Veterans for Common Sense

October 29, 2008 – The Ohio Republican Party launched a new statewide ad Tuesday claiming Democrats are trying to “steal the election in Ohio” by allowing hundreds of thousands of people to vote illegally, the latest effort by GOP operatives in the battleground state to challenge the eligibility of newly registered voters, many of who are expected to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“As Election Day approaches, consider this: could Ohio’s election be stolen?” a woman says in the 60-second spot. “Hundreds of thousands of new voter registrations are questionable. Many may be fraudulent. Yet [Ohio] Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is concealing the evidence.”

The ad, which is slated to run more than 20 times a day until Nov. 4, is part of an aggressive effort by Republican Party officials and GOP lawmakers in Ohio to purge at least 200,000 newly registered voters from the rolls. Republicans said the fact that some information on voter registration forms don’t square with information stored in government databases, such as drivers license and social security numbers, represents a clear-cut case of “election fraud.”

At issue is a federal law – the Help America Vote Act, which was passed when Republicans dominated Congress in 2002 – that requires states to verify the eligibility of voters.

The Ohio Republican Party filed a lawsuit last month against Brunner, a Democrat, claiming that voter registration information for hundreds of thousands of new voters did not match official government data, such as Social Security records and driver’s licenses. The Ohio Republican Party demanded Brunner turn over county-by-county lists of voters so they can challenge whether they are eligble to vote. But Brunner refused saying it would disenfranchise voters and turning over the lists weeks before the election would be impossible.

Voting advocates note that many mismatches can be irrelevant, such as the use of a middle name in one form but not another or a typographical error in a database.

Still, Republicans faulted Brunner for her “steadfast refusal to provide the HAVA ‘mismatch’ data to the county boards of elections in a meaningful way.” They accused Brunner of violating federal election laws by “actively working to conceal fraudulent activity.”

Brunner said the lawsuit was “politically motivated” and could result in disenfranchisement of voters because of “misstated technical information or glitches in databases. _

“Many of those discrepancies bear no relationship whatsoever to a voter’s eligibility to vote a regular, as opposed to a provisional, ballot,” Brunner said, adding that mismatches “may well be used at the county level unnecessarily to challenge fully qualified voters and severely disrupt the voting process.”

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that had favored the Republicans. The high court said lawsuits “brought by a private litigant” could not be used to force states to abide by federal laws.

“Jennifer Brunner is not only defying federal law but she’s also making every effort to conceal fraud in this election,” said Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine. “We’ve heard from thousands of Ohioans and voters across the nation who are outraged by her dereliction of duty, and they want to know what they can do to make sure Ohio’s election isn’t stolen.”

That the Ohio Republican Party is questioning whether “Ohio’s election” could be stolen is remarkable considering that in 2004, Republican-controlled Ohio was one state where voters complained that their votes cast on electronic voting machines for Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, were recorded for George W. Bush.

Additionally, tens of thousands of voters were purged from voter registration rolls. Early exit polls showed Kerry leading Bush in Ohio, but Bush carried the state by 119,000 votes.

Last week, Bush weighed in on the voter dispute in the state. Last week, in an unprecedented move, Bush asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to launch an investigation to determine whether the voters in question would need to verify the information on their registration forms or cast provisional ballots, which are often thrown out after the voter leaves the polling place.

Federal intervention – if ordered by Mukasey – could wreak havoc at polling places across Ohio, with Republican operatives using data on mismatches to challenge thousands of voters and causing long lines in Democratic strongholds.

Federal investigative guidelines also discourage election-related probes before ballots are cast because of the likelihood that the inquiries will become politicized and might influence the election outcomes.

“In most cases, voters should not be interviewed, or other voter-related investigation done, until after the election is over,” according to the Justice Department’s guidelines for election offenses.

Bush was acting on a letter he received from Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who said “unless action is taken by the [Justice] Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of names whose information has not been verified through the [Help America Vote Act] procedures mandated by Congress will remain on the voter rolls during the Nov. 4 election.

“There is a significant risk if not a certainty, that unlawful votes will be cast and counted. Given the Election Day is less than two weeks away, immediate action by the Department is not only warranted, but also crucial.”

