New Voting Law Proposals and Voting Rights Efforts (2 Viewers)

< Previous | Next >

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,263
Reaction score
7,129
Location
Midwest
Offline
This is, IMO, going to be a big topic in the coming year. Republicans have stated their aim to make voting more restrictive in just about every state where they have the means to do so. Democrats would like to pass the Voting Rights Bill named after John Lewis. I’m going to go look up the map of all the states which have pending legislation to restrict voting. Now that we have the election in the rear view, I thought we could try to make this a general discussion thread, where people who have concerns about voting abuses can post as well and we can discuss it from both sides. Please keep memes out of this thread and put them in the boards where we go to talk about the other side, lol.
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
451
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
Well, the Democrats, plus various special interest groups, have already filed a lawsuite in Georgia challenging these new laws, so it will all be settled in front of a Judge. (and conceivably, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court).

One would have hoped that if there WAS anything unfair or racist in the laws, they would be rejected during this scrutiny ?
The John Roberts SC doesn't care about minority voting rights, or being perceived as racist. They've had almost a decade to reverse the voting rights act decision. The outcome of that decision has lead to an insane amount of voter suppression targeted primarily at minorities.

Does anyone remember when Republicans used to rail against "activist judges". His reasoning for dismantling the voting rights act was "The racism of the 60's isn't around anymore, you don't need this anymore." This wasn't their job, if the voting rights act was going to be changed it should have been via legislation.

John Roberts has as very checkered past when it comes to voting rights. He has for years skirted a very thin line of being labeled a racist. I actually think Democrats should continually attack him on this issue. I would label his court something like "Jim Crow Roberts". It should, and does question the legitimacy of him, and his court.

I don't think for a second the 6-3 Roberts court will do anything for minority voting rights.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
The John Roberts SC doesn't care about minority voting rights, or being perceived as racist. They've had almost a decade to reverse the voting rights act decision. The outcome of that decision has lead to an insane amount of voter suppression targeted primarily at minorities.

Does anyone remember when Republicans used to rail against "activist judges". His reasoning for dismantling the voting rights act was "The racism of the 60's isn't around anymore, you don't need this anymore." This wasn't their job, if the voting rights act was going to be changed it should have been via legislation.

John Roberts has as very checkered past when it comes to voting rights. He has for years skirted a very thin line of being labeled a racist. I actually think Democrats should continually attack him on this issue. I would label his court something like "Jim Crow Roberts". It should, and does question the legitimacy of him, and his court.

I don't think for a second the 6-3 Roberts court will do anything for minority voting rights.
I get the sentiment, but, it's not Roberts' court, and his decisions overall have been fairly mixed iirc. Let's not forget, he was essentially the tie-breaking vote to uphold ACA and he's been on the right side of more than a few court decisions. It could be worse.
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
451
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
I get the sentiment, but, it's not Roberts' court, and his decisions overall have been fairly mixed iirc. Let's not forget, he was essentially the tie-breaking vote to uphold ACA and he's been on the right side of more than a few court decisions. It could be worse.
ACA was a Republican policy. He ruled on the ACA out of self preservation of legacy. It is literally called the Roberts court based on the chief justice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Court

He has a long history of being anti-voting rights. This is a long article from 2015 that goes into his work against voting rights.

 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
ACA was a Republican policy. He ruled on the ACA out of self preservation of legacy. It is literally called the Roberts court based on the chief justice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Court

He has a long history of being anti-voting rights. This is a long article from 2015 that goes into his work against voting rights.

Just about every Republican I talked to at the time was expecting him to overturn it. ACA was passed during the Obama administration. It might have originated as a Republican idea, but we both know that Republicans didn't support it because it passed under Obama's administration.

I supposed you can call it the Roberts court based on his position as Chief Justice, but that's all it is. Among the Justices, they consider each other as peers. And Robets decisions have been a mixed bag over the years. And SCOTUS didn't intervene in the previous election like more than a few predicted. I heard people say the court would negate the results and the court essentially refused to meddle with the outcome.

As far as voting rights, the states run their own elections and I think the court has taken the view that the states have to decide how they're run and basically avoid ruling on those type of cases if they can help it.

Now if Congress changes the rules and federalizes elections, voting rights cases will take on a much different dynamic going forward.

I'm not a subject matter expert, but just my view from where I sit.
 

DJ1BigTymer

Yo! We got some hats now...
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
744
Reaction score
1,210
Age
48
Location
New Orleans
Offline
This is an article from 2018 documenting the effects of that 2013 SCoTUS decision.


In the five years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act, nearly a thousand polling places have been shuttered across the country, many of them in southern black communities.

The trend continues: This year alone, 10 counties with large black populations in Georgia closed polling spots after a white elections consultant recommended they do so to save money. When the consultant suggested a similar move in Randolph County, pushback was enough to keep its nine polling places open.
I fully expect that previous trend to grow exponentially in the next 10 months in preparation for the mid-term elections. SCOTUS will not save our rights, we have to vote all these clowns out of office and if I had the money, I would be on TV every hour on all local channels getting the word out to VOTE!!! No matter what they do to stop you from voting, VOTE!
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
451
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
Just about every Republican I talked to at the time was expecting him to overturn it. ACA was passed during the Obama administration. It might have originated as a Republican idea, but we both know that Republicans didn't support it because it passed under Obama's administration.

I supposed you can call it the Roberts court based on his position as Chief Justice, but that's all it is. Among the Justices, they consider each other as peers. And Robets decisions have been a mixed bag over the years. And SCOTUS didn't intervene in the previous election like more than a few predicted. I heard people say the court would negate the results and the court essentially refused to meddle with the outcome.

As far as voting rights, the states run their own elections and I think the court has taken the view that the states have to decide how they're run and basically avoid ruling on those type of cases if they can help it.

Now if Congress changes the rules and federalizes elections, voting rights cases will take on a much different dynamic going forward.

I'm not a subject matter expert, but just my view from where I sit.
You act like if Congress passes a law voting rights can be restored. We already passed a bill in 1965, and then passed extensions on that bill in the years since. It was actually a bipartisan bill. In fact, a Republican president who nominated Roberts to the court signed a voting rights extension AFTER he was confirmed. That's how insane, and activist Roberts decision in 2013 should be viewed. It was never his place to make that decision, and he had an axe to grind going back decades.

I expect the Roberts court to throw out any meaningful protections for voting rights IF congress did pass legislation.

 
Last edited:

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
1,388
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
GA GOP 1 Americans 0

Georgia just completed step 1 of their voter suppression efforts to regain their power in the Senate.



The obvious next step will be closing polling stations in densely populated areas to really make those voting lines really long. Once they have voters waiting hours to vote, they will be able to arrest other potential voters the may come out to provide refreshments to those in line. Brilliant!!!

step 1 was back around 2018 when kemp purged votes. Imagine running for office and also controlling which votes get counted, or who gets to vote, for that same election

 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
601
Reaction score
989
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Not prohibiting the county officials from providing water on their own impetus is not the same thing as them actually providing the water. In any event, despite the not-so-cleverly-hidden benign intent behind this restriction do you seriously doubt it is targeted at minority-heavy counties that for some inexplicable reason have longer lines than rural non-minority counties?
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Not prohibiting the county officials from providing water on their own impetus is not the same thing as them actually providing the water. In any event, despite the not-so-cleverly-hidden benign intent behind this restriction do you seriously doubt it is targeted at minority-heavy counties that for some inexplicable reason have longer lines than rural non-minority counties?
I'm not good at analyzing election laws, but didn't the law also shorten voting times by adding more precincts and locations? Didn’t they also extend uniform voting times throughout the the state?

 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
601
Reaction score
989
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
If that's the law then I'll acknowledge it puts in place measures to do that. Those quotes also reveal the decision to allow voting on Sundays is up to the discretion of the officials which is a day in which a lot of black communities get people to the polls. I also find it fascinating you get news from some random guy named Jeremy. And his Twitter feed is kind of sketchy...

And I'll ask again, point blank: Do you not think the primary driving factor behind this legislation in Georgia is to cull Democrat votes? That is, I'm interested in your opinion, not a a public relations take.
 
Last edited:

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
458
Reaction score
1,529
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
The person you've quoted there can't read past one bullet point apparently. The quote of section 33 has it stating, "(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place", yet they've said, " The ban on food and water at polling locations in Georgia only applies within 150ft feet of the poll location entrance just like with electioneering". It explicitly applies to anyone standing in line.
 
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,263
Reaction score
7,129
Location
Midwest
Offline
The Georgia law goes beyond what other states do. Almost every state has a rule or law about electioneering, and it applies to giving anything to someone waiting to vote that is identified with a candidate or political party. You also cannot discuss who to vote for as you hand out those items. But if someone wants to hand out food or drink to everyone in line, that’s not prohibited anywhere else as far as I know.

Georgia has just totally banned the practice of providing people in line with anything to eat or drink. It goes too far, but that is on purpose. This at a time when they have managed to ensure that people will have to wait in line for hours upon hours in minority districts to vote. And their attempts to reform the wait times are laughable. If the wait times exceed one hour, there might be an investigation after the fact (going from memory here). In other words, after we make sure the election swings in our favor, we might have some sort of investigation and say “oops”?

SFL, there could be some discussion that some of the rhetoric by democrats about the laws is a bit overheated. But if you are reading people who say the laws enacted by Georgia and being considered in every other Republican state are about anything other than suppressing voter turnout, and specifically turnout of voters they assume to vote heavily Democratic, you are reading partisan propaganda.
 
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,263
Reaction score
7,129
Location
Midwest
Offline
They did do one good thing-getting rid of signature matching.

The idea that drop boxes are now permanent and thus provide an easy way to vote isn’t really true. They have severely reduced the number of drop boxes and required them to be under surveillance for 24 hours a day. Almost all precincts will therefore move them inside of precinct offices, thus limiting their availability, to avoid paying for round the clock coverage.

All of this because of a lie told by one man. There wasn’t any evidence of fraud during the 2020 election. Not anything worthy of such draconian changes that are actually designed to suppress turnout. We have a Republican election official on tape, actually saying that they have to suppress turnout or they won’t win.

The absolute worst thing they did is take power away from the SOS, and make it easy for the legislature to overturn the results of elections. I think had these measures been in place in 2020, Georgia would have no doubt abandoned democracy to install Trump as the winner of the election. That should terrify everyone. We are still under a huge threat to our system of government, because Republicans would rather abandon democracy than lose another election.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...lifestyle/march_2021/75_support_voter_id_laws


Support for voter ID laws has actually increased since 2018, when 67% said voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans support voter ID requirements, as do 60% of Democrats and 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party.


Edited to add this article about Biden's statements on the Georgia voting law:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-earns-four-pinocchios-washington-post


"The Washington Post Fact Checker knocked President Biden on Tuesday for falsely claiming a new Georgia law "ends voting hours early," giving him its harshest rating of Four Pinocchios for spreading the misinformation.

Biden repeatedly claimed last week a law signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, R., would make it harder for working-class people to vote.

"What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick," Biden said. "Deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o'clock when working people are just getting off work."

Biden doubled down the following day in a written statement: "Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over."

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote Biden's claim couldn't be substantiated."


It is odd there seems to be so much misinformation being spread about the Georgia voting law. Its almost as if both sides are trying to deliberately muddying the waters.
 
Last edited:

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Madisonville
Offline
The Georgia law goes beyond what other states do. Almost every state has a rule or law about electioneering, and it applies to giving anything to someone waiting to vote that is identified with a candidate or political party. You also cannot discuss who to vote for as you hand out those items. But if someone wants to hand out food or drink to everyone in line, that’s not prohibited anywhere else as far as I know.
Under Georgia law, electioneering at polling locations is prohibited. But in progressive enclaves, local Democrats in charge of polling locations have allowed Democrat activists to pass out food and water while urging votes for Democrats. The Democrats have claimed this is not electioneering, but taking care of those in long lines.

In 2018, leftwing activists in Planned Parenthood t-shirts passed out water and iTunes gift cards in the sixth congressional district. Last year, leftwing activists passed out water with leftwing group logos affixed to it. It was electioneering that local officials denied was electioneering.

That loophole has now been closed. I actually opposed closing the loophole thinking it was a bit overkill. But I am more opposed to the people lying about it.


Georgia has just totally banned the practice of providing people in line with anything to eat or drink. It goes too far, but that is on purpose.
That's not true. Where did you get that from?

Another new rule that affects both in-person early voting and election day voting would prohibit anyone except poll workers from handing out water to voters in line, and outlaw passing out food and water to voters within 150 feet of the building that serves as a poll, inside a polling place or within 25 feet of any voter standing in line. Depending on the location, it is still possible for third-party groups to have food and water available — and it is possible for the lines to extend beyond 150 feet.

This at a time when they have managed to ensure that people will have to wait in line for hours upon hours in minority districts to vote. And their attempts to reform the wait times are laughable. If the wait times exceed one hour, there might be an investigation after the fact (going from memory here). In other words, after we make sure the election swings in our favor, we might have some sort of investigation and say “oops”?
Once again, that's not true.

Another change that was proposed last year and is now law would require large polling places with long lines to take action if wait times surpass an hour at certain times during the day. Those massive polls with more than 2,000 voters and wait times longer than an hour would have to hire more staff, add more workers or split up the precinct after that election. More than 1,500 of Georgia's precincts have over 2,000 voters.
20210330_135624.png


SFL, there could be some discussion that some of the rhetoric by democrats about the laws is a bit overheated. But if you are reading people who say the laws enacted by Georgia and being considered in every other Republican state are about anything other than suppressing voter turnout, and specifically turnout of voters they assume to vote heavily Democratic, you are reading partisan propaganda.
It might be time to read the actual bill or some more credible sources because what you stated appears to be incorrect. Actually Biden should do that too. Does this count as a political lie? The Washington Post gave it 4 Pinocchios.

Biden falsely claims the new Georgia law ‘ends voting hours early’
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Madisonville
Offline
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...lifestyle/march_2021/75_support_voter_id_laws


Support for voter ID laws has actually increased since 2018, when 67% said voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans support voter ID requirements, as do 60% of Democrats and 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party.


Edited to add this article about Biden's statements on the Georgia voting law:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-earns-four-pinocchios-washington-post


"The Washington Post Fact Checker knocked President Biden on Tuesday for falsely claiming a new Georgia law "ends voting hours early," giving him its harshest rating of Four Pinocchios for spreading the misinformation.

Biden repeatedly claimed last week a law signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, R., would make it harder for working-class people to vote.

"What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick," Biden said. "Deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o'clock when working people are just getting off work."

Biden doubled down the following day in a written statement: "Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over."

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote Biden's claim couldn't be substantiated."


It is odd there seems to be so much misinformation being spread about the Georgia voting law. Its almost as if both sides are trying to deliberately muddying the waters.

According to the University of Georgia polling about the bill a majority of every demographic, including blacks and liberals, support requiring an ID to cast an absentee ballot by mail.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom