Conservatives and voting/election bills

[homersapien 11,440]

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

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) :

 

You'll have to help me out here. 

Is there anything in 'Right to Vote' that prevents states from eliminating (legitimately) dead people from the rolls?

This is a red herring.

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours 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.

Just curious. So a lot of you bitch about Georgia voting legislation. Even with the new legislation, Georgia offers more opportunity to vote than New York or New Jersey. So why not bitch about New York and New Jersey? Do tell.

[homersapien 11,440]

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

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

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

 

1) That's pretty much how our system works -  respond to SCOTUS rulings with direct legislation (for the SCOTUS to subsequently review).  And legislation is not exactly the same as a "decree".

2) The legislation itself or the courts, just like everything else that comes out of the legislative process.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

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.

 

Then what’s the problem with requiring an ID to vote? The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and ID is required to own one. Guess that pesky part of the constitution that leaves power to the state gets in the way. 
 

Your reasoning for not wanting an ID has no merit. It’s a simple requirement and if it stops just a handful of fraud (which we’ve discussed previously that it does happen, your response to my relative having someone vote in her name was basically “who cares it was only one vote”) then do it. It’s pretty damn easy to have an ID and it’s pretty much a good idea to have at all times any ways. 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

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?

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

It's certainly important enough.

Why not?  Because the 15 days to vote and no excuse absentee ballots should eliminate the need for EVERYBODY to get a paid holiday on Election Day.  Either make it a paid holiday and limit the vote to that one day or have 15 days to vote, not both.  The absentee ballots should be accompanied by the reason to acquire one.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

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. 

One per county, regardless of size or population:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/13/trump-judges-reinstate-texas-limit-on-ballot-drop-off-locations/amp/

[homersapien 11,440]

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

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.

Finally, a kernal of truth and honesty.

If more eligible voters actually voted, the Republicans are more likely to lose representation, at least in some states.

(Your comment about making all states "blue states" is obviously absurd. Many states are just dominated by backward, conservative people. Hopefully, in these states having more voter participation among some groups would at least give those groups fairer representation than the current systems do.

And if having more eligible voters actuallyvoting significantly changes legislative representation, what does that say about current voting regulation practices? )

As you implicitly admit, Republicans are a minority party with little interest in promoting policies that are supported by the majority of Americans.  This is exactly why they are trying to minimize voter turn-out.

And you'll have to explain why making it easier to vote for people somehow takes power from them.  That makes zero sense.

And of course, the framers didn't "have this in mind".  There were many categories of people who didn't have the right to vote in the original constitution.  That's exactly why the constitution has been amended from time to time - we have gradually become a more popular democracy instead of democracy restricted to privileged white males as originally written.

Edited January 16, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

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.

 

An ID is required in most every other privilege and/or right we have.  In DC the Mayor told the citizens of that city to not leave their house without an ID and proof of vaccination.  This is not a burden and will give people a sense of a fair election when the votes are counted.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) That's pretty much how our system works -  respond to SCOTUS rulings with direct legislation (for the SCOTUS to subsequently review).  And legislation is not exactly the same as a "decree".

2) The legislation itself or the courts, just like everything else that comes out of the legislative process.

Your statement disregards what the SCOTUS ruled and why they ruled that way.  For example the 2013 Shelby County v Holder was because the calculation for the 1965 act had not changed for 40 years.

Shelby County was—and the Leahy bill is—about another provision in the VRA: Section 5. Section 5 was originally an emergency five-year provision that required “covered” jurisdictions to get preapproval of any changes in their voting laws and practices (even simple changes such as the location of a polling place) from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., a process known as “preclearance.” Section 5 was renewed for an additional five years in 1970; for an additional seven years in 1975; for an additional 25 years in 1982; and finally for an additional 25 years in 2006. At the time of the Shelby County decision in 2013, Section 5 covered nine states and parts of six others.

Shelby County dealt specifically with Section 4 of the VRA, which determined the states and smaller jurisdictions that were subject to Section 5 preclearance. The coverage formula was based on a jurisdiction’s having voter registration and turnout by all voters of less than 50 percent in the 1964, 1968, or 1972 elections. The formula was designed to capture states engaging in blatant discrimination by taking into account black voters’ low registration and turnout caused by those discriminatory practices.

