LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  July 2012, Week 1

PORTSIDE July 2012, Week 1

Subject:

The Dog That Voted and Other Election Fraud Yarns

From:

Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 6 Jul 2012 23:33:20 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (511 lines)

The Dog That Voted and Other Election Fraud Yarns

     The GOP's 10-year campaign to gin up voter fraud
     hysteria-and bring back Jim Crow at the ballot box.

By Kevin Drum 
July 3, 2012
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-suppression-kevin-drum

On March 21, 2005, a sandy- haired 43-year-old attorney
named Mark "Thor" Hearne took a seat under the Greek
Revival dome of the Ohio Statehouse to testify before
the House Administration Committee. The committee was
holding a field hearing on the subject of voter fraud, a
hot topic in Congress-and in Ohio, where George W. Bush
had eked out a narrow, hotly contested victory over John
Kerry the year before.

Hearne introduced himself as counsel for the American
Center for Voting Rights. The Buckeye State, he said,
had suffered from "massive" registration fraud during
the presidential election. Liberal groups like ACORN and
the AFL-CIO were implicated in illegal voter
registration schemes. An NAACP operative had paid for
fake registrations in crack. Then, after enrolling
thousands of phony voters, these same groups had flooded
the courts with lawsuits designed to create bedlam on
Election Day and prevent fraudulent votes from being
discovered. To back up his story, Hearne submitted a 31-
page report, signed by more than a dozen Ohio attorneys.

It was a startlingly lurid picture-and the latest
chapter in a long-simmering feud between Republicans,
who claim that fraud is rampant in US elections, and
Democrats, who say such charges are merely an excuse to
suppress the vote. Still, there was something different
about this episode. It wasn't just a one-off bit of
bluster during a bitter recount battle. That would have
been politics as usual. Instead, it marked a dramatic
widening of the war. This was, after all, a
congressional hearing, and Hearne represented an
organization dedicated to pushing Republican claims of
voter fraud not just during post-election court fights,
but everywhere and all the time.

So two questions lingered after Hearne had finished his
dramatic testimony. Who exactly was Thor Hearne? And
what was the American Center for Voting Rights, a group
no one had heard of before that day? Therein hangs a
tale, one that starts on a nail-biter of an election
night in a nearly forgotten battleground-St. Louis,
Missouri.


On election day 2000, as officials in Florida wrestled
with butterfly ballots and hanging chads, Thor
Hearne-then the Missouri counsel for the Bush-Cheney
campaign-faced a crisis. It had been a frantic day
marked by long lines, improper purging of names from
voter lists, and hundreds of voters turned away from the
polls. As the problems in the overwhelmingly Democratic
city mounted, the Gore campaign went to court to ask
that the polls stay open three more hours. A judge
granted the request, but Hearne appealed, and in short
order, the decision was overturned.

Republicans were apoplectic over the Democrats'
maneuver. At stake were not only Missouri's Electoral
College votes, but also the fate of GOP Sen. John
Ashcroft, who was locked in a tough reelection battle
against a popular longtime rival, Democratic Gov. Mel
Carnahan. Carnahan had died in a plane crash a few weeks
before the election, but his widow, Jean, was set to
serve in his stead. In the end, even as Bush carried the
state, Ashcroft lost to a dead man.

Missouri's senior senator, Kit Bond, fumed that
Democrats had conducted "a criminal enterprise" designed
to fraudulently register voters during the campaign and
then create chaos on Election Day to cover it up.
Republican losses, Bond told reporters, were due in part
to dogs and dead people voting. Ritzy Meckler, a
springer spaniel whom some jokester had registered to
vote by mail, became a cause célèbre. A few months
later, Missouri's Republican secretary of state, Matt
Blunt, released a report concluding that St. Louis
Democrats had mounted "an organized and successful
effort to generate improper votes in large numbers."

