Maine Article on No Labels Registration Drive Shows Picture of the Voter Registration Form

Posted on by May 22, 2023

This news story about the criticism of No Labels and its registration drive to get on the ballot in Maine starts with a large picture of the Maine voter registration form. The Secretary of State has charged that some workers for No Labels have tricked applicants into registering into the party. But as one looks at the form, it is difficult to understand how anyone would not understand the purpose of the form.

Comments

Maine Article on No Labels Registration Drive Shows Picture of the Voter Registration Form — 68 Comments

  1. Because a lot of people are stupid, have other things on their minds when waylaid by professional con artists, or both. The con artists have different ways of deflecting attention. One is to cover up some things and mark others with a highlighter while pointing them out and providing verbal instructions.

    Another is to present a petition which has no legal effect and goes nowhere. While the voter fills out some of the information needed for the registration on the petition, the con artist asks the other questions verbally. Other things on the registration form are not mandatory, and most of it is instructions. Once the voter is done signing the “petition” the con artist either has them do the signature only on the registration and copies the rest from the petition, or actually forges the signature as well, since they can at least see what it looks like.

    There are various other tricks which are employed by these con artists. The word registration can be covered up, and or the party question. The no labels may be already written in and checked, and it may be presented to the voter as if they are enrolling without any party, or allowing for a top two style primary ballot, or any number of other lies that professional liars tell. The whole pitch might be centered around political independence from the Democrat and Republican establishments, or wanting more choices than just Trump and Biden, plus making sure their voter registration is up to date just in case, or both, etc.

    It’s not complicated at all. The process can be completed in under a minute. Good full time con artists can “serve” several “customers” at the same time. They can easily “serve” a hundred or even several hundred “customers” a day. A good con artist can make over a thousand dollars a day this way. Some of them brag about their best days when they make multiple thousands in a day.

  2. NOOO PARTY REGISTRATIONS

    CANDIDATE NOM PETS-

    Sec. 2. (1) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution].
    (2) A person may hold 1 elected or appointed office in a time of peace.
    (3) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a declaration of candidacy by [5] P.M. [203] and [196] days before the election day and any filing fee as in (4).
    (4) The names of candidates shall be put on the ballots by
    (A) Elector forms equal to not more than [0.1] percent of the number of Electors at the last regular election for governor in the election area involved which shall be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before the election day or
    (B) a filing fee equal to the signatures number in (A) times a uniform money amount.
    (5) Elector form [12] point type, [4.25 by 5.5 inches]:
    NOMINATING PETITION – PARTISAN (for legislative offices) / NONPARTISAN (for executive and judicial offices)
    I nominate (candidate’s name and address) of the (one word party name – not more than 16 capital letters) Party for (office) in (election area) at the (date) election.
    Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed. [Elector in area involved]
    Return to- (address)
    (6) No filing shall be withdrawn.
    (7) Legislative body candidates shall have their party’s name in (5) [and all candidates may by law have a [0.4 inch by 0.4 inch] symbol] next to their names on the ballots.

  3. @AZ,

    Why The long lag time? Why not like in the country to your east?

    You cannot add requirements like being a registered voter if it’s not in the constitution.

    It would be better if the supporters appear in person and reduce the number to 0.05% with a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 50.

    If a political organization (party, club, gang, coven, etc.) wishes to indicate their support for a candidate they can do so using 1st Amendment methods. Having their name on government ballots implies government endorsement or that they are somehow qualified or authoritative.

  4. Country to your east is rather unspecific, if I’m not mistaken you two are both in the US. A look at a world map doesn’t reveal which country you mean.

    A”Trump=Hitler”Z is wrong, which should go without saying. Registration as such would probably not be necessary under my proposal, because a precinct would have approximately 100 voters, all of whom would know each other ever since they can remember, and whose families would know each other’s families. If any man there was not an eligible voter, every other man there would know it, and he could be executed during the election broadcast, since there would be no doubt many nonvoters watching (only about one in a thousand people would be an eligible voter).

