Conservatives and voting/election bills

[BizTiger 242]

Question for the conservatives on the board: 

Would you be in favor of your Republican representation negotiating a bipartisan voting rights/access/security bill?

I'm hearing a lot of talk radio ads saying how the Democrats bill is a federal takeover. Why aren't any GOP reps and senators making that not so?

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

14 hours ago, BizTiger said:

Question for the conservatives on the board: 

Would you be in favor of your Republican representation negotiating a bipartisan voting rights/access/security bill?

I'm hearing a lot of talk radio ads saying how the Democrats bill is a federal takeover. Why aren't any GOP reps and senators making that not so?

The Federalization of the voting rights bill is a non-starter.  The Democrats are desperate to pass this, so much so, they are willing to abolish the filibuster to do so.  Come 2023 the make up of the Congress could look a whole lot different and Biden is panicking. He gets very ugly went he panics and starts shaming  Americans that doesn’t agree with his policies. 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Federalization of the voting rights bill is a non-starter.  The Democrats are desperate to pass this, so much so, they are willing to abolish the filibuster to do so.  Come 2023 the make up of the Congress could look a whole lot different and Biden is panicking. He gets very ugly went he panics and starts shaming  Americans that doesn’t agree with his policies. 

Since the hot-button issue at hand is voting, and eliminating the filibuster is such a priority for the Democrats in order to attempt to federalize, I'll share this.

Pretty good from Tom Cotton...watch until the end.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, SLAG-91 said:

Since the hot-button issue at hand is voting, and eliminating the filibuster is such a priority for the Democrats in order to attempt to federalize, I'll share this.

Pretty good from Tom Cotton...watch until the end.

 

Nailed it!!

[BizTiger 242]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Federalization of the voting rights bill is a non-starter.  The Democrats are desperate to pass this, so much so, they are willing to abolish the filibuster to do so.  Come 2023 the make up of the Congress could look a whole lot different and Biden is panicking. He gets very ugly went he panics and starts shaming  Americans that doesn’t agree with his policies. 

So, why are conservative Republicans at the table making sure this legislation is pulled away from the left and closer to the right?

Joe Manchin tried this and getting other Republicans on board but nobody else seems to want to bite.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

4 minutes ago, BizTiger said:

So, why are conservative Republicans at the table making sure this legislation is pulled away from the left and closer to the right?

Joe Manchin tried this and getting other Republicans on board but nobody else seems to want to bite.

 

Because of my first line in my earlier response.  The federalization of voting rights is a non starter and, to my knowledge, the Democrats are not coming off of that stance.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

1 hour ago, SLAG-91 said:

eliminating the filibuster

 

Did the Democrats just use the filibuster to kill Ted Cruz’s Nord Stream 2 sanctions?

How odd.

[BizTiger 242]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Because of my first line in my earlier response.  The federalization of voting rights is a non starter and, to my knowledge, the Democrats are not coming off of that stance.

 

Voting rights is already federalized via the Constitution. Do conservatives not want any election security that comes along with this? Seems it would be common sense to ensure some conservative priorities are implemented...

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 minutes ago, BizTiger said:

 

Voting rights is already federalized via the Constitution. Do conservatives not want any election security that comes along with this? Seems it would be common sense to ensure some conservative priorities are implemented...

It is federalized with respect to who can vote and at what age, handicap accessibility etc,  but not to voter registration and ID.  This bill would turn most of the States’ responsibility over to the feds. The Constitution gives certain responsibilities to the states, but Congress can step in if they feel states have not addressed certain aspect properly.  I don’t think the states have been guilty of overstepping their bounds to the point of relinquishing their Constitutional rights in this area.  Most of the Senators agree.