Sen. McCain also has elevated the issue of irregularities in registration forms, saying during the third presidential debate that the grassroots group ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Although McCain’s comment was largely hyperbole, it set the stage for widespread Republican challenges to new voters, what GOP critics say is just the latest chapter of a long history of Republican “voter suppression.”

Ohio’s 20 electoral votes could be crucial for McCain to achieve a comeback victory over his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is leading in Ohio by five to seven percentage points, according to most polls.

Republican success in disqualifying large numbers of new voters – while creating long lines in Democratic precincts – could tip Ohio into McCain’s column on Election Night.

The new Ohio GOP ad directs voters to the website fightohiofraud.com, where DeWine, the deputy chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, asks for donations to the group’s legal defense fund to “fight Jennifer Brunner’s efforts to steal the fraud in this election.”

The video begins with DeWine stating that the “effort to steal Ohio’s election continues.”  

In the video, DeWine claims “people are registered to vote from fake addresses that would put them right in the middle of the Ohio River.”

Still, independent studies have shown that phony registrations rarely result in illegally cast ballots because there are so many other safeguards built into the system.

For instance, from October 2002 to September 2005, a total of 70 people were convicted for federal election related crimes, according to figures compiled by the New York Times last year. Only 18 of those were for ineligible voting.

In recent years, federal prosecutors reached similar conclusions despite pressure from the Bush administration to lodge “election fraud” charges against voter registration groups seen as bringing more Democratic voters into the democratic process.

Mark Crispin Miller, a professor at New York University, and one of country’s foremost experts on election integrity issues, said it’s all but certain that Ohio will “be the site of litigation by the GOP, so as to nullify a lot of Democratic votes.”

“At the moment there are actually no fewer than nine lawsuits, all of them brought by the Republicans,” Miller said.

October 27, 2008 – Is there anything more that the administration can do to ignore the spirit of the U.S. Constitution before President Bush leaves office?

The New York Times has revealed that a 2007 memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel claims that even federal programs subject to nondiscrimination laws can hand out taxpayer money to groups that discriminate in hiring staffers. The memo says the administration can bypass laws that bar giving taxpayer money to religious groups that hire only staff members who share their faith.

It specifically applies to a $1.5 million grant to World Vision, which is headquartered in Federal Way, for salaries for staff members on a program that helps at-risk youths avoid joining gangs.

The organization limits its hires to Christians, but the DOJ memo said that’s not a problem because exceptions to the nondiscrimination rule are permissible when obeying the law would impose a “substantial burden” on people’s ability to freely follow their religion.

Requiring World Vision to hire nonChristians as a condition of the grant would create such a burden, according to the DOJ memo.

It seems no president has done so much to break down the wall of separation between church and state than Bush has.

A couple of weeks after he took office in 2001, Bush dropped into the White House press room to hold an impromptu news conference — his first as president. Every question but one was focused on his campaign’s proposed tax cut. But I asked the president why he did not respect the historic wall of separation of church and state.

“I do,” he replied.

“No, sir,” I said. “If you did, you would not create a religious office in the White House.” I was later called by Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, who asked me why I had “blindsided” the president with my church-state question. I told him I thought it was a “legitimate” question for the new president.

I grant you that there have been other presidents who have clouded the question, such as President Nixon, who held prayer gatherings on Sundays at the White House with invited ministers.

But none of this touched on the intrinsic question of separation of church and state.

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established by Bush in the White House, paving the way for church groups to win grants for social causes such as anti-drug programs and shelters for the homeless.

The president asked Congress to make it “legal” for religious groups to be given taxpayer money even when they discriminate against hiring people of other faiths. When Congress balked, Bush issued an executive order making the changes he wanted on his own.

Religion and politics seem to intersect frequently these days.

In remarks worthy of the Founding Fathers, retired Gen. Colin Power broke with his own party to support the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama — and addressed a taunt against the Democratic candidate that he is a Muslim. Obama is a Christian.

But, Powell asked rhetorically on NBC TV’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday, what if Obama were Muslim.

“He’s always been a Christian,” Powell said. “But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?

“The answer’s no, that’s not America,” Powell said. “Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?”

Powell went on to tell the story of a young American of Arab heritage who joined the Army as soon as he came of age and was killed in Iraq.

This country was founded by people who sought freedom to practice their own religion. To each his own. Democracy is a better alternative to theocracy and we know that tolerance of race and creed is the essence of what America is all about.

October 27, 2008 – John McCain continues to talk about a U.S. “victory” in Iraq and Sarah Palin baits Barack Obama for not using the word “win” when he discusses the war. But the hard reality facing whoever becomes President is a looming strategic defeat.

 The shape of that defeat is outlined in the Oct. 13 draft of the “status-of-forces” agreement negotiated between Washington and Baghdad in which the United States accepts a full withdrawal of its combat troops by the end of 2011, or earlier if the Iraqi government demands.

Over the past several months as the agreement has taken shape, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government has escalated its demands, and the Bush administration has made concession after concession. Yet even now, many powerful Iraqi politicians — especially among the Shiites — are demanding that American troops get out even faster.

Iraq seems intent on telling the United States the diplomatic equivalent of “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

If that’s the case, the United States may end up achieving almost none of its core geopolitical objectives despite the deaths of more than 4,000 soldiers, the maiming of more than 30,000 others, and the expenditure of $1 trillion or more in taxpayer dollars.

Though President George W. Bush sold the war to the American people as needed to protect the nation from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, it turned out that Hussein had no WMD stockpiles and presented no genuine threat to the United States.

The war’s real motives – dear to the hearts of neoconservatives close to Bush – were to project American power into the Middle East, establish military bases for pressuring Iran and Syria on regime change, create a puppet Iraqi government friendly to Israel, and secure U.S. access to Iraqi oil.

The neocons, many of whom cut their foreign-policy teeth on the Reagan administration’s hard-line strategies in Central America, saw Iraq as a Middle East version of Honduras, which in the 1980s was used as a base to launch military strikes against Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua and other leftist movements in the region.

Viewing the Central American outcome as a success – despite the horrendous death toll – key neocons, such as current deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, sought to apply those lessons to the Middle East with Iraq playing the role of Honduras.

‘Real Men’

So, after the relatively easy U.S. conquest of Iraq in spring 2003, a joke within neocon circles of Washington was whether to strike next at Syria or Iran, with the punch-line: “Real men go to Teheran.”

These realpolitik motives were rarely mentioned publicly, but this neocon dream of the United States achieving military dominion over the Middle East was always at the center of the Bush administration’s thinking. It was in line with the grandiose ambitions of the Project for the New American Century.

Yet, when the American people weren’t being told the scary fictions about Hussein attacking with his imaginary WMD, they were hearing President Bush’s noble talk about protecting human rights and spreading democracy.

But that was mostly window-dressing, too. In reality, there has been little progress on democracy or human rights in key U.S. allies in the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the Persian Gulf sheikdoms.

When limited experiments in democracy were tried, they almost invariably backfired, partly because Bush is widely despised in the region. U.S.-supported Palestinian elections brought radical Hamas to power in Gaza, while the Iraqi elections deepened sectarian schisms and exacerbated the violence in 2005 and 2006.

The latest irony is that Bush’s desire to use the status-of-forces agreement to cement a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq – essentially to lock in the next occupant of the White House – has had the opposite result.

Given broad Iraqi opposition to the U.S. occupation – and with new elections scheduled for early 2009 – Iraqi political factions are trying to position themselves as defenders of the nation’s sovereignty, not American puppets.

That political dynamic has led to reducing the U.S. military options contained in the evolving status-of-forces agreement.

New Draft

The latest draft, dated Oct. 13 and translated by Iraqi political analyst Raed Jarrar, sets firm deadlines for the removal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities and towns (June 30, 2009) and for their final departure (Dec. 31, 2011).

In a little-noticed concession, the Bush administration not only gave the Iraqi government veto power over any U.S.-desired extension of the departure date, but wording was inserted to require clearance through “constitutional procedures” for the U.S. military presence to go beyond 2011, an apparent reference to approval from the Iraqi parliament.

With key factions hostile to an ongoing U.S. military presence, that wording would seem to lock in the withdrawal dates. Although the Bush administration has tried to spin the U.S. departure as “conditions-based,” it now has the look of a firm timetable.

Other language in the agreement requires the United States to turn over any fixed bases to the Iraqi government at Baghdad’s discretion.

So, the neocon dream of transforming Iraq into a land-based aircraft carrier for carrying out military strikes against Iran, Syria and other perceived enemies appears to be ending, regardless of whether neocon favorite, McCain, succeeds President Bush, or Obama does with his plan to remove U.S. combat forces over 16 months.