    I agree that those voting should be eligible for office, and vice versa. However, there should be no candidates. Voting should be in person, standing count, by party. Only precinct peace officers should be appointed by the winning party, and easily replaced by that party during the year leading to the next election. Peace officers would combine the duties of responding officer, judge, jury, and executioner, so they should be mentally and physically capable of all those duties.

    However, they should be rarely called on, so it should ideally be a part time job, on top of other jobs or businesses they are simultaneously engaged in. Since voters should be qualified to hold that office and vice versa, voters need to have those qualifications as well. Since one of my proposals is that voters, their grandfather’s, and their grandfather’s grandfather (patrilineally) should be required to own property in the precinct, there would be no issue with newcomers – while moving, even between precincts, would not be strictly prohibited, it would be heavily taxed and regulated, and people who move would take several generations to slowly gain trust and equal citizenship rights in their new precinct. Men could of course buy wives from patriarchs in a different precinct, but as with anything else they buy, there should be a heavy import tax if it crosses precinct lines.

  5. Richard, people do in fact get tricked by stuff like this all the time. Sure, lots of people are stupid and/or ignorant, but there are also lots of dishonest people on the mercenary petition circuit.

  7. I don’t know who that is, but I can be him if you want me to. What if anything should I do differently?

  8. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, Andy, whoever he is, thinks a lot of people sound a lot like this Paul guy, whoever he is. My guess is that Paul is Andy’s former husband or boyfriend or partner of some kind, that they had a bad breakup, and that one of them is probably stalking the other one now. If he hasn’t done it already, I would advise whichever one is being stalked to get a restraining order.

    My second ex wife stalked me and my current wife throughout the separation and after the divorce and remarriage. She caused a lot of problems and property damage for us, led to my current wife losing custody of her kids for 4 years, and eventually burning down my house. Thankfully, my current wife still owned her house at that time, and we happened to be at her house during the fire. Also, thankfully, I had a good insurance policy. It was still a major disruption of our lives, and there are a lot of things we’ll never get back. The stalker ex did some prison time for all this, but not nearly enough. We’ve had to move, stock up on guns and ammo, put up security systems, pay for reputation cleaning and more lawyers and investigators than you would believe, homeschool the kids, get a restraining order of course. Among other things. I even legally changed our names at one point.

  9. Those of us who have been around here for a long time know that Paul Frankel trolled here and at IPR and other sites for years under various names. Is he still here now? The poster I referenced above sounds like it could be him.

  10. If you’re speaking for anyone except yourself, it makes your statements less credible, not more. Other people can confirm your claims for themselves if they feel like it. That would leave the question of why anyone should believe you, or why anyone should care. Right now my money would be on you being the stalker, but maybe it’s the other way around. Either way, there’s no way to know for sure, and I don’t see how it has to do with the subject at hand. Whether it is or is not whoever that is, what would change exactly?

  11. Andy is always right, because he says so, and his name is Andy, plus reasons. So, now I’m Paul Frankel, because Andy says I am. If I don’t do a good job of being Paul Frankel, someone please tell me, and I’ll try to do better. So, now that whoever Andy says I am is Paul Frankel, does it change the truth or falsehood of what I said in the first message? I won’t bother to ask why I sound like Paul Frankel, because I actually don’t care. What did I get wrong, if anything?

  12. You claim Paul Frankel trolled here. Supposing for the moment that’s true, what in the first comment above do you think is trolling? Is it inaccurate? Deliberately false? What is your evidence that it’s not only false (if you’re claiming it is false) but also dishonest? Or, do you have some definition of trolling other than the standard definition? Maybe Andy is the one trolling? Is there a way to tell?

  13. Just saw Andy at 3:56. It sounds like he actually agrees with me. So does Andy actually think I’m trolling? And if so, why?

  14. Better yet, let’s make this even more simple. Andy, please define trolling, like you would if you were writing a dictionary. On your mark. Ready. Set. Go.

  15. The question is not if Paul Frankel was trolling here under fake names (like “Humungous Fungus”), but rather how much trolling did he do here, and was it part of a bigger operation?