It turned out there was nothing to these charges-no
evidence ever surfaced of intentional fraud, only of
confusion and bad management. But it didn't matter.
Hearne, Ashcroft, and Bond were now obsessed with voter
fraud, and with Bush in the White House they had the
power to do something about it.

Ashcroft went first. Having been appointed Bush's
attorney general, he quickly rolled out a new program to
train US Attorneys and others to recognize and prosecute
voter fraud. He also announced that he would designate
special officers throughout the country to receive
Election Day complaints about voter fraud and voter
intimidation. "Election crimes are a high law
enforcement priority of the Department," his office
announced. (Just how high a priority would become
apparent a few years later.)

Then it was Bond's turn. Shortly after Florida's shoddy
procedures became a national sensation in 2000, Congress
began work on legislation to clean up the voting system.
For the most part this was a bipartisan effort; both
Democrats and Republicans had been appalled by the
hanging-chad spectacle. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
passed by huge majorities in October 2002 and was signed
a few days later by President Bush.

But along the way, Bond made sure that the act was also
a vehicle for his voter fraud crusade. Bond regaled
reporters and senators with his tales of brazen abuses,
often invoking Ritzy Meckler (who, it should be noted,
never cast a ballot). The only way to fix these
problems, he said, was to make sure each voter had to
show ID at the polling place.

In the end, HAVA's identification requirement was a
modest one. It applied only to first-time voters in
federal elections who, like Ritzy, had registered by
mail, and it directed states to accept a wide variety of
ID types. But even so, it was a historic first.
Suddenly, voter fraud-real or otherwise-was in the
national spotlight.

Republicans kept up the drumbeat of complaints for two
years. As the 2004 election approached, the pace picked
up. John Ashcroft launched new fraud investigations in
swing states. Karl Rove, who earlier in his career had
turned a razor-thin loss in an Alabama judicial race
into a razor-thin victory by insisting that his client
had been robbed-and eventually getting the Supreme Court
to agree-went on Sean Hannity's show to warn that "there
has been a lot of voter registration fraud" in
battleground states. Conservative journalist John Fund
published Stealing Elections, a book claiming that shady
vote-buying schemes by Democrats had left America's
elections resembling those of "an emerging Third World
country." Right-wing blogs trumpeted the case of Mac
Stuart, a former ACORN employee who claimed he had been
fired for refusing to go along with illegal voter
registration activities in Florida.

And Thor Hearne? Well, his good work in Missouri had not
gone unnoticed. He was now serving as national counsel
for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign.

But if Republicans spent the 2004 election season
feverishly warning that Democrats were scheming to steal
the White House, it was nothing compared to the furor
among Democrats after the election. The early exit polls
on Election Day had suggested that John Kerry was
leading in virtually every key state, including the
crucial battleground of Ohio. Yet by the time all the
actual votes were counted, Kerry's anticipated victory
turned into a narrow loss-by a mere 120,000-vote margin
in Ohio-and Bush secured a second term.

Outrage boiled over immediately, and not just around
muttered conspiracy theories that Republicans might have
rigged Ohio's Diebold voting machines. Balloting
problems were so widespread in 2004 that when the
Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee wrote
a report titled "What Went Wrong in Ohio," the executive
summary alone was three pages long. The bill of
particulars was damning: Misallocation of voting
machines led to long lines in Democratic precincts;
Republicans knocked minority voters off the rolls with
"caging" tactics (sending letters to voters' listed
addresses and purging those whose mail was returned);
some 93,000 ballots were declared spoiled and left
uncounted. The report blamed one man above all for these
problems: Ohio's Republican secretary of state, Kenneth
Blackwell, who was also a state co-chair for the Bush-
Cheney campaign. In one notorious move, Blackwell
ordered county election boards to reject voter
registration forms printed on paper of "less than 80 lb.
text weight." (This order, at least, was later
rescinded.)

It was against this backdrop that Thor Hearne took the
stand before the House Administration Committee in March
2005 to talk about the Ohio election-and shift the focus
back to where Republicans felt it belonged, on deception
by Democrats. And it was against that same backdrop that
GOP legislatures across the nation began rolling out a
brand new weapon in the voter fraud wars: the photo ID
mandate.

