You all might remember when Jim Riley speculated (incorrectly according to Jaded JD) that our site may have violated the voting rights act by telling Republicans of their recent party plan changes.
Shaun Kenney, a VCAP challenger from 2005, then linked to it, so he could give us his detailed analysis. Just kidding, all he said was "Agreed".
So, now this morning, I see this note from VCAP.
We are all waiting to see Shaun leap to action!
Dear XXXX,
Don't vote Tuesday!
In 2004, the Virginia Republican State Central Committee passed a new party rule that states you may be barred from participating in future Republican conventions, mass meetings, and primaries if you have voted in a Democratic primary.
Please ensure your right to elect conservative Republican candidates in the 2007 Republican nomination process by NOT voting in the Democratic primary on Tuesday.
Thanks.
Robin DeJarnette
Leap... leap... leap...
Posted by: Shaun Kenney | June 12, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Of course, I haven't received any such notification from VCAP.... and I think I would be one of the first to know...
Something's not right -- where did you get this from?
Posted by: Shaun Kenney | June 12, 2006 at 12:15 PM
NOVA TownHall, I linked above where "this note" is highlighted.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | June 12, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Hmmm... you're right.
Pass the crow.
Posted by: Shaun Kenney | June 12, 2006 at 12:25 PM
This is too funny. Will Jim Riley accuse VCAP of voter suppression? I wait breathlessly.
Posted by: J. Sarge | June 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM
What I have found the most confusingis that you and Riley have been citing a post that was 90% written by Senator Cuccinelli and that claiming that my headline was the problem. I can't say I am surprised VCAP is siding with the Senator on this.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | June 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM
For those wondering the VCAP email was sent out early this morning, I presume to everyone on their full list (I say that because I recently signed up so I doubt it was any “hard insider” sub-list. Just FYI.
I have no idea how this will relate to the other instance, just thought it was pertinent news for the VA blogosphere.
Posted by: Sophrosyne | June 12, 2006 at 12:48 PM
As a staunch conservative I am definitely denouncing these embarrassing tactics. This type of crap is just implying we cannot win with our own ideas. This letter is suprising in the fact that it comes from Robin DeJarnette who is also the director of the American Center for Voting Rights legislative fund which is supposedly non-partisan. Shame on her and double shame on VCAP.
Posted by: winconservative | June 12, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Shaun Kenney v. VCAP....that would be like another sequel to Dumb & Dumber, except only this one would be guaranteed to make you throw up at least twice.
Posted by: Not Shaun Kenney | June 12, 2006 at 02:14 PM
VCAP's email began with the subject line "Do not vote Tuesday" phrased like an order. Are they stupid?
Posted by: | June 12, 2006 at 02:20 PM
Robin: Bite me.
Posted by: Eraserhead | June 12, 2006 at 05:39 PM
VCAP sent out another email around 6PM addressing their earlier email. I have posted it on the NOVA Town Hall blog if you're interested.
Posted by: Sophrosyne | June 12, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Actually, I didn't say that the post here didn't violate the Voting Rights Act. I said that, based on my experience, the AUSA on-call would not kick the ball down the criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594 hill.
Whether the post violated the VRA is a question for the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division at main Justice, and I expressed no opinion as to their findings. (Though the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1957, whence 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971(b) originates does appear to flow from the earlier language of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594, and such derivations usually do incorporate the interpretations and intent of the earlier language, the Sentencing Guidelines and commentary would have evolved very independently. For example, American English and contemporary British English both originate in pre-colonial British English, but words don't always mean the same things anymore.)
All I said was that the criminal AUSA on-call most likely forwarded the complaint on to USDOJ-CRD-VRS. I believe VRS has its hands full preclearing HAVA modifications under VRA Sec. 5, though, and I doubt they'll get to such a complaint instantly.
Posted by: The Jaded JD | June 12, 2006 at 06:40 PM
VCAP amended it's earlier statements.
Kudos to them for doing the right thing...
Posted by: Shaun Kenney | June 12, 2006 at 06:59 PM