"Today's decision is a victory for election integrity,...Husted said in a statement.
the LAST THING Repugs want in elections is "integrity"
OH secy of state Ken Blackwell stole OH from Kerry 2004, re-electing dubya.
the computer tech who worked for KB died in a plane "accident".
AmeriKKKa is ed and un able.
Expect ALL red/slave states to push even harder to disenfranchise voters.
Of course, it was the oligarchy's "politicians in robes" SCOTUS 5 who screwed Americans out of their votes.
Sounds good to me. What's the downside to Ohios law?
Republicans making it harder for US citizens to vote.
It's a well-established pattern.
citizens go to vote finally on something that got them out to vote, and they can't vote, have to go through all kinds of bull to get their voting rights back, overcome su ions that they are frauds.
and in red/slave states, the friction to get your vote back will be much greater than the ease at which you lost your vote
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-11-2018 at 11:33 AM.
So...if you can't be bothered to update your address and the Government tries to confirm/get you to update your address, that's voter suppression? Because someone can't be troubled to do something they should do when they move?
so after 2 years on inactivity they can send you a notice, after which you have 4 years to otherwise respond/update registration... a 6 year window is pretty wide.
whether one thinks this law is "good" or "bad" is a different question, but i dont really see a cons utional issue with it. my main concern is there should be some safeguards to make sure they send more than one notice, or ensure that they have the correct address. would suck for somebody not to receive it due to having moved or not received the mail, and not realizing they had this notice issued.
Re-registering to vote isn't rocket science, you twit.
It's not as terrible as just purging voter rolls arbitrarily in a swing state like Florida.
I think it was Kock Sucker Kansas Kris Kobach who created a national db, so the voter Spur Raider in TX, and one in another state, would mean Spur Raider couldn't vote
Good point
The only reason slave/red TX and other slave/red states got this going is not "good faith", it's never "good faith" with Repugs.
They KNOW this will enable them to disenfranchise voters, and the fewer voters there are, the better are Repugs' chances of winning.
This is a huge win for oligarchy Repugs. And of course it applies to all levels of elections.
So anybody who says "I don't see the problem" has his head up his naive asshole.
yes because boutons is the best judge on everything and never is wrong
I bet you don't make it through today without being wrong on something
so far I have fixed 3 computers right everytime so far
ofcourse I will not be because I will type something and not spell something right
Next up this week:
SCOTUS5 approves PARTISAN gerrymandering as legal
It's a complicated subject, but "partisan" gerrymandering is also almost always means RACIAL gerrymandering which is illegal.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-11-2018 at 10:10 PM.
Hyperbolic psycho!"Today's decision is a victory for election integrity,
the LAST THING Repugs want in elections is "integrity"
OH secy of state Ken Blackwell stole OH from Kerry 2004, re-electing dubya.
the computer tech who worked for KB died in a plane "accident".
AmeriKKKa is ed and un able.
Expect ALL red/slave states to push even harder to disenfranchise voters.
Of course, it was the oligarchy's "politicians in robes" SCOTUS 5 who screwed Americans out of their votes.
which case?
removing valid voters from the rolls: a GOP specialty.
Discussion, links :
Why Did The Supreme Court Hear A Second Gerrymandering Case?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...andering-case/
There is no cons utional right to vote. There should be.You have no cons utional right to vote.
cons utional provisions and subsequent legislation appear
as if they were built on a right that lies at the foundation of our cons utional order. But that is not the case.
The foundation simply isn't there.
While the right to vote is presumed in a variety of ways, and, if it exists, may not be infringed for a variety of reasons, the right itself is never specified as such.
The provisions of the NVRA were specifically the subject of the most recent Supreme Court decision on voter rights, Husted v. Randolph Ins ute, which
critics of the decision claim has effectively gutted the law.
But the decision itself and the law it either gutted or simply enforced as written cannot be properly understood without recognizing the wide-ranging consequences of that curious cons utional omission.
At issue in the case was an Ohio law aiming to remove ineligible voters from the rolls by the following procedure:
If a registered voter did not vote in a federal election in two years, the state would send a postcard to the person in question at their registered home address asking them to affirm their continued residence.
If the person in question did not return the card, or otherwise establish the validity of their registration by, for example, updating their information electronically, nor vote in the subsequent four years,
the state would presume they had moved and they would be removed from the voter rolls.
