Voter Suppression (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

 The new programs may have originally been put in place for Covid, but now we have additional reasons to want them.

This comes to mind.

 

[Sand]

We should be making it easier to vote. We don't need to be inconveniencing voters to solve a non-existent problem.

There is no zero-effort election process.  Everything has friction.  It's up to the states to find a happy medium between integrity and ease of process.

Elections aren't built around convenience as a prime directive, nor should they be.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

There is no zero-effort election process.  Everything has friction.  It's up to the states to find a happy medium between integrity and ease of process.

Elections aren't built around convenience as a prime directive, nor should they be.

Have the elections not had integrity over the last 30 years?  Your argument only makes sense if there was wide spread election fraud.

 

[Insein]

Have the elections not had integrity over the last 30 years?  Your argument only makes sense if there was wide spread election fraud.

Last year was the first election during Covid. Many new laws were enacted under emergency pretenses for convenience and safety and not necessarily for security. States have a duty to review all the processes and adjust accordingly to their state's needs. There doesn't need to be wide spread election fraud to do that nor should they wait for some.

 

[Sand]

Have the elections not had integrity over the last 30 years?  Your argument only makes sense if there was wide spread election fraud.

I disagree with this line of thought.  There is a great deal of power behind having the populace believe in the security of an election.  It's as important as actual security.

 

[tonydead]

Have the elections not had integrity over the last 30 years?  Your argument only makes sense if there was wide spread election fraud.

Saying it has to be widespread is poorly shortsighted and the Dems favorite red herring.  Any fraud is unacceptable. Period. 

 

[Amused to Death]

I disagree with this line of thought.  There is a great deal of power behind having the populace believe in the security of an election.  It's as important as actual security.

Maybe we shouldn't have a political party, and more importantly a losing president, saying there was a tremendous amount of fraud without producing evidence then. It's doing a lot of harm to our trust in the process. Especially the farce in AZ.

 

[Godsbrother]

Saying it has to be widespread is poorly shortsighted and the Dems favorite red herring.  Any fraud is unacceptable. Period. 

Of course it is unacceptable, that is why we have laws in place to punish those that do.

But to date we have not seen a scintilla of proof of fraud that would have made a difference in the 2020 presidential election.  And when the POTUS claims that he won in a landslide but the election was stolen, refuses to concede, and whips otherwise law-abiding citizens into a frenzy enough to storm the capitol, despite having no proof, you have a serious problem.

When I have spoken to some of my GOP friends and family regarding the election, most feel that there was rampant widespread fraud by the Democrats even though they have nothing to base it on except unsubstantiated claims made by the ex-President, Republican leadership, and people like the My Pillow Guy.  If there is a lack of faith in the US elections system by citizens it has been largely fabricated by the right and specifically DJT.

Now back to the voter suppression topic:  I am all for better validation techniques for ballots and voter IDs at polling stations but some of the other stuff being pushed by the GOP has nothing to do with catching fraud.

 

[tonydead]

Of course it is unacceptable, that is why we have laws in place to punish those that do.

But to date we have not seen a scintilla of proof of fraud that would have made a difference in the 2020 presidential election.  And when the POTUS claims that he won in a landslide but the election was stolen, refuses to concede, and whips otherwise law-abiding citizens into a frenzy enough to storm the capitol, despite having no proof, you have a serious problem.

When I have spoken to some of my GOP friends and family regarding the election, most feel that there was rampant widespread fraud by the Democrats even though they have nothing to base it on except unsubstantiated claims made by the ex-President, Republican leadership, and people like the My Pillow Guy.  If there is a lack of faith in the US elections system by citizens it has been largely fabricated by the right and specifically DJT.

Now back to the voter suppression topic:  I am all for better validation techniques for ballots and voter IDs at polling stations but some of the other stuff being pushed by the GOP has nothing to do with catching fraud.

tl:dr

 

[Stealthycat]

And when the POTUS claims that he won in a landslide but the election was stolen, refuses to concede, and whips otherwise law-abiding citizens into a frenzy enough to storm the capitol, despite having no proof, you have a serious problem.

you do know that Democrats were prepping for the same thing? 

Hillary spoke several times about Biden never ever conceding the election, that Trump would steal it, that a long legal fight was coming and we know what Democrats do when they don't get their way - they riot/loot/storm cities, block highways ... don't you remember when Trump was elected? Protests over a legally elected President .... millions asking for safe places to cry, Madonna asking about bombing the white house, the Missouri elected person asking for assassination, the faux beheading ..... long long list of what Democrats did 

do you remember all that ?