  16. To answer any questions like that, you would need to begin by providing your definition of trolling. It doesn’t seem to be the same as other people’s definition of trolling, at least as far as I can tell. For example, he actually appears to agree with me above, and yet says or implies that I am trolling. He doesn’t explain why he thinks that what I said was dishonest or wrong in any way, or indeed if that’s even part of his possibly unique definition of trolling.

    He may be trolling himself, or maybe it’s impossible for him to troll because his name is Andy. I have no idea. Also yet to be explained is why whether I am the person Andy wants me to be or not changes whether I got anything wrong, much less internationally.

    Andy likes to ask leading questions, but doesn’t like to answer straightforward ones. I suspect he’s a mentally ill stalker. I wouldn’t want him to know my real name, much less where I live, where else I like to go online, who I associate with, or anything whatsoever that would facilitate him stalking me if he were to choose me as his next stalking victim. And even if he isn’t, there could easily be other such people lurking, which is one of the many reasons to remain anonymous online.

  17. @Max,

    AZ lives in the Detroit area. The country to the east is Canada (Ontario).

  18. Thank you. That hadn’t occurred to me because I think of Canada as being primarily to the north of the United States. However, you are quite correct that it is to the east in some places, such as Alaska and Michigan. I guess this also removes one hypothesis about why he is AZ, which was that he lived in Arizona. I have a few others remaining.

    My apologies for incorrectly assuming you meant on the other side of the Atlantic and scratching my head which of those countries you meant, without considering the possibility of Canada. You could have been also referring to Mexico, at least in certain parts of that border. If you were to include US territories that would have opened up additional possible answers.

    I don’t believe A”Trump=Hitler”Z is likely to be fit for military or diplomatic service, both of which I have some experience with, at least if his persona here is genuine. Thus, we won’t include military bases or embassies here.
    Kudos, well played!

  19. Jim Riley, some questions for you in turn from Dooley. You’ve given it a short drive by response, but as far as I can tell not addressed the meat of his argument. I’d like to see you do so, if possible. I’ll hunt up the link again.

  25. We should have a NO QUOTAS party. No quotas for forming a “recognized” party, that is is a government licensed party, and no quotas for eligibility to receive votes, that is, a government licensed candidate.
    Repudiate fascist political censorship and “regulation”.
    End all ballot censorship.

  26. Would a no quotas party also focus on opposing crap like racial and other group quotas and special treatment, lenient treatment of criminals, feminazi and race hustler policies, defunding the police, critical race theory, “diversity” training, White genocide/population replacement, anti-White, anti-male, anti-Christian and anti-straight policies, etc?

  27. Caveat Elector – Let the voter beware.

    Each and every voter is responsible for any votes cast, or petitions signed.

    Ignorance is not a defense.

  28. I’m supposed to be outside shoveling soil and compost into my raised garden beds. Reading the never ending crap here on Richard’s site is much more entertaining. Thanks, Richard.

  29. @Max,

    I believe AZ represents A to Z in English or A to zed in British dialect, or alpha and omega in Greek. What is used in Russian? Zeta follows eta, and omega was dropped in the 18th Century.

    In Canada, elections are held a few weeks after they are ordered. AZ’s proposal required filing 7 months before the election.

  30. It is quite possible that voters were told that they needed 5000 new registrations to qualify the party. Some voters may have interpreted this as petitioning.

    In Maine, registrations need to be handed to the town clerks. The No Labels people likely did the delivery.

    Democratic hacks were likely monitoring the process. If they saw that a Democratic enrollee had enrolled with No Labels, they may have contacted the voter. Said voter, may have been intimidated. Imagine you are a Somali-Mainer. Political dissent in Somalia is a good way to get killed.

    You would agree that you were tricked.

    I doubt that the SOS really cares in her role as chief election officer. But she cares as a Democrat.

  31. CANADA ELECTIONS – MORE ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS —

    ESP NOW WITH 3 OR MORE LARGER EXTREMIST PARTY GANGS IN EACH GERRYMANDER DISTRICT.

    TOP PARTY GANGSTERS DE FACTO PICKING ROBOT PARTY HACK CANDIDATES.

