No Votes For Veterans
Steven Rosenfeld says that some wounded veterans may not be able to vote as a result of being confined to Veterans Affairs facilities during their recovery:
“VA remains opposed to becoming a voter registration agency pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act, as this designation would divert substantial resources from our primary mission,” [Secretary of Veterans Affairs James B.] Peake said in an April 8 letter to Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass.
…
Peake’s letter was the latest response to a year-old request by Kerry and Feinstein to give veterans using VA facilities the opportunity to register to vote, just as people who apply for a driver’s license are given that chance at state motor vehicle agencies. Veterans who have not previously registered, as well as registered voters who move, must reregister with new addresses in order to vote. By not helping the injured veterans to do so, it is likely that former soldiers seeking care at VA facilities will lose their right to vote in 2008.
“Substantial resources?” Believe me, if the underachievers at the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles can register people to vote it’s not too hard.
At the risk of appearing to go soft on liberals like the aforementioned Democratic Senators, their response to Peake’s insipid missive is right on the money:
“The Department of Veterans Affairs should provide voter materials to veterans,” Feinstein said. “I believe the cost of providing these voter materials is minimal. It’s a small price to pay for the sacrifice these men and women have made in fighting for our nation’s freedom. I am disappointed.”
“You’d think that when so many people give speeches about keeping faith with our veterans, the least the government would do is protect their right to vote, after they volunteered to go thousands of miles from home to fight and give that right to others,” Kerry said. “And yet we’ve seen the government itself block veterans from registering to vote in VA facilities, without any legal basis or rational explanation.”
Where’s the common sense in the VA’s position? Like so much about government, there doesn’t seem to be any.
“During a time of war, our nation has a special and sacred duty to assist our fellow citizens who have defended our Constitution with their lives — our military veterans — with registering to vote and with voting,” said Paul Sullivan, Veterans for Common Sense executive director. “We encourage VA to allow nonpartisan voter registration drives at VA facilities so that as many veterans as possible can actively participate in our democracy — we owe our veterans no less for standing between a bullet and our Constitution.”
Yep.
(h/t rawstory)
The last bit is especially amusing. Since we owe you so much we will not seek to actively block your ability to register to vote. That’s really big of them, isn’t it?
I guess since the administration is apparently incapable of virtually anything, the two candidates, McCain and Obama or Clinton (but probably Obama) should agree to both raise money to pay for the registration of all veterans who wish to vote. Make it non-partisan. It can’t cost more than 2 or 3 million dollars, Obama makes that for his campaign in less than a week.
Um, you do know that "Veterans for Common Sense" is a leftist antiwar organization? That the VA has never been a "voter registration agency" under federal law and doesn’t have any spare funding for becoming one? That the VA under the Clinton admin took the exact same position, and for the exact same reasons? That under the laws of many states, a VA medical card does not meet the standards for the required ID for registration? That each state has different laws about whether or not someone under guardianship or treatment for mental illness can vote at all, and that many VA facility patients are there under guardianship and have dementia, Alzheimer’s or other mentally disabling medical conditions? That agreeing to act as a "voter registration agency" for purposes of the law would place VA staff in the position of having to rule on their compliance with those laws when registering any patient and subject each and every individual patient decision to litigation? That allowing third parties to access patients for voter registration purposes would likewise leave the agency open to such litigation and liability on those grounds for any patient under guardianship, either the VA’s or an outside party, as well as under treatment for ANY mental condition at all?
Believe me, if the underachievers at the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles can register people to vote it’s not too hard.
It’s not even remotely that simple. Unlike the state Motor Vehicle Dept, the VA is in a legal position where if they agree to act as a voter registration agency or allow third-party registration drives, they are immediately assuming significant potential liability and acquiring huge bureaucratic mental-assessment responsibilites that would vary from state to state. Trial lawyers salivate at the mere thought.
The VA quite rightly recognizes that becoming a "voter registration agency" for their patients, or allowing third parties to have voter drives among their patients, leads to a damn deep and very expensive legal swamp. And they quite rightly do NOT want to walk into that swamp and bleed resources that should be going to patient care. They need every nickel and then some now.
And you can bet your last dime both Kerry and Feinstein know all this full well and in detail. The lawyer quoted in the Rosenfeld article, Scott Rafferty, attempted to sue the VA on behalf of the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party in 2004 over that very thing–left-wing activists wanted voter registration drive access to VA care facilities with high levels of dementia patients, and were denied.
First thought that comes to mind. A question that I have no idea of the answer.
How many community hospitals are there that you can register to vote or vote in?