By: Media Eva! 206-664-1945
iMailVOTE.com mission is to ensure every eligible American can vote, and to ensure
every vote cast is accurately recorded and counted.
*PURGING (STATE OFFICIALS REMOVE VOTES) regularly remove
“purge" citizens from voter rolls secretly with no public disclosure notice to you!
iMailVOTE.com Voting Rights & Elections Project
Good News! iMailVOTE generates a countingVOTE delay in the time zone results, as ballots
keep coming in days after States election dead line, makes Vote-By-Mail very honest as
States on the East Coast cannot be counted first interfering or persuading with the voters
choice on the West Coast, as has been the case in many past elections.
Voters who fill out their Vote-By-Mail on election day may instead of standing in line at their
polling place may either go to the post office and drop it off. or let the post carrier pick it from
their mail box. All mail-in-ballots must be post marked by the day of the election to count.
Vote-By-Mail gives a longer time countingVOTES as mail-in ballots verses rushing standing in
line on election day.
Order your Vote-By-Mail, LongDistanceVoter.org will help you get your
absentee ballot &
know your State's absentee iMailVOTE ballot deadline rules and
We know each non-voter by name!
iMailVOTE with smartdeviceTVitFREE, contacts each missing voter, interacts each person
individually providing each their best tools and requirements to Get-out-VOTE! Informing
each voter that their vote counts and certainly would swing any decision. However, it's
politicians job to address each voters concerns for change, iMailVOTE with TVitFREE only
delivers to convince Get-out-VOTE!
".. individuals vote because they expect to be asked, and they
anticipate the disutility associated with admitting to not voting, or
with lying about voting magnifies get-out-vote and turnout for
"Anyone may see your voting record knowing whether you're a committed citizen.
Because others will ask you, the average being asked even once of being a non-voter
suffers low social-image value syndrome."
November 30, 2014, Washington State has 3,906,906 active registered voters.
Approximately 76% of the state's voting eligible population is registered to vote, according to
Voter Registration Database (VRDB) data and the 2010 census data. 1,945,000 or 58% WA
eligable citizen voters did not vote, and 24% WA State eligible citizen voters ARE NOT
REGISTERED. How many eligible voters are in your State do not VOTE? How may we
contact this winning votingVOTE group to VOTE?
Washingtonians cite their reasons why they won't vote saying the odds are no better than
50-50 that they will: They would vote if contacted, however they aren't excited about either
candidate. Their vote doesn't really matter. And nothing ever gets done, anyway.
*PURGING (STATE OFFICIALS REMOVE VOTES) regularly remove
“purge" citizens from voter rolls.
Voter registration lists, also called voter rolls, are the gateway to voting. Election officials
across the country are routinely striking millions of voters from the rolls through a process
that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation
Eligible registered citizens can show up to vote and discover their names have been removed
from the voter lists. States maintain voter rolls in an inconsistent and unaccountable manner.
Officials strike voters from the rolls through a process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to
error, and vulnerable to manipulation.
A citizen typically cannot cast a vote that will count unless his/her name appears on the voter
registration rolls. Yet state and local officials regularly remove, “purge" citizens from voter
rolls. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million
voters from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006. Purges, if done properly, are an
important way to ensure that voter rolls are dependable, accurate, and up-to-date. Precise
and carefully conducted purges can remove duplicate names, and people who have moved,
died, or are otherwise ineligible.
While the lack of transparency in purge practices precludes a precise figure of the number of
those erroneously purged, we do know that purges have been conducted improperly before.
In 2004, for example, Florida planned to remove 48,000 “suspected felons” from its voter
rolls. Many of those identified were in fact eligible to vote. The flawed process generated a
list of 22,000 African Americans to be purged, but only 61 voters with Hispanic surnames,
notwithstanding Florida’s sizable Hispanic population. Under pressure from voting rights
groups, Florida ordered officials to stop using the purge list. Although this purge was
uncovered and mostly stopped before it was completed, other improper purges may go
undetected and unremedied.
