Election 2010 - Soldiers rights violated

10 states plus DC are filing for waivers to skirt the law regarding overseas military personale and their right under Federal Law to get their ballots for the general elections in their states 45 days ahead of time.

That's 20% of our states!!!!!

This 45 day period was set up so that there would be ample time for ballots from remote areas to get back to the US and then sorted not only out by state but also by voting district - since each absentee ballot goes to the voting site where the person is registered.

The states are:

1. Alaska
2. Hawaii
3. Washington (State)
4. Colorado
5. Wisconsin
6. New York
7. Maine
8. Rhode Island
9. Deleware
10. Maryland
11. Washington, D.C.
12. U.S. Virgin Islands (added to list)

Military ballots get challenged at a higher rate as well!!

There is a preception that more votes coming from military bases are leaned towards the Republican side of things, but they are finding that it is actually just about even.

The DOJ (Dept. of Justice) nor the DOD (Dept of Defense) have revealled under which of the acceptable 3 waivers these states are using as their reasoning ... but neither have they filed any paperwork/lawsuits to force them to comply

What are the 3 acceptable reasons for a waiver under the law?

• The States constitution (each state has one) specifically prevents the dispersal of ballots early
• The State has primary that would interfere with getting the ballots off in time (such as causing a confusion for the soldier between a primary/election ballot ... or not enough time for a run-off to be determined)
• There is some other factor that would make it impossible to comply (such as when Katrina hit, or if there was a major recount going on from a primary, or a terrorist attack)

Peter Johnson, Jr - on Fox & Friends (fox news channel) - made a very good point ....

the DOJ was quick acting upon filing a law suit against AZ over the ILlegal immigration law ... for "immigrants rights" ...

And the DOJ was quick to dismiss the Black Panther case for 'lack of evidence' (apparently video tape of a person in the act of intimidation just wasn't enough) ...

But when it comes to protecting the rights of the people serving our country in a manner that is so extreme - more so than any politican does on a daily basis - the DOJ just can't seem to dig far enough into their bag-of-tricks to find the BALLS to stand up for our our military personale!!!!!