In Plain sight...

[Nbadan]

Liberls...forget voter fraud....and rigged election machines, this election was stolen in plain sight...


ourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election, and 20 have had such restrictions put in place since 2010, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that opposes such laws. These include strict photo-ID requirements, cutbacks in early voting and new restrictions on registration. Other states are resisting efforts that would make voting easier with same-day, online and motor-voter registration.

At the same time, the Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights group, found that counties previously covered by the Voting Rights Act have closed down at least 868 polling places. The closures (often without adequate notice) disproportionately affect minority voters.

“We have across most states some significant element of voter suppression,” says Zoltan Hajnal, a University of California at San Diego political scientist specializing in voting rights. “Over time these have shrunk the electorate in significant ways and tilted the electorate toward the Republican Party.”

The total number of would-be voters deterred is in the “millions,” he said. “If you were to superimpose the most liberal voting laws on all the states, it’s quite likely we would have had a different winner” on Nov. 8.

Though it’s difficult to quantify the effect of voter suppression in 50 states, Hajnal reports in a new study that after Texas implemented a strict voter-ID law, Latino turnout dropped sharply between 2010 and 2014, and the gap between white and Latino turnout increased by 9.2 percentage points. In the rest of the country, the gap between white and Latino turnout decreased over the same period.

Wisconsin adopted a tough photo-ID law, and in Milwaukee, where a large number of African Americans don’t drive or have licenses, turnout declined in 2016 by 41,000 compared with 2012, a 15 percent drop. Turnout was significantly lower than in 2004 and 2008 as well. The dropoff was steepest in the poorest precincts.

“No matter how hard one tries to attribute this to lower voter interest in this election, the stark drop must be attributable to impact of the photo-ID rule,” argues Kristen Clarke, head of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Elsewhere, suppression efforts have grown more brazen. After a federal appellate court knocked down North Carolina’s voting restrictions because they targeted black voters with “almost surgical precision,” dozens of counties still cut hours for early voting, which minority voters use disproportionately.

[Putin didn’t undermine the election. We did.]

In Texas, similarly, officials disregarded parts of a federal appellate court decision limiting that state’s voter-ID law. And in Pennsylvania, there were widespread reports of elections officials demanding voters show IDs even though that state doesn’t have such a law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-election-really-was-rigged/2016/11/29/c2ed58d8-b666-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.d7be6de4fd1a&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

Remember, Trump only won by less than 80K votes in the right swing states....

[rmt]

Liberls...forget voter fraud....and rigged election machines, this election was stolen in plain sight...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-election-really-was-rigged/2016/11/29/c2ed58d8-b666-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.d7be6de4fd1a&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

Remember, Trump only won by less than 80K votes in the right swing states....

I do not see people's problem with photo ID laws. How can you function without a photo-id? You can't go into a hospital, you can't go into the schools (here in Miami), you can't pick up your kids during school hours, probably can't go into court houses, can't get a library card, can't register your kids for school. You probably can't claim unemployment benefits, food stamps, subsidized housing, any benefits without showing photo-id. Why should voting be any different?

[Winehole23]

Because it's a fundamental right and not a privilege like driving or checking out a book from the library.

An ID requirement prevents US citizens from voting and falls most heavily on elderly, poor, rural and sick people.

I put it to you, rmt: when it comes to a fundamental right, why should there be technical requirements that prevent more legit voters than crooks?

[Winehole23]

the incidence of voter fraud is infinitessimal. the ID requirement is a solution that creates a bigger problem than the one it seeks to solve -- why insist on it?.

[Winehole23]

we got along without a voter ID for over 200 years. why do we need it now?

[boutons_deux]

"How can you function without a photo-id?"

you really have no fucking idea, typical ignorant rightwingnut.

Why do you think Repugs/VRWC/ALEC have closed 900 voting stations, passing, now, even more laws about voter ID?

You obviously, in your ignorance, don't know what they know.

[Thread]

"How can you function without a photo-id?"

you really have no fucking idea, typical ignorant rightwingnut.

Why do you think Repugs/VRWC/ALEC have closed 900 voting stations, passing, now, even more laws about voter ID?

You obviously, in your ignorance, don't know what they know.




