What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Proposed Texas Law to Suppress Voting (1 Viewer)

This is sort of like the crap going on here in Florida.  The electorate told the politicians to restore rights to felons after they've fulfilled all the terms of their sentence and now the GOP is trying to include a bunch of other crap not addressed in the ballot measure.  SSDD.

 
Because that bill sounded unbelievably ludicrous, I looked for awhile to find what language they used to describe what that specific tweet accuses the bill of doing. I’ve yet to find one other person or group who says that the bill will do what the tweet says (by Grild_Cheez?) Even read the press release from the Texas Civil Rights Project and they don’t say that either. BS tweet? 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all against that bill and the principle behind it. But I’m weary of people making crap up to lather up their side.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because that bill sounded unbelievably ludicrous, I looked for awhile to find what language they used to describe what that specific tweet accuses the bill of doing. I’ve yet to find one other person or group who says that the bill will do what the tweet says. Even read the press release from the Texas Civil Rights Project and they don’t say that either. BS tweet? 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all against that bill and the principle behind it. But I’m weary of people making crap up to lather up their side.
Here's the specific language, I think.  

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB9/2019

 
This is sort of like the crap going on here in Florida.  The electorate told the politicians to restore rights to felons after they've fulfilled all the terms of their sentence and now the GOP is trying to include a bunch of other crap not addressed in the ballot measure.  SSDD.
Yes.  Poll tax.  Neat people

 
Because that bill sounded unbelievably ludicrous, I looked for awhile to find what language they used to describe what that specific tweet accuses the bill of doing. I’ve yet to find one other person or group who says that the bill will do what the tweet says (by Grild_Cheez?) Even read the press release from the Texas Civil Rights Project and they don’t say that either. BS tweet? 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all against that bill and the principle behind it. But I’m weary of people making crap up to lather up their side.
I looked and the Texas Civil Rights project certainly did mention the problems with criminalizing helping the disabled and others who need assistance voting in a press release on March 28. 

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?

 
This is sort of like the crap going on here in Florida.  The electorate told the politicians to restore rights to felons after they've fulfilled all the terms of their sentence and now the GOP is trying to include a bunch of other crap not addressed in the ballot measure.  SSDD.
So you think felons should be able to vote?

How about rapists?

How about murderers?

How about terrorists?

Your boy Bernie recently said the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote.

Do you concur?

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
I’ve never heard of either of these ever happening and I’d be really surprised if it ever did. Can you link the legislation that has been put forth to keep trump off the ballot or to use the popular vote over the electorate?

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
I don’t think California is attempting to pass a law saying Trump can’t be on the ballot. 

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
Meh.  This is their thread about a make believe proposed law in Texas to allow them to continue painting Republicans as bad guys as they push the voter suppression false narrative.  They won’t answer this any more than they will answer questions about media bias impacting voter turnout.  

 
This is sort of like the crap going on here in Florida.  The electorate told the politicians to restore rights to felons after they've fulfilled all the terms of their sentence and now the GOP is trying to include a bunch of other crap not addressed in the ballot measure.  SSDD.
Makes you wonder about these Constitutional amendments we vote on all together.  So I guess they can just throw their hands up and say “we can’t do this” and poof, off the books.  

 
So you think felons should be able to vote?

How about rapists?

How about murderers?

How about terrorists?

Your boy Bernie recently said the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote.

Do you concur?
Law here explicitly excludes what you list here from retaining their rights.  I'm ok with that.  There are a few exceptions to every rule.  But right now, if someone hacks into another person's computer, their voting rights are taken away from them forever.  The people of this state realize how stupid that is and have demanded their legislature change it and the legislature is doing everything it can to avoid doing it.

 
So you think felons should be able to vote?

How about rapists?

How about murderers?

How about terrorists?

Your boy Bernie recently said the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote.

Do you concur?
I do think felons should be allowed to vote for the same reason people who want to have guns often frame their argument. It’s a small, unseemly but perhaps necessary effort to fight tyranny. If we ever have a government that begins making felons of innocent citizens, putting political opponents in jail, etc. those people should still have a right to vote as their only means left to strike back against a government that has lost its way. 

 
Meh.  This is their thread about a make believe proposed law in Texas to allow them to continue painting Republicans as bad guys as they push the voter suppression false narrative.  They won’t answer this any more than they will answer questions about media bias impacting voter turnout.  
I’m mostly agree that this is framed as decisive and won’t pass but any American who has any belief in the spirit of the Constitution should want this kind of garbage bill and the person proposing it to be made public so it/they can be condemned.

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
First, its not just CA.  17 states have introduced similar bills.

Second, there is no federal law requiring state electors to vote according to that state's popular vote.

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
 It's a bill about candidates need to release 5 years of their taxes? If passed and Trump or any other candidate refuses to comply with the law that's on them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
This is a decent argument on its face until we realize states are already not honoring their constituents with the "winner take all" approach.  As it stands right now, a state that goes 50.1 vs 49.9 gives ALL their votes to the person with 50.1.  That's ignoring basically half the electorate.  :shrug:  

Throw on top of this the fact that the EC isn't bound to a popular vote and it begins to ring pretty hollow.  Just have to step back and look at it for a couple seconds.

 
So you think felons should be able to vote?

How about rapists?

How about murderers?

How about terrorists?

Your boy Bernie recently said the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote.

Do you concur?
Yes to all. Except for the part about Bernie being anyone's boy.

 
Here's the specific language, I think.  

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB9/2019
Here's the specific language. It means that you can only drive someone to the polls if they are physically disabled. That seems kind of ####ty.

 (e)  A person who assists at least three voters voting under 

 this section at the same time by providing the voters with 

 transportation to the polling place must complete and sign a form 

 that:

              (1)  requires the person to affirm that the voters are 

 physically unable to enter the polling place without personal 

 assistance or likelihood of injuring their health; and

              (2)  contains the following information:

                    (A)  the person's name and address; and

                    (B)  whether the person is providing assistance to 

 the voters solely under this section or under both this section and 

 Subchapter B.

        (f)  Subsection (e) does not apply to a person if the person 

 is a family member of all voters that the person provides with 

 transportation to the polling place. For purposes of this 

 subsection, "family member" has the meaning assigned by Section 

 33.057(a).

        (g)  The secretary of state shall prescribe the form 

 described by Subsection (e).

        SECTION 2.12.  Subchapter B, Chapter 64, Election Code, is 

 amended by adding Section 64.0322 to read as follows:

        Sec. 64.0322.  SUBMISSION OF FORM BY ASSISTANT. (a)  Before 

 a person, other than an election officer, assists a voter in 

 accordance with this chapter, the person must complete a form 

 stating:

              (1)  the name and address of the person assisting the 

 voter;

              (2)  the manner in which the voter requires assistance;

              (3)  the reason the assistance is necessary; and

              (4)  the relationship of the assistant to the voter.

        (b)  The secretary of state shall prescribe the form required 

 by this section. The form must be incorporated into the official 

 carrier envelope if the voter is voting an early voting ballot by 

 mail and receives assistance under Section 86.010, or must be 

 submitted to an election officer before the voter may be accepted 

 for voting if the voter is voting at a polling place or under 

 Section 64.009.

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?
I will wager you any amount of money that, should Donald Trump run for re-election in 2020, his name will be on the ballot in California. Name the amount. 

 
Here's the specific language. It means that you can only drive someone to the polls if they are physically disabled. That seems kind of ####ty.
Not only is it absurd and perhaps unconstitutional (why can’t I drive whoever I want to whatever legal activity they want?) it would also be ludicrous to attempt to enforce. Are police officers supposed to hang around polling booths ready to hand out tickets if more than 3 people step out of a car? 

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
As much as I have a strong dislike Trump and think he's a vile human I do not like what they are attempting.

 
Here's the specific language. It means that you can only drive someone to the polls if they are physically disabled. That seems kind of ####ty.
This from the party of small government, right? I would love to hear what problem this bill is attempting to solve. Anyone care to support this bill?

Also, does this apply to public transportation?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the specific language. It means that you can only drive someone to the polls if they are physically disabled. That seems kind of ####ty.

 (e)  A person who assists at least three voters voting under 

 this section at the same time by providing the voters with 

 transportation to the polling place must complete and sign a form 

 that:

              (1)  requires the person to affirm that the voters are 

 physically unable to enter the polling place without personal 

 assistance or likelihood of injuring their health; and

              (2)  contains the following information:

                    (A)  the person's name and address; and

                    (B)  whether the person is providing assistance to 

 the voters solely under this section or under both this section and 

 Subchapter B.

        (f)  Subsection (e) does not apply to a person if the person 

 is a family member of all voters that the person provides with 

 transportation to the polling place. For purposes of this 

 subsection, "family member" has the meaning assigned by Section 

 33.057(a).

        (g)  The secretary of state shall prescribe the form 

 described by Subsection (e).

        SECTION 2.12.  Subchapter B, Chapter 64, Election Code, is 

 amended by adding Section 64.0322 to read as follows:

        Sec. 64.0322.  SUBMISSION OF FORM BY ASSISTANT. (a)  Before 

 a person, other than an election officer, assists a voter in 

 accordance with this chapter, the person must complete a form 

 stating:

              (1)  the name and address of the person assisting the 

 voter;

              (2)  the manner in which the voter requires assistance;

              (3)  the reason the assistance is necessary; and

              (4)  the relationship of the assistant to the voter.

        (b)  The secretary of state shall prescribe the form required 

 by this section. The form must be incorporated into the official 

 carrier envelope if the voter is voting an early voting ballot by 

 mail and receives assistance under Section 86.010, or must be 

 submitted to an election officer before the voter may be accepted 

 for voting if the voter is voting at a polling place or under 

 Section 64.009.
What is the argument FOR this legislation.  What "problem" do they claim they are attempting to fix by doing this?