 

[Godsbrother]

you do know that Democrats were prepping for the same thing? 

Hillary spoke several times about Biden never ever conceding the election, that Trump would steal it, that a long legal fight was coming and we know what Democrats do when they don't get their way - they riot/loot/storm cities, block highways ... don't you remember when Trump was elected? Protests over a legally elected President .... millions asking for safe places to cry, Madonna asking about bombing the white house, the Missouri elected person asking for assassination, the faux beheading ..... long long list of what Democrats did 

do you remember all that ?

tl; dr

 

[Chaz McNulty]

you do know that Democrats were prepping for the same thing? 

Hillary spoke several times about Biden never ever conceding the election, that Trump would steal it, that a long legal fight was coming and we know what Democrats do when they don't get their way - they riot/loot/storm cities, block highways ... don't you remember when Trump was elected? Protests over a legally elected President .... millions asking for safe places to cry, Madonna asking about bombing the white house, the Missouri elected person asking for assassination, the faux beheading ..... long long list of what Democrats did 

do you remember all that ?

Were they prepping to Storm the capitol too?  Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

 

[Stealthycat]

Were they prepping to Storm the capitol too?  Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

Storm the capitol ... I love those words. Scary, violence, riots, looting, burning .... oh wait, that's Portland. That's cities anytime there is a BLM rally against police. 

Yes, Democrat's were prepping for nationwide protests had Biden lost. Hillary acknowledged the legal teams they had assembled, telling Biden to NOT concede ever.  Give liberals credit, they do pour into the street's and generate chaos when they don't get their way on things. 

Yes, it would have been worse had Trump won IMO

 

[Amused to Death]

Storm the capitol ... I love those words. Scary, violence, riots, looting, burning .... oh wait, that's Portland. That's cities anytime there is a BLM rally against police. 

Yes, Democrat's were prepping for nationwide protests had Biden lost. Hillary acknowledged the legal teams they had assembled, telling Biden to NOT concede ever.  Give liberals credit, they do pour into the street's and generate chaos when they don't get their way on things. 

Yes, it would have been worse had Trump won IMO

And how would you have felt IF the Dems did that? Then add the unprecedented events of Jan 6th where they actually stopped the Constitutional process of certifying the EC ballots on top of it.

 

[Insein]

Were they prepping to Storm the capitol too?  Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

How quickly we forget.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html

 

[PennStater77]

Were they prepping to Storm the capitol too?  Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

Nobody stormed the capital.. I believed they went there to protest the fraud election, but the police opened up the gates and pretty much left them in.. It's an absolute travesty what happened to the police, but when you have an upset mob that happens and people of this country, you know real Americans were upset about the election being stolen. What really sucks is how the cops got away with killing an unarmed women who was exercising her right to protest.

 

[quick-hands]

And how would you have felt IF the Dems did that? Then add the unprecedented events of Jan 6th where they actually stopped the Constitutional process of certifying the EC ballots on top of it.

Stopped?    It happened same day.

 

[Amused to Death]

Stopped?    It happened same day.

Yes, they stopped the process for several hours while our Congressmen and Senators had to be moved to safe rooms.

It was in all the papers.

 

[quick-hands]

Yes, they stopped the process for several hours while our Congressmen and Senators had to be moved to safe rooms.

It was in all the papers.

That's called a delay.

 

[Amused to Death]

That's called a delay.

Oh, that's much better then.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And how would you have felt IF the Dems did that? Then add the unprecedented events of Jan 6th where they actually stopped the Constitutional process of certifying the EC ballots on top of it.

Or, imagine that instead of Trump supporters storming the capitol in January, BLM activists had stormed it last July.  There is zero probability that conservatives would hand-wave that away.  

 

[DaVinci]

Yes, they stopped the process for several hours while our Congressmen and Senators had to be moved to safe rooms.

It was in all the papers.

That's called a delay.

Like Ronald Reagan was delayed by John Hinkley.

 

[Insein]

Like Ronald Reagan was delayed by John Hinkley.

No. Not at all like that. 

 

[Sand]

Maybe we shouldn't have a political party, and more importantly a losing president, saying there was a tremendous amount of fraud without producing evidence then. It's doing a lot of harm to our trust in the process. Especially the farce in AZ.

No argument here.  I have never agreed with this line of thinking.

