Jump to content
Pancho

Voter Suppression

Recommended Posts

The thread for carrying over the Republican/Conservative led goal to continue to suppress the votes for Blacks and Latinx people. 

Speaking of...

 

Black Lady =  years in prison

White lady who admitted to voting for Trump twice?  Probation. 

https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-for-voting-illegally.html

Quote

Texas Woman Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison for Voting Illegally

A Texas mother who says she didn’t even know she was ineligible to vote has been sentenced to five years in prison for illegally voting in the 2016 presidential election, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.

Crystal Mason, 43, was convicted of a seperate fraud charge in 2011 and served about three years in federal prison before being released on probation. She says she had no idea that felons were still not permitted to vote while under community supervision, noting that it was not among the rules outlined by her probation officer.

So on November 8, 2016, she showed up to her polling place planning to vote after having been encouraged to do so by her mother. Her name wasn’t on the list of registered voters, but she filled out a provisional ballot, which was eventually flagged. Mason was informed that her vote didn’t count, but didn’t find out why until she was arrested after a meeting with her probation officer in February.

In court, she admitted that she didn’t read the documents she was given at the polling place closely — but only because a worker was helping her. “I was happy enough to come home and see my daughter graduate. My son is about to graduate,” she told the prosecutor. “Why would I jeopardize that? Not to vote … I didn’t even want to go vote.” District Judge Ruben Gonzalez handed down her sentencing on Wednesday.

Texas dealt with a similar case last year, when permanent resident Rosa Maria Ortega, 37, received eight years in prison for voting illegally in 2012 and 2014; she too did not realize that she was not eligible to vote. Her four children were removed from her custody and she’s likely to face deportation when her sentence is complete.

“You think I would jeopardize my freedom?” Mason said after being indicted. “You honestly think I would ever want to leave my babies again? That was the hardest thing in my life to deal with. Who would — as a mother, as a provider — leave their kids over voting?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Trump]What this clearly shows is that there's voter suppression on both sides. This is why we need stricter voter ID laws, and citizenship added to the census.[/kin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What are the rules? 
Let's say there are two gas station in Bugtussle and Jim Bob's car runs out of gas on a Sunday when the gas stations are closed. So he goes to Marcel's gas pump and takes a gallon of gas, but leaves a note saying that he'll be by on Monday with a quarter and a big slice of Mrs. Jim Bob's lemon chess pie.  
On the other hand,  you've got Demetrius. Demetrius  is out of gas late on Saturday night, but lost all his money in a dice game and just helps himself to a full tank and leaves no note. 
In Bugtussle, we care about good manners.

/Tahoe 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This needs to be in the National News.

Absolutely awful this happened in America.

 

 

I’m pretty sure they want it in the national news to discourage minorities from voting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

I’m pretty sure they want it in the national news to discourage minorities from voting. 

Fuck, good point. Evil bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With technology today, there should be some way they could key in DL number or something at the polls to determine eligibility before they vote. 

 

They don't even look at my voter registration card.  But then they all know me, so maybe they are more intensive when it comes to checking those they don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

And we’re back...

 

Voter suppression was the goal for Bannon

 

I'll let you in on two little secrets: 

1. All negative advertising is designed principally to suppress the vote of the opponent.  For example, talking about an opponent who "voted against Social Security" isn't designed to get votes for the advertiser.  It's designed to lose votes for his opponent.

2.  Most/much  advertising is negative.  It's not a rare thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'll let you in on two little secrets: 

1. All negative advertising is designed principally to suppress the vote of the opponent.  For example, talking about an opponent who "voted against Social Security" isn't designed to get votes for the advertiser.  It's designed to lose votes for his opponent.

2.  Most/much  advertising is negative.  It's not a rare thing.

 

You are a fucking idiot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 4:08 PM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I'm all for voter suppression, providing we are only suppressing stupid people.  Of course, that would mean 90% of our population would not be eligible to vote.

 

On the other hand, that would mean that 100% of trumpkins would not be eligible to vote.

 

 

On 3/30/2018 at 4:33 PM, Mike "Wags" Wagner said:

Are you talking about the lady from Iowa? Why are you comparing two different states reactions, if you have a problem with what Iowa did, then take it up with them.

 

I think he has a problem with what Texas did, and he's taking it up on a Texas political board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

And we’re back...

 

Voter suppression was the goal for Bannon

 

Wylie did not provide specific evidence of voter suppression campaigns taking place in the US. 

