Well done Brad, Paged at LGF hope you get lots of visits

Thanks, Daniel! Much appreciated!

Hi Brad,

I've been doing a little 'cyber-stalking' on this and it looks to me like Mrs. Vos claimed 'residence' in Idaho specifically for the purpose of getting her divorce from Rep. Vos (and the joke here would be 'who could blame her!?'); maybe for 'quickie' divorce reasons, maybe taxes, who knows.

Now for voting purposes in WI, you can be absent from the state and still retain voting rights so long as you have an 'intent to return' to your WI place of 'habitation'.

So my question for you - or more likely for any Idaho lawyers you might know - is what is the significance of establishing 'residence' in Idaho for purposes of a divorce? Does in involve swearing to an "intent to remain" or some such for some period of time? Or is Idaho the new place to go if you want a "quickie Reno divorce", and 'residency' doesn't really mean what we think it means?

Mrs Vos voted in the April 'judicial/presidential primary' election in person, the June recall by absentee, and the August 'congressional' primary in person (no vote in the May recall primary - we've had a lot of elections this year!). Voting in the June and August elections would certainly demonstrate an "intent to return" from the WI side of things.

Thanks.

How may more of these do we have to read before "major media" covers it? Them ragedy!

And really, really sorry to be OT again...but I just had an epiphany. Yinz know how old blow-your face-off really bugs me, well, I gotta knew name for him. Scared snarl dog, and this goes out to him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruDxyOebIQM

Hey Brad, did Bradblog ever create a single page listing all the known election fraud cases over the last several years? That would be an excellent resource for "major media" (as well as regular media and bloggers).

(I'm a relatively new reader. Thanks!)

Hey Brad, you need to kick it into gear covering the shenanigans already ongoing by Romney's lieutenants to take control of the convention and deny Ron Paul supporters a voice even though it doesn't officially kick off till Monday. Check it out:

GOP Tampa Shenanigans

Wow:

http://www.alternet.org/...ect-disrupt-nov-election

"Going Undercover at the GOP's Voter Vigilante Project to Disrupt the Nov. Election

"The Republican True the Vote project is a well-funded scheme with training sessions for activists across the country. Will it work?"

Last September, during the U.S. Senate hearings on GOP voter suppression, Judith Browne Dianis, a civil rights leader and co-director of the Advancement Project, warned us about the GOP voter vigilante project that Greg refers to @8 refers to.

She testified:

Progressive groups ought to seriously consider organizing poll watchers who are prepared to challenge the challengers.

As an example of what "challengers" at the polls might mean, here is the extent of who and what can be challenged in Wisconsin:

Any observer (or other voter or poll worker, for that matter) who is themself eligible to vote in WI can challenge the eligibility of another voter.

The person issuing a challenge is put under oath and asked a series of questions specified by the state agency that runs elections, with their answers written down. Then the voter is put under oath and is also asked a series of questions.

Then the voter is issued a regular ballot, marked to indicate that it is the ballot of that specific challenged voter (meaning the 'secret' of their secret ballot is lost), the voter casts their ballot, and it is counted by the same (optic scan) mechanism that all the other ballot are counted.

The voter is NOT prevented from voting, and their ballot is not 'provisional', at least not in the sense it might be in other states. (Provisionals are used in very limited and specific circumstances in WI.)

Obviously, challenges would slow down the whole process, taking workers away from their other tasks, etc.

People like her and Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney are working hard to provide examples of Voter Fraud by actually committing it. That way they can't say it doesn't happen!

Arias chided @ 7:

Hey Brad, you need to kick it into gear covering the shenanigans already ongoing by Romney's lieutenants to take control of the convention and deny Ron Paul supporters a voice even though it doesn't officially kick off till Monday.

I've been both speaking with Paul folks and keeping an eye on what the GOPers are up to there over the past several days. FWIW, what they're doing (largely) is keeping what happened this year at the state conventions, when Paul folks were able to get their delegates selected, from ever happening again in the future. A national GOP takeover of the state party system, to keep insurgents like Paul from being able to win delegates via state conventions when state voters have voted for someone else at the primaries.

It's definitely a "fuck you" to the Paul folks from the establishment GOP, though it doesn't really effect what happened in this cycle. Plus, parties can pretty much do whatever they want to do. (So Paul supporters should keep that, and the other treatment they've received from the GOP this year, in mind if they wish to stay within that party.)

That said, Paul folks are understandably pissed about it and could cause trouble during the roll call nomination at the RNC. That's one of the reasons the RNC moved it to Monday, before the networks would be doing live coverage --- hoping to avoid any embarrassment. Hurricane Isaac seems to have screwed that plan up though. So, stay tuned...

@Brad:

Thanks for the update. Just was surprised you hadn't made a main blog post of it. In that article I linked to it seemed this was the key takeaway paragraph. Bold is mine:

BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller reports that the attempt was forcefully shot down as overreach, even by committee members who voted for Ginsberg's other proposals, including one that would force states to select delegates based on the results of their primary or caucus, and one that would allow the Republican National Committee to change the rules established at the convention.

So it would seem the rules have already been changed for this year to screw over the Paul folks and deny them any voice even this cycle if the RNC just voted that they can just arbitrarily change the rules to whatever.

If it were a Dem, it would have been breaking news on Faux News.

The Religious Fundamentalist Party, formally known as the Reopublcan Party doesn't care about voter fraud, we all know that...but they have sold the idea that requiring an ID is no biggie...most people don't understand how difficult getting an ID is for some people and the RFP doesn't want to make it easy for you to get one, either. The FRP is control by the Corporatists, and with the Theocrats are busy regulating my uterus and keeping me barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, the Corportists I'll be stealin our countries resources out from under their noses, which are turned to high in the sky looking towards "heaven", ingnoring the hell on earth they have created.

Sorry, used a touch pad for that one and didn't spell check before submitting...gotta recharge my keyboard!

I think the interesting thing about this is not the specifics about where this woman was a resident, but rather she probably had all the I.D. she would need to vote in any state even after the recent wave of new voter I.D. laws. She certainly had enough I.D. to vote in Wisconsin, so that nothing in the voter I.D. law would have prevented this fraud from happening.

Vos is certain there was vote fraud because the GOP fixed all the elections and there should have been no way Lehman won. So there had to be raud, see?