Not all felon voters are violent criminals. Some of them are Democrat activists.
A disbarred attorney with a long history on both sides of the law and politics is now among those being investigated for casting an illegal vote because he is a felon.The article doesn't mention anything about Alan Martin's party affiliation, but his resume gives some hints, citing his "Career Accomplishments" as managing campaigns for Rep. Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way) and unsuccessful Democrat primary candidates Fred Finn and Lena Swanson.Alan Martin was convicted of theft and forgery in the 1990s for stealing from clients and later disbarred.
The voter database shows he was credited with voting in Thurston County in November.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 23, 2005 11:52 AM | Email ThisDon't you realize that there are felons and then there are felons.
Counselor Martin was probably a well-meaning misunderstood liberal lawyer who should vote because his crimes were non-violent and his victims were rich little Republican Nazi Eichmanns.
Hey this is easy, I can see why liberals do it.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 23, 2005 12:37 PMI typed all the names on the 'deceased voters' list in, and not one person there was disclosed as having donated one way or the other. (Though if their _neighbors_ are reasonably construed as voting similarly, its like 70-30.)
Posted by: Al on March 23, 2005 02:14 PMSome expert, I tell you!
You found a dishonest lawyer?
You say he's being investigated, not that he is confirmed not to have had his rights restored.
So...what?
Posted by: We Should Care Why on March 23, 2005 02:34 PMFAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, Ill. Five Democrats in East St. Louis have been charged in a scheme to buy votes in November's election in a federal indictment unsealed today.
Federal prosecutors in southern Illinois charged four Democratic committeemen and one precinct worker in the indictment.
Yesterday, four others pleaded guilty to related vote-buying charges in federal court.
Court records indicate voters were paid five or ten dollars to cast a Democratic ballot in the November second election.
They allege that the money to buy votes came from the St. Clair County Democratic Committee.
U-S Attorney Ronald Tenpas says the allegations do not address how many voters may have been paid for their votes or whether it affected the outcome of any election.
That March 23, 2005 05:51 PM post is priceless. Specific evidence of voter graft. It has to go into the hall of fame. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. Do we have to file a federal lawsuit for voter disenfranchisement? I won't say anything more.
NUFF SAID!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 23, 2005 06:25 PMBut seriously, folks---I've been stopped for a speeding ticket and it didn't matter that I wrongly assumed about what the speed was. They still ticketed me.
Posted by: Michele on March 23, 2005 08:23 PMHe worked for years as the Governmental Affairs Director for the Kitsap Home Builders Association until he fell off the wagon several years ago and got arrested for DWI, the Assoc. fired him.
I don't understand why the state didn't garnish his wages when he worked here in Kitsap. I have heard him say he'd never repay the money, he felt losing his law license was punishment enough.
I say jail him and then when he's released take all of his assets and 75% of all future earnings until his debt is paid in full. If he was a marijuana dealer they would have already. Lawyers that steal need special punishments and their own place in hell.
Posted by: Robert from Kitsap on March 24, 2005 08:29 AMNo dispute that a lawyer (even a disbarred one) should be expected to know the law, but one question has not been answered. Did he have his voting rights restored?
The question as to whether we should restore voting rights to convicted felons that have served their time is a different issue. The law as it currently stands says that we do, provided that all time is served and all fines are paid.
As Mr. Sharkansky is normally a very thorough examiner of available facts (even when I disagree with his conclusions) I find it telling that this bit of information is not in the original post.
If you know that he has not had rights restored, please tell us. If you do not know, then this is simply inflammatory speculation. (One reason I've cut way back on my posting here is that I'm simply tired of dealing with that sort of thing, and the angry rhetoric in the posts that seem to follow it.)
We have a disbarred lawyer who has apparently served his time (being currently out of jail, with no warrants that we know of.) It is implied that he is a Democrat because of some candidates he's worked for or donated to. (By that same consideration, I could be a Republican.) If he has any outstanding conditions to his sentence (fines, probation, etc...) we don't know about them.
All that this post really gives us for facts is that he's being checked on, but the language and tone of the post implies that he knowingly cast an illegal vote and further implies that Democrats condone this behavior.
So, which is it, sir? Are you trying to solve a problem, or are you simply trying to inflame your "loyal followers" while driving off anyone that disagrees with you? It's your board, and you can do either as you choose. I'm just trying to decide if it's worth bothering to continue to look in.
If you propose to demand accuracy bigshot, provide it yourself. You say, "The question as to whether we should restore voting rights to convicted felons that have served their time is a different issue. The law as it currently stands says that we do, provided that all time is served and all fines are paid."
Says that we do what? It is by no means automatic that voting or other rights are restored to convicted felons after all time is served and all fines are paid. It is clearly a matter of discretion upon application to the state.
By the way, if you are tired of posting comments here buzz off! You aren't qualified to judge this website and we don't need your snippy turgid bosh.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 24, 2005 11:33 AMIf this pans out, the man should be prosecuted. If convicted, he should get to re-visit his old buddies for a long time.
Amused by liberals. You are correct that I did not post the procedures, nor did I post a link to the form. It seemed irrelevant to this discussion. But just to be complete, yes, a form needs to be filled out and submitted.
The ACLU has volunteered legal assistance in any case where a properly submitted request is denied. To my knowledge, they have never had to go to court, although a few stern letters may have been written.
As to the rest of your comments:
By the way, if you are tired of posting comments here buzz off! You aren't qualified to judge this website and we don't need your snippy turgid bosh."
Attitudes like yours do seem to have become the main attitude here. You're looking for a "dittos" section, rather than debate. Wish granted. I've got better things to do.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 24, 2005 02:16 PMBUT, I found it a breath of fresh air that John Barelli actually reversed his opinion. Bravo. I think all who post here should applaud him over the Nellie's, Unkl Witz's, Chew2's and the school girls who can't back track or apologize for an error.
Eventhough you and I are on the the opposite sides of the political spectrum, I applaud you John Barelli. I could sit down with you and debate issues over a cup of coffee.
Pudster.
Posted by: Puddybud on March 24, 2005 06:49 PMIf I am not mistaken, not long ago you told us that you will never post here again. Admit it, the reason you are coming back here is to GET STRAIGHT INFORMATION on the election case. This is the only place where you can be informed in a fairly fashion. You hate us but you are coming back.
You will not change your views (if I was a Democrat this stolen election would convert me by now) and you have no right to critize us for having common views, which are opposite of yours. And please, do not ever mention the terrorist ACLU in this conservative blog. It tells us a lot about you.
thanks
Lily