In the past, states had accepted a variety of documents,
such as utility bills and bank statements, to verify
that a voter was who he said he was. But in '05,
Republicans in Indiana pushed through a law to change
all that. It called, for the first time, for photo ID
only, no exceptions.

Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that it was just a
cynical effort to make it harder for people with no
picture ID-often the young, the poor, and the
nonwhite-to vote. The bill passed nonetheless, on a
party-line vote. Then it was challenged in court, and
three years later, in Crawford v. Marion County Election
Board, the US Supreme Court handed down a key decision
upholding the photo ID requirement. Sure, wrote Justice
John Paul Stevens for the majority, the law might have
been motivated in part by Republican "partisan
interest." But so long as its goals were supported by
"valid neutral justifications," it was constitutional.

With that, the floodgates opened. According to the
National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states
have now passed photo ID laws, and bills are pending in
11 more.

In retrospect, the campaign against voter fraud was
long, patient, and strategic. Sen. Kit Bond got the ball
rolling in 2002 when he made sure ID requirements were
part of HAVA. In 2005, a commission on voting rights
headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former
Secretary of State James Baker III gave a bipartisan
blessing to photo ID rules. Thor Hearne spent the
following two years barnstorming the country with
dramatic tales of voter fraud. Meanwhile, the Justice
Department and the Bush White House browbeat US
Attorneys around the country to crack down on voter
fraud, even firing a handful (including David Iglesias,
then the US Attorney for New Mexico) who apparently
weren't zealous enough. And then, finally, the 2010
election brought new GOP majorities to 11 states-and
with them a brand new wave of restrictive voting laws.

At this point, you may be wondering if there's really
anything wrong with all this. What's the problem with
cracking down on voter fraud? And why shouldn't voters
be required to show photo ID? If you need ID to cash a
check or buy a six-pack, why not to vote?

The answer-surprising to many-is straightforward: Not
everyone has, or can easily get, a photo ID. If you
don't drive, you don't have a driver's license. If
you're poor, you probably don't have a credit card. And
if you're unbanked and don't need ID to buy liquor, you
probably don't have much need for photo ID at all.

Once that sinks in, the electoral significance becomes
obvious. In 2007, shortly before the Crawford decision
was handed down, the Washington Institute for the Study
of Ethnicity and Race released a study of Indiana voters
showing that among whites, the middle-aged, and the
middle class, about 90 percent possessed photo ID. Among
blacks, the young, and the poor-all of whom vote for
Democrats at high rates-the rate was about 80 percent.
Overall, 91 percent of registered Republicans had some
form of photo ID, compared to only 83 percent of
registered Democrats.

Likewise, an NAACP report in 2011 concluded that the
recent flood of new voter ID laws had a
"disproportionate impact on minority, low-income,
disabled, elderly, and young voters," prompting an NAACP
official to dub these laws "James Crow, Esquire."
Attorney General Eric Holder last year blocked South
Carolina's new photo ID law, noting that more than
80,000 minority voters in the state don't have driver's
licenses.

Still, Republicans argue, anyone can obtain a photo ID
with a modest amount of effort if they really want to
vote. And isn't this small amount of inconvenience worth
it in order to crack down on fraud?

Sure-but first there needs to be some actual fraud to
crack down on. And that turns out to be remarkably
elusive.

That's not to say that there's none at all. In a country
of 300 million you'll find a bit of almost anything. But
multiple studies taking different approaches have all
come to the same conclusion: The rate of voter fraud in
American elections is close to zero.