Under the latest version of the status-of-forces agreement, the only option for carrying out the neocon plan would seem to be the raw imposition of American imperial dominance, a move that would meet widespread international resistance and likely rekindle the insurrection inside Iraq.

The far more likely outcome in Iraq is the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces, with Washington left with little to show for its investment in blood and treasure.

If that indeed is what happens, the supposedly “successful surge,” which has cost more than 1,000 American lives, will have done little more than buy Bush time to exit the White House before the full consequences of his military adventure become obvious.

As for Iraq, it seems doomed to continue as a country plagued by sectarian rivalries. The Shiite majority will establish close relations with neighboring Shiite-ruled Iran; the Sunnis will remain resentful over their reduced status; and the Kurds will insist on their autonomous region in the north.

Whether a meaningful democracy can survive long amid these tensions – and the recent history of horrific violence – is doubtful. The bitter end-result for the Iraqis may be the Balkanization of their country into sectarian enclaves or the emergence of another strongman in the mold of Saddam Hussein.

For the United States, memories of its military intervention in a country halfway around the world may fade gradually into history, swallowed by the shifting sands of the ancient land of Mesopatamia, another chapter of failed imperial overreach in a long saga dating back to Biblical times.

Despite the terrible price in blood, treasure and prestige, little may remain of Bush’s adventure besides the recognition of a painful strategic defeat for the United States and a historical reminder about the arrogance of power.

October 29, 2008 – The strategists plotting war hero John McCain’s electoral route to the White House have always been confident that they could count on the likes of Kevin E. Creed.

Creed, a Litchfield lawyer and former Connecticut state trooper, spent 17 years as an Army helicopter pilot before retiring from the military in 1996. After Sept. 11, 2001, Creed was one of 33 retired Army aviators who agreed to be recalled to meet the Pentagon’s need for specialized officers during a national emergency.

At the age of 51, Creed left his prosperous Connecticut law practice, lost 40 pounds, dug his old logbooks and flight suits out of his attic and returned to duty as an Army major, traveling between Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait as the Army’s theater aviation maintenance officer. In April 2003, Creed was shot down south of Baghdad and spent the night camping in the desert until he and his crew were rescued.

He retains one particularly strong memory from his service in Iraq.

“On the day that President Bush flew onto that aircraft carrier and declared ‘Mission Accomplished,’ [May 1, 2003],” Creed said, “I was in a command bunker outside Baghdad with dust flying all over the place from the explosions blasting over our heads. When we heard that Bush had said ‘Mission Accomplished,’ all the soldiers in the bunker laughed. This was the beginning of my asking, ‘Hey, what’s happening here? Something isn’t right.'”

Today, even though he once voted for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Creed is co-chairman of Connecticut Veterans for Obama, an affiliate of Barack Obama’s campaign that is dispatching volunteers to swing states and manning phone banks for Obama.

The efforts of Creed’s group are closely coordinated with Obama’s headquarters in Chicago during weekly conference calls.

“There’s going to be a big surprise on Nov. 4,” Creed said. “John McCain is not going to get the majority of the veterans’ vote, not in Connecticut and not nationwide.”

Creed’s counterpart is Richard O. Jones of Madison, a former Marine captain who is the veterans’ coordinator for the McCain-Palin campaign in Connecticut. Jones leads an enthusiastic group of veterans, but he concedes that the McCain campaign forces in Connecticut have had difficulty getting organized.

“Our activities so far have basically been writing letters to the editor and talking with our friends and neighbors,” Jones said. “There’s been no coordination from the national McCain organization because they’ve shifted all of their efforts to the swing states.”

Demographic Shift
The Republican Party has long relied on active-duty soldiers and veterans as a key voting bloc, and McCain’s celebrity as a Vietnam-era prisoner led to an early assumption that he would sweep the military vote.

Absentee military ballots proved pivotal for Republican George W. Bush in the controversial 2000 presidential vote in Florida. In the 2004 election, a CNN national exit poll showed that, among veterans, Bush polled 57 percent against Democrat John Kerry’s 41 percent.

This year, August polls by both Gallup and the Washington Post-ABC survey showed McCain well ahead of Obama – by as much as 56 percent to 34 percent – among military voters.