[homersapien 11,440]

I'd like to hear from anyone opposing this legislation why they are against any of the following provisions:

What the bill would require on voting access:

• Election Day as a federal holiday. 
• Online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. 
• A minimum of 15 days of early voting, including during at least two weekends.
• No-excuse mail voting with ample access to ballot drop boxes and online ballot tracking, in addition to streamlined election mail delivery by the US Postal Service.
• States would need to accept a wide range of forms of non-photographic identification in places where ID is required to vote.  
• Counting eligible votes on provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. 
• Restoring voting rights to formerly incarcerated people convicted of felonies. 
• Imposes stricter regulations on voter list maintenance that make it harder for states to remove eligible voters from the rolls.
• More protections and resources to serve voters with disabilities and overseas/military voters.  
• Greater federal protections and oversight for voting in US territories. 
• Improving voter registration resources and outreach, in addition to reauthorizing and strengthening the US Election Assistance Commission. 
• The bill also includes the Right to Vote Act, which creates an affirmative right to vote in federal law.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1

[bigbird 60,580]

2 hours ago, BizTiger said:

Do conservatives not want any election security that comes along with this?

Would voter ID requirements be considered election security?

[BizTiger 242]

Just now, bigbird said:

Would voter ID requirements be considered election security?

It could and should be IMO. Automatic voter registration thru the states via drivers license. 

[autigeremt 6,686]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'd like to hear from anyone opposing this legislation why they are against any of the following provisions:

What the bill would require on voting access:

• Election Day as a federal holiday. 
• Online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. 
• A minimum of 15 days of early voting, including during at least two weekends.
• No-excuse mail voting with ample access to ballot drop boxes and online ballot tracking, in addition to streamlined election mail delivery by the US Postal Service.
• States would need to accept a wide range of forms of non-photographic identification in places where ID is required to vote.  
• Counting eligible votes on provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. 
• Restoring voting rights to formerly incarcerated people convicted of felonies. 
• Imposes stricter regulations on voter list maintenance that make it harder for states to remove eligible voters from the rolls.
• More protections and resources to serve voters with disabilities and overseas/military voters.  
• Greater federal protections and oversight for voting in US territories. 
• Improving voter registration resources and outreach, in addition to reauthorizing and strengthening the US Election Assistance Commission. 
• The bill also includes the Right to Vote Act, which creates an affirmative right to vote in federal law.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1

COTUS 

[Grumps 3,704]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'd like to hear from anyone opposing this legislation why they are against any of the following provisions:

What the bill would require on voting access:

• Election Day as a federal holiday. I don't see the point of it, especially since we are moving away from an election day. It is more of the "end of the election" day. If it is going to be a holiday why not have that day set aside for people to vote?
• Online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. Sounds good. Why even register? Just vote. I am assuming there would be a database of all eligible voters.
• A minimum of 15 days of early voting, including during at least two weekends. Sounds good. The important thing is for the people to know when voting has ended and for the results to be released in a timely manner.
• No-excuse mail voting with ample access to ballot drop boxes and online ballot tracking, in addition to streamlined election mail delivery by the US Postal Service. It would be better to move toward more online voting. No-excuse voting (if it means what it sounds like) could mean that votes lost in the mail could be counted ling after the election was over. There has to be an end date to counting votes. I don't think that drop boxes are a good idea unless they are only for people who have documented inability to take their ballot to a polling place.
• States would need to accept a wide range of forms of non-photographic identification in places where ID is required to vote. Make no sense.  Let the states decide. Is there a problem with photographic identification?
• Counting eligible votes on provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Online voting could fix that. I think that counting votes in a precinct where the voter is not an eligible voter is a bad idea.
• Restoring voting rights to formerly incarcerated people convicted of felonies. I am very much in favor of restoring voter rights to felons who have served their time for their crimes.
• Imposes stricter regulations on voter list maintenance that make it harder for states to remove eligible voters from the rolls. I am very much in favor of voter lists being accurate. Make it hard to remove eligible voters and easy to remove ineligible voters. Err on the side of allowing the vote.
• More protections and resources to serve voters with disabilities and overseas/military voters. If voters with disabilities or overseas/military voters are not being allowed to vote then I am all for making it easier. I am not aware of how hard it is for them. Online voting should fix this. 
• Greater federal protections and oversight for voting in US territories. I am ignorant as to whether there is a problem here, but I certainly want eliglible voters in U.S. territories to be able to vote.
• Improving voter registration resources and outreach, in addition to reauthorizing and strengthening the US Election Assistance Commission. I don't know anything about this either, but it sounds suspicious.
• The bill also includes the Right to Vote Act, which creates an affirmative right to vote in federal law. Can you explain? I thought that eligible voters already had a right to vote in federal law. Again, sounds suspicious.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1

