Four hundred and eighty-eight voters, all but four lifelong Democrats, and nearly all Black, had their voting history erased by Shelby County election workers, setting them up for purge from the voter list. These selective alterations appear to target the race of US Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN-09).

To alter voting histories for a selected set of voters, putting them at risk for strategically selected and improper removal from the voting list, is to demean them, to treat them as if they have less worth as human beings than they do. And to demean them is to wrong them. What Shelby County’s election staff has done, in altering the records, is morally wrong.

The full list of voters whose voting records have been altered is here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82058.html — If you know someone on this list, please let them know about this.

DETAILS ON SHELBY COUNTY VOTER LIST ALTERATIONS

Shelby County voters owe a debt of gratitude to Darrick “D” Harris (no relation). This information has come to light because, when I spoke with Harris by telephone recently, he expressed concern to me about his discovery that his voting history had somehow evaporated.

An active Democratic voter and political consultant, Harris had copies of voter databases containing his own voter history. He knows he votes regularly, but as of Oct. 2011, the voter list reports that he has never voted — not once!

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

When voters fail to vote for two federal general elections, a purge process is initiated.

Your voter history should never vary. If it says you voted in the Nov. 2008 presidential election in 2010, in 2011 it should not report that you DIDN’T vote in 2008. The only way the database can alter your voting history is if someone changes the information in the database.

D. Harris did not just have his 2008 voting history erased. Every vote he had ever cast, going back to 2000, had been erased. I took the official Shelby County voter list, filedate 2010 (obtained by court order in a lawsuit) and compared it with the voter history list from 2011.

488 voters had their histories erased.

ALMOST ALL VOTERS WERE BLACK

Of these, according to the 2011 database, 430 are Black. It is against the law to alter voter records. It is a civil rights violation to select Black voter records for alteration.

WHY DILUTION OF RACIAL IDENTITY IS SIGNIFICANT

Last year, I reported that in Shelby County, they have been diluting the racial identifier so that thousands of Black voters are now reported as “other.” Twenty-four of the voters with histories erased had also had their racial identifiers removed. In fact, 454 out of 488 on the erased list are Black, and only four are White, leaving all the others marked “other.” Most likely, out of 488 erasures, 484 are Black.

ALMOST ALL ARE DEMOCRAT

Only fiver voters in the erased list show that they have ever voted Republican, but you’ll notice that I listed that as just four in my opening paragraph. That’s because Shelby County has also been altering party choice in its voter records. It is possible that Ruth Ann Phelps, one of the five so-called Republicans, never voted Republican at all.

Ruth Ann Phelps is reported as selecting a Republican ballot in the May 2010 primary, but her records show she is a lifelong Democrat. I found hundreds of lifelong Democrats whose voter history preference was altered in the May and August 2010 elections.

Phelps is an interesting case. She used to be one of the key employees at Shelby County Elections. She at one time had a password to the GEMS election management system, but the audit log for the GEMS database shows that Ruth Ann Phelps password was revoked in June 2010. Phelps at one time worked at the main elections operation center, where she had access to voter list maintenance systems, but in 2010 she was transferred to a downtown office. By 2011, her voter history had been erased. Right around this time, she retired.

THE SELECTIVE PREPARATION FOR PURGE TARGETS U.S. CONGRESSMAN STEVE COHEN

Not only are almost all the altered records Democrat, not only are they almost all Black, but every single one of them is in Congressional District 09.

POLITICAL TALK

I have heard that Cohen’s seat is not considered at risk, though with redistricting and a well financed opponent, and paperless touchscreen voting machines, and selective removal of voters from his voting base, who knows?

I have also heard that the most astute political strategists focus on changing not just the weather (short term election results), but the climate (long term voting environment).

At any rate, it doesn’t matter what Cohen’s chances are. The rights that were violated are those of Shelby County VOTERS, who have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice, and who are entitled to accurate records.

And I have a question: How widespread is this problem? Are there other counties where voter histories are strategically eroding? I have spoken with both Democratic and Republican election integrity enthusiasts, and one of my frustrations is that the Democrats count on their VAN system and the Republicans count on their VOTER VAULT system to keep them up to date on voter list data. Neither of these systems is the real, working data. It should be possible to detect alterations like this in other counties, but since purges are performed using the actual county database, skip the VAN and VOTER VAULT: Examine the actual lists. As we see in Shelby County, there is no reason to believe that the raw data matches VAN or VOTER VAULT. The raw data is getting altered from time to time.

To detect this kind of alteration, a database created and saved in 2010 should be compared for changes with more recent iterations, but the actual county database should be used for the exam, rather than relying on proprietary party databases.

THEY SEND A LETTER BEFORE PURGING, DON’T THEY?

