Let's Keep the Wrong Sort of People From Voting

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Disgraceful. This is partisanship gone too far.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/29/3573557/the-supreme-courts-first-decision-in-its-new-term-is-a-decision-making-it-harder-to-vote/

On Monday, the Supreme Court returned from its summer vacation for the “Long Conference,” the day when the justices consider the backlog of petitions asking them to hear cases that built up while they were away for the summer. Yet, despite the fact that the justices typically face hundreds of petitions that they must consider during this conference, five of them still found time on Monday to make it harder for Ohio residents to cast a vote. In a 5-4 decision that divided entirely along partisan lines, the Court allowed cuts to Ohio’s early voting days to go into effect. Notably, this decision came down just 16 hours before polling places were set to open in that state.

Monday’s decision is not particularly surprising. Earlier this month, a federal trial judge halted changes to Ohio’s early voting procedures that cut the number of early voting days by a week, including one Sunday before election day. This decision was upheld by an unusually liberal panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. All four of the judges who previously considered this case are well to the left of the Supreme Court’s five Republican members.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.

This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Disgraceful. This is partisanship gone too far.

http://thinkprogress...harder-to-vote/

On Monday, the Supreme Court returned from its summer vacation for the “Long Conference,” the day when the justices consider the backlog of petitions asking them to hear cases that built up while they were away for the summer. Yet, despite the fact that the justices typically face hundreds of petitions that they must consider during this conference, five of them still found time on Monday to make it harder for Ohio residents to cast a vote. In a 5-4 decision that divided entirely along partisan lines, the Court allowed cuts to Ohio’s early voting days to go into effect. Notably, this decision came down just 16 hours before polling places were set to open in that state.

Monday’s decision is not particularly surprising. Earlier this month, a federal trial judge halted changes to Ohio’s early voting procedures that cut the number of early voting days by a week, including one Sunday before election day. This decision was upheld by an unusually liberal panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. All four of the judges who previously considered this case are well to the left of the Supreme Court’s five Republican members.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.

This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.

Its interesting how you and others like you affirm that you're not a racist. Preferring that African Americans be held to a lower standard speaks volumes about you. The rules uniformly apply to everyone. The end.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Disgraceful. This is partisanship gone too far.

http://thinkprogress...harder-to-vote/

On Monday, the Supreme Court returned from its summer vacation for the “Long Conference,” the day when the justices consider the backlog of petitions asking them to hear cases that built up while they were away for the summer. Yet, despite the fact that the justices typically face hundreds of petitions that they must consider during this conference, five of them still found time on Monday to make it harder for Ohio residents to cast a vote. In a 5-4 decision that divided entirely along partisan lines, the Court allowed cuts to Ohio’s early voting days to go into effect. Notably, this decision came down just 16 hours before polling places were set to open in that state.

Monday’s decision is not particularly surprising. Earlier this month, a federal trial judge halted changes to Ohio’s early voting procedures that cut the number of early voting days by a week, including one Sunday before election day. This decision was upheld by an unusually liberal panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. All four of the judges who previously considered this case are well to the left of the Supreme Court’s five Republican members.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.

This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.

Its interesting how you and others like you affirm that you're not a racist. Preferring that African Americans be held to a lower standard speaks volumes about you. The rules uniformly apply to everyone. The end.

The rules were changed with the specific goal of affecting minority voting. That is wrong. That cannot be justified.

There is no lower standard, that is just stupid rhetoric. Please, learn the difference between rhetoric and reality, please.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Blue....ever notice how when a 5-4 ruling is ridiculous when one doesn't like it but completely OK when it goes their way.

[AUUSN 823]

I can take a picture of a check and submit it to may bank for deposit via my smartphone but we still have yet to find an electronic means to allow people to vote via a secured website. There's a reason for that...

I read the court document and there are some valid concerns.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Disgraceful. This is partisanship gone too far.

http://thinkprogress...harder-to-vote/

On Monday, the Supreme Court returned from its summer vacation for the “Long Conference,” the day when the justices consider the backlog of petitions asking them to hear cases that built up while they were away for the summer. Yet, despite the fact that the justices typically face hundreds of petitions that they must consider during this conference, five of them still found time on Monday to make it harder for Ohio residents to cast a vote. In a 5-4 decision that divided entirely along partisan lines, the Court allowed cuts to Ohio’s early voting days to go into effect. Notably, this decision came down just 16 hours before polling places were set to open in that state.