The secret and inconsistent manner in which purges are conducted make it difficult, if not
impossible, to know exactly how many voters are stricken from voting lists erroneously. And
when purges are made public, they often reveal serious problems. Here are a few examples:
• Mississippi, a local election official discovered that another official had wrongly purged
10,000 voters from her home computer just a week before a presidential primary.
• Muscogee, Georgia, a county official purged 700 people from the voter lists, supposedly
because they were ineligible to vote due to criminal convictions. The list included people who
had never even received a parking ticket.
• Louisiana, including areas hit hard by hurricanes, officials purged approximately 21,000
voters, ostensibly for registering to vote in another state, without sufficient voter protections.
Purges rely on error-ridden lists. States regularly attempt to purge voter lists of ineligible
voters or duplicate registration records, but the lists that states use as the basis for purging
are often riddled with errors. For example, some states purge their voter lists based on the
Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, a database that even the Social Security
Administration admits includes people who are still alive. Even though Hilde Stafford, a
Wappingers Falls, NY resident, was still alive and voted, the master death index lists her date
of death as June 15, 1997. As another example, when a member of a household files a
change of address for herself in the United States Postal Service’s National Change of
Address database, it sometimes has the effect of changing the addresses of all members of
that household. Voters who are eligible to vote are wrongly stricken from the rolls because of
problems with underlying source lists.
Voters are purged secretly and without notice. None of the states investigated required
election officials to provide any advance public notice of a systematic purge. Additionally, with
the exception of registrants believed to have changed addresses, many states do not notify
individual voters before purging them. In large part, states that do provide individualized notice
do not provide such notice for all classes of purge candidates. For example, it is rare for
states to provide notice when a registrant is believed to be deceased.
Without proper notice, an erroneously purged voter will likely not be able to correct the error
before Election Day. Without public notice of an impending purge, the public is not be able to
detect improper purges, or to hold their election officials accountable for more accurate voter
Bad “matching” criteria leaves voters vulnerable to manipulated purges. Many voter purges
are conducted with problematic techniques that leave ample room for abuse and
manipulation. State statutes rely on the discretion of election officials to identify registrants
for removal. Far too often, election officials believe they have “matched” two voters, when
they are actually looking at the records of two distinct individuals with similar identifying
information. These cases of mistaken identity cause eligible voters to be wrongly removed
from the rolls.
Florida purge in 2000, conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters
was close to 12,000 was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were
purged from the rolls if 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those
of persons with criminal convictions. Those wrongly purged included Reverend Willie D.
Whiting Jr., who, under the matching criteria, was considered the same person as Willie J.
Whiting. Without specific guidelines for or limitations on the authority of election officials
conducting purges, eligible voters are regularly made unnecessarily vulnerable.
Insufficient oversight leaves voters vulnerable to manipulated purges. Insufficient oversight
permeates the purge process beyond just the issue of matching. For example, state statutes
often rely on the discretion of election officials to identify registrants for removal and to
initiate removal procedures.
Washington State, the failure to deliver a number of delineated mailings, including precinct
reassignment notices, ballot applications, and registration acknowledgment notices, triggers
the mailing of address confirmation notices, which then sets in motion the process for
removal on account of change of address.
State statutes fail to specify clear limitations on the authority of election officials to purge
registrants, where insufficient oversight leaves room for election officials to deviate from
what the state law provides and may make voters vulnerable to poor, lax, or irresponsible
No effective national standard governs voter purges; in fact, methods vary from state to state
and even from county to county. A voter’s risk of being purged depends in part on where in
the state he or she lives. The lack of consistent rules and procedures means that this risk is
unpredictable and difficult to guard against. While some variation is inevitable, every
American should benefit from basic protections against erroneous purges.
A. Transparency and Accountability for Purges
• Develop and publish uniform, non-discriminatory rules for purges.
