Jump to content
Pancho

Voter Suppression

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

It's just my personal opinion that it would be useful to prove your identity and prove that you are here legally. In Texas, they now require you to be a US Citizen or present "evidence of lawful presence".

 

I'm not questioning whether it would be useful.  But that's not what you previously wrote.  You previously wrote that everyone "should" have a government-issued id, as though it were some legal or ethical imperative.  

It's like having a car jack.  Would it be useful if I had a flat?  Sure.  But "should" I own a jack?  Not really.  Maybe I have AAA.  Maybe I don't own a car.  Maybe I just like to live dangerous.

Fuck you and your jack-requiring rules.  I don't need no goddamned car jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not questioning whether it would be useful.  But that's not what you previously wrote.  You previously wrote that everyone "should" have a government-issued id, as though it were some legal or ethical imperative.  

It's like having a car jack.  Would it be useful if I had a flat?  Sure.  But "should" I own a jack?  Not really.  Maybe I have AAA.  Maybe I don't own a car.  Maybe I just like to live dangerous.

Fuck you and your jack-requiring rules.  I don't need no goddamned car jack.

And I said that it was my opinion that they should. I didn't say everyone is now going to be forced to have one. If you don't want an ID, that is fine. But don't complain when the police or people at the polls are questioning whether you are who you say you are.

Share this post


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

And I said that it was my opinion that they should. I didn't say everyone is now going to be forced to have one. If you don't want an ID, that is fine. But don't complain when the police or people at the polls are questioning whether you are who you say you are.

Well that's quite the tautology.  We should have voter id because people should have an id.  Why should people have an id?  Because we have voter id.  And round and round we go.

Share this post


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

Claims Longhorns should be above name-calling, refers to others as using nazi tactics.

Oh wait, the hypocrisy has already been well-established. Nothing new here.

Identifying tactics and calling people personal insults are two different things. 

Ex: You're a little dicked jack ass -- vs. 

You're acting like a jackass with a little dick. 

See the difference? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

To be clear, clob registered on this site on 3/29 and made a post that day.  Then he was completely silent until he jumped head first into the Stormy Daniels and Strzok threads on July 12, and he has been a fairly prolific poster since then.  

There isn't a more obvious sock on the board.  If there's a way to find out who was banned on 7/12, then I'm fairly sure we all will know who this is.

You have no clue who I am and again, I will reiterate, I've never had a sock or any other posting name/trolling account on this site. Feel free to include the mod in searching my ip address or whatever. But before you do this, let's each put 10k in a PayPal account so I can at least make some money off of you.... if you're so certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well that's quite the tautology.  We should have voter id because people should have an id.  Why should people have an id?  Because we have voter id.  And round and round we go.

I don't get it. No one is going to be forced to have an ID. You asked why I thought people should have an ID. I said because it is a way to identify themselves and in the case of Texas IDs, would prove that they are here legally. If they choose not to have an ID, then they should expect to be questioned on who they are and if they are eligible to vote. Voting is not the only reason to have an ID, but I'm using that as an example based on the subject of this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Once upon a time I had a car stolen. I had just gotten back from Asia and was moving, so in my car I had my passport wallet, s.s. card, birth certificate, everything.

You don't realize how hard it is to get things replaced without having the building blocks of some of these foundational ID requirements until you start trying to replace them and you need 1 ID from column A, 1 from column B, and 1 from C, etc.

Exactly.  All of these agencies have developed policies based on the assumption that you have the other agencies' data.  If you lose 2 items, you may have to start over at the beginning and find your birth certificate.  

But once again with the Voter ID laws.  It makes sense for people to prove they are who they are.  BUT let's be clear the purpose of Voter ID laws are to suppress poor people from voting.  There are Republican elected officials that have publicly said so.    They proclaim it to their supporters.   And they go out of their way to ensure it's not easy to get the ID. 

I will give Texas Republicans credit that they at least made the non-drivers ID cheap.  $16 for 6 years, $9 for those 60+.   If only to prevent the courts from proclaiming a high fee as a poll tax.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any fee is a poll tax. If photo ID is required to vote then the State bears the responsibility to supply such an ID free of charge to every resident.

Share this post


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

No one is going to be forced to have an ID.  

You are forced to have an id if you want to exercise the rights you have as a citizen.  And that's bullshit.

It's like the government passing a law saying, "It's a Third-Degree Felony not to have your government-issued id on you at all times."  I assume you'd oppose that.  But . . . some fucking fascist wouldn't be wrong in saying "no one is going to be forced to have an id."  No--that's true.  They're not going to physically force you to pose for a photo and receive an id.  But they will deprive you of your constitutional rights if you don't have one.

How is that different?  How is depriving you of one constitutional right if you don't have an id with you different from depriving you of any other constitutional right if you don't have your id on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Any fee is a poll tax. If photo ID is required to vote then the State bears the responsibility to supply such an ID free of charge to every resident.

The only issue I have with this, is that an ID in Texas means that you can prove you are here legally. So it would not be given to every resident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Any fee is a poll tax. If photo ID is required to vote then the State bears the responsibility to supply such an ID free of charge to every resident.

 I’ve always wondered if the fed could block grant funding to the States if the States were on board for nationwide voter ID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way--would those of you advocating for voter-id laws just be fucking honest for a minute and acknowledge that the entire fucking reason for a voter-id law is to suppress Democratic turnout?  Seriously--it's the entire fucking reason, right?

Give me a break with this bullshit about voter fraud.  There's never been an actual case of voter fraud that would be remedied by a voter-id law.  The sad fact is that there are too many other, easier ways to commit voter fraud that nobody would do it by sending in a bunch of impostors.  I mean, maybe they would in 1870, but not in 2018.  And not even really in 1970, either.

At least with the gerrymander, you're sufficiently intellectually honest to say "yeah--it's to get more representatives."  

Share this post


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

The only issue I have with this, is that an ID in Texas means that you can prove you are here legally. So it would not be given to every resident.

lulz, there it is.

Of course you're worried about illegals voting. I'm sorry I didn't instinctively assume you were one of those weirdos scared of a non-existent threat.

You're right, the ID should be given to every legal resident.

Share this post


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

I don't get it. No one is going to be forced to have an ID.

Yeah, guess who is trapped in the US..  you can't leave without a passport and can't return without one.  Can't open a bank account, can't cash checks, can't get a job...  but sure no one is forced to have an ID...

 

Recently had to replace my daughter's SSid and renew passports...  huge PITA that is nothing but bureaucratic hoop jumping.  I just love when my state will not recognize a valid passport as ID...  fucking brilliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my father is in his 70s and his eyesight is terrible.  he can't drive.  so he didn't renew his driver's license.  doesn't make sense to have it.  is that a "reasonable impediment"?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 I’ve always wondered if the fed could block grant funding to the States if the States were on board for nationwide voter ID

the states would be all for it if it were blocked granted.  that way, they could spend it on all sorts of shit that isn't voter ID, just like they do with the cash welfare block grants.  michigan will send a few more rich kids to private school, oklahoma will hold a few more marriage counseling courses, and texas will open a few more pregnancy crisis centers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And by the way--would those of you advocating for voter-id laws just be fucking honest for a minute and acknowledge that the entire fucking reason for a voter-id law is to suppress Democratic turnout?  Seriously--it's the entire fucking reason, right?

Give me a break with this bullshit about voter fraud.  There's never been an actual case of voter fraud that would be remedied by a voter-id law.  The sad fact is that there are too many other, easier ways to commit voter fraud that nobody would do it by sending in a bunch of impostors.  I mean, maybe they would in 1870, but not in 2018.  And not even really in 1970, either.

At least with the gerrymander, you're sufficiently intellectually honest to say "yeah--it's to get more representatives."  

Oh really libtard? How do you explain this? 

ee1zo4m0vwgj95gdquhx.png

 

Share this post


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

lulz, there it is.

Of course you're worried about illegals voting. I'm sorry I didn't instinctively assume you were one of those weirdos scared of a non-existent threat.

You're right, the ID should be given to every legal resident.

Yeah, God forbid only eligible people are allowed to vote.  

Share this post


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

Yeah, God forbid only eligible people are allowed to vote.  

That's not his point.  His point is that you're worried about illegals voting.  And there's absolutely no indication that illegals voting is a problem.  So you're worried about nothing.  To the extent your support is rooted in a concern about illegals voting, it's misplaced.

Which goes to my previous point--won't y'all please have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it's all about suppressing the Democratic vote?

Share this post


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

my father is in his 70s and his eyesight is terrible.  he can't drive.  so he didn't renew his driver's license.  doesn't make sense to have it.  is that a "reasonable impediment"?

 

 

the states would be all for it if it were blocked granted.  that way, they could spend it on all sorts of shit that isn't voter ID, just like they do with the cash welfare block grants.  michigan will send a few more rich kids to private school, oklahoma will hold a few more marriage counseling courses, and texas will open a few more pregnancy crisis centers.

if your dad wants to vote in Texas, he better go down to the DPS and apply for an ID card.  $6 and he will need to bring proof of a SS# (card or documents from the SS office) and Texas residence.  I would recommend bringing more than enough evidence unless you want to go again.  You can print out the application form in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's not his point.  His point is that you're worried about illegals voting.  And there's absolutely no indication that illegals voting is a problem.  So you're worried about nothing.  To the extent your support is rooted in a concern about illegals voting, it's misplaced.

I only want eligible people to vote. I don't care who they vote for. 

Edited by RandomIdoit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only want eligible people to vote. I don't care who they vote for. 

What if your plan to keep ineligible people from voting keeps 1 ineligible person from voting, but also disenfranchises 10 eligible voters? If you are in favor of the legitimacy of elections, disenfranchising 10 voters should concern you more than disenfranchising 1 person whose vote is cancelled by an ineligible voter.

But of course, that’s irrelevant, as the entire discussion is an ADMITTED (seriously, they admit it) smokescreen for a plan to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote Democrat.

Share this post


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


What if your plan to keep ineligible people from voting keeps 1 ineligible person from voting, but also disenfranchises 10 eligible voters? If you are in favor of the legitimacy of elections, disenfranchising 10 voters should concern you more than disenfranchising 1 person whose vote is cancelled by an ineligible voter.

But of course, that’s irrelevant, as the entire discussion is an ADMITTED (seriously, they admit it) smokescreen for a plan to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote Democrat.

I already stated on this thread that everyone who is a citizen or permanent resident should be provided a free Texas ID if they cannot afford one. If it is free to them, how is that disenfranchising them?

Share this post


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

I already stated on this thread that everyone who is a citizen or permanent resident should be provided a free Texas ID if they cannot afford one. If it is free to them, how is that disenfranchising them?

The burden is not simply the cost of the ID. It's the cost of the supporting documents and the time involved in obtaining the documents and the ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already stated on this thread that everyone who is a citizen or permanent resident should be provided a free Texas ID if they cannot afford one. If it is free to them, how is that disenfranchising them?

Do some homework on people who are homebound, live many miles from a DPS Office with no transportation, etc. seriously, it’s all out there, I’m not gonna retype it.

And again, this is an ADMITTED strategy to remove likely dem voters. That’s why it’s being done. You’re being disingenuous in ignoring that.

Share this post


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

The burden is not simply the cost of the ID. It's the cost of the supporting documents and the time involved in obtaining the documents and the ID.

You can't even register without a TDL, TIDN, or SSN.  The problem isn't some large swath of people completely undocumented.  The problem is Grandpa ElFenix with an expired TDL and too senile to get a renewal.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


By Sam Levine, HuffPost US
 

Jaime Roy, a rising senior at the University of Florida, voted in a local race in Gainesville this year, but it wasn’t easy. Roy, who uses the pronoun “they,” doesn’t own a car. To get to their polling place at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Roy had to take two buses that took between 40 minutes to an hour each way.

Even though Roy spends the majority of their time at the university, Florida’s top election official wouldn’t allow them ― nor any of the 830,000 students enrolled at public institutions of higher education in the state ― to vote early on campus.

But that could soon change. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the policy, ruling that the state’s blanket ban on early voting on college campuses is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker found that the ban violated the guarantees of the First, 14th and 26th amendments. The 26th Amendment prohibits age restrictions on voting for anyone 18 or older.

Walker, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2012, conceded that some inconvenience when voting is constitutionally tolerable, but said Florida’s position went beyond that. The ban made it more difficult for a particular group of people ― young voters around college campuses ― to vote.

“Florida’s public college and university students are categorically prohibited from on-campus early voting,” he wrote. “This is not a mere inconvenience.”

The ban has its origin in a 2013 state law that lays out where local election supervisors may allow early voting. Allowed locations included stadiums, civic and convention centers as well as government-owned senior and community centers.

But in 2014, the office of Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) issued an opinion saying the student union at the University of Florida, a state-funded institution, didn’t qualify as such a place, because it was “designed for, and affiliated with, a specific educational institution.” He went further, saying that the law did not permit early voting at “college- or university-related facilities” because lawmakers had explicitly chosen to exclude them from the bill.

Walker did not buy that reasoning, nor the state’s argument that its interest in maintaining campus order and parking outweighed the burden the ban placed on students’ right to vote. In his ruling Tuesday, the judge said the state’s justifications “reek of pretext.”

“While the [Detzner’s] Opinion does not identify college students by name, its target population is unambiguous and its effects are lopsided,” the judge wrote. “The Opinion is intentionally and facially discriminatory.”

 State officials banned on-campus early voting in 2014, an "intentionally" discriminatory move, according to a new court ruling.
Walker listed a number of reasons why access to early voting sites, in particular, is important for college students. While they can vote on election day, the judge wrote, the lines are often long. Student communities also face longer transportation times to early voting sites, and people living near college and university campuses disproportionately lack cars. College students in Florida also vote early at higher rates than their counterparts across the country, he said.

Through the ban, the judge concluded, Florida was “creating a secondary class of voters who [the state] prohibits from even seeking early voting sites in dense, centralized locations where they work, study, and, in many cases, live.”

McKinley Lewis, a spokesman for Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), said in a statement the governor was proud to have signed an early voting expansion and would review the ruling.

The suit was filed on behalf of Roy and five other university students in Florida, along with the state’s chapter of the League of Women Voters and the Andrew Goodman Foundation, a group that promotes civic leadership among young people.

“The court ruling demonstrates that making it easier for our students to vote truly matters,” Patricia Brigham, the president of the Florida League of Women Voters, said in a statement. “This is the right decision, at the right time, for our democratic process. With this decision, we have an affirmation that making early voting accessible to all is part of a true democracy.” 

Immediately following Tuesday’s decision, the supervisor of elections in Alachua County, which includes Gainesville, asked the University of Florida to use the student union building as an early voting site between Oct. 22 and Nov. 3.

Jenny Diamond Cheng, a lecturer at Vanderbilt Law School, said this is the first time a court has struck down a state policy as intentionally discriminatory under the 26th Amendment. That’s significant, she said, because it gives future challengers support when they’re arguing that a voting restriction ― or any other law ― runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“Courts have tended to shy away from holding that state actors actually intended to discriminate. They’re reluctant to ascribe bad motives to state legislators or officials,” she said in an interview. “The groundbreaking element of this case is the finding not only that the 26th Amendment prohibits intentional discrimination, but here’s what that looks like. Here’s what unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of age looks like.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2018, we worry more about a handful of illegals voting than states that are doing their best to purge hundreds of thousands, no millions, of law-abiding citizens from the rolls.

Well here in Texas our politicians worry about who is using the bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:


By Sam Levine, HuffPost US
 

Jaime Roy, a rising senior at the University of Florida, voted in a local race in Gainesville this year, but it wasn’t easy. Roy, who uses the pronoun “they,” doesn’t own a car. To get to their polling place at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Roy had to take two buses that took between 40 minutes to an hour each way.

Even though Roy spends the majority of their time at the university, Florida’s top election official wouldn’t allow them ― nor any of the 830,000 students enrolled at public institutions of higher education in the state ― to vote early on campus.

But that could soon change. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the policy, ruling that the state’s blanket ban on early voting on college campuses is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker found that the ban violated the guarantees of the First, 14th and 26th amendments. The 26th Amendment prohibits age restrictions on voting for anyone 18 or older.

Walker, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2012, conceded that some inconvenience when voting is constitutionally tolerable, but said Florida’s position went beyond that. The ban made it more difficult for a particular group of people ― young voters around college campuses ― to vote.

“Florida’s public college and university students are categorically prohibited from on-campus early voting,” he wrote. “This is not a mere inconvenience.”

The ban has its origin in a 2013 state law that lays out where local election supervisors may allow early voting. Allowed locations included stadiums, civic and convention centers as well as government-owned senior and community centers.

But in 2014, the office of Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) issued an opinion saying the student union at the University of Florida, a state-funded institution, didn’t qualify as such a place, because it was “designed for, and affiliated with, a specific educational institution.” He went further, saying that the law did not permit early voting at “college- or university-related facilities” because lawmakers had explicitly chosen to exclude them from the bill.

Walker did not buy that reasoning, nor the state’s argument that its interest in maintaining campus order and parking outweighed the burden the ban placed on students’ right to vote. In his ruling Tuesday, the judge said the state’s justifications “reek of pretext.”

“While the [Detzner’s] Opinion does not identify college students by name, its target population is unambiguous and its effects are lopsided,” the judge wrote. “The Opinion is intentionally and facially discriminatory.”

 State officials banned on-campus early voting in 2014, an "intentionally" discriminatory move, according to a new court ruling.
Walker listed a number of reasons why access to early voting sites, in particular, is important for college students. While they can vote on election day, the judge wrote, the lines are often long. Student communities also face longer transportation times to early voting sites, and people living near college and university campuses disproportionately lack cars. College students in Florida also vote early at higher rates than their counterparts across the country, he said.

Through the ban, the judge concluded, Florida was “creating a secondary class of voters who [the state] prohibits from even seeking early voting sites in dense, centralized locations where they work, study, and, in many cases, live.”

McKinley Lewis, a spokesman for Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), said in a statement the governor was proud to have signed an early voting expansion and would review the ruling.

The suit was filed on behalf of Roy and five other university students in Florida, along with the state’s chapter of the League of Women Voters and the Andrew Goodman Foundation, a group that promotes civic leadership among young people.

“The court ruling demonstrates that making it easier for our students to vote truly matters,” Patricia Brigham, the president of the Florida League of Women Voters, said in a statement. “This is the right decision, at the right time, for our democratic process. With this decision, we have an affirmation that making early voting accessible to all is part of a true democracy.” 

Immediately following Tuesday’s decision, the supervisor of elections in Alachua County, which includes Gainesville, asked the University of Florida to use the student union building as an early voting site between Oct. 22 and Nov. 3.

Jenny Diamond Cheng, a lecturer at Vanderbilt Law School, said this is the first time a court has struck down a state policy as intentionally discriminatory under the 26th Amendment. That’s significant, she said, because it gives future challengers support when they’re arguing that a voting restriction ― or any other law ― runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“Courts have tended to shy away from holding that state actors actually intended to discriminate. They’re reluctant to ascribe bad motives to state legislators or officials,” she said in an interview. “The groundbreaking element of this case is the finding not only that the 26th Amendment prohibits intentional discrimination, but here’s what that looks like. Here’s what unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of age looks like.” 

Remember the student ID cards we were issued in college? During the 90s it had your photo and a little colored sticker that you'd attach to it each semester: fall 93 was yellow, spring 94 was blue etc... 

Since those cards were issued by a state entity that also received federal funding, were those cards considered official ID cards? Were they subject to the same laws as a state ID? As in, if you created a fake one, were you subject to state charges? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 https://twitter.com/davidsrauf/status/1024284072078725120?s=21

 

 

That’s over 2100 people who would have been disenfranchised by Texas’s voter ID law but for the lawsuit which resulted in the state permitting affidavits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's pretty low.

It's also a shit ton larger than the number of proven voter fraud cases that voter ID would have prevented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midterm primaries are low turnout. And polling places still display the “Voter ID” posters that were printed up before the settlement so no telling how many people assumed they were unable to vote and didn’t try to fill out an affidavit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ATLANTA — Civil rights advocates are objecting to a proposal to close about 75 percent of polling locations in a predominantly black south Georgia county.

The Randolph County elections board is scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss a proposal that would eliminate seven of nine polling locations in the county, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. Included in the proposed closures is Cuthbert Middle School where nearly 97 percent of voters are black.

"There is strong evidence that this was done with intent to make it harder for African Americans," ACLU of Georgia attorney Sean Young said. The ACLU has sent a letter to the elections board demanding that the polling places remain open and has filed open records requests for information about the proposal to close the polling places.

County elections board members did not immediately respond Wednesday to a phone message seeking comment on the proposal.

Young and others from the ACLU plan to attend the elections board meeting Thursday.

According to the latest census figures, Randolph County's population is more than 61 percent of black, double the statewide percentage.

The median household income for the county was $30,358 in 2016, compared to $51,037 in the rest of the state. Nearly one-third of the county's residents live below the poverty line, compared to about 16 percent statewide, according to U.S. Census figures.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/15/us/ap-us-polling-places-proposed-closures.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans don’t even try and hide this shit anymore. 

I guess it makes it easier to fight, but the fact that they do it so blatantly means they think they can pull it off.

Edited by atomheartbevo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Republicans don’t even try and hide this shit anymore. 

I guess it makes it easier to fight, but the fact that they do it so blatantly means they think they can pull it off.

Who the fuck is going to overturn the suppression? All these Republican controlled state Supreme Courts? SCOTUS that killed the Voting Rights Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a county of a whopping 7000+ people need 9 fully staffed voting stations?  (Plus the equipment/delivery and logistics of serving 9 stations) 

the horror. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2018 at 1:16 AM, DanRydell said:

 


You’re simply arguing it’s justified voter suppression. But there’s no reasonable debate that it is voter suppression. Nor is there any reasonable debate as to the motives of voter ID proponents. Their ringleader is Kris Kobach for fuck’s sake.

 

Nice circular logic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does a county of a whopping 7000+ people need 9 fully staffed voting stations?  (Plus the equipment/delivery and logistics of serving 9 stations) 

the horror. 

I was told there would be no math but even discounting those not of age to vote, each voting station would be servicing hundreds in a sparsely populated county. Fully staffed where I vote means 3 old ladies at a table.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I was told there would be no math but even discounting those not of age to vote, each voting station would be servicing hundreds in a sparsely populated county. Fully staffed where I vote means 3 old ladies at a table.

 

Did you not see the “mostly black” part? He knows what happens if it’s easy for them to vote. Your reasons mean nothing to him. 

Share this post


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

Does a county of a whopping 7000+ people need 9 fully staffed voting stations?  (Plus the equipment/delivery and logistics of serving 9 stations) 

the horror. 

Well I'm sure this is just a coincidence and not a larger trend... Oh.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indiana-marion-county-early-voting_us_5b6dd7cce4b0530743c9c2ef

Quote

Indiana’s GOP attorney general is fighting to get rid of a bipartisan agreement to expand early voting locations in the state’s most populous and diverse county ― a move that Indiana’s secretary of state, also a Republican, says is “reckless” and against the will of voters.

State Attorney General Curtis Hill is fighting an agreement unanimously approved by the three-person election board in Marion County, home to Indianapolis. The agreement would require the county to establish at least two early voting sites for primary elections and five for general elections, beginning this year.

Despite being the most populous in Indiana, the county has had only one early voting site since 2008 because the sole Republican on the three-person county election board wouldn’t vote for any additional ones.

I wonder why they'd drop early voting to 1 site in the most populated county in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID’s for voting are a suppression of rights, but the same requirement for gun ownership is kosher... not to kention the background checks.

 

Can of worms and all that shit, but the selective reasoning is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting doesn't kill people. 

Idiots and mentally unstable people with guns kill people.

But you knew that.  SeLeCtiVe ReAsOnInG iS iNtErEsTiNg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol slorch.  Also, let's vote on Saturdays yeah?  Would vastly increase turnout.  Oh...no?  Makes too much sense?  ok, carry on then.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ID’s for voting are a suppression of rights, but the same requirement for gun ownership is kosher... not to kention the background checks.
 
Can of worms and all that shit, but the selective reasoning is interesting.


1. It should be much easier to vote than buy a gun.

2. Gun control laws/proposals are not purposefully discriminatory.

3. Gun control laws/proposals are intended to address a problem that actually exists.

Share this post


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

 


1. It should be much easier to vote than buy a gun.

2. Gun control laws/proposals are not purposefully discriminatory.

3. Gun control laws/proposals are intended to address a problem that actually exists.

 

1. Your opinion

2. Neither is voter ID. Everyone needs to have it.

3. Debatable.

 

FTR, I support ID requirements on both ‘transactions.’  I also agree that state issued IDs would be just fine as a solution.

 

Edited by slorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it should be easier to buy a gun than vote and all of us need our papers comrade? You would have fit in well in Nazi germany. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So it should be easier to buy a gun than vote and all of us need our papers comrade? You would have fit in well in Nazi germany. 

What, you haven't read all these articles about people bringing their voter ID cards to schools and paper cutting students to death? It's an epidemic!

Edited by Js1

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...