Voting Law Proposals and Voting Rights Efforts (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

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.

 

[JRad]

Curious what fraud you are referring to ?

The fraud the Republican party made up, which caused Republican voters to lose faith in the election process, that Republican lawmakers now have to shield us from.

 

[SaintForLife]

Biden and the Democrats are are still lying about the bill.

 

[SystemShock]

Biden and the Democrats are are still lying about the bill.

That's not the article you want to use to try to pretend the intention of the new laws is not an attempt to suppress votes.

 

[SaintForLife]

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications and cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms.

Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[MT15]

So you, and others evidently, are going to keep pretending that Republicans aren’t trying to curtail minority voting?

Can you not see the difference the press secretary is speaking of? She is talking about the state legislature taking away options from local precincts who have developed ways to make voting more convenient for their constituents. Specifically urban precincts.

If people are going to nitpick at what Biden is saying, but ignore the way that Republicans are trying to paint their efforts as actually expanding voting when they are taking control away from local precincts and restricting what they can do to help their specific populations to vote easily, then people are being the worst sort of a partisan with this issue.

 

[MT15]

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications and cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms.

Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

So, to recap the paragraph you quoted, they first say there is no negative effect from stricter identification laws, then they say that it appears that political parties mobilization “might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities”. So which is it? No effect, or was the negative effect offset by parties working harder to reach their voters? They can’t tell from this study, evidently.

They also conclude that strict ID requirements have zero effect on fraud, and efforts to improve elections would be better directed at other reforms.

I have no idea why you must have thought this bolstered the idea that stricter voter ID requirements are a good thing. Can you add your own thoughts on this?

 

[SaintForLife]

So you, and others evidently, are going to keep pretending that Republicans aren’t trying to curtail minority voting?

Can you not see the difference the press secretary is speaking of? She is talking about the state legislature taking away options from local precincts who have developed ways to make voting more convenient for their constituents. Specifically urban precincts.

If people are going to nitpick at what Biden is saying, but ignore the way that Republicans are trying to paint their efforts as actually expanding voting when they are taking control away from local precincts and restricting what they can do to help their specific populations to vote easily, then people are being the worst sort of a partisan with this issue.

I've never talked about the actual intention of the Georgia bill, so I'm not sure who you are talking about pretending. I've focused on the lies Biden, Democrats and the media have been talking about.

The change in how the Georgia legislature has more control over election seems like a legitimate concern, but most of the talk about how it restricts voting and bans people from drinking in lines is complete bullshirt.

It appears to me that because Trump falsely claimed that the election was stolen many Republicans believe that to be the case. So the Republicans in Georgia tighted the mail in voting rules while also expanding voting access. The Republicans in Georgia probably felt like they had to do that to restore the Republican votes confidence in the vote. It is based off of Trumps lies. I know many Republicans I work with said they don't see the need to vote anymore because they think Biden stole the election.

Biden and his administration are still blatantly lying about the bill to justify the need for the For the People Act. "Jim Crow on steroids"

Here's a list of Jim Crow laws Georgia had in the mid 20th century. Georgia doesn't have any laws today that come close to these.

 

[SaintForLife]

So, to recap the paragraph you quoted, they first say there is no negative effect from stricter identification laws, then they say that it appears that political parties mobilization “might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities”. So which is it? No effect, or was the negative effect offset by parties working harder to reach their voters? They can’t tell from this study, evidently.

They also conclude that strict ID requirements have zero effect on fraud, and efforts to improve elections would be better directed at other reforms.

I have no idea why you must have thought this bolstered the idea that stricter voter ID requirements are a good thing. Can you add your own thoughts on this?

Where did I say anything about bolstering the idea for stricter voter ID? I posted it to show that a study didn't find any evidence that voter ID laws stop people from voting.

 

[SaintForLife]

CBS got caught publishing political advocacy and the article was pushing for support of the For The People Act.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I've never talked about the actual intention of the Georgia bill, so I'm not sure who you are talking about pretending. I've focused on the lies Biden, Democrats and the media have been talking about.

The change in how the Georgia legislature has more control over election seems like a legitimate concern, but most of the talk about how it restricts voting and bans people from drinking in lines is complete bullshirt.

It appears to me that because Trump falsely claimed that the election was stolen many Republicans believe that to be the case. So the Republicans in Georgia tighted the mail in voting rules while also expanding voting access. The Republicans in Georgia probably felt like they had to do that to restore the Republican votes confidence in the vote. It is based off of Trumps lies. I know many Republicans I work with said they don't see the need to vote anymore because they think Biden stole the election.

Biden and his administration are still blatantly lying about the bill to justify the need for the For the People Act. "Jim Crow on steroids"

Here's a list of Jim Crow laws Georgia had in the mid 20th century. Georgia doesn't have any laws today that come close to these.

Why not? It seems like that is what should be discussed. For example, you are making a broad statement when you say that the bill expands voting access. What specific portions of the bill expand voting access and do you think it has the same impact on communities regardless of population size?

Also, if you want to have a legitimate discussion, please stop using strawman arguments. Nobody has said that voters can't drink in line.

 

[SaintForLife]

Why not? It seems like that is what should be discussed. For example, you are making a broad statement when you say that the bill expands voting access. What specific portions of the bill expand voting access and do you think it has the same impact on communities regardless of population size?

Also, if you want to have a legitimate discussion, please stop using strawman arguments. Nobody has said that voters can't drink in line.

Oh gosh. I think you knew what I meant. I typed it wrong. I meant to say that Biden, Democrats and the media claim that the law banned giving water to people in line to vote which is a lie. It banned outside groups from giving the water. Poll workers can still give water to people in line.

Biden telling The New Lie:

"If you want any indication that it has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with decency, they pass a law saying you can't provide water for people standing in line while they're waiting to vote," the president said. "You don't need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive, designed to keep people from voting. You can't provide water for people about to vote. Give me a break."

'Outrageous': Biden condemns new Georgia law as a 'blatant attack' on voting rights

Top Democrats and advocates have harshly criticized the restrictions, which include a ban on giving food and water to voters in line, signed into law Thursday night.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, someone need to give Biden better talking points, because what he's said clearly isn't true.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Oh gosh. I think you knew what I meant. I typed it wrong. I meant to say that Biden, Democrats and the media claim that the law banned giving water to people in line to vote which is a lie. It banned outside groups from giving the water. Poll workers can still give water to people in line.

Biden telling The New Lie:

"If you want any indication that it has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with decency, they pass a law saying you can't provide water for people standing in line while they're waiting to vote," the president said. "You don't need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive, designed to keep people from voting. You can't provide water for people about to vote. Give me a break."

'Outrageous': Biden condemns new Georgia law as a 'blatant attack' on voting rights

Top Democrats and advocates have harshly criticized the restrictions, which include a ban on giving food and water to voters in line, signed into law Thursday night.

www.nbcnews.com

So you completely ignored the part of my post aimed at discussing the reality of the bill, including the part where I asked about an opinion you stated. This bill is absolutely worth discussing, but all of your focus is on what Biden is saying. All this does is drown out the productive part of the conversation.

 

[SaintForLife]

The Abrams legislation cut the days for early voting from 45 all the way down to 21.

Why? Abrams says that early voting could be “a cost-prohibitive burden” to local governments. Smaller jurisdictions, she writes, complained they’d have to cut back in other budgetary areas to maintain the longer period of early voting, and the costs of keeping a facility open were the same whether many people were using it or not.

...Another Abrams defense of her reduction in the early-voting period is that there was still plenty of time to vote, in fact “three solid weeks of early access.”

But Abrams and her allies reject this defense of the new Georgia law. That it has reduced the period for requesting an absentee ballot — and not down to three weeks, it is worth noting, but to three months — is one reason that it is “Jim Crow-adjacent,” according to Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times.

Maybe someone can ask Abrams about this inconsistency.

 

[DaveXA]

The Abrams legislation cut the days for early voting from 45 all the way down to 21.

Why? Abrams says that early voting could be “a cost-prohibitive burden” to local governments. Smaller jurisdictions, she writes, complained they’d have to cut back in other budgetary areas to maintain the longer period of early voting, and the costs of keeping a facility open were the same whether many people were using it or not.

...Another Abrams defense of her reduction in the early-voting period is that there was still plenty of time to vote, in fact “three solid weeks of early access.”

But Abrams and her allies reject this defense of the new Georgia law. That it has reduced the period for requesting an absentee ballot — and not down to three weeks, it is worth noting, but to three months — is one reason that it is “Jim Crow-adjacent,” according to Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times.

Maybe someone can ask Abrams about this inconsistency.

.
"It's only good when our side does it" seems to be the norm these days on both sides.

 

[Optimus Prime]

article on gerrymandering being as big a threat as new voter laws
==============================================
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...m-the-capitol-riots/ar-BB1fwQdz?ocid=msedgntp
Republicans believe they have a great chance to win control of the US House of Representatives in 2022, needing a swing of about six seats to depose Nancy Pelosi as speaker and derail Joe Biden’s agenda.

To help themselves over the top, they are advancing voter suppression laws in almost every state, hoping to minimize Democratic turnout.

But Republicans are also preparing another, arguably more powerful tool, which experts believe could let them take control of the House without winning a single vote beyond their 2020 tally, or for that matter blocking a single Democratic voter.

That tool is redistricting – the redrawing of congressional boundaries, undertaken once every 10 years – and Republicans have unilateral control of it in a critical number of states.

“Public sentiment in 2020 favored Democrats, and Democrats retained control of the House of Representatives,” said Samuel Wang, a professor of neuroscience and director of the Princeton gerrymandering project. “[But] because of reapportionment and redistricting, those factors would be enough to cause a change in control of the House even if public opinion were not to change at all.”.............

Owing to population growth, Republican states including Texas, Florida and North Carolina are expected to gain seats before 2022, although the breakdown has not been finalized, with the 2020 census delayed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Republican-controlled legislatures will have the power to wedge the new districts almost wherever they see fit, with a freedom they would not have enjoyed only 10 years ago, owing to a pair of controversial supreme court rulings.............

The new Republican gerrymandering efforts are expected to focus on urban areas in southern states that are home to a disproportionate number of voters of color – meaning those voters are more likely to be disenfranchised.

In Texas, mapmakers could try to add districts to the growing population centers of Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth without increasing representation of the minority and Democratic voters who account for that growth. In Florida they might add Republican voters to a growing Democratic district north of Orlando. In North Carolina, where the Democratic governor is shut out of the process, Republican mapmakers might seek to add a district in the Democratic-leaning Research Triangle, in a way that elects more Republicans.

Republicans could also seek to repay voters of colors in Atlanta who boosted Biden to victory and drove the defeat of two Republican senators in special elections in Georgia in January, by cracking and packing those voters into new districts.

“Republicans could net pick up one seat by rearranging the lines around Black people and other Democrats in the Atlanta area,” Wang said...............

‘Putin-style democracy’: how Republicans gerrymander the map (msn.com)

 

[MT15]

Where did I say anything about bolstering the idea for stricter voter ID? I posted it to show that a study didn't find any evidence that voter ID laws stop people from voting.

Except it doesn’t and can’t really show that. As I explained, they found that after stricter ID laws, minority voters had a significant increase in contacts from political parties. They don’t know whether the parties working harder to get out the vote mitigated the negative effect or if there really wasn’t a negative effect.

Their other conclusion was that stricter voter ID laws have zero effect on voter fraud. So why do you think stricter voter ID is worth doing?