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.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, no kidding. The narrative is extremely transparent, yet seems to be highly effective with the target audience.

 

[zztop]

hmm doesn't seem much, but there probably isn't much a mayor could do

Atlanta's mayor signs executive order to "mitigate" impact of Georgia's voting restrictions

This order "is designed to do what ... the state legislature did not — expand access to our right to vote.”

www.axios.com

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

 

[Roofgardener]

hmm doesn't seem much, but there probably isn't much a mayor could do

Atlanta's mayor signs executive order to "mitigate" impact of Georgia's voting restrictions

This order "is designed to do what ... the state legislature did not — expand access to our right to vote.”

www.axios.com

I've read the EO (you can find it here ). It mostly seems to call for training of staff involved in balloting, and enable them to advise residents of Atlanta on the mechanisms of mail-in ballots etc.

On the face of it, it seems eminently sensible ?

I must say, the issue of the EO pales into insignificance compared to the fact that the Majors name is Bottom ? That brightened my entire day up.

 

[V Chip]

the Majors name is Bottom ? That brightened my entire day up.

Georgia has so many people with the last name of Butts — there’s a county called Butts County.

 

[samiam5211]

I would be in favor of a compromise including national requirement that every state allow universal mail in voting where every registered voter was mailed a ballot, but require a signature and copy of a form of ID, doesn’t have to be a photo ID, a copy of a birth certificate or Social Security card would be fine.

 

[Roofgardener]

Georgia has so many people with the last name of Butts — there’s a county called Butts County.

That's just splendid !

We have a Boggy Bottom in the UK, and also a village called Beer !

 

[Roofgardener]

I would be in favor of a compromise including national requirement that every state allow universal mail in voting where every registered voter was mailed a ballot, but require a signature and copy of a form of ID, doesn’t have to be a photo ID, a copy of a birth certificate or Social Security card would be fine.

Seems reasonable, providing they check for duplicates.

As a side-issue; Didn't some states refuse to check (or rather, match) signatures ? Or rather, a non-matching signature was deemed insufficient to discount the ballot entry ?

 

[samiam5211]

Seems reasonable, providing they check for duplicates.

As a side-issue; Didn't some states refuse to check (or rather, match) signatures ? Or rather, a non-matching signature was deemed insufficient to discount the ballot entry ?

Signature matching every mail in ballot would he a huge waste of resources, IMO.

Low voter turnout is a much larger problem that people voting for someone else. Voter fraud is an imaginary boogeyman used by people who want to justify making it harder to vote.

 

[Roofgardener]

Signature matching every mail in ballot would he a huge waste of resources, IMO.

And yet it seems strange to state that signature mis-matches are NOT grounds for disqualifying a ballot paper ?

Low voter turnout is a much larger problem that people voting for someone else.

Actually, in a low voter turnout, a fraudulent vote has proportionally more influence, and hence is a bigger problem ?

Still, I'm getting off-topic. The Mayors executive order seems reasonable ?

 

[MT15]

Signature matching is extremely unreliable as a means of finding fraudulent ballots, roof. People who registered to vote decades ago often have signatures that look different than what’s on their voter registration, plus your signature can certainly change due to age or health issues.

The people doing the signature “matching” aren’t highly trained experts and tend to flag legitimate signatures. By post-election study, ballots from poorer and minority areas were flagged at a disproportionate rate, thus tending to disenfranchise minorities predominantly.

The amount of voter fraud that happens in this way is minuscule. It simply doesn’t matter.

Signature matching is terrible practice and should go away.

 

[samiam5211]

And yet it seems strange to state that signature mis-matches are NOT grounds for disqualifying a ballot paper ?

Actually, in a low voter turnout, a fraudulent vote has proportionally more influence, and hence is a bigger problem ?

Still, I'm getting off-topic. The Mayors executive order seems reasonable ?

1000 fraudulent votes in a statewide or national election isn't meaningful. If a statewide election was within a few hundred votes, you can bet the candidates will require recounts and more scrutiny over the votes, so that is when the signature matching would be triggered.

There isn't any reason to do it unless specific election results were close enough to warrant the extra scrutiny.

 

[Roofgardener]

1000 fraudulent votes in a statewide or national election isn't meaningful. If a statewide election was within a few hundred votes, you can bet the candidates will require recounts and more scrutiny over the votes, so that is when the signature matching would be triggered.

There isn't any reason to do it unless specific election results were close enough to warrant the extra scrutiny.

I'd probably agree, but why specify that a signature mis-match is NOT grounds for discounting a ballot ?
Imagine a hypothetical situation: two candidates get the same number of votes. The 'casting vote' is a ballot with an obviously fake signature. A recount would produce the same result, and the fake ballot would swing the election ?

So why specify that a bogus signature is not grounds for disqualifying the ballot ?

Anyway, it's all hypothetical and - once more - I'm wandering off topic.

 

[samiam5211]

I'd probably agree, but why specify that a signature mis-match is NOT grounds for discounting a ballot ?
Imagine a hypothetical situation: two candidates get the same number of votes. The 'casting vote' is a ballot with an obviously fake signature. A recount would produce the same result, and the fake ballot would swing the election ?

So why specify that a bogus signature is not grounds for disqualifying the ballot ?

Anyway, it's all hypothetical and - once more - I'm wandering off topic.

A signature not matching doesn't make it bogus. A vote shouldn't be thrown out simply because someone determined the signature didn't match. People's signature's aren't always consistent. They should contact the individual who's name is on the ballot to determine if it is their ballot.

 

[Roofgardener]

A signature not matching doesn't make it bogus. A vote shouldn't be thrown out simply because someone determined the signature didn't match. People's signature's aren't always consistent. They should contact the individual who's name is on the ballot to determine if it is their ballot.

I'd agree.. except that would - presumably - invalidate the ballot ANYWAY, as there wouldn't be time to contact the individual before the counts where announced.

 

[samiam5211]

I'd agree.. except that would - presumably - invalidate the ballot ANYWAY, as there wouldn't be time to contact the individual before the counts where announced.

Sure there would be. Signature matching would only become an issue during a recount really, and there is plenty of time to contact someone while a recount is taking place.

 

[Roofgardener]

Sure there would be. Signature matching would only become an issue during a recount really, and there is plenty of time to contact someone while a recount is taking place.

Truly ?

Well then, I applaud the Major of Atlanta's Executive Order, but hope she makes basic fraud detection a component of it

 

[CoolBrees]

Curious what fraud you are referring to ?