She ain't waddlin' thru that door if that's what yer thinking, _. Uh, uh. We put her down like a fuckin' dog, & down, daddy, is how she is staying.

Let us proceed...

[rmt]

Jury Services. One of the Constitutional rights to all American citizens is the fundamental right to a trial by jury. As an American citizen it is your privilege and duty to serve as a juror when called upon to do so. Failure to comply with a jury summons can result in a $100.00 fine and/or contempt of court.

So, when you're called for jury duty, how do you get into the courthouse and present yourself for possible jury selection without photo-id?

I've never been called for jury duty - maybe because I homeschool? - dh has been several times since we got married.

[Winehole23]

you just ducked the questions, I answered yours.

[Winehole23]

a jury summons is legally binding responsibility, voting is a right. apples and oranges.

[FromWayDowntown]

I suspect that if you arrived at a courthouse with a valid jury summons and told the marshals that you did not have a photo id, they would permit you to enter the building; no court in the land is going to sanction someone (by contempt or otherwise) for not having a valid ID in a context where one is not otherwise required. At most courthouses I've been to (and I can say now that I've been to many state and federal courthouses in a number of states), entrants aren't asked for ID, but are screened in some fashion.

[FromWayDowntown]

If those without valid IDs tended to vote Republican, the imagined need for voter ID wouldn't be an issue, or there would be apoplexy about the interest in denying fundamental rights to so many good Americans.

[rmt]

Here in Miami, they won't even let you in the school building without photo ID and you guys think they'll let someone serve on a jury without ID.

[boutons_deux]

Here in Miami, they won't even let you in the school building without photo ID and you guys think they'll let someone serve on a jury without ID.

what do red/slave state Repugs know about voter ID that causes them, and them alone to passes voter ID laws?

The answer is simple, make an effort.

voter ID to stop massive voting fraud? LIE

closing women's health clinics to protect women's health? LIE

[rmt]

Well, I can't find anything about id for courts - only weapons like knitting needles :-) Maybe someone who's been on jury duty can pipe in?

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, I can't find anything about id for courts - only weapons like knitting needles :-) Maybe someone who's been on jury duty can pipe in?

I have. Of the many I've been to, the only courthouses I've been to that have asked for ID from any entrants are federal courthouses, and even then, if a person seeking access to the courthouse for something like jury duty doesn't have an ID, my informed conjecture is that the marshals have discretion to permit them entry.

I seriously doubt anyone has ever been precluded from jury service because he or she lacked a valid photo ID.

No matter, though. As Winehole has correctly stated, serving on a petit jury and exercising a fundamental right aren't particularly similar.

[CosmicCowboy]

I have. Of the many I've been to, the only courthouses I've been to that have asked for ID from any entrants are federal courthouses, and even then, if a person seeking access to the courthouse for something like jury duty doesn't have an ID, my informed conjecture is that the marshals have discretion to permit them entry.

I seriously doubt anyone has ever been precluded from jury service because he or she lacked a valid photo ID.

No matter, though. As Winehole has correctly stated, serving on a petit jury and exercising a fundamental right aren't particularly similar.

Aren't jury summons drawn from voter registration data? sounds like a chicken/egg issue.

[FromWayDowntown]

Aren't jury summons drawn from voter registration data? sounds like a chicken/egg issue.

How is that chicken and egg? You can be a properly registered voter without a valid ID, no? And in Texas, at least, petit jury summons are drawn from a pool of those who are registered voters and from those who hold valid licenses issued by DPS. Tex. Gov't Code 62.001(a). Naturally, most of those whose names are drawn will have a state-issued ID available to them, but there are some who are just registered voters without a state-issued ID.

Again, though, conflating jury service and voting doesn't address the actual issue of impairing the exercise of a fundamental right.

[DMC]

Because it's a fundamental right and not a privilege like driving or checking out a book from the library.

An ID requirement prevents US citizens from voting and falls most heavily on elderly, poor, rural and sick people.

I put it to you, rmt: when it comes to a fundamental right, why should there be technical requirements that prevent more legit voters than crooks?

No it's not. It's a state's right and they permit us to vote. Where did people get this notion of entitlement where voting is concerned?

[Winehole23]

it's the right mentioned most often in the US Constitution. it is not guaranteed in affirmative terms, is that what you mean?

[Winehole23]

the 14th, 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments all have stuff to say about limitation of what you seem to suggest is a privilege.

[Winehole23]

states are bound by the language: the superior sovereign trumps, specific deference of the Supreme Court to the states notwithstanding.

[Winehole23]

so, even if the the franchise isn't fundamental in a strict legal sense, the inertial moment of the Equal Protection clause and popular feeling tend to make it so.

[Winehole23]

is there power the public has more crucial to the republic and its legitimacy than the power to choose who governs?

[DMC]

it's the right mentioned most often in the US Constitution. it is not guaranteed in affirmative terms, is that what you mean?

I mean it's not an individual right. It's a state right that's passed on to individuals as the state sees fit. If it's not guaranteed it's not a right.

[DMC]

the 14th, 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments all have stuff to say about limitation of what you seem to suggest is a privilege.

Ok, they have stuff to say about why you cannot be excluded, but it doesn't guarantee your right to vote. You cannot be discriminated against for employment based on creed, national origin, religion, blah blah blah... doesn't mean you have a right to work there. The right is assumed and inferred but not granted, not by the Bill of Rights or anything else. The states reserve the right to say no. Otherwise electoral votes could never go against the popular vote outcome. We know they can vote how they like.

[DMC]

is there power the public has more crucial to the republic and its legitimacy than the power to choose who governs?

Can you only post one line per post? Just curious.

[ducks]

I have. Of the many I've been to, the only courthouses I've been to that have asked for ID from any entrants are federal courthouses, and even then, if a person seeking access to the courthouse for something like jury duty doesn't have an ID, my informed conjecture is that the marshals have discretion to permit them entry.

I seriously doubt anyone has ever been precluded from jury service because he or she lacked a valid photo ID.

No matter, though. As Winehole has correctly stated, serving on a petit jury and exercising a fundamental right aren't particularly similar.
To get a dollar refund on gum u must show Id
If u can afford Id u are on welfare and gov will pAy for it

[ducks]

If u can not afford a 20 dollar Id maybe u are not smart enough to vote!

[boutons_deux]

If u can not afford a 20 dollar Id maybe u are not smart enough to vote!

It TX imposes a literacy test, ducks won't be able to vote.

[baseline bum]

To get a dollar refund on gum u must show Id


:lol no you don't

[TeyshaBlue]

It TX imposes a literacy test, ducks won't be able to vote.

Co-signed.

[Winehole23]

Voting is constitutive of government and its popular legitimacy. It is a -- perhaps the -- key attribute of citizenship. Four Amendments to the US Constitution put the lie to the claim that the states may limit it however they see fit.

The claim that voting is a privilege is hogwash. It's contrary to the spirit and the trend of US History.

[boutons_deux]

Eligibility to vote in the United States is established both through the federal constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and by state law.

Several constitutional amendments (the 15th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion), 19th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion), and 26th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) specifically) require that

voting rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for those above 18;

In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision,

each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

American democracy has been a joke, a myth for decades.

America is a plutocratic oligarchy. Human-Americans need not bother, because their bother won't make any difference.

[Winehole23]

What say you, FromWayDowntown?

Is voting a fundamental right?

[Winehole23]

Can you only post one line per post? Just curious.I get better replies from bite-sized posts.

[Winehole23]

Sometimes I post faster than I think. Is that peculiar?

[Winehole23]

American democracy has been a joke, a myth for decades.

America is a plutocratic oligarchy. Human-Americans need not bother, because their bother won't make any difference.it's not a plutocratic oligarchy all the way down, and even at the top, whom we choose makes a difference.

Had Bernie Sanders been nominated and elected, arguendo, would things be just the same?

[Winehole23]

Just to clarify, do you agree with DMC that voting is not a right but a privilege?

[Winehole23]

Tendentially, it seems to be a right. Over time, in congruence with the will of the states and the people, it has expanded.

The federal government, the states and judiciary seem to protect it as such at times. It's referred to as a right in the constitution. Is that verbiage misleading, correct, or both?

[DMC]

I get better replies from bite-sized posts.