The same can be said of a certain Governor of California asking for an audit of recall signatures or candidates of NYC mayoral race disputing the election results.

 

[shadrap]

How quickly we forget.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html

yep.

 

[Stealthycat]

And how would you have felt IF the Dems did that? Then add the unprecedented events of Jan 6th where they actually stopped the Constitutional process of certifying the EC ballots on top of it.

good question

depends on what they did - after Trump was elected, I thought it was a massive waste of time and energy and pollution, all the protesting but it was their right to do so

I'm much less accepting of riots/looting .... but those things are allowed every time liberal cities want to "express" their discontent with something. It angers me everytime I see it and yet, its accepted, tolerated and allowed

To what extent would Democrats have went to? I'm not sure. .. they seem to react violently when they don't get their way on things so .... we can only guess 

 

[quick-hands]

Like Ronald Reagan was delayed by John Hinkley.

Objection!    Argumentative!

 

[Yenrub]

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038354159/n-c-judges-strike-down-a-voter-id-law-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter

Judges strike down a North Carolina voter ID law 

 

[quick-hands]

Were they prepping to Storm the capitol too?  Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

Yes they were.    But not the weak sauce of 1/6.    Serious antifa stuff.

 

[Sand]

Virginia using COVID as a pretext to change voter laws during the election.  Polls aren't going well for the blue team - so change the rules.  All in the face of steeply declining infection numbers.

Virginia’s gubernatorial contest between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe clearly has supporters of the latter worried. Recent polls show a far tighter race than they expected. Consequently, it was all but inevitable that McAuliffe’s allies would attempt to meddle with election laws using public health as a pretext. Sure enough, the Democrat-dominated Fairfax Board of Supervisors has asked Gov. Ralph Northam to waive the witness signature requirement that Virginia law stipulates for all absentee ballots. Board Chairman Jeffrey McKay insists that the waiver is necessary due to the threat of COVID-19, yet cases are declining.

 

[the moops]

VA is not in a steep decline. The rolling 7 day average is 2700 cases. Which is down from the summer peak of 3700 and winter peak of 6000, but still higher than just about any time in the past 1.5 years.

 

[massraider]

Virginia using COVID as a pretext to change voter laws during the election.  Polls aren't going well for the blue team - so change the rules.  All in the face of steeply declining infection numbers.

Virginia’s gubernatorial contest between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe clearly has supporters of the latter worried. Recent polls show a far tighter race than they expected. Consequently, it was all but inevitable that McAuliffe’s allies would attempt to meddle with election laws using public health as a pretext. Sure enough, the Democrat-dominated Fairfax Board of Supervisors has asked Gov. Ralph Northam to waive the witness signature requirement that Virginia law stipulates for all absentee ballots. Board Chairman Jeffrey McKay insists that the waiver is necessary due to the threat of COVID-19, yet cases are declining.

You put this in the Voter Suppression thread by accident. 

 

[massraider]

Virginia using COVID as a pretext to change voter laws during the election.  Polls aren't going well for the blue team - so change the rules.  All in the face of steeply declining infection numbers.

Virginia’s gubernatorial contest between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe clearly has supporters of the latter worried. Recent polls show a far tighter race than they expected. Consequently, it was all but inevitable that McAuliffe’s allies would attempt to meddle with election laws using public health as a pretext. Sure enough, the Democrat-dominated Fairfax Board of Supervisors has asked Gov. Ralph Northam to waive the witness signature requirement that Virginia law stipulates for all absentee ballots. Board Chairman Jeffrey McKay insists that the waiver is necessary due to the threat of COVID-19, yet cases are declining.

Also, please keep us updated if...... "tnmountie_Scout"...... has any more scoops from the 24/7 Sports message boards.

https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/board/103782/Contents/dems-in-va-now-want-to-change-vote-laws-after-voting-has-started-172886664/

 

[joffer]

Also, please keep us updated if...... "tnmountie_Scout"...... has any more scoops from the 24/7 Sports message boards.

https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/board/103782/Contents/dems-in-va-now-want-to-change-vote-laws-after-voting-has-started-172886664/

I’m sure no link was just an oversight

 

[Yenrub]

Having to drive 98 miles to vote is un-American. Yet some native Americans have to do just that

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

This is concerning to say the least

The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court | Steven Donziger

If the court upholds the rogue ‘Independent State Legislature’ theory, it would put the US squarely on the path to authoritarianism

www.theguardian.com

 

[Snotbubbles]

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038...aw-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter

Judges strike down a North Carolina voter ID law

Can somebody more familiar with the case tell me how photo ID is racially discriminatory?