Altering the records is illegal, and a civil rights violation, regardless of whether voters can halt the purge process by responding to a letter. Taking the position that this is a minor matter, because voters wrongfully targeted for purge can always reinstate themselves by responding to a purge letter is like saying false arrest doesn’t matter, because you can always prove you are innocent.

And there is such a thing as justice.

“Oppressors do all they can to prevent use of the category of justice; they do all they can to cast the situation in terms of good behavior and bad behavior…sometimes our frameworks of conviction lead us to discount the significance of what we see and hear. We regard the one before us as a candidate for charity, should we be so inclined, or we insist that his condition is his own fault.”

“I heard the Afrikaners say to the black and coloreds, “We are good people, if you just behave, we will give you most of what you are asking for.”

– Justice: Rights and Wrongs, by Nicholas Wolterstorff. (Second passage in reference to pre-apartheid South Africa.)

What happened to the strategically selected voters in Shelby County, whose records were altered to put them at special risk for purge, is a moral wrong.

And it is illegal.

You can discuss this article here.

http://drugwarhero.org

Please play the game with us and share it with your friends, peers!

We are looking forward to your feedback – this is the first version, if it is successful enough we can develop a second version, maybe on smartphones and touchscreen too. We believe computer games provide us new opportunities to communicate with young people and mobilize them to fight the war against the war on drugs.

In the end of the game we ask players to send a letter to Yuri Fedotov and urge him to join the Count the Costs campaign.

Best regards,
Peter Sarosi
Drug Policy Program Director
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

Our elected officials need to step up and do the right thing, and hold accountable those that should be held accountable. Maybe a voter referendum this fall will provide the political ammunition needed to take on the ‘Power Elite” for the sake of the thousands of County and City taxpayers, who never had a true voice in this project in the first place!!!!

Instead of so many people fighting, still, about whether this convention center should have opened, why not help keep it going and bring more traffic/business to downtown Lancaster. Whatever happened to community solidarity?

Lancaster City has the potential to be such a gorgeous little downtown area, especially with things like Central Market, First Friday and the Ladies’ Night event they were doing on the third Fridays of the month. I don’t know if they are still doing that, but it was a fun thing.

So many downtown businesses seem to be going out of business and leaving abandoned window shops, that to push the convention center/Marriott to close will just promote the downward spiral and eventually turn Lancaster City into a full-fledged slum or into a ghost town.

Taxpayers would still be liable for the convention center debt, and closing the hotel would make Lancaster City taxpayers responsible for the outstanding $24 million in construction debt PLUS paying off the balance of the $14 million Fulton Bank loan.

Political pressure combined with practical considerations will force politicians to once again produce more taxpayer dollars to keep the “integrated facility” in operation.

So what will become of the convention center’s nearly $64 million in construction debt?

Thanks to former County Commissioners Paul Thibault and Terry Kauffman, Lancaster County taxpayers have guaranteed $20 million of the convention center construction debt. If the banks were to declare this debt in default (which it technically is already), Lancaster County would be forced to borrow $20 million to pay off its guarantee. This would leave nearly $44 million in debt remaining, which actual “hotel tax” revenues should be able to cover.

Lancaster County property owners would see a slight increase in their real estate taxes to pay off the unexpected $20 million in borrowing, so that the convention center could remain in operation. Conversely, other programs could be cut in order to pay for the additional debt service.

Had some variation of the original hotel and convention center been constructed, funding for the project would have been sustainable. But the project was allowed to metamorphosize into a facility that costs taxpayers far more than anticipated revenue streams could realistically provide for. Adding to this the unreasonably large taxpayer subsidies that continue to benefit the “private” hotel paints a picture of a project that cannot possibly make any kind of economic sense.

Page 13 notes the total amount of “sellable event space” including the part of the convention center that is controlled by the Penn Square Partners (all of the third and fourth floors, including the upper ballroom). Yet the next several pages do not include this space; it is noted on page 18 that “Data for hotel-controlled space (floors 3 and 4) was not available.” Yet Interstate Hotels and Resorts SUPPOSEDLY markets all of the meeting spaces as an “integrated facility”; it is their oft-repeated claim that the customer chooses which rooms to use. If so, how can this space – owned by the convention center, built and maintained by taxpayers, yet leased to the Penn Square Partners for next to nothing – NOT be included in determining the center’s results? Obviously a significant portion of the convention center business is being diverted (intentionally or otherwise) to the Penn Square Partners, which directly receives revenue from events booked in the convention center!

Later in the report, this split of exhibit space is again mentioned several times. Page 33 notes “Floors 3 & 4 are leased to Penn Square Partners and are not included in this analysis.” A comment at the bottom of Page 34 states “It should be noted that figures for Lancaster include floors 1 and 2 of the Convention Center. Floors 3 & 4 are leased to Penn Square Partners and are not included in this analysis.” Yet there is no mention whatsoever of the direct impact to taxpayers of this lost revenue.