But since then the economic crisis may have eroded support for the Republican ticket among America’s 23 million veterans. And experts who study the military vote say a perfect storm of factors had already begun to blunt the Republican’s historical advantage among military voters.

During the long war in Iraq, multiple deployments to the Mideast have tested the patience of military families. Long lines at Veterans Administration clinics and social service centers, and repeated and highly publicized scandals about the poor quality of health care of wounded soldiers, have alienated veterans and their families.

Perhaps more significant, minority-group members now make up more than 30 percent of the armed services and women make up 15 percent, and both groups skew much more Democratic than the conservative white men who once formed the backbone of the military vote.

McCain has been endorsed by more than 240 retired generals and admirals, and five former secretaries of state. But he was hurt by the Oct. 19 endorsement of Obama by former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, a venerable figure in the GOP.

The Powell endorsement has reverberated throughout the military establishment. For many undecided military voters, Powell’s October surprise could legitimize a vote for Obama.

“It’s a complete mistake to think that the Republicans will get the military vote,” said Kim Brown, 48, of West Haven, an Air Force veteran who said she is planning to vote for Obama.

“Right now, the VA is either overloaded or cutting back on benefits like prescription drugs or physical therapy, and I have seen people coming back from Iraq paralyzed from their injuries, and they can’t even get the wheelchair they need. A lot of us blame that on Bush policies – and McCain is very close to Bush.”

But McCain supporters insist that national security issues will remain paramount.

“I have always admired John McCain and remember very well his heroism in Vietnam,” said Robert Getman, 76, of Lyme, a McCain supporter who is a retired Coast Guard captain. “McCain is stronger on defense and national security, and he can restore our pride and image in the world.”

Economy A Priority
But other veterans who once were part of the military-Republican voting bloc say economic issues have overtaken the presidential race. Chester W. Morgan of Vernon is a former state legislator and 30-year veteran of the Connecticut National Guard. Morgan voted for George W. Bush in 2004, but this year is an avid Obama fan.

“Why does everyone think that veterans vote only on military issues?” Morgan said. “I am 71 years old now, and I have watched my retirement accounts decline by over $75,000 in the last four months. I am voting my pocketbook, and for change, this year, which means Obama.”

But McCain supporters predict that the excitement and flash over Obama does not mean that McCain will stumble on Nov. 4.

“Connecticut is a quiet state, and you’re not going to see McCain’s people out in public making a lot of noise,” said McCain backer Dennis McNamara of Clinton, a retired Navy senior chief. “And so we’re working quietly out there, and there’s a silent undercurrent for John McCain.”

October 28, 2008 – One in seven female soldiers who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and later sought healthcare for any reason reported being sexually harassed or assaulted during their military service, according to a study by Veterans Affairs researchers.

In contrast, only 0.7{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of male soldiers reported similar experiences.

Women who reported harassment or assault were 2.3 times as likely to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder as those who did not, and were also more likely to suffer from depression or engage in substance abuse. Men who reported harassment or assault were 1.5 times more likely to suffer PTSD or other disorders.

Similar data have been found in other studies of the military, “but these are the first data specifically coming from veterans deployed in those operations, which makes them novel,” said clinical psychologist Amy Street of the National Center for PTSD at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System.

No previous study had correlated sexual misconduct with mental health problems among veterans of the deployments, said Street, a co-author of the research.

The data are being presented today at a San Diego meeting of the American Public Health Assn.

The study started with all patients who used VA healthcare between Oct. 1, 2001, and Oct. 1, 2007. They were matched against an administrative list of soldiers who were deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those deployed may not have actually served in those two countries, however.

More than 125,000 patients met both criteria. All patients seeking medical care are routinely asked if they have been subjected to harassment or assault. “They may not tell if they are not asked about them,” Street said.

Among this group, 15.1{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of women and 0.7{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of men answered positively. The data do not indicate what proportion were assaulted, and researchers don’t know if the incidents happened while they were deployed or simply sometime during military service.

The rates are lower than those of a similar study released last year by Street and her colleagues. In that study of all VA healthcare users in 2003, not just those deployed, the researchers found that 21.5{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of females and 1{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of males had reported suffering sexual assault or harassment.

The researchers are uncertain why the rate was lower among deployed soldiers.