Congress did not update the coverage formula in 2006. Why not? Perhaps because, if it had, all of the covered jurisdictions—mostly (but not exclusively) southern states—would have dropped out of the Section 5 preclearance requirement owing to the vast improvement of voting conditions since 1972. By 2006, the registration and turnout rates of black voters were on par with or even exceeded those of white voters in many of the covered states. So states such as Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi remained under the onerous preclearance requirement based on information that was almost 40 years out of date.

But the Left loved Section 5 because of the central role played in its enforcement by its friends and political allies in the career ranks of the Civil Rights Division, many of whom were hired from the ACLU, the NAACP, and other groups allied with the Democratic Party. They could easily refuse to preclear any voting change opposed by the Left—such as voter-ID laws—without having to go to court with a Section 2 lawsuit, where they would have to prove that a law was discriminatory.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 was unconstitutional because it had not been updated in 2006 to reflect modern conditions. The Su­preme Court said, “History did not end in 1965, . . . yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 . . . ke[pt] the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.”

There’s another reason Section 5 preclearance was needed. Prior to 1965, states were actively evading federal-court decrees ordering them to stop discriminatory practices. And the only way a state could overcome an objection by the Justice Department was to file a lawsuit in the District of Columbia—no other federal court—because Congress did not trust federal judges in the southern states to enforce the VRA.

According to the Supreme Court in Shelby County, because Section 5 blatantly invades state sovereignty over elections, Congress would, in order to justify its continuation, have to show that there were still “blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees,” “voting discrimination on a pervasive scale,” or “flagrant” or “rampant” voting discrimination. None of that was present in 2013 when the case was before the Supreme Court, and there is no evidence of such behavior today, either.

Yet the Leahy bill would reimpose the Section 5 preclearance based on a new coverage formula even more onerous than the prior one and keep the D.C.-court requirement as if it were still 1965. States would be covered in their entirety for ten years if the attorney general determined that ten “voting-rights violations” occurred during a 25-year period, even if the state was responsible for only one of them and the rest were committed by city or county governments over which the state had no authority.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/against-the-john-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act

Basically, the JLVRAA wants to go back to having certain states required to pre-clearance changes when there really is no need.  Guess which color (red or blue) most of those states are.

To me, going backwards is not what the Congress should be by voting for this bill.

This article also addresses voter ID.  From the article:

Certain voting changes would automatically trigger preclearance requirements for jurisdictions. These would include any change in political boundaries during redistricting that resulted in reducing the population of a particular racial-minority group by three or more percentage points. They would also in­clude any change requiring “proof of identity to vote” or “proof of identity to register to vote,” as well as any “change that reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locations” in jurisdictions with a certain minimum percentage of minority voters. This is an obvious attempt to outlaw state voter-ID requirements.

To conclude the article ends with:

Since the Shelby decision, there has been a false clamor about a supposed loss of voting rights. That is a myth created by the Left and abetted by the media. That myth has been perpetuated as a way of opposing reforms intended to improve the integrity of the election process, such as voter-identification requirements and the cleanup of state­wide voter-registration lists, and to justify the reimposition of federal control over state election procedures by reviving the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

There is no voter-suppression epidemic. Americans today have an easier time registering and voting than at any time in our nation’s history. On the increasingly rare occasions when discrimination actually occurs, Section 2 of the VRA provides a more than adequate remedy. The Leahy bill is unjustified and unneeded, and would be a dangerous violation of state sovereignty.

End of article.

I’m sure you disagree, but the bottom line is; Republicans just don’t trust Democrats with sweeping changes in this voter rights bill, it is not needed.

[AU9377 5,035]

On 1/16/2022 at 11:52 AM, 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. 

I haven't read the Texas law.  The Georgia law is full of window dressing.  At first glance, it looks like it makes it easier to vote, and for some it may very well do that.  However, the purpose of the Georgia law is hidden deep in the back.  The Georgia law removes the Secretary of State from his role in certifying the election results and in his place give that authority to the appointed chairman of the state elections board. 

The only reason that was done is that the Georgia Secretary of State refused to play ball with members of his own party that wanted him to hold up certifying the election results, even though he had conducted an audit and a recount and had no evidence of fraud impacting the vote count. 

The Georgia law also gives the appointed chairman of the state board of elections the power to remove any county election supervisor and install a supervisor of the board's choosing.  This was done in order to give the state the authority to quickly assume control of Dekalb or Fulton county's vote count.  None of these changes were the result of any real problem.

[AU9377 5,035]

On 1/16/2022 at 2:30 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Your statement disregards what the SCOTUS ruled and why they ruled that way.  For example the 2013 Shelby County v Holder was because the calculation for the 1965 act had not changed for 40 years.