 

Hmmm........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

And we’re back...

 

Voter suppression was the goal for Bannon

 

And democrats trying to have over seas military votes left out isn't voter suppression ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a voter suppression campaign in Alabama.  It is designed to get the supporters of the current Governor to stay home in the June 5 primary.

It has two thrusts.

- Ivey is gay

- Ivey is an alcoholic 

Both charges are questionable. 

Here it is:

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/05/patricia_todds_gay_accusations.html

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/02/tommy_battle_gov_kay_ivey_at_c.html

Most all voter suppression works this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 10:35 AM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

On the other hand, that would mean that 100% of trumpkins would not be eligible to vote.

 

I would say that 90% would be split equally amongst Trump and Hillary voters.  Just incredible amounts of stupidity to go around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cheeseweasel ^^

 

Whatever your thoughts are about voter rolls being up-to-date, it seems very politically motivated for conservative states to implement such policies (I mentioned in the DT thread that Georgia does this) when it knowingly will have such a disproportionate effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I don't understand the process in Ohio's policy.  This is what a news story listed:

"Ohio law allows the state to send address confirmation notices to voters who have not engaged in voter activity for two years. If a voter returns the notice through prepaid mail, or responds online, the information is updated. If the notice is ignored and the voter fails to update a registration over the next four years, the registration is canceled."

Say I'm a voter that only votes for President once every 4 years.  I ignore every other election which we know is a common practice and fully acceptable.  I vote in Nov 2016.  So in Nov 2018, Ohio sends me a notice that I need to tell them I still want to be registered.   Say I don't see that notice or forget to take action.  Am I allowed to vote in 2020 without a problem?   And if I vote every 4 years, it's a waste of taxpayers dollars to keep reviewing the registration voter lists every 2 years.    

Its obviously an action to remove the infrequent voter which I would assume is mainly made of people who are not aligned with the current party in power in Ohio.  Afterall why would those leaders want to take action to remove their own voters.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I have to admit that I don't understand the process in Ohio's policy.  This is what a news story listed:

"Ohio law allows the state to send address confirmation notices to voters who have not engaged in voter activity for two years. If a voter returns the notice through prepaid mail, or responds online, the information is updated. If the notice is ignored and the voter fails to update a registration over the next four years, the registration is canceled."

Say I'm a voter that only votes for President once every 4 years.  I ignore every other election which we know is a common practice and fully acceptable.  I vote in Nov 2016.  So in Nov 2018, Ohio sends me a notice that I need to tell them I still want to be registered.   Say I don't see that notice or forget to take action.  Am I allowed to vote in 2020 without a problem?   And if I vote every 4 years, it's a waste of taxpayers dollars to keep reviewing the registration voter lists every 2 years.    

Its obviously an action to remove the infrequent voter which I would assume is mainly made of people who are not aligned with the current party in power in Ohio.  Afterall why would those leaders want to take action to remove their own voters.....

 

Pretty much exactly as you stated, here you have to vote every three years. Seems odd it wouldn't be at most every four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is some very specific legal reason for this ruling if I read through the decision, but ain't nobody got time for that.

That said, this rule makes no sense to me.  I'd be curious what the practical reason is, other than "we want less people to vote".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

@Cheeseweasel ^^

 

Whatever your thoughts are about voter rolls being up-to-date, it seems very politically motivated for conservative states to implement such policies (I mentioned in the DT thread that Georgia does this) when it knowingly will have such a disproportionate effect.

There's no question the law is politically motivated. But you could make that argument for every law.

I think it will have minimal effect. It will clean up the rolls for 99% of people who don't/won't vote. If people want to vote, it's quite easy to stay on the rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Stringer said:

I'm sure there is some very specific legal reason for this ruling if I read through the decision, but ain't nobody got time for that.

It is a weird suit. 

They are basically making the claim that the Ohio doesn't require enough to be sure that scrubbed registrations are not valid voters.  They are doing this by claiming a violation of the Voter Registration Act, but Ohio exactly follows the requirements of that law (non-response to notices over a four-year time period). 

What they have a problem with Ohio is also considering people voting during that period (non-voting cannot be the evidence used to purge registrations).  But they miss that Ohio considers voting a proof of valid registration and not vice-versa (you don't get flagged for not voting, but you get unflagged if you do vote).

They didn't make any claim at a discriminatory effect.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

There's no question the law is politically motivated. But you could make that argument for every law.

