“We Stand With Our Incumbent Members”: Opponent of Wasserman Schultz in Florida Denied Access To Democratic Voter Data

Wasserman SchultzFlorida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been widely accused of being a key architect of “rigging” the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Among the various controversies surrounding Wasserman Schultz was her blocking Bernie Sanders’ campaign from accessing the DNC’s voter data files, which contain email addresses and telephone numbers for constituents. Now Tim Canova, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University who is running against Wasserman Schultz for her seat in Congress, has revealed that found out that he too is blocked from accessing Democratic voter data. Mind you he is a Democrat but the state Democrats confirmed that only incumbents can gain access to the valuable resource in what critics have said is a blatant effort to favor such candidates. Canova has made the denial to the VAN system part of his campaign while various groups and individuals have campaigned for her to be removed as DNC head.

Florida Democratic Party spokesman Max Stelle is quoted as saying that the Florida Democratic Party does not offer data access “to candidates challenging incumbent members of Florida’s Democratic congressional delegation. This policy has been applied uniformly across the board since 2010. We stand with our incumbent members of Congress and we’re proud of the job they do representing the people of Florida. The Voter File is proprietary software created and owned by the Democratic National Committee that is maintained and operated by the Florida Democratic Party here in state.”

It was such on unbelievable statement that I checked to make sure that there was not a hoax and there is such as person as Max Steele. There is. It is unbelievable that the party, which is supposed to be neutral and inclusive, defends a rule designed to make it more difficult for democrats to challenge incumbents despite overwhelming public sentiment against the establishment. While insisting that they are eager to incorporate Sanders supporters who are fighting the establishment, they also openly protecting incumbents from challengers.

canova-timothyCanova is a Sanders supporter who teaches banking and corporations.

74 thoughts on ““We Stand With Our Incumbent Members”: Opponent of Wasserman Schultz in Florida Denied Access To Democratic Voter Data”

  1. I have no problem with this policy since it also ensures that a Republican cannot run in the Democratic Party primary and get rid of an incumbent by that means. A bogus Democrat running in the party primary can weaken an incumbent for the general election. The problem is that the political parties have too little means for ensuring party unity on critical questions. So while I support Sanders and this candidate, I can find no reason to condemn this policy since it provides a means of ensuring loyalty to the party. If you are against political parties, THEN it would make sense to oppose it.

  2. @Tnash

    True. The Voter ID stuff is more of a preventative, than a punitive statute. Okrapner comes here with “unclean hands”, because the Democratic Party leadership fights the very thing that would help prevent fraud, which is asking for proof of citizenship, and reasonable Voter ID. Like with everything, their standard claim is “its racisssss!” and really the only people who believe them anymore are a minority of brain dead Dem shill voters themselves. Heck, most blacks support Voter ID themselves. So do most grass roots level Democrats.


    The truth is that Democrat Party leadership runs a massive open criminal process to buy votes and stuff the ballot box. Voter ID provides them a few bumps in the road.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. Here is a HuffPo article on how Democrats benefit from illegal alien voting:


    Why are Democrats so uniformly opposed to proof of citizenship in order to vote? They and their interest group surrogates insist there is no problem with voter security. But why should we believe this when we know illegal immigrants routinely lie to obtain employment? (Federal law requires employees to sign a document called an I-9 Form upon becoming employed swearing under penalty of perjury that he or she is authorized for employment, i.e., is a citizen or lawfully admitted alien and to provide two forms of ID to prove it.) I have seen thousands of bogus I-9 Forms signed by illegal immigrants and copies of their false social security cards in my RICO cases against employers who hire them. These false attestations are rarely prosecuted by federal authorities. And why would we think illegal immigrants, whose very presence in this country is a crime, would be above a little more crime in order to obtain employment?

    Once that is understood, why would we think illegal immigrants would not also lie to obtain medical care in public hospitals, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and register to vote? Only two states actually require proof of citizenship in order to register (Arizona and Kansas). The others merely require the applicant sign a sworn statement attesting to the fact that he or she is a citizen. But this is what is asked, and routinely perjured, on the I-9 Form. Thus, it follows that false claims of citizenship in order to register to vote should be widespread. There are some media reports of non-citizens voting, but generally, the media have not investigated the problem in any depth compared to their obsession with the insurmountable problem Republicans will have with Hispanic “voters.”

    The perceived trouble Republicans face, we are constantly told, stems from the party’s opposition to illegal immigration. And perhaps there is a kernel of truth to this theory. It stands to reason that illegal immigrants who are illegally registered to vote would have a very real stake in seeing to it that Republicans do not come to power with their far right ideas about requiring proof of citizenship to vote (which has been required since the founding of the Republic) and to be employed in this country. After all, if these laws were seriously enforced, it might be intolerable for illegal immigrants to live in the U.S. They would, presumably, lose employment, subsidized medical care, and the right to vote for candidates for will perpetuate such a way of life.

    Democratic party spokesmen justify their opposition to laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote by the absurd claim that poor people do not have birth certificates or passports. But we require everyone, including the poor, to produce such documents when becoming employed for their I-9 Forms. And if that is tolerable, then it must also be tolerable for the same documents to be produced to register to vote and some sort of photo ID in order to vote.

    There is a huge problem with voter fraud. And, in my opinion, it is proven by the vehemence of the Democrats, the beneficiaries of the fraud, toward enforcement of our laws.

  4. I used to live in low income housing where my neighbors in the next building over were Mexican gang members. I got an eyeful of new and interesting tattoos every day, but they were nice to me. It is wrong to assume you know anyone’s experience or life story.

Comments are closed.