    REGIME CAN BLOW UP AT ANY TIME —- WEST V ONTARIO V QUEBEC V EAST.

    ONE MORE ROTTED BRIT EX-COLONY WITH A-L-L THE BRIT GOVT ROT.
    —-
    P-A-T

  32. Walter, does that include every other type of legal form anyone has ever signed under fraudulent misrepresentation by a con artist? What if some people actually only signed a phony petition and had their signatures copied? What if someone is fraudulently talked out of money, keys, valuables etc. Still the victim’s fault? Should any type of fraud continue to be a crime?

  34. Jim Riley yesterday at 11:35 am gets one thing right – voters should appear in person. HOWEVER it should not be to nominate candidates. No second or third steps should be needed for elections. Show up in person one night a year, stand up and be counted, and be done with it for a year if your party doesn’t win.

    I envision voting under my system would be more akin to jury duty, not something that men would look forward to, but I believe the many other aspects built onto my proposal would engender a much stronger culture of civic mindedness and voluntary civic duty than you or we are used to.

    While voting itself would only take a few hours a year, it would carry the risk of winning, and thus serving as a peace officer – which would hopefully and probably be a part time job, but nevertheless would be time away from many other pursuits, duties, and more pleasant ways to spend time. None of these men would be the kind to truly need the additional income, although it would be some small measure of compensation for everything they would be giving up. Luckily, the winning party could easily replace them, so they would not have to serve out the whole year.

    There could even be a gentleman’s agreement of party rotation perhaps, given that few if any men would actually strive to be elected and chosen as peace officers, but few if any would actually shirk the duty. It would be seen as an important civic duty, but an unpleasant one. Being in a losing party would probably be the greatest sigh of relief, and being in the winning party but not picked for peace officer duty a smaller one.

  35. I’m disappointed that Jim Riley or others who agree with him have yet to address the substance of Dooley’s criticism of technically nonpartisan elections. Link above.

  36. Jim Riley,

    A to Z in Russian also. Approximate English phonic translation, “uh” to “zeh.” And that was indeed one of my hypotheses. If so, isn’t A”Trump = Hitler” Z blasphemously claiming to be God Almighty? Is there any other explanation for calling himself that? He does seem to be extremely narcissistic and megalomaniacal, but does he really in all seriousness claim to be God? If anyone is unfamiliar with Alpha and Omega as a term for God, you can look it up.

    My other hypotheses are that they are his actual initials, Andy or whatever other names start with A, last name starts with Z, or the two middle letters of nAZi. At least, those are the ones I have thought of so far. I’d be tempted to say it stands for Artificial Ztupidity, in contrast to artificial intelligence, except that is not the correct spelling of stupidity in your language. However, given the hypothesis that his programmers are actually preschool troll morons, it’s certainly possible they could have made a spelling error in naming him.

  37. Elections should be once a year, and predictable. First Tuesday in November of every year, for example, or November 3 every year, regardless of calendar day. The only issue with the latter would be Saturday, as elections should be uniformly in the evenings, but men should ideally rest up for church in the morning on Saturday evenings, and Sunday evenings, which are still part of the Lord’s day of reflection, prayer, and Christian fellowship (mea culpa: I must get better at setting aside time on weekends myself. Lifelong habits are hard to break).

    Nothing about elections should require anyone to file anything, appear anywhere, sign anything, or pay anything until the election evening. The only exception would be the party precinct captain. He should make himself known well before the election. I’m tempted to say the very next day, but as a fair compromise, perhaps by the midpoint of the election year.

  38. Jim Riley’s explanation seems far fetched. If voters who switched from Democrat were harrassed by demorat town clerk’s it likely would have already come out. I hate demon rats as much as anyone, but at least some of these folks must have actually understood they were switching their enrollment, would they not? If so, some of them would take offense at the harassment.

    If it hasn’t come out already, it probably will, because No Lubels has their own budget for lawyers and investigators, and will in all likelihood be contacting voters to see if any were so intimidated by town clerks or the Secretary of State or both, or indeed by anyone. From what I’ve read here about the contractors and subcontractors doing this work, it seems highly likely some of them, probably many, worked up a variety of deceptive and fraudulent methods to mislead and bamboozle people about what they were signing or filling out.

