Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can you vote if you're facing foreclosure?

midtermsthumb.gifWorries about voters in foreclosure being turned away at the polls came up two years ago during the 2008 presidential race. The Obama campaign accused a branch of the Michigan GOP of planning to challenge votes by those who had had their homes foreclosed.

After all the partisan conflict from the allegations (which the GOP denied) died down, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee agreed that voting eligibility cannot be challenged because of a foreclosure.

So while the short answer of whether you can vote if you're in foreclosure is yes, each state sets its own rules on when and whether you need to re-register your address. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has issued some general guidelines that apply nationwide. has a helpful explainer piece about this issue.

Here are some excerpts:

If you've moved recently -- due to foreclosure or any other reason -- you must re-register if you've changed counties or states. If you moved within your county, just update your address.
In most states, you can make a change of address up until election day, or vote with a provisional ballot if you can't be found on the voter rolls.
If the foreclosure process has started on your home, but you have yet to move out, you remain registered to vote and should go to your appointed precinct.
If your foreclosure is complete, and you have exhausted your rights of appeal or redemption, then you should update your voter registration to reflect your new address.
However, many states allow you to use the address of the foreclosed property if you have not yet established a new permanent address.

By Ariana Eunjung Cha  | October 29, 2010; 1:06 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Elections, Housing  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Two new polls show economic worries ahead of midterms
Next: After midterms, net neutrality could take a hit


I say that we should return to the basics in America, which to me means that only land owners should have the right to vote on how their Taxes are Spent. Sorry, ... just getting a little tired paying for everyone else's screw ups. Which as a result, gives me very little room to mess up myself. And that's what really ticks me off !!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

How Things Really Work:

1) The Lender would secure a large loan from a large bank, convert that loan into 20 and 30 year mortgages, then sell the promise to pay to an investor.

2) Usually a Real Estate Agent would contract with a seller to find a buyer, then bring both seller and buyer to a lender who would secure the title from the seller using the funds borrowed for that purpose then trade the title to the buyer in exchange for a promise to pay over a stipulated term. The lender, however, has created a 20 or 30 year mortgage with money the lender must repay within 6 months, therefore, as soon as the closing is consummated, the promissory note is pooled together with others and sold to an investor.

3) Using the instant case as an example, a $139,200.00 note at 7.8980% interest over 30 years will produce $352,108.80 The lender can then offer up the security at say 50% of the future value to the investor. The investor will, over the life of the note, less servicing fees, realize a profit of $180,466.72 . The lender can then pay back the bank and retain a handsome profit in the amount of $52,429.60. The lender, however, is not done with the deal.

4) The lender who signed over the promissory note to the investor at the time of the trade, did not sign over the lien document. The State of Kansas Supreme Court addressed this issue and stated that such a transaction was certainly legal, however, it created a fatal flaw in that, the holder of the lien document, at time of sale of the security instrument, received consideration in excess of the lien amount, and therefore, the lender could not be harmed and the lien became a void document.

5) This begs a question, if keeping the lien would render it void, why would the lender not simply transfer the lien with the promissory note? As always, follow the money. The lender will hold the lien for three years, file an Internal Revenue Form 1099a, claim the full amount of the lien as abandoned funds, and deduct the full amount from the lender's tax liability. The lender, by this maneuver, gets consideration a second time and still the lender is not done profiting from the deal.

6) After sale of the promissory note, the lender remains as the servicer for the investor. The lender will receive 3% of each payment the lender collects and renders to the investor pool. However, if the payment is late, the lender is allowed to assess an extra 5% and keep that amount. Also, if the loan defaults, the lender stands to gain a considerable amount for handling the foreclosure.

7) The lender stands to profit far more from a note that is overly expensive in the first instance, then slow to pay in the second, then ultimately fails in the third, than from a good stable loan. And where, you may ask, does all this profit come from? It comes from the equity the lender convinced the borrower to invest in the new purchase, and still the lender is not finished profiting from the deal.

Posted by: alance | October 29, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

As the economy worsens after the Republcians are returned to power then what? To the cretin who wants only property owners to have the privilege of voting...I know many veterans who are now in foreclosure or have lost thier homes...want to say that to them or to my combat disabled nephews...both of them, one who had his home foreclosed on last year...who is now in prison for assaulting a foriegner who made advances to his girl friend on a camping trip...our country is headed for civil war...I know that many of you reading this don't believe that...but then there is a lot of truth and reality that we all don't believe or want to believe...

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

God help us. Please people, the U.S. has no debtors prisons. Debtors still have their constitutional rights.

Right, teabaggers!

Posted by: Frazil | October 29, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

If you are planning a mortgage refinance then you should search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" before you decide they found 3.25% refinance with bad credit history and also did instant analysis of my mortgage.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 30, 2010 3:43 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company