In her 2010 book, The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine
Minnite tracked down every single case brought by the
Justice Department between 1996 and 2005 and found that
the number of defendants had increased by roughly 1,000
percent under Ashcroft. But that only represents an
increase from about six defendants per year to 60, and
only a fraction of those were ever convicted of
anything. A New York Times investigation in 2007
concluded that only 86 people had been convicted of
voter fraud during the previous five years. Many of
those appear to have simply made mistakes on
registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules,
and more than 30 of the rest were penny-ante vote-buying
schemes in local races for judge or sheriff. The
investigation found virtually no evidence of any
organized efforts to skew elections at the federal
level.

Another set of studies has examined the claims of
activist groups like Thor Hearne's American Center for
Voting Rights, which released a report in 2005 citing
more than 100 cases involving nearly 300,000 allegedly
fraudulent votes during the 2004 election cycle. The
charges involved sensational-sounding allegations of
double-voting, fraudulent addresses, and voting by
felons and noncitizens. But in virtually every case they
dissolved upon investigation. Some of them were just
flatly false, and others were the result of clerical
errors. Minnite painstakingly investigated each of the
center's charges individually and found only 185 votes
that were even potentially fraudulent.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University
has focused on voter fraud issues for years. In a 2007
report they concluded that "by any measure, voter fraud
is extraordinarily rare." In the Missouri election of
2000 that got Sen. Bond so worked up, the Center found a
grand total of four cases of people voting twice, out of
more than 2 million ballots cast. In the end, the
verified fraud rate was 0.0003 percent.

One key detail: The best-publicized fraud cases involve
either absentee ballots or voter registration fraud (for
example, paid signature gatherers filling in "Mary
Poppins" on the forms, a form of cheating that's
routinely caught by registrars already). But photo ID
laws can't stop that: They only affect people actually
trying to impersonate someone else at the polling place.
And there's virtually no record, either now or in the
past, of this happening on a large scale.

What's more, a moment's thought suggests that this is
vanishingly unlikely to be a severe problem, since there
are few individuals willing to risk a felony charge
merely to cast one extra vote and few organizations
willing or able to organize large-scale in-person fraud
and keep it a secret. When Indiana's photo ID law,
designed to prevent precisely this kind of fraud, went
to the Supreme Court, the state couldn't document a
single case of it happening. As the majority opinion in
Crawford admits, "The record contains no evidence of any
such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in
its history."

This mountain of evidence suggests to most liberals that
there's another agenda at work: suppressing votes from
Democratic-leaning populations. And Minnite's research
confirms a partisan tilt. Today's voter ID laws are
championed "almost exclusively by Republicans," she told
me, and, with only one exception, have been enacted only
when Republicans have unified control in a state
capitol.


There's more to voter suppression than just photo ID
laws, of course (see our related charts), and the
Brennan Center has identified a host of other tactics
that have sprung up over the past few years. Some states
have ended Election Day registration. Others have
restricted early voting, which is more heavily used by
minority voters. Laws requiring proof of citizenship
have been proposed in a dozen states-a legislative push
closely associated with the right-wing campaign against
illegal immigration. Laws making it harder for students
to vote have mushroomed. And last year Florida placed
such stringent rules on voter registration drives that
the League of Women Voters simply stopped conducting
them.

None of this is a coincidence. In the same way that ACVR
and Thor Hearne helped win the public-opinion war
following the 2004 election, the conservative American
Legislative Exchange Council picked up the ball after
the 2008 election with model voter fraud measures that
were prepackaged and ready to be enacted. With
Republican majorities in place across the country, state
lawmakers were eager to pass laws restricting voting
rights. ALEC made it easy.

Yet as important as all these tactics are, photo ID laws
remain the spearhead of the push to restrict voting
rights. So it's fair to wonder how much impact these
laws have in real life.

The answer: It's not entirely clear. The Brennan Center
generated a lot of headlines for a recent report
suggesting that upwards of 5 million voters could be
affected just by laws passed in 2011. But a 2009 study
published in Politics on the actual impact of voting law
changes concluded that "voter-ID laws appear to have
little to no main effects on turnout."