• Provide public notice of an impending purge. Two weeks before any county-wide or
state-wide purge, states should announce the purge and explain how it is to be conducted.
Individual voters must be notified and given the opportunity to correct any errors or
omissions, or demonstrate eligibility before they are stricken from the rolls.
• Develop and publish rules for an individual to prevent or remedy her erroneous inclusion in
an impending purge. Eligible citizens should have a clear way to restore their names to voter
• Stop using failure to vote as a trigger for a purge. States should send address confirmation
notices only when they believe a voter has moved.
• Develop directives and criteria with respect to the authority to purge voters. The removal of
any record should require authorization by at least two officials.
• Preserve purged voter registration records.
• Make purge lists publicly available.
B. Strict Criteria for the Development of Purge Lists
• Ensure a high degree of certainty that names on a purge list belong there. Purge lists should
be reviewed multiple times to ensure that only ineligible voters are included.
• Establish strict criteria for matching voter lists with other sources.
• Audit purge source lists. If purge lists are developed by matching names on the voter
registration list to names from other sources like criminal conviction lists, the quality and
accuracy of the information in these lists should be routinely “audited” or checked.
• Monitor duplicate removal procedures. States should implement uniform rules and
procedures for eliminating duplicate registrations.
C. “Fail-Safe” Provisions to Protect Voters
States should ensure that:
• No voter is turned away from the polls because her name is not found on the voter rolls.
Instead, would-be voters should be given provisional ballots, to which they are entitled under
• Election workers are given clear instructions and adequate training as to HAVA’s
provisional balloting requirements.
D. Universal Voter Registration
• Take the affirmative responsibility to build clean voter rolls consisting of all eligible citizens.
Building on other government lists or using other innovative methods, states can make sure
that all eligible citizens, and only eligible citizens, are on the voter rolls.
• Ensure that voters stay on the voter rolls when they move within the state.
• Provide a fail-safe mechanism of Election Day registration for those individuals who are
missed or whose names are erroneously purged from the voter rolls.
Get-out-VOTE! 206-664-1945 TEXT ME!
KING had a Dream needs Plan of Action! Are you afraid?
109+million non-voters watch a smartdeviceTV in your pocket!
All Together Now 1-2-3 (Beatles song) WINS+JOBS!+GO GREEN
1-2-3 TVitFREE first-run syndication TV/movies/news/sports attractions WINS! 91.5%
voter turnout! 316+million decision making to Get-out-VOTE! SEE *BUSINESS1-2-3PLAN
2. +JOBS! UnitedStatesGIG OpticFiberInternet GIGgrid +60XFaster across America
areas, upgrades jobs! smartdeviceTVitFREE smartHOLLYWOODfilms ad revenue pays,
3. +GO GREEN YOU SAVE! FREE GIGgrid upgrading to CleanElectricGrid &
I need your Support ADVOCATE NOW! SEE *BUSINESS1-2-3PLAN TVitFREE
Your State @.02 per non-voter *2010 Census Bureau countingVOTE.com Total start-up
You receive start-up investment credit @.05 per view your public message any areas 91.5%
CONTACT: Frank D'orr Family EVA@votingVOTE.com 206-664-1945
KING had a Dream needs a Plan! "upgrade" BaltimoreGIG.com
Easy~Fast VOTE from home you're the
Ballots arrive days after "delaying" State dead line
TVitFREE teaches how-to Vote-By-Mail your State's
absentee iMailVOTE ballot deadline rules &
109+million DID NOT VOTE
SURVEY SAYS: They would vote by mail, not stand
To Predict Future is 1-2-3 Create it!
Survey says: Non-Voters could be drawn by being better informed.
WHAT WILL CONVINCE 109+MILLION NON-VOTERS TO VOTE?
109+million non-voters already watch a smartdeviceTV in
I need your Support! SEE *BUSINESS1-2-3PLAN