I think it will have minimal effect. It will clean up the rolls for 99% of people who don't/won't vote. If people want to vote, it's quite easy to stay on the rolls.

easy is subjective.   The state mails a notice and then assumes the voter receives the notice.  Strong assumption that the voter will actually get that notice in their hands.  I don't know why the voter can't just appear at a precinct at some future date to state their request and/or re-activate their registration.  

It's also just as correct to state that this will allow the state to easily remove voters that only vote once every 4 years.   Which is a valid voter action.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for up to date for voter rolls. But if the story was accurate on the woman sentenced to 5 years, that's some serious bs.   I'm hoping there was more to that story.  Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I have to admit that I don't understand the process in Ohio's policy.  This is what a news story listed:

"Ohio law allows the state to send address confirmation notices to voters who have not engaged in voter activity for two years. If a voter returns the notice through prepaid mail, or responds online, the information is updated. If the notice is ignored and the voter fails to update a registration over the next four years, the registration is canceled."

Say I'm a voter that only votes for President once every 4 years.  I ignore every other election which we know is a common practice and fully acceptable.  I vote in Nov 2016.  So in Nov 2018, Ohio sends me a notice that I need to tell them I still want to be registered.   Say I don't see that notice or forget to take action.  Am I allowed to vote in 2020 without a problem?   And if I vote every 4 years, it's a waste of taxpayers dollars to keep reviewing the registration voter lists every 2 years.    

Its obviously an action to remove the infrequent voter which I would assume is mainly made of people who are not aligned with the current party in power in Ohio.  Afterall why would those leaders want to take action to remove their own voters.....

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but would that be every 6 years of ignoring the notice and not voting? Notice is sent after 2 years and if ignored and doesn't update over the next 4 years... So if you only vote in presidential elections, I interpret that as you would be okay in your example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anwar Namtut said:

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but would that be every 6 years of ignoring the notice and not voting? Notice is sent after 2 years and if ignored and doesn't update over the next 4 years... So if you only vote in presidential elections, I interpret that as you would be okay in your example.

After reading a few more articles, I think you're 100% right.  The case itself involved a guy who voted in 2008 but sat out all voting until an off-cycle election in 2015 when he discovered he had been dropped.  He says he didn't recall a notice, Ohio says they sent it in 2011.  Obviously neither side can prove or disprove that he received a notice.  I give Ohio the benefit of the doubt that they mailed one.   I assume that he still lived at the same address during that time.   

As I stated before, I don't think the law is unconstitutional but really a horrible way to treat law-abiding citizens.    The assumption is not that Ohio is asking the person whether they still want to vote but purge the rolls of people that have moved.   And who doesn't want the voter rolls to be accurate but Ohio is not taking any other action to identify people that moved, including reviewing other state documents, to see if the person has moved.   State income forms, state ID forms or even utility bills.  Instead they start with the assumption that your non-action with the notification or not voting is evidence that you no longer live there.  I think we all agree that is weak evidence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issues with keeping voter registration rolls up to date.  My problem with this is it's yet another hypocrisy from the rightwing.  Their mantra is small government but here is a law that will likely require extra government staff and an increase in the size of government payroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

I have no issues with keeping voter registration rolls up to date.  My problem with this is it's yet another hypocrisy from the rightwing.  Their mantra is small government but here is a law that will likely require extra government staff and an increase in the size of government payroll.

Unless they find employees that are sitting around doing nothing, which no one does, this definitely requires new workers or outsourcing.    Apparently the first year Ohio did this notification in 2012, they send out 1.5 million notifications which represented 20% of the voters.  Presumably this amount was lower in later years as they did have fewer people on the voter rolls.  According to Justice Breyer, they received back 300K forms that had to be processed by someone.

Sen. McConnell should receive praise from the right for this decision.  If he had allowed a vote on Merrick Garland, this decision most likely would have been the opposite.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the NVRA Section 8 text (trimmed by me)

SEC.  8.    REQUIREMENTS  WITH  RESPECT  TO  ADMINISTRATION OF  VOTER  REGISTRATION. “

[The State shall:]

(3)  provide  that  the  name  of  a registrant  may  not  be removed  from  the  official list  of  eligible  voters  except...

(C)  as  provided  under  paragraph  (4);

(4)  conduct  a general  program  that  makes  a  reasonable effort  to remove the names  of  ineligible voters  from  the official lists  of  eligible  voters  by  reason  of....

(B)  a  change  in  the  residence  of  the  registrant,  in  accordance  with  subsections  (b),  (c),  and (d)

(b)  CONFIRMATION OF  VOTER  REGISTRATION.

Any State  program or  activity  to  protect  the  integrity  of  the electoral  process  by  ensuring  the  maintenance  of  an accurate  and current  voter  registration  roll  for elections  for Federal  office...

(2)  shall  not  result  in  the removal of  the name of  any person  from  the  official  list  of  voters  registered  to  vote  in an  election  for  Federal  office  by  reason  of  the  person’s failure to vote.

(c)  VOTER  REMOVAL  PROGRAMS.—

(1)  A  State  may  meet the requirement  of  subsection  (a)(4)  by  establishing  a program  under which—

(A)  change-of-address  information  supplied  by  the Postal  Service  through  its  licensees  is  used  to identify registrants  whose  addresses  may  have  changed;  and

(B)  if  it  appears  from  information  provided  by  the Postal  Service  that—

(i)  a  registrant has  moved to  a  different residence  address  in  the  same  registrar's  jurisdiction  in  which  the registrant  is  currently  registered,  the  registrar  changes the  registration  records  to  show  the  new  address  and sends  the  registrant  a notice of  the change by forwardable mail and a postage  prepaid  pre-addressed return form by which  the  registrant may verify or correct the address information; or

(ii)  the registrant  has  moved  to a  different  residence address  not in  the  same  registrar's  jurisdiction,  the  registrar  uses  the  notice  procedure  described in  subsection (d)(2)  to  confirm  the  change  of  address...

(d)  REMOVAL  OF  NAMES  FROM  VOTING  ROLLS.—

(1)  A State  shall  not  remove  the  name  of  a  registrant  from  the official  list  of  eligible  voters  in  elections  for  Federal  office on  the  ground that the  registrant has  changed residence unless  the  registrant...

(B)(i)  has  failed  to respond  to a  notice  described  in paragraph  (2);  and

(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and,  if  necessary, correct  the  registrar's  record  of  the  registrant's  address) in an election during the period  beginning  on  the  date of  the notice  and  ending  on  the day  after  the date of  the  second general  election  for  Federal  office  that  occurs  after  the date  of  the  notice.

(2)  A  notice  is  described in  this  paragraph  if  it is  a postage  prepaid and pre-addressed return  card,  sent  by forwardable  mail,  on  which  the  registrant  may  state  his or her current address...

The dissent thinks that Ohio's fulfillment of (d.1.B.ii) conflates with (b.2).

The dissent also doesn't like that forwardable mails results in less returns (unforwardable mailings would at least confirm an address is vacant of returned), but the law clearly says notices must be forwardable - presumably so that they reach voters who moved within the voting district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: 

 

Would it be considered voter suppression to post DHS agents at each voting site? 

 

If so....... why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clob94 said:

Quick question: 

 

Would it be considered voter suppression to post DHS agents at each voting site? 

 

If so....... why?

Some people say requiring a valid id is voter suppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people say requiring a valid id is voter suppression.


Of course it’s voter suppression. That’s the whole reason proponents of voter ID are proponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DanRydell said:

 


Of course it’s voter suppression. That’s the whole reason proponents of voter ID are proponents.

 

Disagree. You should have to prove who you are to vote. You SHOULD have to prove that you are a citizen to vote as well, but I don't know how they would be able to do that in a timely manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree. You should have to prove who you are to vote. You SHOULD have to prove that you are a citizen to vote as well, but I don't know how they would be able to do that in a timely manner. 


There’s nothing to disagree about. I stated facts, not opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 


Of course it’s voter suppression. That’s the whole reason proponents of voter ID are proponents.

 

Is driving without a driver's license considered "drivers oppression"? 

 

What about owning a gun license? Is that considered "gun owners suppression"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DanRydell said:

 


There’s nothing to disagree about. I stated facts, not opinions.

 

Making sure someone is authorized to vote is not voter suppression. It's voter validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Disagree. You should have to prove who you are to vote. You SHOULD have to prove that you are a citizen to vote as well, but I don't know how they would be able to do that in a timely manner. 

They have the resources and make it pretty easy to kick valid voters off of the rolls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is driving without a driver's license considered "drivers oppression"? 
 
What about owning a gun license? Is that considered "gun owners suppression"? 


Yes.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...