Now here is where the report gets strange. The following excerpt from Page 47 is so significant that I’m going to quote it in its entirety:

“Lease Agreement between the Authority and Penn Square Partners – The amended lease dated March 27, 2007 addresses the lease terms for 14,851 square feet of meeting, ballroom and business center space leased to Penn Square Partners (PSP) by the Authority. The lease term runs for 99 years, with a base annual rent of $100.00. PSP also pays a proportionate share of Convention Center maintenance costs (7.2 percent based on current calculations).”

This sounds like the build-up to something significant. Yet the very next paragraph is clearly a cop-out:

“Given the significant costs of developing convention and hotel space, it is very common nationally for the public sector to provide financial assistance in a variety of ways, including build-out of event space for use by hotel owners/managers. The March 27, 2007 Lease Agreement appears to be consistent with this approach.”

This statement is not consistent with the critical nature of the surrounding portions of the report. Might this paragraph been edited, toned down to divert attention from the fact that this specific agreement bleeds desperately-needed revenue from the convention center – and taxpayers? It might be common “for the public sector to provide financial assistance in a variety of ways”, and IN A VACUUM this might seem to be reasonable; yet in perspective, the “private” hotel pays no real estate taxes, and nearly $45 million of the hotel’s construction was paid for directly by taxpayers. In fact, the hotel doesn’t even own its building, which is held by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster. The total amount of taxpayer-provided financial assistance to the Penn Square Partners is clearly unreasonable, and is in no way comparable to competing facilities.

On page 7 of the “LCCCA: review of bond docs” appendix, most of the proposals would negatively impact businesses and/or taxpayers within Lancaster City, which already has the highest taxes in all of Lancaster County; any of these would only serve to drive businesses and individuals out of Lancaster City. One of these proposals is particularly noteworthy in its fallacy:

“Tax Increment Financing: It is not uncommon to set in place a tax increment financing district from which various tax revenues in excess of a base collection level are contributed into a particular project, in this case the Convention Center. This concept should be considered.”

Tax Increment Financing diverts INCREASED tax revenue based on improvements made after a specific date. Base taxes remain unchanged, but taxes which are increased as a result of new construction or renovations are used to fund economic development projects. Tax Increment Financing is successfully being used to pay off loans used to create civic infrastructure on the former Armstrong site. Since northwest and north central Lancaster City is thriving, there is adequate construction and renovation going on to pave the way for new development in the former brownfield.

The reason a TIF will not work in downtown Lancaster is because there is no significant new construction or renovation going on. Had a TIF been implemented when the construction bonds were sold at the end of March 2007, tax revenue might have been collected from the new Lancaster Newspapers parking garage, the renovated buildings on East King Street, and the Subway across King St. from the Marriott Hotel. That’s all, folks! The hotel and convention center project simply has done practically nothing to spur economic development in downtown Lancaster (there is NO way the residential and commercial renovations in the 100 and 200 blocks of East King Street could even remotely be credited to either the hotel or the convention center). ALL of the remaining construction surrounding the hotel and convention center has been either non-profit or taxpayer funded. Besides, a TIF district by law cannot coexist with a LERTA (Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance) district, one of which has covered much of Lancaster City for many years.

The CSL report clearly avoids addressing the root causes of the convention center’s debt issues, and its recommendations suggest a naïveté that is unhelpful at best.

Catholics are taught that Catholic Cemeteries where our loved ones are buried is hallowed ground. These tranquil grounds are not just for the dead, but
for the living who return to mourn, to place and remember.  Catholics should request answers to the following questions.

Why was this information not communicated to members of the Catholic Church ?

How many acres at Resurrection are covered in the lease agreement and how much money was paid for the five year lease ?    Huntley and Huntley of Monroeville is a private drilling company with several investor groups.  Who are these people who will gain financially from Marcellus Shale Drilling at Resurrection Cemetery, Moon Twp, PA ?

EDITOR: Kevin Fry is the chair of the LCCCA. We were out of the country at the time of the meeting. Also, we were not invited to attend. We do plan  to study the report at an early opportunity assuming it is available. We relied on information  from the local newspapers.

By seizing 5% of the potential revenue of county hotels, the Room Rental Sales Tax has deprived them of funds for renovation and earnings.   Any student of economics understands that the sales tax is largely absorbed by the hoteliers, not the visitors.   If raising prices 5% was profitable, the hoteliers would have already done so!

Almost all of the hotels are burdeded with the cost of the Convention Center while deriving no  extra business.  In fact, much of the business that at one time was served by hotels on Rt. 30 East has simply been relocated downtown, further “hobbling” the industry.

We applaud Fry and other LCCCA board members  who are selflessly working to minimize the damage done by those who recklessly  enriched themselves at the tax payers expense.