http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/carter_baker_electoral_reform_controversy_414.htm
PARTISANS
DISCUSS 'REFORM'
Questions
surface regarding legitimacy of Baker-Carter election reform commission
By Larisa
Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Staff
Serious
questions of conservative partisanship have surfaced surrounding an electoral
reform commission co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and erstwhile
Secretary of State James Baker, RAW STORY has learned.
Election
reform? Republicans and Democrats embark on election reform with help from
voting companies, front groups, pundits and a few genuine election reform
groups peppered in.
The Carter
Center denies any involvement with the Baker-Cater Commission on Federal
Election Reform even though they are on much of its literature. Carter stepped
down from the center in March.
Perhaps most
significant, however, is the partisan makeup of those on the Commission's
panels. In a situation reminiscent of GOPUSA and Gannongate, a recent election
reform group has seemingly sprouted from nowhere and in short order landed a
seat at the table.
As revealed
earlier by Brad Friedman of Bradblog.com, The American Center for Voting Rights
appeared on the election reform scene less than a month ago. It is led by GOP
operative and election attorney Mark F. ("Thor") Hearne who also
managed to appear as the only voting rights group to Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH)
recent House Administrative Committee hearings on Ohio voting issues during the
2004 election.
ACVR is not,
however, the only controversial entity to appear as either a witness or a
panelist before the Baker-Carter Commission.
Highly
Credentialed Republican “Non-Partisans”
Hearne, who
delivered a 31-page document to Ney’s Committee assessing Ohio’s 2004 election
issues, did not reveal during the hearings that he was until very recently the
national general counsel for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign.
Hearne was
also general counsel to Gov. Matt Blunt (R–MO) for the 2004 election; counsel
to the Bush/Cheney ’04 ticket; and also served as an attorney for the
Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign.
The contact
for ACVR is also a Republican operative, former communications director for the
Republican National Committee Jim Dyke.
Dyke
pioneered “astroturf” letters, or letters to the editor that appear to be
written by constituents but instead are drafted by political operatives. During
the 2004 election, Dyke traveled the country creating what appear to be front
groups to disseminate anti-Kerry disinformation. He was also the source of many
of the registration irregularity complaints generated in Ohio, and recently set
up a Social Security lobby group.
As a
spokesman for the RNC, Dyke commented on the Purple Heart bandages he helped
distribute: “Democrats continue to try and hide their own candidates’ many
positions on the same issue (Iraq) by attacking the president’s leadership.”
ACVR, which
is neatly located at a Texas P.O. Box, was invited to join the Baker-Carter
Commission on Federal Election Reform within weeks of its formation.
To help
publicize ACVR, team Dyke and Hearne turned to Cybercast News Service, which
has intimate connections to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, Unfit
for Command—a character assassination of Kerry’s Vietnam years—and to the CBS
memo controversy through a mutual relationship with Creative Response Concepts
a PR firm that deals in political battles.
Mapping it
Out:
[Readers
should go to the original story to see the map.]
The
mysteries surrounding ACVR as well as its various connections to highly
partisan groups, to some of the members of the commission and to some of the
witnesses and speakers are so complex that RAW STORY had to create a visual
representation of entanglements in order to better clarify on how this group
may have developed.
After seeing
the full map (which will be published this evening), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI),
who held Congressional hearings on Ohio’s election irregularities and fueled
the effort for the Ohio electoral challenge, issued the following statement
Thursday.
“These
connections truly are astounding,” Conyers said. “It apparently wasn't enough
that Republican officials helped sway the election in favor of Bush—now they've
even created a phony voting rights group to combat the real work that
progressives are doing to make sure that every vote is counted.”
Panel
choices have partisan ties
Ethics and
Integrity Panel:
John Fund is
a highly partisan Wall Street Journal editorial board member who has repeatedly
attacked election reform activists as conspiracy theorists, stating "When
it comes to electronic voting, most liberals are just plain old-fashioned
nuts."
Colleen
McAndrews is a partner in a law firm representing Governor Schwarzenegger and
the treasurer for his campaign. She is considered to be a “behind the scenes
force in the Republican Party.”
Elections
and Help America Vote Act Current Status Panel:
Kay J.
Maxwell is president of the non partisan League of Women Voters, whose strong
support for a paperless ballot, despite the demands of hundreds of its members,
split the League (here and here).
Gracia
Hillman is the chairwoman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which is
an official part of HAVA. She was appointed by President Bush.
Voting
Technology and Election Administration Panel:
Jim Dickson
is the Vice President for Governmental Affairs, American Association of People
with Disabilities, a highly regarded non-partisan group. He has called all who
question electronic voting "geeks."