I don't support or oppose the legislation, but here are some thoughts for you to consider or not.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'd like to hear from anyone opposing this legislation why they are against any of the following provisions:

What the bill would require on voting access:

• Election Day as a federal holiday. 
• Online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. 
• A minimum of 15 days of early voting, including during at least two weekends.
• No-excuse mail voting with ample access to ballot drop boxes and online ballot tracking, in addition to streamlined election mail delivery by the US Postal Service.
• States would need to accept a wide range of forms of non-photographic identification in places where ID is required to vote.  
• Counting eligible votes on provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. 
• Restoring voting rights to formerly incarcerated people convicted of felonies. 
• Imposes stricter regulations on voter list maintenance that make it harder for states to remove eligible voters from the rolls.
• More protections and resources to serve voters with disabilities and overseas/military voters.  
• Greater federal protections and oversight for voting in US territories. 
• Improving voter registration resources and outreach, in addition to reauthorizing and strengthening the US Election Assistance Commission. 
• The bill also includes the Right to Vote Act, which creates an affirmative right to vote in federal law.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1

Why would legislation be advanced that would give a voter 15 days of early voting, no-excuse mail in voting and make the Election Day a federal holiday?  If the first two were enacted, the voting holiday should not be needed.  It would be a waste, but people sure would love to have an extra day off each year.

Why would states have to accept a wide range of forms of non-photographic identification?  That is a state’s right to enact, not federal’s government, or is that the point?

Imposes stricter regulations on voter list maintenance that make it harder for states to remove eligible voters from the rolls.  How long does a person need to be dead before they are removed from the eligible voters list?  There are jokes about this for a reason.

The Right to Vote Act (John L. Lewis VRAA) :

takes particular aim at the Supreme Court and federal courts, seeking to undo rulings that have struck down or weakened key components of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

Most significantly, it creates a new formula to restore the federal preclearance requirement mandating states with histories of discrimination to seek permission from the federal government before enacting new voting rules or redistricting plans. The Supreme Court struck down the previous coverage formula in the landmark 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision.

It also undoes the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Brnovich vs. DNC, which significantly watered down the protections against race-based voter discrimination under Section 2 of the VRA.

https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1

Really?  It reverses SCOTUS decisions as recent as 2013 and 2021 by Congressional decree? 

Who would decide which states have histories of discrimination and how long does that history go back?

This bill puts a lot of power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats to interpret.

What this bill does is make every state, no matter the makeup of the state’s legislator, a blue state.  It takes the power of the people one step further away than they had before.  Giving power to already powerful people is not what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind.  A hard no on this whole thing.

[pensacolatiger 313]

This is the only shot dem’s have at maintaining power.  Everyone has seen how pathetically incapable they are at leading and their true communist colors.  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

The fact that the left considers requiring an ID to vote “suppression” is comical. Trying to compare something like that to Jim Crow laws is stupid. 
 

It’s a pretty simple requirement. I don’t have an issue showing mine when voting. 

[autigeremt 6,686]

13 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't support or oppose the legislation, but here are some thoughts for you to consider or not.

And as usual ICHY slaps his forehead 😂

[AU9377 5,035]

On 1/14/2022 at 1:51 PM, I_M4_AU said:

 

Did the Democrats just use the filibuster to kill Ted Cruz’s Nord Stream 2 sanctions?

How odd.

Ted Cruz..............The question is how does anyone trust this guy?  He is one of the many examples of what is so wrong with American politics.

