Big WeeK for the Always Destructive, Vote-suppressing, anti-democratic Repugs

[boutons_deux]

It’s a Busy Week of Destruction For Republicans: SCOTUS To Hear Argument in Two Big Cases

1.

The plan for Wednesday is to take another whack at killing the ACA, or Obamacare.

Republican lawyers are trying to argue in King v. Burwell that the ACA was designed to penalize states that don’t create exchanges by denying federal subsidies to residents of those states. To put it mildly, questions have been raised about the plaintiffs’ standing (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/01/%20http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2015/2/10/new-standing-questions-raised-over-king-v-burwell-plaintiffs) in this case. That alone should be a basis to dismiss the case.

2.

Now Republicans are back at the Supreme Court seeking to secure their “right” to gerrymander. In reality, gerrymandering serves two objectives. On one hand, it enables Republicans to secure majorities in legislatures without support from the majority of voters. On the other, gerrymandering provides a fig leaf of “legitimacy” to guarantee that result. We still have “elections” just with enough “safe” Republican seats to guarantee their perpetual hold on power.

independent commissions such as the one in Arizona “may be the only meaningful check” left to states that care about competitive elections, reduced political polarization and bringing fresh faces to the political process.
However, Republicans in Arizona are asking the Roberts Court to get rid of these commissions.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/01/its-busy-week-destruction-republicans-scotus-hears-argument-big-cases.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

My guess is Burwell will lose 5-4 (but which SCOTUS5 Repug operative will vote against? Kennedy or Roberts? We know the other 3 "pro-death-panel" SCOTUS 5 will vote to kill ACA.

and "right to gerrymander" will win 5-4 because the extreme right wing activist SCOTUS5 Repug/BigCorp/1% political operatives have already passed "right to voter suppression".

[cd021]

Challenge a part of Obama-care that gives 6 million people affordable health care, why not? Theses clowns don't give a shit about America.

[boutons_deux]

Challenge a part of Obama-care that gives 6 million people affordable health care, why not? Theses clowns don't give a shit about America.

the biggest losers will be in red states whose bubbas bought from healthcare.gov and got subsidies.

[boutons_deux]

Florida's Supreme Court strikes down the GOP-drawn congressional map (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/09/1400723/-Florida-s-Supreme-Court-strikes-down-the-GOP-drawn-congressional-map)

On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court struck down the state's GOP-drawn congressional map (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/florida-supreme-court-orders-new-congressional-map-with-eight-districts-to/2236734) and ordered that eight seats need to be redrawn for the 2016 election.The affected seats are FL-05 (Democrat Corrine Brown), FL-13 (Republican David Jolly), FL-14 (Democrat Kathy Castor), FL-21 (Democrat Ted Deutch), FL-22 (Democrat Lois Frankel), FL-25 (Republican Mario Diaz-Balart), FL-26 (Republican Carlos Curbelo), and FL-27 (Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen). The Republican-led state legislature will be required to redraw these seats andsubmit them to the court for approval (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/florida-redistricting-congressional-map-supreme-court-20150709).

It's also a good bet that other seats will be changed by the new map. No specific deadline was ordered, but the new maps need to be ready for next year's elections. Democrats are also going after Curbelo in the Miami-area 26th.

The court ruled that the current map violates the Fair District amendment, which prevents lawmakers from drawing districts intended to favor incumbents or parties. The legislature had complete control over redistricting and the court decided that they did not respect the voter-passed law. The ruling only applied to the congressional map, but it's likely we'll see some changes for the Sunshine State's state legislative districts.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/09/1400723/-Florida-s-Supreme-Court-strikes-down-the-GOP-drawn-congressional-map?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Judges have painted a target on their backs to be shot at by Kock Bros, ALEC, etc.

FL is one of the (Confederate) states than denies voting privileges life-long to (black, brown) ex felons.

[boutons_deux]

Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws

More than 30 states have enacted some version of voter ID law in recent years. How much do these laws change voting rules and what impact could they have on the general election?

How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

It’s not clear.

According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don’t have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn’t represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.

A 2012 analysis (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-usa-campaign-voterid-idUSBRE88P1CW20120926) by Reuters and research firm Ipsos of data culled from 20,000 voter interviews found that those lacking proper ID were less likely to vote anyway, “regardless of state law changes.”

Among those who said they were “certain to vote,” only 1 percent said they did not have proper ID while another 1 percent said they were uncertain whether they had the proper ID. The analysis also found that those who lack valid photo ID tended to be young people, those without college educations, Hispanics and the poor.

Much of the academic literature finds that voter ID laws have an outsize effect on minorities: A working paper (http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf) from researchers at the University of California, San Diego found that states with a strict photo ID law saw a significant decrease in turnout among minority and immigrant voters and an increase in the participation gap between white and nonwhite voters.

Exact state figures on how many people lack acceptable IDs can be hard to nail down. Before Pennsylvania’s voter ID law was struck down, a 2012 analysis of state records (http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-05/news/32537732_1_voter-id-new-voter-id-cards) by the Philadelphia Inquirer found that nearly 760,000 registered voters , or 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voter base, don’t own state-issued ID cards. State officials, on the other hand, placed the number between 80,000 and 90,000.

In a 2012 trial over Wisconsin’s voter ID law, the plaintiff estimated that about 300,000 voters didn’t have ID and attempted to analyze the demographic breakdown. An expert for thedefense put the number between 100,000 and 300,000 and called the demographics an “open question.”

As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywherebetween 0.8 and 2.4 percent (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/). It doesn’t sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/).

“We don’t know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans,” said Hasen, author of The Voting Wars (http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248): From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. “But there’s no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=1457527819


Repug gov's and Repug Secy of States are as much, if not bigger, threat, with their fraudulent vote counting.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks, activist extremist rigthwingnut VWRC shills SCOTUS

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act Could Decide the 2016 Election

States with new voting restrictions have 70 percent of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gutting-of-the-voting-rights-act-could-decide-the-2016-election/

America is fucked by the VRWC/Repugs/1%, and really, really unfuckable.