    If town clerks or SOS also did something shady, perhaps both should be housed in the same penitentiary after trial and conviction. Execution would be preferable, but doubtless not one of the available legal remedies. Pity, that!

  41. “Walter, does that include every other type of legal form anyone has ever signed under fraudulent misrepresentation by a con artist?”

    Only for elections. Can a voter claim buyer’s remorse if a politician doesn’t follow thru on promises made?

    Not in court. Only at the next election.

  42. @AZ,

    That does not address the issue of the 7 month lag time in your proposal.

  43. I have a few remedies for that. The biggest is to have the vast majority of everything handled outside government. If that’s the case, a party lying about anything would be of relatively little consequence.

    Remember, we would only be electing precinct peace officers, and few people would ever encounter a peace officer in that capacity, although they would encounter them often in their many other capacities. Most disputes and minor transgressions would be dealt with not by peace officers, but by family patriarchs, voluntary neighborhood watch and neighborhood councils, business councils, private arbitration firms, private security companies, insurance firms, collections agencies, church counseling, and so on.

    Secondly, scale is important. The men voting would all know each other well all their lives. Their families would know each other’s families. They would have many dealings together outside of government, from attending church together to past military service and veterans fraternities, other fraternal organizations, boards of charities and corporations, being each other’s business clients and partners, serving in civil defense militia and neighborhood watch and numerous other such things. Broken promises would have social consequences.

    Perhaps lying to be elected should also be a criminal offence. That may not be necessary given all the other safeguards. It should certainly be the case now, given those safeguards aren’t there.

  45. I’m guessing that if anyone was confused, it might have been because they didn’t realize that “No Labels” was the name of a political party and thought that it meant something like “no party label.”

  46. That’s one of the many ways they could have been confused. The party registration box and the word registration may have been covered up. Or they may have signed a fake petition, then did the signature only on the registration. Among various other common scams.

  47. The photo of a registration card that WABI used is out of date.

    The current one includes “Libertarian” in the options.

    A PDF sample can be found at the Maine SOS website : https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/voter-info/images/voterrev922.pdf

    I find arguments about confused people mistakenly registering for “No Labels” to be disingenuous. You have to write in the name on the “Other Qualified Party” line, when the “Unenrolled (no party choice)” line is right below it.

    It’s been said more credibly, but still a bit dubious, that there is some number of people who check the “Green Independents” line when they mean to be without any party affiliation. I don’t believe a significant number of people do that, but at least its more plausible as it is based on the fact that “Independent” is part of the name printed right on the card itself.

  48. What’s disingenuous about it? The fraud merchants simply check the box, write it in, and then lie and say it means unenrolled or cover it up altogether.

  49. Of course people check Green Independent when they mean unenrolled. People are stupid. It’s why they have way more enrollees proportional to population than Greens in any other state. I would wager the vast majority of Green Independent enrollees intended to be unenrolled.

    Lest I as a conservative be accused of too much bias against dumb libtards here, the same is true of American Independents in California. If they were called Christian Nationalist or Constitution or US Taxpayers Party, a lot fewer new registrations would come in for them, and over time they would lose registrations through people dying, moving, etc.

    No Labels will have the same effect if their fraud ridden deception of voters stands and they become a recognized party and an option preprinted on the form. If that happens, give it a few years and see if I’m not right. The shady globalist billionaires were more clever with their name for their shady nonparty party this time.

  50. Alec, they do worse than that. A lot of times they cover up the whole form and the only thing the voter does is sign it, if even that much.

  51. @Pat,

    I did not say town clerks. I said party hacks would scrutinize the enrollment changes particularly those that switched from Democrat. They would contact the voter and make them believe that they had been tricked.

    Some people will agree with whomever they are talking to. A Democrat voter might agree that the Republicans are too extreme, and the No Labels person would not push the extreme Democrats narrative. Or maybe the voter would agree that Biden wasn’t up to the job. Or maybe the country would be better off if everyone was like Angus King or Olympia Snowe. They may not have a clue what they were signing.