Other
members of the various panels are perhaps more representative of the election
reform movement, including David Dill of VerifiedVoting.org; Barbara Arnwine
the executive director of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights; and Richard L.
Hasen who is a law professor and legal blogger.
A spokesman
and senior adviser to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who conceded the election over
Ohio, said the Commission's attempt at electoral reform was
"deceptive."
"It's
as deceptive as it is dishonest,” David Wade, the senator’s communications
director, said.
“Talk about
a window into the Republicans' sincerity on electoral reform,” he added. “This
is the height of cynicism. First they cook the intelligence on Iraq, now they
create a shadowy operation to hide the truth on electoral reform…With news like
this, it's pretty clear the Republicans have other plans."
The
Commission Omission
James A.
Baker III, the Texas attorney who represented the Bush/Cheney campaign during
the 2000 election suit in Bush v. Gore and Secretary of State to President
George H. W. Bush, will co-chair the election reform commission along with
President Carter.
The
Commission on Federal Election Reform will be hosted by American University’s
Center for Democracy and Election Management and in association with Rice
University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy,
electionsonline.org, and the Carter Center.
But RAW
STORY has learned that the Carter Center flatly denies any involvement with the
Commission, even though the Center is listed on all of the Commission’s
materials and official Web site. This is despite the fact that Carter has
stepped down from the Center and that the Center is not endorsing or working in
association with the commission.
“They must
have just phrased it that way because President Carter headed this
organization,” said a confused Tynesha Green, a spokesperson for the Carter
Center. “But I know for a 100 percent that there is no program [at the Carter
Center] that is involved with it.”
RAW STORY
contacted President Carter, but he was unavailable for comment. Baker’s
assistant slammed the phone down without comment. ElectionLine did not return
calls placed to its founder Doug Chapin.
Commission
for all?
The
Commission is open to attendance by the public via application. Carter, Baker
and the panel will be housed in a private room and teleconferenced into the Kay
Center which seats 250 people and in which the public will be housed.
Many
applying for one of the 250 coveted seats found that they were required to
provide background information for security reasons.
The Secret
Service, however, says that they have no knowledge of this event, not even
knowing who was on the advance team. The Service provides security for former
presidents.
Through their
spokesperson Lorie Lewis, the Service expressed that such precautions were odd
given that the public would be sequestered from the entire panel and seated in
a large auditorium.
Lewis
contacted American University, after which she confirmed to a RAW STORY
researcher that her initial assessment was accurate.
“It was
reasonable to do the checks for the people in the small enclosed room,” Lewis
said, but saw no reason for conducting checks of the public attending the Kay
Center viewing of the event.
A
spokesperson at the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American
University, Nicole M. Byrd, expressed concern surrounding the confusion of
attendance screening, but said that audience members were screened should an
opening become available in the private room.
“We are only
asking for background information of people interested in sitting in the
smaller room with the President,” Byrd said.
One
individual applying to the convention confirmed that she was told that if she
wanted to be in the panel room along with the speakers and witnesses, then she
would have to provide background information; otherwise, she did not have to
provide any personal information beyond the normal application.
Byrd
explained that should the panel room have “no-shows” or extra room, she will
have to pull people in from the Kay Center. “It is simply that if anyone from
the public wishes to be pulled in should space become available,” says Byrd,
“then they need to tell us in advance of their interest.”
Byrd also
expressed concern about people randomly sending in their Social Security
numbers when “only background checks on people attending the in the smaller
room” would be required.
Absence of a
progressive voice
Many
election reform activist groups find it difficult to believe that Congressman
Conyers was not invited to sit on any of the panels, though he was invited to
sit in the Kay Center along with the public to watch the commission via live
feed.
In speaking
with RAW STORY, a source close to American University explained that this would
be a good event that should help expand the HAVA laws. When asked about what
particular incidents and/or allegations would be addressed, the source only
identified paper trails as a major point.
This
reporter pointed out that the Conyers’ report, the document that essentially
resulted in the historic Ohio electoral challenge did not seem to be part of
the panelists’ discussion topics and asked why it was that Conyers was
relegated to watching the events via a live feed instead of sitting on a panel.
The source said not inviting Conyers was simply “a missed opportunity.”
In a letter
sent to Carter on Monday of this week, Conyers asked to participate in the
commission. He has not been invited.
Raw Story
researcher Muriel Kane contributed to this report.
Disclosure:
Raw Story is non-financial affiliate of the media reform arm of Velvet
Revolution, a group that works on electoral reform.
Article
originally published Apr. 14, 2005.
Copyright ©
2004-05 Raw Story Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
FAIR USE
NOTICE
This site
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of political, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.