Note taken

[DMC]

Sometimes I post faster than I think. Is that peculiar?

No. Perhaps you post faster than your mental final test department releases product.

[DMC]

Just to clarify, do you agree with DMC that voting is not a right but a privilege?

I'm not saying I like it that way. For example, the Texas electoral voter who stated he's not voting for Trump, he just removed the voting outcome from a significant portion of the voter base in Texas. That means there are no "rights" if one man can remove them by constitutional right. Sure you can go punch a ballot, but if it's disregarded.. it's not a vote.

[Winehole23]

When was the last time faithless electors swung an election? Aren't most -- indeed, almost all -- of them bound by statute to follow the electoral vote?

[boutons_deux]

When was the last time faithless electors swung an election? Aren't most -- indeed, almost all -- of them bound by statute to follow the electoral vote?


electors are not bound by Constitution, intentionally

some states fine them for faithlessness

Trash is abnormal, so electors defeating him as demagogue, incompetent, beholden to foreigners, grifting would be how the FFs wanted the EC to handle the Trash

[Winehole23]

I'm not saying I like it that way. For example, the Texas electoral voter who stated he's not voting for Trump, he just removed the voting outcome from a significant portion of the voter base in Texas. That means there are no "rights" if one man can remove them by constitutional right. Sure you can go punch a ballot, but if it's disregarded.. it's not a vote.I thought that guy resigned. Didn't he?

[Winehole23]

If u can not afford a 20 dollar Id maybe u are not smart enough to vote!you are not in touch with elderly, nonwhite, poor, rural and sick Trump voters from Democratic Party areas.

[spurraider21]

there is no affirmative right to vote in the constitution.

but every state has granted a right to vote and through various amendments + the voting rights act, they essentially have no authority to discriminate that right

so at this point, yeah, everybody above the age of 18 has a de facto right to vote. the states can pull it back, but would have to do so consistently among the whole population of that state

[DMC]

I thought that guy resigned. Didn't he?

Chris Suprun? I haven't read that anywhere.

[DMC]

there is no affirmative right to vote in the constitution.

but every state has granted a right to vote and through various amendments + the voting rights act, they essentially have no authority to discriminate that right

so at this point, yeah, everybody above the age of 18 has a de facto right to vote. the states can pull it back, but would have to do so consistently among the whole population of that state
"granted" is a privilege, not a right. All of these things address exclusive discrimination, not overall right to vote.


“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]).

If the state can pull it back, it's not a right.

[DMC]

When was the last time faithless electors swung an election? Aren't most -- indeed, almost all -- of them bound by statute to follow the electoral vote?

Not in Texas.

[spurraider21]

"granted" is a privilege, not a right. All of these things address exclusive discrimination, not overall right to vote.


“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]).

If the state can pull it back, it's not a right.
the california state constitution does give a right to vote, though. its not just some statute that they can pull back. any amendment to the state constitution requires a popular vote. dont know about the other 49 states specifically

so if ur in california, you have a right to vote, and based on the US constitution, the state has no ability to discriminate that right among its populace. just because it's a state granted right and not a federally granted right doesn't make it less of a right

[DMC]

Can you cite the part of the Calfornia constitution that gives the right to vote, not just the class protection from discriminatory voting practices?

[spurraider21]

Can you cite the part of the Calfornia constitution that gives the right to vote, not just the class protection from discriminatory voting practices?
article 2 of the CA constitution is called "voting, initiative, referendum, and recall"

article 2 section 1:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

article 2 section 2:
A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote

through amendment, they now have section 2.5 which also reads that


A voter who casts a vote in an election in accord with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The right to vote is stated explicitly half a dozen times. The 'negative' has to do with how the right can be abridged and not to do with the right itself. The right is declared specifically.

DMC's take is ignorant as usual. You can abridge rights under specific circumstances for example when rights are applied in conflict with one another like screaming fire in a theatre. The constitutional amendments only serve to further define in what instances it is allowed to be abridged.

[spurraider21]

The right to vote is stated explicitly half a dozen times. The 'negative' has to do with how the right can be abridged and not to do with the right itself. The right is declared specifically.