Monday’s decision is not particularly surprising. Earlier this month, a federal trial judge halted changes to Ohio’s early voting procedures that cut the number of early voting days by a week, including one Sunday before election day. This decision was upheld by an unusually liberal panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. All four of the judges who previously considered this case are well to the left of the Supreme Court’s five Republican members.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.

This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.

Its interesting how you and others like you affirm that you're not a racist. Preferring that African Americans be held to a lower standard speaks volumes about you. The rules uniformly apply to everyone. The end.

The rules were changed with the specific goal of affecting minority voting. That is wrong. That cannot be justified.

There is no lower standard, that is just stupid rhetoric. Please, learn the difference between rhetoric and reality, please.

Disgraceful. This is partisanship gone too far.

http://thinkprogress...harder-to-vote/

On Monday, the Supreme Court returned from its summer vacation for the “Long Conference,” the day when the justices consider the backlog of petitions asking them to hear cases that built up while they were away for the summer. Yet, despite the fact that the justices typically face hundreds of petitions that they must consider during this conference, five of them still found time on Monday to make it harder for Ohio residents to cast a vote. In a 5-4 decision that divided entirely along partisan lines, the Court allowed cuts to Ohio’s early voting days to go into effect. Notably, this decision came down just 16 hours before polling places were set to open in that state.

Monday’s decision is not particularly surprising. Earlier this month, a federal trial judge halted changes to Ohio’s early voting procedures that cut the number of early voting days by a week, including one Sunday before election day. This decision was upheld by an unusually liberal panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. All four of the judges who previously considered this case are well to the left of the Supreme Court’s five Republican members.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.

This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.

Its interesting how you and others like you affirm that you're not a racist. Preferring that African Americans be held to a lower standard speaks volumes about you. The rules uniformly apply to everyone. The end.

The rules were changed with the specific goal of affecting minority voting. That is wrong. That cannot be justified.

There is no lower standard, that is just stupid rhetoric. Please, learn the difference between rhetoric and reality, please.

So, its cool to expect aka demand a photo ID for everything else, buying liquor, boarding a plane, open a bank account or even cash a check OH, and maybe the best of ALL, to attend the 2012 Democrat Nat'l Convention but it is racist to require a FREE photo ID to vote. Is that hypocrisy or irony ichy? You're the board genius..what would you call that? Rhetoric or reality? LOL

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

AUUSN......what is that reason?

[AUUSN 823]

AUUSN......what is that reason?

Republicans don't want certain people to vote...

Democrats want certain people to vote...

Both have nefarious reasons.

[TheBlueVue 177]

AUUSN......what is that reason?

Republicans don't want certain people to vote...

Democrats want certain people to vote...

Both have nefarious reasons.

Yep, it boils down to one inescapable reality. Voter fraud exists and democrats favor it because it is dead and unregistered democrats that are committing said fraud. Republicans prefer keeping the voting to those who are living and registered and are thus racists for acting on that preference.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So is it wrong to want only people who are alive and registered to be able to vote? No Dem. ever gives an intelligent answer on why ID is required for so many things but to vote it's a bad idea.

[TheBlueVue 177]

So is it wrong to want only people who are alive and registered to be able to vote? No Dem. ever gives an intelligent answer on why ID is required for so many things but to vote it's a bad idea.

Here's report close to our nation's capital. Voter fraud is much bigger than the left wants to acknowledge

http://www.gazette.net/article/20130926/OPINION/130929317/1014/voter-x2018-fraud-does-exist-and-it-does-matter-x2019&template=gazette

[AUFAN78 3,889]

I get the voter fraud issue. But are you guys intimating early voting days are simply a carrier for such fraud?