Minnite, along with coauthor Robert Erikson, concluded
much the same in a 2009 paper. They specifically
investigated turnout among vulnerable groups in states
with varying types of voter ID laws, and although they
did find an impact, it was quite small and nowhere near
statistically significant. "The moral is simple," they
concluded. "We should be wary of claims-from all sides
of the controversy-regarding turnout effects from voter
ID laws."

As more states enact strict photo ID laws and the number
of affected voters increases, it's possible that
empirical studies will more reliably show an effect. But
it will likely remain fairly small, according to Rick
Hasen, an election law expert at the University of
California-Irvine. "Whether it's really affecting a
whole bunch of votes," he told me, "I'm skeptical."

The reason for this is pretty simple: Only about a tenth
of the voting-age population lacks some form of photo
ID, and that tenth includes a lot of demographic groups
that already have low turnout in state and federal
elections. That means a large number of them probably
didn't intend to vote in the first place, so the new
laws have no real effect on them. Of the rest, many will
go ahead and get the requisite form of ID even though
it's an extra effort. It's only the remainder-say, one-
tenth of the original tenth-who want to vote but end up
being stopped because they can't procure photo ID.

Still, in a close race, a modest effect can make a
difference, and the cliff-hangers of 2000 and 2004
demonstrate that even presidential contests can hinge on
tiny changes in turnout. If photo ID laws give them an
advantage, however small, Republicans have an incentive
to continue pushing for them.

Hasen offers another possible motivation: The voter
wars, he suggests, have become a fundraising issue for
both parties. Charges that the other side is stealing
elections are incendiary, and promises to pass-or
block-voter ID laws can be turned into demagogic appeals
for money.

Those things may all be true. But even so, there's one
more layer to the voter fraud crusade.

If you're the jaded sort, you might write off the whole
thing as just another dreary example of cynical
politicking. But what you can't write off is the strong
evidence that, as Hasen puts it, there are "underlying
racial currents" in these laws.

Statistics tell part of this story: According to a
survey by the Brennan Center, 8 percent of voting-age
whites lack a photo ID, compared to 25 percent of
blacks. Getting an ID card from the state usually
requires you to produce a birth certificate, and Barbara
Zia of the South Carolina League of Women Voters
recently explained what this means in her state: "Many
South Carolinians, especially citizens of color, were
born at home and lack birth certificates, and so to
obtain those birth certificates is a very costly
endeavor and also an administrative nightmare."

In St. Louis, where our story opened, Kit Bond's outrage
about dogs and dead people has a long pedigree. It is, a
local official told the American Prospect's Art Levine,
"code for black people." This kind of racial dog
whistling, which relentlessly paints ethnic minorities
as corrupt and dishonest, is corrosive not just to our
political discourse, but to democracy itself.

The scandal of the photo ID laws, then, isn't so much
that they give one party an advantage, or even that they
affect minorities disproportionately. The scandal is
that they knowingly target minorities. So even if the
real-life effects of these laws are small, they're
impairing civil rights that African Americans and others
have spent decades fighting, and sometimes dying, for.
This in turn means that something most of us thought was
finally taboo-active suppression of minority votes-isn't
really taboo after all. As Eric Holder put it in a
speech earlier this year, there are those who fear that
"some of the achievements that defined the civil rights
movement now hang in the balance."

Electoral politics has always been a dirty game, but in
recent decades most of us felt that there was, at least,
a consensus that systematic, national-level efforts to
discourage minority voting were at last beyond the pale.
But maybe we were just kidding ourselves.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020, Week 4
February 2020, Week 3
February 2020, Week 2
February 2020, Week 1
January 2020, Week 5
January 2020, Week 4
January 2020, Week 3
January 2020, Week 2
January 2020, Week 1
December 2019, Week 5
December 2019, Week 4
December 2019, Week 3
December 2019, Week 2
December 2019, Week 1
November 2019, Week 5
November 2019, Week 4
November 2019, Week 3
November 2019, Week 2
November 2019, Week 1
October 2019, Week 5
October 2019, Week 4
October 2019, Week 3
October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager