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.
Voting Law Proposals and Voting Rights Efforts (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterMT15
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Agreed, they are relevant as far as a dire need to update the 2nd Amendment.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
CoolBrees
Well-known member
Offline
I got a new person to champion!
Jasmine Crockett is my kind of legislator (and she’s from Texas!).
MTG knew better than to interrupt again. That was amazing. I’ve never seen that woman shut up before.
“Reclaiming my time” better become a thing. That was beautiful.
She needs to take on Ted. He’d pee down his leg in a debate with that person.
Jasmine Crockett is my kind of legislator (and she’s from Texas!).
MTG knew better than to interrupt again. That was amazing. I’ve never seen that woman shut up before.
“Reclaiming my time” better become a thing. That was beautiful.
She needs to take on Ted. He’d pee down his leg in a debate with that person.
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case, ordering the creation of a second district with a large Black population.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black.
The case had been closely watched for its potential to weaken the landmark voting rights law.…..
Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.apnews.com
I'm not convinced that Roberts didn't do this for any other reason than to take heat off of his SC.....I don't buy any other theory on this....
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Now my question is why didn't they rule on the Louisiana case at the same time. From what I read, it's the same argument as the Alabama case.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Guess this can go here
=================
Increasing misinformation on social media, platforms scaling back content moderation and the rise of AI are converging to create a perfect storm for the 2024 elections that some experts warn could put democracy at risk.
YouTube this week reversedits election integrity policy, allowing content contesting the validity of the 2020 elections to remain on the platform.
Meta, meanwhile, reinstated the Instagram account of misinformation super spreader Robert F Kennedy Jr and will allowDonald Trump to post again imminently.
Twitter has also allowed Trump to return, and has generally seen a rise in the spread of misinformation since billionaire Elon Musk took over the platform last year.
These trends may prove disastrous for the 2024 elections, and for the health of democracy at large, said Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a non-profit that fights misinformation.
“This is fundamentally dangerous,” he said. “American democracy itself cannot survive wave after wave of disinformation that seeks to undermine democracy, consensus and further polarizes the public.”
YouTube this week reversed a policy banning content that casts doubt on previous election results. Specifically, the platform will no longer remove content that “advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections”.
The policy was instituted in December 2020, when Trump and his supporters sought to delegitimize the election results – a narrative that culminated in the storming of the US capitol on 6 January 2021. Under the rules, prominent accounts including that of rightwing former White House strategist Steve Bannon were banned.……
www.theguardian.com
=================
Increasing misinformation on social media, platforms scaling back content moderation and the rise of AI are converging to create a perfect storm for the 2024 elections that some experts warn could put democracy at risk.
YouTube this week reversedits election integrity policy, allowing content contesting the validity of the 2020 elections to remain on the platform.
Meta, meanwhile, reinstated the Instagram account of misinformation super spreader Robert F Kennedy Jr and will allowDonald Trump to post again imminently.
Twitter has also allowed Trump to return, and has generally seen a rise in the spread of misinformation since billionaire Elon Musk took over the platform last year.
These trends may prove disastrous for the 2024 elections, and for the health of democracy at large, said Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a non-profit that fights misinformation.
“This is fundamentally dangerous,” he said. “American democracy itself cannot survive wave after wave of disinformation that seeks to undermine democracy, consensus and further polarizes the public.”
YouTube this week reversed a policy banning content that casts doubt on previous election results. Specifically, the platform will no longer remove content that “advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections”.
The policy was instituted in December 2020, when Trump and his supporters sought to delegitimize the election results – a narrative that culminated in the storming of the US capitol on 6 January 2021. Under the rules, prominent accounts including that of rightwing former White House strategist Steve Bannon were banned.……
‘Fundamentally dangerous’: reversal of social media guardrails could prove disastrous for 2024 elections
Scaling back of moderation and rise of AI are creating the perfect storm to weaken elections and democracy
cuddlemonkey
Well-known monkey
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,251
- Reaction score
- 5,100
Offline
Guess this can go here
=================
Increasing misinformation on social media, platforms scaling back content moderation and the rise of AI are converging to create a perfect storm for the 2024 elections that some experts warn could put democracy at risk.
YouTube this week reversedits election integrity policy, allowing content contesting the validity of the 2020 elections to remain on the platform.
Meta, meanwhile, reinstated the Instagram account of misinformation super spreader Robert F Kennedy Jr and will allowDonald Trump to post again imminently.
Twitter has also allowed Trump to return, and has generally seen a rise in the spread of misinformation since billionaire Elon Musk took over the platform last year.
These trends may prove disastrous for the 2024 elections, and for the health of democracy at large, said Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a non-profit that fights misinformation.
“This is fundamentally dangerous,” he said. “American democracy itself cannot survive wave after wave of disinformation that seeks to undermine democracy, consensus and further polarizes the public.”
YouTube this week reversed a policy banning content that casts doubt on previous election results. Specifically, the platform will no longer remove content that “advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections”.
The policy was instituted in December 2020, when Trump and his supporters sought to delegitimize the election results – a narrative that culminated in the storming of the US capitol on 6 January 2021. Under the rules, prominent accounts including that of rightwing former White House strategist Steve Bannon were banned.……
‘Fundamentally dangerous’: reversal of social media guardrails could prove disastrous for 2024 elections
Scaling back of moderation and rise of AI are creating the perfect storm to weaken elections and democracy
Youtube's new policy is literally "we want to spread blatant lies to gullible, dangerous people". WT actual F?
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
The Supreme Court’s voting-rights decision Thursday — that Alabama’s Republican-led legislature drew congressional districts that unlawfully diluted the political power of Black voters — shocked the legal and political worlds because of what had come before.
Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court had a nearly unbroken record of weakening the protections of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
But Roberts’s majority opinion Thursday maintained the court’s precedents regarding states’ obligations to create electoral districts in which minority voters have a shot at electing candidates of their choice.
With the Roberts court, the status quo was considered a win by civil rights groups who had braced for another setback. That’s because under Roberts, the court has consistently sided with states in saying even the threat of election fraud can justify voting restrictions that fall heavier on minority voters.
And the justices had already taken two big swings at the Voting Rights Act.
In one, they ruled that state and localities that discriminated against minority voters in the past no longer must have election laws cleared by federal officials.
And in the other, the court said the threat of election fraud can justify voting restrictions that fall heavier on minority voters. Such decisions have favored conservative states with Republican majorities, while civil rights organizations have been the losers.
Additionally, Roberts said federal courts have no constitutional role in policing partisan gerrymandering. While both parties benefit, it has been Republicans who have said courts should stay out.
Thursday’s decision in Allen v. Milligan, by contrast, will favor Democrats, who benefit from the creation of “majority-minority” districts……
Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court had a nearly unbroken record of weakening the protections of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
But Roberts’s majority opinion Thursday maintained the court’s precedents regarding states’ obligations to create electoral districts in which minority voters have a shot at electing candidates of their choice.
With the Roberts court, the status quo was considered a win by civil rights groups who had braced for another setback. That’s because under Roberts, the court has consistently sided with states in saying even the threat of election fraud can justify voting restrictions that fall heavier on minority voters.
And the justices had already taken two big swings at the Voting Rights Act.
In one, they ruled that state and localities that discriminated against minority voters in the past no longer must have election laws cleared by federal officials.
And in the other, the court said the threat of election fraud can justify voting restrictions that fall heavier on minority voters. Such decisions have favored conservative states with Republican majorities, while civil rights organizations have been the losers.
Additionally, Roberts said federal courts have no constitutional role in policing partisan gerrymandering. While both parties benefit, it has been Republicans who have said courts should stay out.
Thursday’s decision in Allen v. Milligan, by contrast, will favor Democrats, who benefit from the creation of “majority-minority” districts……
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
(CNN) — The Supreme Court said Monday that Louisiana’s congressional map must be redrawn to add a second majority-Black district.
The justices reversed plans to hear the case themselves and lifted a hold they placed on a lower court’s order for a reworked redistricting regime. There were no noted dissents……
www.cnn.com
The justices reversed plans to hear the case themselves and lifted a hold they placed on a lower court’s order for a reworked redistricting regime. There were no noted dissents……
Supreme Court allows for Louisiana congressional map to be redrawn to add another majority-Black district | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Louisiana congressional map to be redrawn to add another majority-Black district.
www.cnn.comLA - L.A.
Well-known member
Offline
I cynically think that this and the Alabama ruling are PR damage control by the conservative majority, because it seems like an about face from their recent rationale and rulings.(CNN) — The Supreme Court said Monday that Louisiana’s congressional map must be redrawn to add a second majority-Black district.
The justices reversed plans to hear the case themselves and lifted a hold they placed on a lower court’s order for a reworked redistricting regime. There were no noted dissents……
Supreme Court allows for Louisiana congressional map to be redrawn to add another majority-Black district | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Louisiana congressional map to be redrawn to add another majority-Black district.
I am glad they ruled the way they did.
- Thread starter
- #803
OP
OP
MT15
Well-known member
Offline
There’s definitely a non-zero chance of that. Good, maybe it will give them pause in other cases.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
I think what might be happening is you may have a few justices who have drawn lines in the sand and said enough. Also something to consider, the recent controversies with the trips and stuff with questionable people, there might be some leverage there.
Idk, just a complete guess on my part.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
As the co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund, Cliff Albright frequently crisscrosses the south on a bus, holding rallies and events to encourage Black voters to show up to the polls. On an election day, the bus might pull up to a polling place to play music or give out water and snacks.