Shelby County was—and the Leahy bill is—about another provision in the VRA: Section 5. Section 5 was originally an emergency five-year provision that required “covered” jurisdictions to get preapproval of any changes in their voting laws and practices (even simple changes such as the location of a polling place) from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., a process known as “preclearance.” Section 5 was renewed for an additional five years in 1970; for an additional seven years in 1975; for an additional 25 years in 1982; and finally for an additional 25 years in 2006. At the time of the Shelby County decision in 2013, Section 5 covered nine states and parts of six others.

Shelby County dealt specifically with Section 4 of the VRA, which determined the states and smaller jurisdictions that were subject to Section 5 preclearance. The coverage formula was based on a jurisdiction’s having voter registration and turnout by all voters of less than 50 percent in the 1964, 1968, or 1972 elections. The formula was designed to capture states engaging in blatant discrimination by taking into account black voters’ low registration and turnout caused by those discriminatory practices.

Congress did not update the coverage formula in 2006. Why not? Perhaps because, if it had, all of the covered jurisdictions—mostly (but not exclusively) southern states—would have dropped out of the Section 5 preclearance requirement owing to the vast improvement of voting conditions since 1972. By 2006, the registration and turnout rates of black voters were on par with or even exceeded those of white voters in many of the covered states. So states such as Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi remained under the onerous preclearance requirement based on information that was almost 40 years out of date.

But the Left loved Section 5 because of the central role played in its enforcement by its friends and political allies in the career ranks of the Civil Rights Division, many of whom were hired from the ACLU, the NAACP, and other groups allied with the Democratic Party. They could easily refuse to preclear any voting change opposed by the Left—such as voter-ID laws—without having to go to court with a Section 2 lawsuit, where they would have to prove that a law was discriminatory.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 was unconstitutional because it had not been updated in 2006 to reflect modern conditions. The Su­preme Court said, “History did not end in 1965, . . . yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 . . . ke[pt] the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.”

There’s another reason Section 5 preclearance was needed. Prior to 1965, states were actively evading federal-court decrees ordering them to stop discriminatory practices. And the only way a state could overcome an objection by the Justice Department was to file a lawsuit in the District of Columbia—no other federal court—because Congress did not trust federal judges in the southern states to enforce the VRA.

According to the Supreme Court in Shelby County, because Section 5 blatantly invades state sovereignty over elections, Congress would, in order to justify its continuation, have to show that there were still “blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees,” “voting discrimination on a pervasive scale,” or “flagrant” or “rampant” voting discrimination. None of that was present in 2013 when the case was before the Supreme Court, and there is no evidence of such behavior today, either.

Yet the Leahy bill would reimpose the Section 5 preclearance based on a new coverage formula even more onerous than the prior one and keep the D.C.-court requirement as if it were still 1965. States would be covered in their entirety for ten years if the attorney general determined that ten “voting-rights violations” occurred during a 25-year period, even if the state was responsible for only one of them and the rest were committed by city or county governments over which the state had no authority.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/against-the-john-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act

Basically, the JLVRAA wants to go back to having certain states required to pre-clearance changes when there really is no need.  Guess which color (red or blue) most of those states are.

To me, going backwards is not what the Congress should be by voting for this bill.

This article also addresses voter ID.  From the article:

Certain voting changes would automatically trigger preclearance requirements for jurisdictions. These would include any change in political boundaries during redistricting that resulted in reducing the population of a particular racial-minority group by three or more percentage points. They would also in­clude any change requiring “proof of identity to vote” or “proof of identity to register to vote,” as well as any “change that reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locations” in jurisdictions with a certain minimum percentage of minority voters. This is an obvious attempt to outlaw state voter-ID requirements.

To conclude the article ends with:

Since the Shelby decision, there has been a false clamor about a supposed loss of voting rights. That is a myth created by the Left and abetted by the media. That myth has been perpetuated as a way of opposing reforms intended to improve the integrity of the election process, such as voter-identification requirements and the cleanup of state­wide voter-registration lists, and to justify the reimposition of federal control over state election procedures by reviving the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

There is no voter-suppression epidemic. Americans today have an easier time registering and voting than at any time in our nation’s history. On the increasingly rare occasions when discrimination actually occurs, Section 2 of the VRA provides a more than adequate remedy. The Leahy bill is unjustified and unneeded, and would be a dangerous violation of state sovereignty.

End of article.

I’m sure you disagree, but the bottom line is; Republicans just don’t trust Democrats with sweeping changes in this voter rights bill, it is not needed.

I actually agree that many parts of this bill aren't needed.  I just wish Republicans would admit that the election reforms they enacted on the state level in states lost by Trump were also not needed.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I actually agree that many parts of this bill aren't needed.  I just wish Republicans would admit that the election reforms they enacted on the state level in states lost by Trump were also not needed.

I am not in one of those states, but from what I understand its because state legislators panicked about OCVID and enacted loose voting laws and they are tightening them back up.  The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/bidens-jim-crow-20-tour-collides-reality-blacks-strongly-support-voter-id

[AU9377 5,035]

On 1/17/2022 at 7:59 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I am not in one of those states, but from what I understand its because state legislators panicked about OCVID and enacted loose voting laws and they are tightening them back up.  The truth is somewhere in the middle.

My family has worked in Georgia elections for around 30 years.  In Georgia, the "reforms" were designed to look good to the far right.  It is sad that legislators cannot be honest with their constituents and tell them that there has been no evidence of election fraud in Georgia, but they cannot.  The entire law, titled the "Election Integrity Act of 2021",  had a few purposes, hidden by window dressing. 

The main purpose was to remove the Sec of State from his role as chairman of the state Board of Elections. By doing that, his role in certifying the results was then placed in the hands of an appointed board member.  This satisfied those that believed that the Georgia Secretary of State should have not certified the results regardless of the validity of the count.  That is as un-American as anything I have ever heard.

Next in line was making it easier for the state to assume control of the vote count in Dekalb and Fulton counties.  This was accomplished by a provision that gives the state Board of Elections the power to intervene in county elections boards that are deemed underperforming.   Nobody really knows what underperforming means, but there have been allegations for years made that those counties underperform when they take longer to finalize their count.  Keep in mind, they are the most populous counties in the State.

Finally, the law gives the Board of Elections the power to remove local county election supervisors.

The only thing these measures would have impacted in 2020 would have been the certification of the results.  Therein lies the purpose of the law.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

My family has worked in Georgia elections for around 30 years.  In Georgia, the "reforms" were designed to look good to the far right.  It is sad that legislators cannot be honest with their constituents and tell them that there has been no evidence of election fraud in Georgia, but they cannot.  The entire law, titled the "Election Integrity Act of 2021",  had a few purposes, hidden by window dressing. 

The main purpose was to remove the Sec of State from his role as chairman of the state Board of Elections. By doing that, his role in certifying the results was then placed in the hands of an appointed board member.  This satisfied those that believed that the Georgia Secretary of State should have not certified the results regardless of the validity of the count.  That is as un-American as anything I have ever heard.

Next in line was making it easier for the state to assume control of the vote count in Dekalb and Fulton counties.  This was accomplished by a provision that gives the state Board of Elections the power to intervene in county elections boards that are deemed underperforming.   Nobody really knows what underperforming means, but there have been allegations for years made that those counties underperform when they take longer to finalize their count.  Keep in mind, they are the most populous counties in the State.

Finally, the law gives the Board of Elections the power to remove local county election supervisors.

The only thing these measures would have impacted in 2020 would have been the certification of the results.  Therein lies the purpose of the law.

I, like a lot of other non-residents of Ga, only see the window dressing.  What we publicly see is ballot counters stop counting at around 10 o’clock on election night, when everybody was kicked out, resumed counting and pulling suit cases of what was assumed to be ballots out from under the desk.  That was a bad look no matter if it was *legal* or not.

Was there some over reaction to this?  I am sure there was, but so is the John Lewis VAA. We are in a period of bad politics and no one is looking to be bipartisan to solve anything.

[AU9377 5,035]

On 1/16/2022 at 1:14 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Just curious. So a lot of you bitch about Georgia voting legislation. Even with the new legislation, Georgia offers more opportunity to vote than New York or New Jersey. So why not bitch about New York and New Jersey? Do tell.

For the millionth time, it is not those provisions that are dangerous.  The real purpose of the Georgia legislation was to remove the Secretary of State from his role as head of the State Elections Board and thereby taking the certification of an election out of the Sec of State's job duties and placing it in an appointed chairman of the elections board.  This was done because Georgia's Secretary of State refused to play ball when asked to do so by Trump in 2020.  The elected Secretary of State refused to commit a crime in order to help a sitting U.S. President.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-demands-georgia-secretary-state-find-votes-hand/story?id=75027350

[jj3jordan 2,060]

12 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

For the millionth time, it is not those provisions that are dangerous.  The real purpose of the Georgia legislation was to remove the Secretary of State from his role as head of the State Elections Board and thereby taking the certification of an election out of the Sec of State's job duties and placing it in an appointed chairman of the elections board.  This was done because Georgia's Secretary of State refused to play ball when asked to do so by Trump in 2020.  The elected Secretary of State refused to commit a crime in order to help a sitting U.S. President.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-demands-georgia-secretary-state-find-votes-hand/story?id=75027350

Obviously the Georgia legislature thought he should have played ball.

[pensacolatiger 313]

On 1/16/2022 at 8:49 AM, 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.

This is the funniest thing I’ve read in awhile.  The President’s “find me votes call” was him reading through all of the categories of illegal votes that Ruby and co. counted.  Did you listen to the call?  Or just the parts that CNN clipped for you?

[AU9377 5,035]

On 1/19/2022 at 11:43 PM, jj3jordan said:

Obviously the Georgia legislature thought he should have played ball.

How does that change the facts or right and wrong?  If the legislature endorsed suspending the State Constitution, does that make it the right thing to do?  We are a nation of laws, not men.  There were legislatures 60 years ago that could have easily passed bills preventing anyone other than whites from voting.  Would that have justified the unconstitutional taking of those rights from minorities?

[AU9377 5,035]

2 hours ago, pensacolatiger said:

This is the funniest thing I’ve read in awhile.  The President’s “find me votes call” was him reading through all of the categories of illegal votes that Ruby and co. counted.  Did you listen to the call?  Or just the parts that CNN clipped for you?

You clearly did not.  Yes, Trump rattled off fantasy rumors that had no basis in reality.  He also told the Sec of State that he could find the votes from any of a number of the problem ballots(that never existed).  Trump then told the Sec of State that the GBI was either incompetent of corrupt.  The sad part is the the Sec of State was doing his job and for that, the Republican legislature wanted him out of office.

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/read-transcript-of-trumps-phone-call-to-georgia-secretary-of-state/IRLR3EXOMVFJFJIVYYUQ2C6QTM/

Edited January 21, 2022 by AU9377

[BizTiger 242]

On 1/16/2022 at 12:10 PM, homersapien said:

You'll have to help me out here. 

Is there anything in 'Right to Vote' that prevents states from eliminating (legitimately) dead people from the rolls?

This is a red herring.

This is why I started this thread. Republicans in Congress need to be negotiating to include things like this IMO. A national voter ID and laws pretaining to deceased and voter rolls are common sense measures that we actually need. 

The whole point of Congress is to solve problems, but the cable news dope pushers have put voters and Congress into childish partisan camps and nothing meaningful can get done. Both sides need to come together with the understanding that neither side will get everything they want. 

And I'm frustrated that the President isn't being the adult in the room and pushing this.

[BizTiger 242]

On 1/16/2022 at 12:14 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Just curious. So a lot of you bitch about Georgia voting legislation. Even with the new legislation, Georgia offers more opportunity to vote than New York or New Jersey. So why not bitch about New York and New Jersey? Do tell.

Thats why the old pre-clearance provision needed to be updated to include all 50 states instead of just southern states. 

Even gerrymandering. Both parties take advantage of districting when they have the advantage. 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act

[Grumps 3,704]

8 minutes ago, BizTiger said:

Thats why the old pre-clearance provision needed to be updated to include all 50 states instead of just southern states. 

Even gerrymandering. Both parties take advantage of districting when they have the advantage. 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act

It certainly seems like the fed government could fix the gerrymandering problem. That seems like a really easy thing to fix.

[SaturdayGT 719]

  What gets me is ...ask any Dem, they will say picture IDs for voting is a racist concept  because apparently they feel a large portion of non-white people are unable to get IDs....but the most liberal cities in the country are set up where you practically can't enter any resteraunt, business or building with out a mask and a vaccine card stating that you are fully vaxxed withall boosters and all....

 

 

 

[BizTiger 242]

16 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

  What gets me is ...ask any Dem, they will say picture IDs for voting is a racist concept  because apparently they feel a large portion of non-white people are unable to get IDs....but the most liberal cities in the country are set up where you practically can't enter any resteraunt, business or building with out a mask and a vaccine card stating that you are fully vaxxed withall boosters and all....

Most Dems have cooled on voter ID. 

And I say that as a moderately right of center Black Democrat that has worked to help people of all backgrounds get properly registered and to the polls.