I have no idea if this will pass in Texas or not, but the easy solution to getting around this would be to drop them at the address next door to the polling place right?  This wording specifically calls out taking them to the polling place.

As I read this, it seems pretty toothless and easy enough to get around.  Heck you could even wrangle up a van of XX amount of people and drop them off three at a time :lol:  

 
What is the argument FOR this legislation.  What "problem" do they claim they are attempting to fix by doing this?

I have no idea if this will pass in Texas or not, but the easy solution to getting around this would be to drop them at the address next door to the polling place right?  This wording specifically calls out taking them to the polling place.

As I read this, it seems pretty toothless and easy enough to get around.  Heck you could even wrangle up a van of XX amount of people and drop them off three at a time :lol:  
Brought to you by the party for a smaller government.

 
What is the argument FOR this legislation.  What "problem" do they claim they are attempting to fix by doing this?

I have no idea if this will pass in Texas or not, but the easy solution to getting around this would be to drop them at the address next door to the polling place right?  This wording specifically calls out taking them to the polling place.

As I read this, it seems pretty toothless and easy enough to get around.  Heck you could even wrangle up a van of XX amount of people and drop them off three at a time :lol:  


The GOP has consistently pushed voter suppression measures throughout the country. They are, quite obviously, worried about getting people access to the voting booth. They are, obviously, afraid of what would happen if more people have access to the voting booth. That suggests to me there are two possible reasons for that. Either - 

A) there are a LOT more Democrats than Republicans nationwide or

b) Democrats are more likely to be affected by the obstacles the GOP puts in citizens' way on the way to the booth. 

I don't remember what the polling says on this.

 
The GOP has consistently pushed voter suppression measures throughout the country. They are, quite obviously, worried about getting people access to the voting booth. They are, obviously, afraid of what would happen if more people have access to the voting booth. That suggests to me there are two possible reasons for that. Either - 

A) there are a LOT more Democrats than Republicans nationwide or

b) Democrats are more likely to be affected by the obstacles the GOP puts in citizens' way on the way to the booth. 

I don't remember what the polling says on this.
No...I mean, how are they selling it.  What is the ALLEGED reason for this or are they completely transparent about it and upfront that they want to suppress voter turnout?

 
No...I mean, how are they selling it.  What is the ALLEGED reason for this or are they completely transparent about it and upfront that they want to suppress voter turnout?


I haven't seen any articles on this legislation - which is kind of strange. But I'm sure they claim some bogus voter fraud argument. That people are ... I don't know - forcing people to go vote?

 
I haven't seen any articles on this legislation - which is kind of strange. But I'm sure they claim some bogus voter fraud argument. That people are ... I don't know - forcing people to go vote?
my guess would be to prevent driving carloads of the poor, who wouldn't otherwise have transportation, to the polls.

 
I haven't seen any articles on this legislation - which is kind of strange. But I'm sure they claim some bogus voter fraud argument. That people are ... I don't know - forcing people to go vote?
my guess would be to prevent driving carloads of the poor, who wouldn't otherwise have transportation, to the polls.
Was just getting ready to ask if Texas just happened to reduce the number of polling places in the last few years.

 
Without researching it this appears to be a Republican attempt to pre-emptively thwart a rightfully feared Democratic surge in voting numbers. It could backfire on them if it does actually pass. Aren't Republicans generally considered to be older than Democrats on average? Seems it could hamper Republican voters just as much if not more than Democrat voters. Either way, I also am interested in the reasoning behind this proposal. Maybe there is a viable, rational thought process to this?

 
How do you feel about California attempting to suppress the vote by not putting Trump on the ballot?

Or the states who have declared they will not honor their constituents' votes and instead give them to the winner of the popular vote, even if it is different than that state's winner?
He's the most transparent President ever in his own words. Shouldn't be a problem. Fighting corruption should be a laudable goal. 

 
I assume this is an ALEC initiative. Lobbyists are completely coopting the legislative process. Citizens United lead to a lot of this BS. 

Plus all this dark money is how foreign entities like Russia have a neat backdoor to corrupt our elections. Looking at you NRA. 

 
Lots of good stuff coming from the GOP in this legislative session. 

This is just such a weird hill for the GOP to die on. I really don't get it.

Texas Senate Set to OK Limits on Removing Confederate Statues

The Texas Senate on Tuesday is scheduled to debate — and is expected to approve — legislation that would restrict the ability of state agencies, local governments and public universities to remove or alter monuments named for historical events or people, including those linked with the Confederacy. 

Senate Bill 1663, authored by Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, would require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to remove or alter — including alterations to maintain historical accuracy — a monument on state property that is at least 25 years old. Newer ones would need formal action of the governing body or state official who governs the agency.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top