[Kassc22 0]

What is the reasoning behind needing all this early voting time? There are absentee ballots that should take care of most of the problem. Ohio has a law where employers must give time off to employees to allow them to vote, they must be paid for that time off, they do not even have to give advance notice to the employer, they can just say I'm going to vote and leave. They don't have to prove that they voted, and if they want to they can work at the polls that day and the employer has to let them. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.06

Now I realize that this doesn't apply to every state, although 30 of them force employers to allow you vote even if you are scheduled for that day. Between that and absentee ballots I would like someone to give me valid reasons that all of these early voting days are needed. Why can people not vote on the appointed day?

[TitanTiger 20,465]

I've always wondered why we don't have voting over a couple of days instead of just one, and why not have one of those days be a Saturday just to maximize the opportunity for people to vote?

[cooltigger21 0]

What is the reasoning behind needing all this early voting time? There are absentee ballots that should take care of most of the problem. Ohio has a law where employers must give time off to employees to allow them to vote, they must be paid for that time off, they do not even have to give advance notice to the employer, they can just say I'm going to vote and leave. They don't have to prove that they voted, and if they want to they can work at the polls that day and the employer has to let them. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.06

Now I realize that this doesn't apply to every state, although 30 of them force employers to allow you vote even if you are scheduled for that day. Between that and absentee ballots I would like someone to give me valid reasons that all of these early voting days are needed. Why can people not vote on the appointed day?

It's not just early voting but they want to get online voting as well. Now you tell me that isn't ripe for fraud.

[Kassc22 0]

What is the reasoning behind needing all this early voting time? There are absentee ballots that should take care of most of the problem. Ohio has a law where employers must give time off to employees to allow them to vote, they must be paid for that time off, they do not even have to give advance notice to the employer, they can just say I'm going to vote and leave. They don't have to prove that they voted, and if they want to they can work at the polls that day and the employer has to let them. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.06

Now I realize that this doesn't apply to every state, although 30 of them force employers to allow you vote even if you are scheduled for that day. Between that and absentee ballots I would like someone to give me valid reasons that all of these early voting days are needed. Why can people not vote on the appointed day?

It's not just early voting but they want to get online voting as well. Now you tell me that isn't ripe for fraud.

Right now any election that relies on online voting would be about as legitimate as Syrian presidential election. No matter what people say hacking is just too easy.

[AUUSN 823]

What is the reasoning behind needing all this early voting time? There are absentee ballots that should take care of most of the problem. Ohio has a law where employers must give time off to employees to allow them to vote, they must be paid for that time off, they do not even have to give advance notice to the employer, they can just say I'm going to vote and leave. They don't have to prove that they voted, and if they want to they can work at the polls that day and the employer has to let them. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.06

Now I realize that this doesn't apply to every state, although 30 of them force employers to allow you vote even if you are scheduled for that day. Between that and absentee ballots I would like someone to give me valid reasons that all of these early voting days are needed. Why can people not vote on the appointed day?

It's not just early voting but they want to get online voting as well. Now you tell me that isn't ripe for fraud.

Right now any election that relies on online voting would be about as legitimate as Syrian presidential election. No matter what people say hacking is just too easy.

But yet every other aspect of our life is done online. It can be done, there's just no political motivation to make it happen.

[AUUSN 823]

I've always wondered why we don't have voting over a couple of days instead of just one, and why not have one of those days be a Saturday just to maximize the opportunity for people to vote?

I'm with you but I just get the feeling that there's motivation from certain areas of the political realm to make it as hard as possible to vote.

[Kassc22 0]

What is the reasoning behind needing all this early voting time? There are absentee ballots that should take care of most of the problem. Ohio has a law where employers must give time off to employees to allow them to vote, they must be paid for that time off, they do not even have to give advance notice to the employer, they can just say I'm going to vote and leave. They don't have to prove that they voted, and if they want to they can work at the polls that day and the employer has to let them. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.06

Now I realize that this doesn't apply to every state, although 30 of them force employers to allow you vote even if you are scheduled for that day. Between that and absentee ballots I would like someone to give me valid reasons that all of these early voting days are needed. Why can people not vote on the appointed day?

It's not just early voting but they want to get online voting as well. Now you tell me that isn't ripe for fraud.

