Decisions by Washington bureaucrats over the next four weeks will have a profound impact on the upcoming November elections. These bureaucrats will decide whether or not those serving in the military from twelve states will have a full and effective opportunity to participate. If they choose to do anything other than aggressively enforce federal laws protecting military voters, many of those serving our nation won’t have a voice.
Every American can do something about it.
As I have written about before, the MOVE Act — signed into law in October 2009 — set a mandatory minimum time of 45 days before any federal election to mail ballots to overseas voters. MOVE was a rebuke to the bureaucrats who were stuck on a non-statutory 30-day standard used as a minimum in previous elections.
Blind bureaucratic reliance on the 30-day standard resulted in 17,000 overseas ballots not being counted in the 2008 election. The military postal service says 60 days is needed to get ballots to our troops and back again, but a law is only as good as the people enforcing it.
posted at 10:12 am on July 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Last week, TSA issued a memo to its employees that announced a new policy of filtering Internet access, and that among the sites to be blocked were those offering “controversial opinions.” After CBS reported the memo, conservative bloggers and the ACLU found some rare common ground for protest. Initially, TSA said that the memo didn’t refer to politics, but now the Washington Times reports that they’ve revised the policy anyway (via Weasel Zippers):
After an uproar from conservative bloggers and free-speech activists, the Transportation Security Administration late Tuesday rescinded a new policy that would have prevented employees from accessing websites with “controversial opinions” on TSA computers at work.
The ban on “controversial opinion” sites, issued late last week, was included as part of a more general TSA Internet-usage policy blocking employee access to gambling and chat sites, as well as sites that dealt with extreme violence or criminal activity.
But the policy itself became controversial as the Drudge Report and a number of conservative bloggers highlighted the possibility that the policy could be used to censor websites critical of the agency or of the Obama administration in general. The American Civil Liberties Union also questioned the language.