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.

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

They didn't find any evidence that voter ID laws stopped people from voting, but they also said ...suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities.

ABC News:

A 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that analyzed the effects of voter I.D. laws found that they decrease neither voter turnout nor voter fraud, contrary to arguments made by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

'The right to vote is our most fundamental right': Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams launched Fair Fight 2020 to combat voter suppression on Tuesday. She talked about the plan on "This Week" Sunday.

abcnews.go.com

 

[MT15]

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.

How do you know that these things aren’t concessions Abrams made during negotiations with the R legislature in GA in order to get some other reforms passed? She was pretty dogged in her efforts to get some changes made, and I don’t trust that this article isn’t blaming her for compromises she made to get other important reforms put through.

They didn't find any evidence that voter ID laws stopped people from voting, but they also said ...suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities.

ABC News:

A 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that analyzed the effects of voter I.D. laws found that they decrease neither voter turnout nor voter fraud, contrary to arguments made by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

'The right to vote is our most fundamental right': Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams launched Fair Fight 2020 to combat voter suppression on Tuesday. She talked about the plan on "This Week" Sunday.

abcnews.go.com

Dude, thats exactly my point, and you cut off the part of the sentence from your source that makes it clear that they don’t know either way. ABC News isn’t any better at explaining this than you are, lol. Here’s the complete quote when it’s not taken out of context by you.

‘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.’

So, there was an actual, measurable difference found in the number of contacts political parties made with minority voters after the passage of stricter voter ID laws. It’s real, it was measured. The fact that they found this suggested to them that these contacts could be the reason for no overall measurable change in voter participation.

They didn’t do a study to discover why, so they don’t know.

Why do you think strict voter ID laws are a good idea?

 

[SaintForLife]

How do you know that these things aren’t concessions Abrams made during negotiations with the R legislature in GA in order to get some other reforms passed? She was pretty dogged in her efforts to get some changes made, and I don’t trust that this article isn’t blaming her for compromises she made to get other important reforms put through.

Is there any evidence she did that because of concessions? I haven't seen any so until you cite some evidence that it was a concession I'll assume it wasn't.

Dude, thats exactly my point, and you cut off the part of the sentence from your source that makes it clear that they don’t know either way. ABC News isn’t any better at explaining this than you are, lol. Here’s the complete quote when it’s not taken out of context by you.

‘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.’

Omg lol. I took the quote out of context? I was the one the posted the entire quote earlier this morning:

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

How about we look at the author's title of their study:

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

So, there was an actual, measurable difference found in the number of contacts political parties made with minority voters after the passage of stricter voter ID laws. It’s real, it was measured. The fact that they found this suggested to them that these contacts could be the reason for no overall measurable change in voter participation.

They didn’t do a study to discover why, so they don’t know.

Why do you think strict voter ID laws are a good idea?

Link to the post where I said voter ID is a good thing and I'll give you $1000.

 

[MT15]

SFL, can you not read and consider what I have pointed out to you about that study? They felt that the point I made was important enough to include it in their summary. What the title says proves nothing. You have to be able to read and understand what the admitted shortcomings are in the study, and that is a big one. It potentially invalidates the conclusion that they are drawing, which is why they pointed it out prominently.

dude, you have done nothing but post tweets and articles defending what the Republicans are doing without commenting in your own words, just so you can then say “show me where I said that” when what you have posted gets challenged. It’s the same tired stuff you pulled all during the Trump presidency. Have the courage of your convictions, man. Say what you believe, and stand for something. Sometimes I‘m wrong and jump the gun, it doesn’t hurt to walk back something. My theory is that people will respect someone more if they can admit they were wrong when they were, you know, actually wrong.

National Review is coming from a certain point of view, namely Republican and conservative. I wouldn’t take what they say at face value on this type of partisan subject (especially with someone like Abrams, who the right has made into a huge bogeyman) any more than any number of sites that tend to defend democrats. My point was that there could certainly be valid reasons for what Abrams did, and you shouldn’t count on National Review to give you both sides of the story.

You have zero trouble questioning stories that come from sites that favor democrats, but you don’t apply any critical thinking to sites (or even random anonymous Twitter accounts) that say things you agree with or want to believe. This is classic confirmation bias, which almost everyone does to some degree. It helps to recognize your own cognitive biases and try to mitigate them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

and the hits just keep on coming
=====================
In the week before last November's general election, Iowa progressive activist Mitch Henry scoured neighborhoods on the east and south sides of Des Moines, in search of fellow Latino voters who had not yet returned their absentee ballots.

"Some of these people were homebound, and voting was probably the last thing they were thinking about, unless someone encouraged them to vote," Henry said. In all, he estimates that he helped return about 50 completed absentee ballots to his local election office.

But under a sweeping election law enacted recently in Iowa, Henry's ballot collection practice is now considered a crime -- punishable by up to a year in prison.

It's just one example of Republican-controlled legislatures adding new criminal penalties to their election laws as they race to restrict ballot access, following the record voter turnout in the 2020 election. The proposals range from bills that would make it a crime for election officials to buck state guidance to measures that criminalize more mundane activities, such as Georgia's controversial election law making it a misdemeanor to approach voters waiting in line to provide food and drink.

Not all will become laws. But Jonathan Diaz of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center said some of the measures seek to push back on the "extraordinary efforts" made by civic organizations, nonprofits and other groups in 2020 to drive turnout in the middle of the pandemic.

"These new laws, these bills that seek to criminalize organizations helping voters obtain absentee ballots or bringing food and water to voters in line are pretty transparently designed to scare off organizations that work to mobilize voters or help them navigate what is often a difficult or confusing electoral system," Diaz said.

Election officials targeted
Some of the proposals take aim at election officials themselves.

A bill that passed a key committee in the Texas state House last week would make it a felony for an election official to send a voter an unsolicited ballot application or to pre-fill portions of ballot applications sent to voters.

Under a bill introduced last month in the battleground state of Wisconsin, felony charges could be lodged against municipal clerks who issue absentee ballots if ballot application forms are missing voters' signatures. A bill pending in Arizona, another swing state, makes it a felony for election officials to send a ballot to anyone who has not requested it and is not already on the state's permanent early voting list. And the Iowa law signed in early March by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds makes it a felony for local election officials to buck the guidance of the secretary of state or disregard state election laws................

Republican state lawmakers push new criminal penalties for election activities (msn.com)

 

[brandon]

Link to the post where I said voter ID is a good thing and I'll give you $1000.

So you don’t believe voter ID is a good thing?

 

[DaveXA]

Why don't we (every state) just mail ballots to everyone and give them the option of voting by mail or by secure website? Both methods would have some sort of secure verification process to ensure one person one vote. Is it really that hard?

 

[insidejob]

Why don't we (every state) just mail ballots to everyone and give them the option of voting by mail or by secure website? Both methods would have some sort of secure verification process to ensure one person one vote. Is it really that hard?

Because bureaucracy needs bureaucrats.

 

[DaveXA]

Because bureaucracy needs bureaucrats.

Touché lol.

 

[brandon]

Why don't we (every state) just mail ballots to everyone and give them the option of voting by mail or by secure website? Both methods would have some sort of secure verification process to ensure one person one vote. Is it really that hard?

Republicans don’t want that. See Watson, Michael.

 

[DaveXA]

Republicans don’t want that. See Watson, Michael.

Well, I'm not a Republican.

 

[zztop]

Well, I'm not a Republican.

Oh we know, we're just waiting for you to fully embrace the dark side and switch affiliation so you can see all the jokes in the subforum

 

[brandon]

Oh we know, we're just waiting for you to fully embrace the dark side and switch affiliation so you can see all the jokes in the subforum

They really are solid jokes. @DaveXA is missing out with all this lying to himself.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Republicans don’t want that. See Watson, Michael.

Republicans don't want anything that facilitates voting. I see your Watson and raise you one Marshall, Steve.

 

[V Chip]

So the Republicans in Georgia tighted the mail in voting rules while also expanding voting access.

Except it doesn't expand voting access. Maybe if you said "in some minor ways, it expands voting access" I'd let that fly, but the bill overall very definitively restricts voting access.

How about this: you show me how it expands access, and I'll counter with a bigger restriction of access. We'll do this until one of us runs out of bullet points.

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"

They're exaggerating that it is Jim Crow on steroids, definitely. The law restricts voter access, but it's nothing like Jim Crow so that's a silly line.

But they're not blatantly lying -- they're using politician speak. Hours *were* cut for early voting, and it is obvious that is what they are talking about, but for some reason aren't specifically saying "early voting." The law didn't change voting hours at all on election day, so I guess they're using that vague language to refer to what the law actually did change. It's sloppy and misleading/confusing, but not a blatant lie.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[MT15]

This is so much better than what you have recently been posting, it was a good read.

I would move his two ‘debatable‘ changes to the bad column. Limiting the hours that drop boxes are accessible will definitely impact people’s ability to use them, and there’s no good reason to do so.

Similarly there’s no good reason to not send out ballot applications to everyone, especially if you require voter ID.

I definitely agree with his last point, requiring ID to vote should go hand in hand with making IDs easy to get and free to obtain. Otherwise, you are going to get legal challenges to that part of the law.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is so much better than what you have recently been posting, it was a good read.

I would move his two ‘debatable‘ changes to the bad column. Limiting the hours that drop boxes are accessible will definitely impact people’s ability to use them, and there’s no good reason to do so.

Similarly there’s no good reason to not send out ballot applications to everyone, especially if you require voter ID.

I definitely agree with his last point, requiring ID to vote should go hand in hand with making IDs easy to get and free to obtain. Otherwise, you are going to get legal challenges to that part of the law.

I would even move some of his good into the bad. He mentions that the law expands days/hours available for early in-person voting, but it doesn't. It more standardizes them. Two mandatory early Saturdays and the option for two early Sundays. While it expands the hours in rural counties that were not offering two Saturdays, it limits them in urban areas that were offering more. A guy I know in Atlanta said that this past election saw five Souls to the Polls Sunday early voting days. This law eliminates anywhere from 60% to 100% of those days.