 

[Snotbubbles]

This is concerning to say the least

The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court | Steven Donziger

If the court upholds the rogue ‘Independent State Legislature’ theory, it would put the US squarely on the path to authoritarianism

www.theguardian.com

I began reading this article. In the second paragraph the writer states:

A supermajority of six, unelected ultraconservatives justice – five of which were put on the bench by presidents who did not win the popular vote – have aggressively grabbed yet another batch of cases that will allow them to move American law to the extreme right and threaten US democracy in the process.

I can already feel the liberal bias oozing from this piece. As I continue to read. Hopefully they just stick to the facts and allow the reader to form their own opinions.

Unfortunately the writer just wants to push his agenda.

If the US court agreed to accept the Moore case for review, it almost certainly plans to endorse this rogue ISL theory, that could blow up elections and democracy in the United States as we know it.

Wow. I'm trying to get to the end of the piece, but when the writer puts this little nugget in there, I have a hard time continuing. Get this guy a tinfoil hat.

Recent US history shows how spectacularly effective rightwing funders, representing wealthy Americans and corporations, have been in essentially buying control over our political system. These forces correctly perceive that if democracy is allowed to exist in an unfettered and neutral way, then corporate profits will be diminished and the powerful fossil fuel industry will be phased out over time. So they are organizing to prevent that from happening.

This piece is so one-sided. Uh, Mr. Writer, you are aware that Democratic-controlled legislatures will also be able to the same thing.

Should the court endorse the ISL theory, Republican-controlled legislatures also will be able to gerrymander political districts to lock in permanent control of federal elections without judicial oversight. Gerrymandering is a fancy term to describe another method of voter suppression in the United States: setting district maps to guarantee that progressive or minority candidates simply cannot get elected except in pre-approved districts.

Here's another example of the writer's stupidity. Electors already do a version of this, it's called a "faithless elector".

In a presidential election, these officials could determine what slate of electors gets put forth to the electoral college, regardless of the outcome of the state’s popular vote.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I disagree with this line of thought. There is a great deal of power behind having the populace believe in the security of an election.

Agreed. That's why undermining faith in free and fair elections is so damaging.

 

[roadkill1292]

Snot, I hope that post doesn't come back to bite you. Because I believe that a red state legislature like Wisconsin is gearing up to do exactly what the author suggests. I hope I can assume that you are opposed to the action and angry about what you see as an unfair accusation.

 

[BladeRunner]

This is concerning to say the least

The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court | Steven Donziger

If the court upholds the rogue ‘Independent State Legislature’ theory, it would put the US squarely on the path to authoritarianism

www.theguardian.com

I began reading this article. In the second paragraph the writer states:

A supermajority of six, unelected ultraconservatives justice – five of which were put on the bench by presidents who did not win the popular vote – have aggressively grabbed yet another batch of cases that will allow them to move American law to the extreme right and threaten US democracy in the process.

I can already feel the liberal bias oozing from this piece. As I continue to read. Hopefully they just stick to the facts and allow the reader to form their own opinions.

Unfortunately the writer just wants to push his agenda.

If the US court agreed to accept the Moore case for review, it almost certainly plans to endorse this rogue ISL theory, that could blow up elections and democracy in the United States as we know it.

Wow. I'm trying to get to the end of the piece, but when the writer puts this little nugget in there, I have a hard time continuing. Get this guy a tinfoil hat.

Recent US history shows how spectacularly effective rightwing funders, representing wealthy Americans and corporations, have been in essentially buying control over our political system. These forces correctly perceive that if democracy is allowed to exist in an unfettered and neutral way, then corporate profits will be diminished and the powerful fossil fuel industry will be phased out over time. So they are organizing to prevent that from happening.

This piece is so one-sided. Uh, Mr. Writer, you are aware that Democratic-controlled legislatures will also be able to the same thing.

Should the court endorse the ISL theory, Republican-controlled legislatures also will be able to gerrymander political districts to lock in permanent control of federal elections without judicial oversight. Gerrymandering is a fancy term to describe another method of voter suppression in the United States: setting district maps to guarantee that progressive or minority candidates simply cannot get elected except in pre-approved districts.

Here's another example of the writer's stupidity. Electors already do a version of this, it's called a "faithless elector".