Then Georgia’s legislature made it a crime to hand out food or water to people in line to vote. Albright said the change seemed specifically designed to target groups like his, and it’s just one way that voting advocates have had to adapt to new, restrictive laws since the US supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act ten years ago.
Before the Shelby county v Holder decision in 2013, nine mostly southern states had to notify the US Department of Justice if they planned to make any changes to their voting law because of their histories of racial discrimination.
But when the court ruled that pre-clearance was no longer necessary, states and local boards of elections could get away with quietly changing laws and policies without notification – from adding new voter ID requirements to closing a polling place in a rural town.
Voting advocates say they had to step in to fill that gap, alerting others and legal organizations when voting changes are problematic or necessitate legal action. Many say they feel like they’re playing Whac-a-Mole, trying to educate and register voters while also having to work to defeat suppressive legislation that would impose new rules on mail-in voting or limit drop boxes or require proof of citizenship to vote.
Here’s how four organizers in the south say that the Shelby decision has shaped their work and the struggle for voting rights:………
www.theguardian.com
Then Georgia’s legislature made it a crime to hand out food or water to people in line to vote. Albright said the change seemed specifically designed to target groups like his, and it’s just one way that voting advocates have had to adapt to new, restrictive laws since the US supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act ten years ago.
Before the Shelby county v Holder decision in 2013, nine mostly southern states had to notify the US Department of Justice if they planned to make any changes to their voting law because of their histories of racial discrimination.
But when the court ruled that pre-clearance was no longer necessary, states and local boards of elections could get away with quietly changing laws and policies without notification – from adding new voter ID requirements to closing a polling place in a rural town.
Voting advocates say they had to step in to fill that gap, alerting others and legal organizations when voting changes are problematic or necessitate legal action. Many say they feel like they’re playing Whac-a-Mole, trying to educate and register voters while also having to work to defeat suppressive legislation that would impose new rules on mail-in voting or limit drop boxes or require proof of citizenship to vote.
Here’s how four organizers in the south say that the Shelby decision has shaped their work and the struggle for voting rights:………
‘Democracy is on life support’: the organizers fighting voter suppression in the US south
After the 2013 supreme court ruling decimated the Voting Rights Act, advocates are working round the clock to ensure the ballot is accessible to all
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
I think it's a reasonably good "guess".....low hanging fruit until the next decision that goes against the will of the people.....Alito, Thomas and any others that have been grifting as SC pretenders should be in a jail cell.....
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
waiting for the (R) spin on this one
www.politico.com
A federal judge on Monday blocked a new Florida election law pushed by Republicans that puts restrictions on voter registration groups, calling it “Florida’s latest assault on the right to vote.”
Federal judge halts new Florida law he calls 'latest assault' on voting
Democrats who voted against the law, as well as the groups that challenged it, hailed the decision.
www.politico.com
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
- Thread starter
- #809
OP
OP
MT15
Well-known member
Offline
Meanwhile, ProPublica found that new laws in GA allow people to make unlimited challenges to voter registrations. Therefore just six individuals were responsible for over 89,000 of the 100,000 or so voter registration challenges. Guess which party they are part of? Guess which counties were mostly targeted? They can file these from their homes, but the voters who are challenged may have to attend hearings to defend their right to vote - in one case a cancer patient had to drive 2 hours to such a hearing. I think if they want unlimited challenges, then the people making the challenges must also attend the hearings.
www.propublica.org
Close to 100,000 Voter Registrations Were Challenged in Georgia — Almost All by Just Six Right-Wing Activists
The recent transformation of the state’s election laws explicitly enabled citizens to file unlimited challenges to other voters’ registrations. Experts warn that election officials’ handling of some of those challenges may clash with federal law.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
That's just messed up. The registar's office should have a staff who vets these challenges before anyone has to attend any hearings. They should have the ability of weeding out invalid challenges, i.e. the challenged voter has already been vetted or the registration is in order and correct so that they're not wasting time dealing with unjustified challenges.Meanwhile, ProPublica found that new laws in GA allow people to make unlimited challenges to voter registrations. Therefore just six individuals were responsible for over 89,000 of the 100,000 or so voter registration challenges. Guess which party they are part of? Guess which counties were mostly targeted? They can file these from their homes, but the voters who are challenged may have to attend hearings to defend their right to vote - in one case a cancer patient had to drive 2 hours to such a hearing. I think if they want unlimited challenges, then the people making the challenges must also attend the hearings.
Close to 100,000 Voter Registrations Were Challenged in Georgia — Almost All by Just Six Right-Wing Activists
The recent transformation of the state’s election laws explicitly enabled citizens to file unlimited challenges to other voters’ registrations. Experts warn that election officials’ handling of some of those challenges may clash with federal law.
And challenges do need to be limited. For anyone submitting more than a handful of challenges, if the challenges are found to be invalid, the challengers can lose their challenge privileges.
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.