Right now any election that relies on online voting would be about as legitimate as Syrian presidential election. No matter what people say hacking is just too easy.

But yet every other aspect of our life is done online. It can be done, there's just no political motivation to make it happen.

Yes, but people trust corporations, businesses, etc...Only a fool trusts a politician. Money can be recovered. You can live with identity theft although it sucks ( I speak from experience) Someone stealing an election can ruin your life and the country. Imagine if one party stole the election and did away with the constitution and bill of rights.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I've always wondered why we don't have voting over a couple of days instead of just one, and why not have one of those days be a Saturday just to maximize the opportunity for people to vote?

I'm with you but I just get the feeling that there's motivation from certain areas of the political realm to make it as hard as possible to vote.

Well there are those who agree with you but IMO, there is a "motivation from certain areas of the political realm" to make the vote as legitimate as possible. People disagree on this topic and usually their disagreement runs along political lines. The demmys got to demagogue so naturally they whine "voter suppression"

[Kassc22 0]

I've always wondered why we don't have voting over a couple of days instead of just one, and why not have one of those days be a Saturday just to maximize the opportunity for people to vote?

I'm with you but I just get the feeling that there's motivation from certain areas of the political realm to make it as hard as possible to vote.

Well there are those who agree with you but IMO, there is a "motivation from certain areas of the political realm" to make the vote as legitimate as possible. People disagree and on this topic and usually their disagreement runs along political lines. The demmys got to demagogue so naturally they whine "voter suppression"

Asking someone to show ID to prove who they are to me is not suppression. They ask for your ID when you use a credit card(when they don't you can be in big trouble, and yes I know some places are lax about it), check, your insurance card, buy cold medicine and other things to prove you have the right to use those things. Protecting your vote is just as important. It belongs to you and should be used as you see fit, just as your money belongs to you and should be used as you see fit. Someone stealing your vote is a serious crime.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Protecting your vote is just as important. It belongs to you and should be used as you see fit, just as your money belongs to you and should be used as you see fit. Someone stealing your vote is a serious crime."

Here, here! I agree with you but you see there is always an effort to seize a politically available resource called dead voters when no voter ID is required and that is awfully appealing to some. Those who are getting them tend to look the other way.

[cptau 169]

All this seems to defeat the purpose of an "election day" when campaigns are over and a snapshot is taken of the electorate's choice.

It has been proposed and I think it is an good idea to move all US election dates to Sunday. Most of the world and almost all of Europe votes on Sunday. Keep the polls open from 7 am to 10 pm that day and have at it. Most people are off from work and there is little traffic on the streets. Go vote,

The comment about online voting made earlier is correct, it is open to more fraud because of technology. Think about how well Target, Home Depot, and Jimmy Johns protected your credit cards and then there is Heathcare.gov...

However absentee voting with paper ballots is also open to fraud with persons other that the voters completing the ballots and mailing them back to the court clerks. So yes you could vote on line, but then the losers would object to the results just as they object to electronic voting machines and absentee ballots.

[AUUSN 823]

I've always wondered why we don't have voting over a couple of days instead of just one, and why not have one of those days be a Saturday just to maximize the opportunity for people to vote?

I'm with you but I just get the feeling that there's motivation from certain areas of the political realm to make it as hard as possible to vote.

Well there are those who agree with you but IMO, there is a "motivation from certain areas of the political realm" to make the vote as legitimate as possible. People disagree and on this topic and usually their disagreement runs along political lines. The demmys got to demagogue so naturally they whine "voter suppression"

Asking someone to show ID to prove who they are to me is not suppression. They ask for your ID when you use a credit card(when they don't you can be in big trouble, and yes I know some places are lax about it), check, your insurance card, buy cold medicine and other things to prove you have the right to use those things. Protecting your vote is just as important. It belongs to you and should be used as you see fit, just as your money belongs to you and should be used as you see fit. Someone stealing your vote is a serious crime.

I completely agree. It's good enough for the Afghanis

We can go online but it will require a token (id card, etc.) and solid encryption.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I get the voter fraud issue. But are you guys intimating early voting days are simply a carrier for such fraud?

Thank you. You were ignored but, you tried. I appreciate the effort.