In a presidential election, these officials could determine what slate of electors gets put forth to the electoral college, regardless of the outcome of the state’s popular vote.

This article is so absurd. It's yet another, "OMG!!! CONSERVATIVE DOOMSDAY!!!" type nonsense.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Snot, I hope that post doesn't come back to bite you. Because I believe that a red state legislature like Wisconsin is gearing up to do exactly what the author suggests. I hope I can assume that you are opposed to the action and angry about what you see as an unfair accusation.

If the citizens of a particular state vote Democrat, then everything in the article trying to demonize Republicans, applies to Democrats as well. This right-wing conspiracy, Republicans are bad positions is just utter nonsense. The writer is so biased that it's hard for an objective reader to make it to the end of the piece. Until and unless Congress passes a national election law, then the "time, manner and place" of elections is a state legislative power. Not any other branch at any government level. The Constitution couldn't be more clear.

 

[roadkill1292]

Snot, I hope that post doesn't come back to bite you. Because I believe that a red state legislature like Wisconsin is gearing up to do exactly what the author suggests. I hope I can assume that you are opposed to the action and angry about what you see as an unfair accusation.

If the citizens of a particular state vote Democrat, then everything in the article trying to demonize Republicans, applies to Democrats as well. This right-wing conspiracy, Republicans are bad positions is just utter nonsense. The writer is so biased that it's hard for an objective reader to make it to the end of the piece. Until and unless Congress passes a national election law, then the "time, manner and place" of elections is a state legislative power. Not any other branch at any government level. The Constitution couldn't be more clear.

Ok now I'm more confused. On one hand you object to the inference that a Republican state might pull something like this, on the other you seem to imply that states have the right to do so.

Are there any Dem state legislatures that might want to overturn their popular votes?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Snot, I hope that post doesn't come back to bite you. Because I believe that a red state legislature like Wisconsin is gearing up to do exactly what the author suggests. I hope I can assume that you are opposed to the action and angry about what you see as an unfair accusation.

If the citizens of a particular state vote Democrat, then everything in the article trying to demonize Republicans, applies to Democrats as well. This right-wing conspiracy, Republicans are bad positions is just utter nonsense. The writer is so biased that it's hard for an objective reader to make it to the end of the piece. Until and unless Congress passes a national election law, then the "time, manner and place" of elections is a state legislative power. Not any other branch at any government level. The Constitution couldn't be more clear.

Ok now I'm more confused. On one hand you object to the inference that a Republican state might pull something like this, on the other you seem to imply that states have the right to do so.

Are there any Dem state legislatures that might want to overturn their popular votes?

State Legislatures have the right to control the time, place and manner of elections. Those powers are given to both Republican and Democratic state legislatures. So any zombie apocalypse election scenarios you want to attribute to Republicans, you can attribute them to Democrats as well.

As to your question, see Chiafalo v. Washington.

In the 2016 presidential election, the major-party nominees were Hillary Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine for the Democrats, and Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence for the Republicans. Trump eventually won the election with 304 electoral votes to become the 45th President of the United States. There was a grassroots effort to convince electors to vote their conscience in accordance with Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68 to try to sway electors to vote for an alternative Republican candidate, even if this were to violate their pledges, to deny Trump a majority in the electoral college and trigger a contingent election in the United States House of Representatives. While the defection of at least 37 Republican electors was needed to force a contingent election, there were only 2 who did not vote for Donald Trump; most of the faithless votes came from Democratic electors, several of whom also voted for alternative Republican candidates.

 

[Amused to Death]

State Legislatures have the right to control the time, place and manner of elections. Those powers are given to both Republican and Democratic state legislatures. So any zombie apocalypse election scenarios you want to attribute to Republicans, you can attribute them to Democrats as well.

Just so I can fully understand what's at stake, doesn't state supreme courts currently have oversight over the state legislatures? If I read it correctly (and I may not) Moore vs. Harper seeks to remove the court oversight, leaving the manner of elections strictly up to the legislature without restriction.

If the above is correct, wouldn't that leave open the possibility of state legislatures picking the winner of the state without recourse? Which, after all, is what was at the heart of some of the cases in the 2020 election, no?

 

[Amused to Death]

State Legislatures have the right to control the time, place and manner of elections. Those powers are given to both Republican and Democratic state legislatures. So any zombie apocalypse election scenarios you want to attribute to Republicans, you can attribute them to Democrats as well.

