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.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I want the light shined on that trash as much as you do, but the GOP would have taken the senate hostage and absolutely nothing would have been done for covid relief long after unemployment and other relief from the last package expired. You don’t think Yurtle the Turtle would pontificate about how the Dems are causing the relief to be delayed and act like they had nothing to do with it when they would be the ones to object.
I think their will be a commission on the 1/6 insurrection and from that charges are likely to be made. They will drag him through the dirt and they can call all the witnesses they want. Do it around the next election so voters will remember how complicit the GOP was in this and help keep the house and senate.

Let's follow your thought process to its logical conclusion...Why even have an impeachment trial at all, if you already know the outcome????

Why even have an impeachment trial at all, if facts and witness testimony don't even matter????

Why even have an impeachment trial at all if, according to you, the Republicans already have the Democrats by the balls and can control the length of the trial????

This article does a good job of explaining my position. This is, indeed, why the Democrats always fail.

'This Is Why We Fail': Democrats Accused of Caving on Trump Trial Witnesses

Democrats are accused of capitulating to GOP threats after they won a surprise 55-45 vote to call witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial before declining to do so just hours later.

www.newsweek.com

Even REPUBLICANS don't understand why witnesses weren't called!! This quote captures the idiocy of the Democrats' decision perfectly. --

"So just so I'm clear: A President inciting an insurrection against our own government isn't a big enough deal for witnesses. Do I have that right?" remarked former GOP congressman and vocal anti-Trump critic Joe Walsh.

 

[Saintman2884]

Biden and the Democrats have less than two years to counter these fascist Repug voter suppression efforts. Schumer MUST abolish the filibuster in the Senate and pass the new Voting Rights Bill. If the Democrats are too stupid and naive to address this issue while they still have a chance, then they will never hold power again.

The Democrats simply suck at hardball politics. They proved it yet again during the impeachment trial and their refusal to call witnesses. Who cares if the Democrats still don't get a conviction, they should have paraded witnesses on the stand and embarrassed and humiliated Trump and the Republicans for weeks.

Why don't you try actually playing politics once in awhile, Democrats? Why don't you try punching bullies in the face for once, Democrats? This is your last chance to save this country from the fascist white supremacist QAnon Republican Party.

Its not so much that Dems aren't capable of playing hardball or that some Dems, be it vocal progressives who don't mind getting a little edgy like Anthony Weiner, it's just the GOP do a much better, more effective job at employing cutthroat, lowest-common denominator tactics and maximizing their intended effects. Their good at it because they've been doing it increasingly moreso since the early 1970's beginning with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to win over disaffected, white former predominantly, conservative "Solid South" Dems supporters disillusioned with the party's new liberal path and it later on came to include anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, tougher-on-crime policies in the former Confederacy. They've given up really caring or giving too much concern to what most Democrat politicians or registered Democratic voters may feel towards the moral/ethical consequences, they dislike them anyway irregardless and a few of them character assassinated Mitt Romney for how rich he was and that he ran a commercial liquidation company during his 2012 presidential campaign in attack ads. Now, most of them can't stop saying how principled and great he is, standing up to Trump and attempting to save the Republican Party from his corrosive influence.

Their also held probably by the American public to a higher moral/ethical standard, which clearly some of them(Newsome, Cuomo) can't always live up to and they might not be able.to get away it with some of the same win at all costs strategy GOP does.

 

[Roofgardener]

I saw one proposal today that has stuck with me a bit. In Atlanta, black churches have a tradition called “Souls to the Polls” that they do during the early voting period. After church, they get as many as they can (bus or cars or whatnot) and go down and vote together as a church. It’s a nice community-building exercise of their civic duty.

Read today that there is a bill put forth by the GA State GOP that would mandate that all poll locations be closed on Sundays during the early voting period. Seems pretty laser focused to me, but I am open to hearing others’ opinions.

I heard about that. It does seem VERY dodgy indeed.

Did the proposers say WHY they wanted Polls to be closed on Sundays ?

 

[Devildog]

I heard about that. It does seem VERY dodgy indeed.

Did the proposers say WHY they wanted Polls to be closed on Sundays ?

They'll put it in context that it's Jesus day, as the south is heavily Baptist, but everyone knows the real reason is to prevent black people from voting in large blocks. It's about controlling people under the guise of the lord.

 

[Roofgardener]

They'll put it in context that it's Jesus day, as the south is heavily Baptist, but everyone knows the real reason is to prevent black people from voting in large blocks. It's about controlling people under the guise of the lord.

But.. that doesn't seem to make any sense ? Voting Booths must be closed because it's Sunday, but you can still (presumably ? ) buy alcohol, and broccoli ?

 

[DaveXA]

But.. that doesn't seem to make any sense ? Voting Booths must be closed because it's Sunday, but you can still (presumably ? ) buy alcohol, and broccoli ?

Actually a lot of local governments in the US ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays.

Voting booths closed on Sundays for reasons is absurd.

 

[Roofgardener]

So then.. I repeat my question. What where the actual, stated reasons in the Bill for closing the booths ?

 

[MT15]

They don’t state reasons in bills, or at least they don’t have to.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Legislature can state reasons in any statute proposed but it is rare and there is no obligation to do so. And yes, legislatures have sought to deny people's rights via attempts at disguising legislation as neutral and had such attempts ultimately struck down by courts.

Any reason they proffer for eliminating poll access on Sunday is nonsensical in light of the fact they've already been doing it for years and years.

 

[Roofgardener]

So then.. I repeat my question. What where the actual, stated reasons in the Bill for closing the booths ?

That's mad !

 

[zztop]

If I told you not a single (R) voted in favor of this, would you be shocked?

House passes sweeping voting rights bill over GOP opposition

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats passed sweeping voting and ethics legislation Wednesday over unanimous Republican opposition, advancing to the Senate what would be the largest overhaul of the U.S. election law in at least a generation.

apnews.com

House Resolution 1, which touches on virtually every aspect of the electoral process, was approved on a near party-line 220-210 vote. It would restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, strike down hurdles to voting and bring transparency to a murky campaign finance system that allows wealthy donors to anonymously bankroll political causes.

 

[Saintman2884]

If I told you not a single (R) voted in favor of this, would you be shocked?

House passes sweeping voting rights bill over GOP opposition

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats passed sweeping voting and ethics legislation Wednesday over unanimous Republican opposition, advancing to the Senate what would be the largest overhaul of the U.S. election law in at least a generation.

apnews.com

House Resolution 1, which touches on virtually every aspect of the electoral process, was approved on a near party-line 220-210 vote. It would restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, strike down hurdles to voting and bring transparency to a murky campaign finance system that allows wealthy donors to anonymously bankroll political causes.

.
One could make a very strong, succinct argument that the historical Citizens United SCOTUS 2010 case which essentially ruled that McCain/Feingold Act, which outlawed or restricted the flow of endless, anonymous campaign contributions was unconstitutional, is a major reason why we're stuck with some major, pressing issues like this here. Particularly, as it regards to the latter political aspect of your statement in how this law would bring some transparency to murky, shadowy donors to fringe, extremist movements, groups, initiatives, or political PAC's.

Is it still feasible or plausible that one day, Citizens United case constitutionality might be contested and amended or overturned? Or is that just legal/judicial fantasy because the ship sailed off long ago considering the Supreme Court's current political setup among liberal and conservative judges?

 

[DaveXA]

If I told you not a single (R) voted in favor of this, would you be shocked?

House passes sweeping voting rights bill over GOP opposition

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats passed sweeping voting and ethics legislation Wednesday over unanimous Republican opposition, advancing to the Senate what would be the largest overhaul of the U.S. election law in at least a generation.

apnews.com

House Resolution 1, which touches on virtually every aspect of the electoral process, was approved on a near party-line 220-210 vote. It would restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, strike down hurdles to voting and bring transparency to a murky campaign finance system that allows wealthy donors to anonymously bankroll political causes.

Well, we're going to see a lot of legislation die in the Senate. This is one of them. If it's a straight party line vote in the House, it's most likely not going to have the votes in the Senate.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From the post
=============
........That objection was summarized by former vice president Mike Pence in a recent column:


Every single proposed change in HR 1 serves one goal, and one goal only: to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.


We hear this from Republicans at all levels; as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, “It is not designed to protect Americans’ vote — it is designed to put a thumb on the scale in every election in America, so that Democrats can turn a temporary majority into permanent control.”


Here are some of H.R. 1′s key provisions:

• Requires automatic voter registration

• Requires reasonably generous early voting
• Requires no-excuse absentee voting or vote by mail

• Mandates independent commissions to draw congressional districts to end partisan gerrymandering

• Limits voter purges
• Restores voting rights to those with felony convictions

• Establishes public financing for federal campaigns in which small donations would be matched

• Restricts “dark money”
• Requires presidents and presidential candidates to release their tax returns


We could argue about the particulars of each of these, but let’s consider them in light of the Republican objection: that they must not be allowed because they would help Democrats.


What they’re saying is that early voting — which many people find convenient — would help Democrats. Eliminating gerrymandering would help Democrats. Limiting states’ ability to throw thousands of people off the voter rolls en masse would help Democrats. Restricting dark money would help Democrats. If we saw every presidential nominee’s tax returns, it would help Democrats.

Getting the picture? Republicans are explicitly arguing that if the electoral system were not restrictive, exclusionary and corrupt, then they would be put at an unfair disadvantage. What does that say about their party?..........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/gop-argument-against-election-reform-is-even-worse-than-you-think/

 

[DaveXA]

From the post
=============
........That objection was summarized by former vice president Mike Pence in a recent column:


Every single proposed change in HR 1 serves one goal, and one goal only: to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.


We hear this from Republicans at all levels; as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, “It is not designed to protect Americans’ vote — it is designed to put a thumb on the scale in every election in America, so that Democrats can turn a temporary majority into permanent control.”


Here are some of H.R. 1′s key provisions:

• Requires automatic voter registration

• Requires reasonably generous early voting
• Requires no-excuse absentee voting or vote by mail

• Mandates independent commissions to draw congressional districts to end partisan gerrymandering

• Limits voter purges
• Restores voting rights to those with felony convictions

• Establishes public financing for federal campaigns in which small donations would be matched

• Restricts “dark money”
• Requires presidents and presidential candidates to release their tax returns


We could argue about the particulars of each of these, but let’s consider them in light of the Republican objection: that they must not be allowed because they would help Democrats.


What they’re saying is that early voting — which many people find convenient — would help Democrats. Eliminating gerrymandering would help Democrats. Limiting states’ ability to throw thousands of people off the voter rolls en masse would help Democrats. Restricting dark money would help Democrats. If we saw every presidential nominee’s tax returns, it would help Democrats.

Getting the picture? Republicans are explicitly arguing that if the electoral system were not restrictive, exclusionary and corrupt, then they would be put at an unfair disadvantage. What does that say about their party?..........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/gop-argument-against-election-reform-is-even-worse-than-you-think/

What is the objection to purges? If someone is deceased or moved out of state, those should be removed from the voter rolls. Am I missing something here?

Requiring release of tax records won't pass Constitutional muster. I think that probably won't happen unless it's via Constitutional amendment. Fwiw, I do favor releasing tax records.

 

[Optimus Prime]

What is the objection to purges? If someone is deceased or moved out of state, those should be removed from the voter rolls. Am I missing something here?

Requiring release of tax records won't pass Constitutional muster. I think that probably won't happen unless it's via Constitutional amendment. Fwiw, I do favor releasing tax records.

I think the issue is there are people being purged who shouldn’t be

I forget the state but it was something like if you didn’t vote in the last presidential election you were purged from the rolls

a lot of people hate politics and don’t vote but on rare occasion are inspired to; to vote for Obama, vote for Trump, vote against Trump but because they hadn’t voted in so long find themselves purged

there was also a question of how to handle college students living out of state

 

[DaveXA]

I think the issue is there are people being purged who shouldn’t be

I forget the state but it was something like if you didn’t vote in the last presidential election you were purged from the rolls

a lot of people hate politics and don’t but on rare occasion are inspired to to vote for Obama, vote for Trump, vote against Trump but because they hadn’t voted in so long find themselves purged

there was also a question of how to handle college students living out of state

Makes sense. Not voting shouldn't be cause for purging. The only things that justifies a purge would be moving out of the district or state, or deceased individuals. College students should remain registered in their state of residence and either vote in person at their home precient or mail in a ballot. My oldest kid did a mail in ballot when he was in school in NY. Not really that complicated.

 

[insidejob]

I think the issue is there are people being purged who shouldn’t be

I forget the state but it was something like if you didn’t vote in the last presidential election you were purged from the rolls

a lot of people hate politics and don’t but on rare occasion are inspired to to vote for Obama, vote for Trump, vote against Trump but because they hadn’t voted in so long find themselves purged

there was also a question of how to handle college students living out of state

Ohio recently passed a law that purges voters who haven't voted in three consecutive federal elections. Louisiana is trying to do something similar last I heard.

And that's bull. If I'm alive and a citizen, I have the right to vote.

Republicans have given up and straight up admitted that they cannot win elections where as many people as legally possible to vote actually decide to vote go ahead and get off the couch.