The Department of Defense has developed a sexual assault prevention and response program “and we may be seeing a response to those policies,” Street said.

October 27, 2008 – Today, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) criticized the U.S. Army’s continued use of “stop loss” as further evidence that the discharge of over 12,500 service members based on sexual orientation since 1993 under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” undermines military readiness.

“The continued use of stop loss illustrates how the discharge of over 12,500 qualified service members under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has greatly strained military readiness at a time when our armed forces are already stretched far too thin around the globe,” said SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis. “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ undermines the military’s ability to attract qualified personnel of all backgrounds in order to keep pace with increasing deployment needs.”
A story in today’s USA Today ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-10-26-stoploss_N.htm) demonstrates how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” contributes to the strain of our military by continuing the need for involuntary extensions of combat duty, a policy known as “stop loss.” Acknowledged by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a burden to troops and their families, the number of soldiers impacted by stop loss rose to about 12,000 this March due to the troop buildup in Iraq and the extension of Army tours from 12 to 15 months. The Army is expected to continue relying on stop loss through 2009.

In fact, the number of soldiers impacted by stop loss each month is approximately the same as the number of service members who have been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – over 12,500. The number of service members discharged under this discriminatory law also roughly equals the number of service members that commanders in Afghanistan are seeking to add to the 32,000 troops already on the ground. Additionally, nearly 45,000 more Americans would have served in the armed forces, but have been discouraged from joining and remaining in the military due to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (Williams Institute, 2007).

“Today’s report underscores that the time to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as a failed, unjust law is long overdue,” Sarvis said.

October 27, 2008 – “I am getting e-mails from people offering to buy my tombstone,” Fairfax County Registrar Rokey Suleman said Monday about the brewing controversy over his decision to comply with a Virginia law regarding a small class of absentee ballots for next week’s presidential election.

The ballots have fallen victim to the interplay between state and federal law and a rare set of factual circumstances. Federal law allows members of the U.S. military and other voters living overseas to vote in the general election using a federal write-in absentee ballot. The problem has been caused by the fact that when a Virginia voter decides to use the federal write-in absentee ballot both as a ballot to cast a vote and as an absentee ballot application, a separate Virginia law requires that the paperwork submitted by the voter include the address of the person acting as a witness for the voter.

But here’s the issue: neither the federal absentee write-in ballot itself nor its instructions mentions Virginia’s requirement that the witness’s address be included. In fact, the ballot form doesn’t even have a space to write down the witness address which Virginia requires.

Click here to see the federal write-in absentee ballot

As of Saturday night, Fairfax County, Virginia has received 63 absentee ballot applications that are subject to the legal snag and 6 or 7 of those 63 appear to be from members of the U.S. military, according to Suleman.

“I hate the law. I absolutely hate the law. The law’s ridiculous. The law needs to be changed,” Suleman told CNN. But as he reads the statute, he has no choice but to reject the ballots unless and until state officials tell him differently.

Click here to read more about Suleman’s position on the law

Linda Lindberg, Suleman’s counterpart in nearby Arlington County, has not received any absentee ballots yet that would be covered by the Virginia law and she concedes that Suleman’s reading of the law is technically correct. But the Arlington County Registrar says that if she was confronted with the situation, she would accept the ballots. “Our position is this is just common sense,” Lindberg said Monday, pointing out that Virginia’s requirement to provide the witness’s address is not on the ballot form and not in the ballot’s instructions. “Why should we be penalizing the voter for something they know nothing about?,” Lindberg added.

The McCain campaign and members of the military from Virginia held a press conference about the problem late last week and the Virginia State Board of Elections is aware of the conflict.

The state board “is working with the Office of the Attorney General to conduct a detailed review of both laws to guarantee that no undue hardship is placed upon voters who use the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot,” an October 25 press release on the Board’s Web site says.

“Everyone involved is taking a closer look at both Federal and State laws to ensure that every effort is made to count the votes,” the Board’s Secretary Nancy Rodrigues says in the release.

The problem with overseas ballots caught up between the state and federal requirements is set to be addressed at the Board’s October 28 meeting.

If you have any problems or concerns about voting, CNN would like to hear about them. Call CNN’s voter hotline at 1-877-GOCNN-08 (1-800-462-6608) to report your problem.