[AU9377 5,035]

15 hours ago, pensacolatiger said:

This is the only shot dem’s have at maintaining power.  Everyone has seen how pathetically incapable they are at leading and their true communist colors.  

You actually believe that BS?  If so, you have been watching way too much Fox, OAN, etc etc....

I don't support the voting rights legislation as it is written simply because I do not believe that Federal oversight is needed and I doubt that most versions are constitutional.  However, I also won't pretend that the recent voting legislation passed by states like Texas and Georgia was anything other than trying to rig the system.  That is what it was.  Next time a sitting Republican President calls and says "find me the votes", the answer will be "yes sir" from the mouth of an appointed board member, instead of an elected Secretary of State.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

You actually believe that BS?  If so, you have been watching way too much Fox, OAN, etc etc....

I don't support the voting rights legislation as it is written simply because I do not believe that Federal oversight is needed and I doubt that most versions are constitutional.  However, I also won't pretend that the recent voting legislation passed by states like Texas and Georgia was anything other than trying to rig the system.  That is what it was.  Next time a sitting Republican President calls and says "find me the votes", the answer will be "yes sir" from the mouth of an appointed board member, instead of an elected Secretary of State.

Have you actually read what the voting law changes were here in Texas? Hardly counts as trying to “rig” the system. The most restrictive thing it does is ban drive through early voting and a 24hr voting ban. But, at the same time extended the time that the polls must be open and lowered the population threshold that counties must then have a certain amount of early voting opportunities. Also requires an ID for mail in voting and now checks voter registrations to answers that people give to DPS when getting or renewing DL’s and ID cards. 
 

Other than possibly the drive through voting, I don’t see anything wrong with the new law. But as long as there are many other voting places and opportunities then not having a drive through place shouldn’t be a big deal. Most counties that had one only had one to begin with as far as I know. 
 

I can’t speak for Georgia, but the law changes here are in no way “suppressive” or “rigging” the system. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Have you actually read what the voting law changes were here in Texas? Hardly counts as trying to “rig” the system. The most restrictive thing it does is ban drive through early voting and a 24hr voting ban. But, at the same time extended the time that the polls must be open and lowered the population threshold that counties must then have a certain amount of early voting opportunities. Also requires an ID for mail in voting and now checks voter registrations to answers that people give to DPS when getting or renewing DL’s and ID cards. 
 

Other than possibly the drive through voting, I don’t see anything wrong with the new law. But as long as there are many other voting places and opportunities then not having a drive through place shouldn’t be a big deal. Most counties that had one only had one to begin with as far as I know. 
 

I can’t speak for Georgia, but the law changes here are in no way “suppressive” or “rigging” the system. 

Did you read the drop box limitation? 

[homersapien 11,440]

On 1/15/2022 at 12:26 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Why would legislation be advanced that would give a voter 15 days of early voting, no-excuse mail in voting and make the Election Day a federal holiday? 

 

Why not?

Why not allow for an additional 15 days to vote?  It would accommodate people who have conflicts on the one day they are allowed to vote.

What is so important about having only have one day to vote in the first place?

Many people can't just leave work or have scheduling difficulties that make voting before or after work difficult. So why not make it a holiday to eliminate that issue? 

Voting is certainly important enough.

Edited January 16, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

On 1/15/2022 at 12:26 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Why would states have to accept a wide range of forms of non-photographic identification?  That is a state’s right to enact, not federal’s government, or is that the point?

We apparently don't have a significant problem with voting without photo IDs, so why impose additional rules that aren't needed?

And the basic problem we are talking about is the ability of states controlled by a single party to modify voting requirements in order to favor that party.    The right to vote is a constitutional (federal) right.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

51 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Did you read the drop box limitation? 

I don’t recall it explicitly in the article from the Tribune that I read. Of it is referring to a drop box without someone manning it I agree they shouldn’t have that. But if they have someone overseeing it then I don’t see that to be any different than dropping off one at the polls. 
 

Either way, that is still hardly anything close to “rigging” the election.