you have finally seen one.

[Sam F]

... You are arguing not to enforce the law. You are wrong.

There's no other "reasonable" way to look at it.

That's correct. There is no reasonable way to argue against enforcing voting laws.

[Sam F]

I'd like someone to tell me what is wrong with the present system...

I just showed you how voter fraud is done - in South Florida.
I also demonstrated how difficult it would be in my little "backward" Virginia home.

Pretty clear wasn't it?

[Keith Wilson]

We don't need evidence to enforce the law, Keith.

If one is going to enforce the law in a way that will deprive even one person of his right to vote, then evidence is needed. The methods Mr. Scott is attempting to use in Florida will certainly deprive some people of their legitimate right to vote. One cannot deprive people of their civil rights on the off chance that a crime might be committed.

Again, every time this has been studied objectively, the amount of fraudulent voting that would be prevented by the proposed ID laws was found to be almost nonexistent. Anecdotes don't count; almost everything happens once somewhere.

This is not about preventing fraudulent voting. This is about making it more difficult for legitimate voters to register and vote, in an attempt to favor Republicans at the polls.

[Hank Rearden]

Again, every time this has been studied objectively, the amount of fraudulent voting that would be prevented by the proposed ID laws was found to be almost nonexistent.

Apparently not the case this time. But I do understand that you Obamistas need all the illegal votes you can get.

[Curtism]

Florida has had laws requiring voters to present ID since July 2003. So Sams
"beekeeper friend Bob" is either a fabrication from one of those chain e-mails that circulate through the right-wing blogosphere, or, his story about his "aunt" who voted at a precinct outside of the one she's registered in is an outright lie.

Prior to 2003, you had to be registered in your district well in advance of a given election and proof of current residency, such as a recent utility bill, was required before one could cast a ballot.

[Curtism]

We don't need evidence to enforce the law, Keith. We don't need a long list of criminal convictions to step in and enforce the law. You are arguing for lax law enforcement. Officials who work to maintain accurate voter roles, an utterly routine and necessary function of boards of elections everywhere, are trying to enforce the law. You are arguing not to enforce the law. You are wrong.

There's no other "reasonable" way to look at it.

Supervisors of elections in 67 FLorida voting districts strongly dissagree with you by refusing to comply with the illegal (see: voting rights act) purge efforts put forth by the current Governor and his lackeys.

[wardd]

reardons problem is he's banned from kayak for life

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

We don't need evidence to enforce the law, Keith. We don't need a long list of criminal convictions to step in and enforce the law. You are arguing for lax law enforcement. Officials who work to maintain accurate voter roles, an utterly routine and necessary function of boards of elections everywhere, are trying to enforce the law. You are arguing not to enforce the law. You are wrong.

There's no other "reasonable" way to look at it.

He is? Wouldn't it be better if you broke it to him in private?
Anyway, we are only argueing against inforcement because we think the law is a setup pepratrated by a neferious right-wing group known as ALEC which has BIG money to spend on causes close to their hearts. Like euchering opposition voters off the registration rolls so they will have an easier time installing their lackeys.
It looks to me all you have to do is get a lot of the opposition off the voter rolls and then stall anyone who pops up with claim of citizenship till the voting is over. If you have to reinstall them later you can send them a broadside that makes it look like it was just a big misunderstanding by some no-name bureaucrat who will now suffer some unspecified punishment.
Of course , if the voters who were wronged go to the Justice Department you may have to get someone to fall on their sword.