    Then when contacted by the hack they would want to please them. They would agree that they had been tricked.

  52. If they have no clue what they were signing, they didn’t intend to enroll with the No Labels Party. Whoever the demon rat hacks were who contacted them, if that happened, No Labels has plenty of money for attorneys and investigators to get to the bottom of it. If both Demon Rat hacks and No Lube contractors cheated, hopefully both will be in prison. Maybe they can be cellmates.

  53. @Pat,

    Watch the Sara Bellows interview in the article linked to in the original post. Watch when she said “many”. Based on that, how many?

  54. I don’t know, and her saying many doesn’t tell us. The only thing I can say here is that logically, the vast majority of however many had been duped would not have discovered it yet, because there is no primary or any other reason for people to check their registration right now. Most people also don’t open unexpected snail mail or answer random number phone calls, so any calls by demon rat hacks or letters from SOS would only partially mitigate any such problem.

  55. @Pat,

    She hesitated like she was going to give a more specific number, her eyes glanced to the side and she said “many.” This let persons like you to fantasize that it was thousands.

  56. We don’t know how many of the No Lables Parry voter registrations in Maine were collected via deceptive tactics, but given that I know how hard it is to do partisan voter registration, especially for an oddball party few people have ever heard of, so it would not surprise me if a lot of these registrations were collected via deceptive tactics.

  57. Jim Riley, it could easily be thousands. She wouldn’t know, because only a tiny percentage of the people duped would have complained. Even if there was an organized effort to contact them, which so far to my knowledge is purely speculation, most people these days don’t answer calls from random numbers. I myself even don’t, and I did until recent years.

  58. Her body language could be interpreted in more than one way. But however you interpret it, she wouldn’t know about most of the people duped. You and I certainly wouldn’t either.

  59. @Andy, If the SOS believed that a significant number of voters were deceived, she should have contacted the AG.

    Instead she sends out an official letter to 6000 voters insinuating that they were duped.

  60. Maybe additional evidence is needed. It was enough to raise significant concern given that few people would have any reason to check their enrollment status currently. And what makes you think the Attorney General has not already been contacted? They could be doing their own investigation as we speak right now.

  61. Remember the case where a Democrat tried to knock a Libertarian candidate off the ballot. In Maine, a candidate petition must be signed by enrolled party members.

    For Libertarian parties this might require signing by every Libertarian in the district including those who had moved or died. But rather trying to track down every Libertarian, it is easier to get voters to switch their enrollment and then sign the petition. Maine permits this as long as the registrations are turned in before the petition.

    A Libertarian candidate got several unenrolled voters to switch their registration, as well as one Republican. The Republican dated his signature with his birthday which was a few days later.

    The Democrats challenged his petition. He had the good fortune to have taken a picture on his phone of each registration. The idiot Dem lawyer challenged the provenance of the photo data claiming it could have been altered.

  62. What does that have to do with this? It’s a completely different case with a completely different set of facts.

  63. The letter didn’t insinuate they were duped. It pointed out some people reported being duped, and advised voters on steps to correct a problem if there had been one. It didn’t even provide a blank printed form and SASE.

  64. That law does sound dumb. They should be enrolled with a party for at least a year to sign a candidate petition for the primary, if there’s going to be one.

  65. Jim Riley, any evidence that dim rat hacks contacted any voters who switched? Even one voter reporting this? I’m not saying that doesn’t happen. It does. But did it happen in this case? Any evidence one way or the other?

  66. Jim Riley, what makes you so sure that deception was not widespread? You yourself May 25 at 11:44 am gave examples of deceptive pitches and concluded many people may not have known what they were signing. When it comes to switching their enrollment and their ability to participate in the primary they prefer, this seems like a problem. They weren’t merely adding candidates or issues to be voted on to the ballot. A higher standard of informed consent should apply here.

  67. People signing because of a deceptive pitch is difficult to prove in court. One would need recordings, and I do not think anyone recorded these interactions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.