Just so I can fully understand what's at stake, doesn't state supreme courts currently have oversight over the state legislatures? If I read it correctly (and I may not) Moore vs. Harper seeks to remove the court oversight, leaving the manner of elections strictly up to the legislature without restriction.

If the above is correct, wouldn't that leave open the possibility of state legislatures picking the winner of the state without recourse? Which, after all, is what was at the heart of some of the cases in the 2020 election, no?

From Lawfare Blog:

At the end of its past term, the Supreme Court took up the case of Moore v. Harper, a challenge to North Carolina State Supreme Court rulings on elections that promises to confront the controversial independent state legislature doctrine, which argues that the Constitution empowers state legislatures over other state institutions when it comes to deciding certain election matters. Court watchers have posited that the decision could be a major one, as upholding the independent state legislature doctrine could not only hinder the state judicial enforcement of various election-related rights, but potentially strengthen arguments that state legislatures can decide how to allocate their state's electors in presidential elections, a contention that played a central role in some of the legal machinations that former President Donald Trump supporters attempted to pursue following the 2020 election in order to turn the results in his favor.

Much more in link.

 

[Snotbubbles]

State Legislatures have the right to control the time, place and manner of elections. Those powers are given to both Republican and Democratic state legislatures. So any zombie apocalypse election scenarios you want to attribute to Republicans, you can attribute them to Democrats as well.

Just so I can fully understand what's at stake, doesn't state supreme courts currently have oversight over the state legislatures? If I read it correctly (and I may not) Moore vs. Harper seeks to remove the court oversight, leaving the manner of elections strictly up to the legislature without restriction.

If the above is correct, wouldn't that leave open the possibility of state legislatures picking the winner of the state without recourse? Which, after all, is what was at the heart of some of the cases in the 2020 election, no?

I wrote previously on this case in another thread. I'll try and find my response to Moore v Harper. When I initially read the opinions, I agreed wholeheartedly with the dissenters. The majority IMO, was legislating from the bench.

EDIT: Here is the Moore thread: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/moore-v-harper-official-end-of-democracy-watch.804897/

Here is my summary of the dissent:

The dissenting opinion says:

1. The US Constitution grants the "time, place, manner" of elections to State Legislatures.

2. The US Supreme Court has said that "partisan gerrymandering" is constitutional.

3. The NC Constitution does not prohibit "partisan gerrymandering" and only expressly limits gerrymandering for 4 reasons.

4. The NC Judiciary is overstepping its authority for numerous reasons and institutes its own agenda (sounds similar to Roe).

The theory here is that the governmental power is granted by "the people". The legislature is a representation of "the people" and there is a presumption that any legislation is constitutional unless shown not to be by a high burden (beyond a reasonable doubt). According to the dissent, "Partisan gerrymandering" does not qualify and there are two methods to include "partisan gerrymandering" as unconstitutional, statute or constitutional amendment. Short of that, "partisan gerrymandering" should be allowed.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

State Legislatures have the right to control the time, place and manner of elections. Those powers are given to both Republican and Democratic state legislatures. So any zombie apocalypse election scenarios you want to attribute to Republicans, you can attribute them to Democrats as well.

Just so I can fully understand what's at stake, doesn't state supreme courts currently have oversight over the state legislatures? If I read it correctly (and I may not) Moore vs. Harper seeks to remove the court oversight, leaving the manner of elections strictly up to the legislature without restriction.

If the above is correct, wouldn't that leave open the possibility of state legislatures picking the winner of the state without recourse? Which, after all, is what was at the heart of some of the cases in the 2020 election, no?

That's how I read it. No reason to even vote.

 

[roadkill1292]

What I'm getting out of this is that the Wisconsin legislature would never overturn voting results on trumped up reasons, how dare we even think it possible, but if they did it would be within their constitutional purview. And that's a messed up way to run a republic.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038...aw-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter

Judges strike down a North Carolina voter ID law

Can somebody more familiar with the case tell me how photo ID is racially discriminatory?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/?postshare=9981487174946576

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

So just get them IDs, right? IDs would be beneficial in many areas of life. Problem is that racial minorities are also less likely to be able to obtain the necessary official documentation to get such an ID. Whether because it is cost prohibitive or simply doesn't exist. ETA: There is a really well written appeals court decision from a decade or so out there that lays this all out. I just cannot remember how to find it. Hopefully this reference triggers someone's memory.