The NVRA explicitly allows for the removal of non-residents from voter rolls, and for sending registered voters a card that they have to send back in order to maintain their presence on the rolls. The Ohio law was assiduous in modeling itself on the requirements of the NVRA in that regard.
But the NVRA also specifies that voters cannot be removed from the rolls for not voting.
The question in the case was whether failure to vote in a single federal election was reasonable grounds for triggering the presumption of non-residence, and hence for sending the postcard, or whether such a provision amounted to, in effect, removing voters from the rolls merely for not having voted, something explicitly prohibited by the act.
Perhaps it is not reasonable to assume that people will respond to a postcard asking them to affirm their residence — but Congress, when it passed the NVRA, clearly thought otherwise.
Perhaps it is not reasonable to assume that someone who hasn't voted might have moved — but the Ohio legislature thought otherwise. If the Court is not to subs ute its judgments for those of the nation's lawmaking bodies, then surely it must allow the law to stand.
But such a conclusion only makes sense if it is a matter of cons utional indifference whether state legislatures enact laws whose predictable (and arguably intended) effect is to reduce the number of legitimately registered voters.
And that's where the Cons ution's silence on whether citizens actually have a right to vote comes into play.
If the right to vote was like the right to freely speak, or to peaceably assemble, or to exercise religion or to bear arms,
then there would be a robust cons utional tradition debating whether this or that law cons uted an undue burden on an enumerated right, independent of whether it traduced some other enabling statute.
And even the most disfavored classes of persons would retain those rights.
http://theweek.com/articles/778335/t...e-there-should
So the OH Repugs, racist as are all Repugs, and the oligarchy s SCOTUS5, are continuing to destroy the progress made in the 1960s, by playing "gotcha" with postcards to disenfranchise people for not voting, esp people who are disaffected from civic/political life due to discrimination, like blacks and browns.
that discussion seems to suggest both gerrymanders will be found illegal, and that SCOTUS need both cases to provide political cover for ruling so.
But you could be right. Maybe SCOTUS will cut the other way.
We'll see pretty soon.
Partisan Gerrymandering Is About to Get Much Worse
How the post-Kennedy Supreme Court could roll back progressive voting rights reforms.
His departure from the bench ensures that voter suppression—
and, specifically, partisan gerrymandering—
will get much, much worse.
In Kennedy’s absence, there is
virtually no chance that the court will put cons utional limits on political redistricting.
There is, however, a decent
probability that the court will strike down reforms to partisan gerrymandering,
sharply limiting citizens’ ability to curb legislative abuse of the redistricting process.
The upshot will be fewer compe ive elections and greater entrenchment of one political party, usually the GOP, in most states.
Kennedy’s replacement may actually allow
the court to strike down state-level efforts to restrain congressional gerrymandering
by stripping legislators of their redistricting powers.
In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s independent redistricting commission,
which voters approved through a ballot initiative. It did so by a 5–4 vote, with Kennedy joining the liberals to hold that the citizens of a state may exercise “the legislative power” by removing redistricting from legislators’ hands.
In response, Chief Justice John
Roberts wrote a seething dissent joined by the other conservatives. “The Court’s position,” he wrote, “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Cons ution.”
Roberts insisted that the Arizona commission violated the Cons ution’s Elections Clause,
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...etirement.html
That's some nasty, authoritarian, anti-democratic .
Roberts says states can't run their own elections, can't have independent (re)districting commissions.
game on, voter suppression continues apace in several states:
https://www.brennancenter.org/public...eat-right-voteWe found that between 2014 and 2016, states removed almost 16 million voters from the rolls, and every state in the country can and should do more to protect voters from improper purges.
Almost 4 million more names were purged from the rolls between 2014 and 2016 than between 2006 and 2008.3 This growth in the number of removed voters represented an increase of 33 percent — far outstripping growth in both total registered voters (18 percent) and total popula- tion (6 percent).
This was a predictable problem for the founders of this nation.
Restrict voting rights to those who “know best” leads to a single road where only those in power get a vote.
They saw this coming. Dumb Mexican (American) don’t get a vote. Voter fraud is a non issue statistically as given by the red team. But Russian interference... no worries...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
