Liberls...forget voter fraud....and rigged election machines, this election was stolen in plain sight...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...pinions&wpmm=1ourteen 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.
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?
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?
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?.
we got along without a voter ID for over 200 years. why do we need it now?
"How can you function without a photo-id?"
you really have no ing 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 in' dog, & down, daddy, is how she is staying.
Let us proceed...
Jury Services. One of the Cons utional 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.
you just ducked the questions, I answered yours.
a jury summons is legally binding responsibility, voting is a right. apples and oranges.
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.
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.
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
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 pe jury and exercising a fundamental right aren't particularly similar.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 12-05-2016 at 11:59 AM.
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, pe 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.
No it's not. It's a state's right and they permit us to vote. Where did people get this notion of en lement where voting is concerned?
it's the right mentioned most often in the US Cons ution. it is not guaranteed in affirmative terms, is that what you mean?
the 14th, 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments all have stuff to say about limitation of what you seem to suggest is a privilege.
states are bound by the language: the superior sovereign trumps, specific deference of the Supreme Court to the states notwithstanding.
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.
is there power the public has more crucial to the republic and its legitimacy than the power to choose who governs?
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-05-2016 at 08:36 PM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