DMC's take is ignorant as usual. You can abridge rights under specific circumstances for example when rights are applied in conflict with one another like screaming fire in a theatre. The constitutional amendments only serve to further define in what instances it is allowed to be abridged.
SCOTUS has said otherwise going back to at least the 1800's and most recently in Bush v Gore. Relevant portion...


The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?146+1), 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.). The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another

[FuzzyLumpkins]

SCOTUS has said otherwise going back to at least the 1800's and most recently in Bush v Gore. Relevant portion...

That is specific to electors. That is a question as to what can be voted on not whether or not a citizen has a right to vote when there is an election.

If there is an election then citizens have the right to vote.

[spurraider21]

That is specific to electors. That is a question as to what can be voted on not whether or not a citizen has a right to vote when there is an election.

If there is an election then citizens have the right to vote.Lets do some basic deduction. Electors choose the President. If the citizens don't have a right to vote for electors, then... ?

Also in quote I posted, SCOTUS referred to a state VOTING for president. It was clearly about a vote/election.

[boutons_deux]

Electors can vote for anybody.

Even if they take a "state vow" to vote for their state's popular vote winner, Constitutional law (electors are NOT bound) trumps (trashes?) state law.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lets do some basic deduction. Electors choose the President. If the citizens don't have a right to vote for electors, then... ?

Also in quote I posted, SCOTUS referred to a state VOTING for president. It was clearly about a vote/election.

Is the vote for electors the only election? How about you try reading my post again?

[Thread]

Americans need not bother, because their bother won't make any difference.




You pounded that message, that directive as soon as Trump came into view. The same exact ploy, same shit they tried & succeeded with to deter the Lakers Vs. the Celtics for decades. "You stand no chance, just give up, lay down, try again next time,,,now, go away so we can have the dais and the light. Scat!!!"

Those junkyard dogs that Trump has on choker chains were set free early upon the countryside. They ate you alive.

[spurraider21]

Is the vote for electors the only election? How about you try reading my post again?i assumed we were talking about the presidential election

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i assumed we were talking about the presidential election

I assumed we were talking about the right to vote. It still stands once the states determine an election system to vote for electors, citizens have the right to vote in it. It's in the part that started 'unless' that you failed to bold from your SCOTUS case.

It's also why I distinguished between the right to vote and what we have the right to vote on. That was the distinction the court was making in your boutox style hack job of bolding.

[spurraider21]

I assumed we were talking about the right to vote. It still stands once the states determine an election system to vote for electors, citizens have the right to vote in it. It's in the part that started 'unless' that you failed to bold from your SCOTUS case.

It's also why I distinguished between the right to vote and what we have the right to vote on. That was the distinction the court was making in your boutox style hack job of bolding.
so once states determine a system to vote, citizens have the right to vote? no shit. thats circular.

but yeah i'll agree with the contention that people have the right to vote when a state decides to hold a vote. didnt think that needed clarification

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so once states determine a system to vote, citizens have the right to vote? no shit. thats circular.

but yeah i'll agree with the contention that people have the right to vote when a state decides to hold a vote. didnt think that needed clarification

Again you miss the distinction between what is to be voted on and the individual's right to vote.

It's not circular; there is no assumption that if there is an election that automatically means all citizens have a right to vote in it. You need the citizen's right to vote for that to be assumed.

What you thought is beside the point. The point is what Bush v Gore was talking about in that case you were claiming refuted the assertion of a right to vote. That reality is independant of you; thus me stating you miss the distinction.

[spurraider21]

Again you miss the distinction between what is to be voted on and the individual's right to vote.

It's not circular; there is no assumption that if there is an election that automatically means all citizens have a right to vote in it. You need the citizen's right to vote for that to be assumed.

What you thought is beside the point. The point is what Bush v Gore was talking about in that case you were claiming refuted the assertion of a right to vote. That reality is independant of you; thus me stating you miss the distinction.there is no effective right to vote if a vote is never held.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

there is no effective right to vote if a vote is never held.

So what? That doesn't make it circular. It just makes it possible.

Can you have an election where there is no right to vote for all citizens? If you think not then look into Roman history.

[DMC]

Fuzzy got destroyed ITT

:lol

Citizens have a right to vote for prom queen!