Anuzis states that the MI GOP “nor anyone acting with its knowledge or approval has obtained lists of persons or addresses subject to foreclosure notices of proceedings” and that it “has never considered making challenges to voters based on any foreclosure notices or proceedings, will not make any such challenges, and will not endorse, approve, or participate in any such challenges by other persons or organizations.”

The MI GOP does, however, include what I consider an amazingly parsed statement–published in reporting on this story–from spokesperson Bill Nowling.

The Michigan Republican Party also won’t allow its challengers to use foreclosure lists, spokesman Bill Nowling said.

“What does a name on a foreclosure list tell us? Nothing,” Nowling said. “We go into the polling place with the qualified voter file and that is all.”

A person’s name and address on a foreclosure list doesn’t mean he or she has left the home, Nowling said. [my emphasis]

So, let there be an injunction prohibiting the use of foreclosure lists and/or any documents derived there-from.

…Investigations of vote caging and vote suppression schemes usually started out with an admission of some specific practice, followed by a denial of any such plan, followed by a decision to retain legal counsel.

In both Michigan and Ohio, where the issue of challenging the right to vote of those who have received foreclosure notices has arisen, GOP officials did not initially deny there might be such a strategy. They either admitted it, or acknowledged that it might be part of a larger strategy aimed at preventing people from voting who may be ineligible. In other words, they didn’t rule it out. Once the story came out, and public uproar ensued, the GOP officials issued vehement denials.

From:
GOP Plans and Denials to Challenge Foreclosed Voters Examined
By J. Gerald Hebert

I believe the Ohio matter was raised in July, before the Messenger item appeared. In the case of Indiana’s Marion Co. item linked in the blog, this was reported in Oct. after the Messenger article was published. James Carabelli said he’d not known about it before the Messenger article was published. What makes that claim inoperative is the Ohio case, not the Indiana case.

It was reported yesterday that Carabelli filed his defamation lawsuit last week against the Messenger, and other parties. He had threatened to do as much according to this item from September, if the paper didn’t retract.

So, to summarize, here’s what each level of the party is saying:

* RNC says it doesn’t do the challenging, and the suit doesn’t allege that the RNC works with the MI or Macomb GOP to use challengers.
* MI GOP says they have not and will not have anything to do with challenges based on foreclosure notices–though it leaves some breathing room for using foreclosure notices to use in the larger process of deciding whom to challenge.
* Macomb says that the Michigan Messenger quote was false–and that the guy who allegedly said it isn’t in charge of vote challengers, but that he hasn’t heard of anything like that anyway.

Amazing. You got through it fast. When was this stuff released?

Emptywheel: Analyzing and summarizing disgusting slime so you don’t have to.

We basically aim to re-register the students here, so they can all vote locally. Pain in the ass. I haven’t been involved this year, but I presume it has gone much more easily (doesn’t hurt to have a free Bruce Springsteen concert on campus, as they did at EMU the other day).

But Judge Sullivan said speed was no excuse. “It’s not about the pace of litigation, it’s about the fairness of the proceedings,” he said. “We don’t sacrifice fairness for expedience.”

story