Discussion: After Trump Commission Setback, Voter Fraud Alarmists May Get Boost From SCOTUS

[jonney_5]

@go2goal

And now we have Nancy Pelosi protecting the groper in chief.

Not sure this is accurate. I believe that we have an election to win before making impeachment noises.

[jonney_5]

@jeffreys

There should be universal same day registration. Minnesota has it. It works. It’s verifiable with stiff penalties for fraud.

Same with NH. It works.

[cervantes]

@jonney_5

A big part of that fear is that this very white base will be treated the way they have treated minorities.

What Jefferson called bad manners will come home to roost:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.

— Query XVIII, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” 1781

[lisaaug]

NOT “voter fraud alarmists.” Call them “Election Fraudsters.” “Voter Suppressionists.” Or, you know, just “Racist Motherfuckers.”

[lastroth]

Who knew that being dead and your name is still on the voter rolls was a crime?
Who knew that moving around the country and being listed on more than one state’s voter rolls would cause such a panic at the disco?
Who knows what their state’s or county’s election board system is for cleaning voter rolls? How easy is it to get the election board to change your address? How many or what percent of listed voters on a voting roll vote in each and every election.

All I see an effort by some groups to mess up, spend money, and have law suits to continue their fallacies of voter fraud. Where are their efforts to encourage people to vote?

[old_curmudgeon]

Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley observed that whether or not the Constitution follows the flag, the Supreme Court follows the election returns. (He said it with a hokey Irish accent I won’t try to reproduce.) I suspect that Ohio has an uphill climb. The justices know what has been going on. They know about der Furor’s bogus vote-fraud commission. Even if they don’t vote to cut back on partisan gerrymandering, they know that more and more voters are upset over the efforts to keep them from voting. And I’d like to think that most of the justices actually do believe in democracy. (This is one case, however, in which I wish Scalia were still on the bench.)

[cervantes]

@go2goal

they are almost as bad as Republicans in their governing for Corporations and the very very rich.

Corporations are people, too, you know.

[bd2999]

I sort of get why they want to do this but I just feel like the right to vote should be made easier. Everybody should just be registered automatically when they are 18 and then if they vote or not is up to them. Or voting should be made easier. Just seems like the swing to avoid possibly one case of voter fraud while stopping a dozen or more from voting is not a worthwhile trade.

And the methods proposed have no real evidence in preventing fraud that I am aware of.

[DuckmanGR]

in the case of “keeping voter rolls filled with dead and ineligible voters.”

That’s the thing, who cares if the list of potential voters has extra names on it, it’s just an effing list, FFS.

I mean, I know why the voting suppressors do, but everyday folks need to think about it, cause it matters not if there are names on the list that are ineligible, or dead, or spelled wrong, or FSM forbid, moved.

OT, on MSNBC right now they’re playing a commercial about how Congress fulfilled their promise and passed a tax cut that save the avg American family thousands of dollars on their taxes this year. We’re going to have 11 months of crap like that, all kinds of monkey business with corporate payroll, manipulations and propaganda, and the Democrats better start responding NOW NOW NOW.

[ncsteve]

If there’s one area where Democratic framing could be several thousand percent better, it’s this one. Being Democrats, they lock up on the policy and process aspects rather than pulling back and messaging based on what it says about Republicans. The framing should be “in every way possible, Republicans show us that their billionaire owners are out to destroy democracy itself, chip away at the right to vote it until every election is the kind of sham it is in Russia.”

[richardinjax]

The Justices have the tools to preserve the VRA but there are 5 GOP’ers in that mix so I won’t bet on it. The VRA specifically prohibits purging for not voting. Ohio is going to base their case on the fact that they “mail a latter” as well. That’s where the GOP’ers get their opening to insert their political feelings. “Mailing a letter” shouldn’t cut it because you can tailor who you mail letters to. I’m sure they’re already doing that. We have to set what we know aside, that the GOP’ers are out to make it harder to vote against them, and look at what’s likely to happen. This would be the same group that gave CU a green light minus a 6 of 1 half dozen of the other substitution of Scalia with Gorsuch so I’ll bet they find a way to do it.

Any Bernie Sanders protest voters in the house? How about you Greenies ? This does not happen if you had acted like adults.

[DuckmanGR]

And thinking that the Court will vote for the law versus the gop is a fools errand.

[arc_of_the_universe]

@mattinpa

one of the unhealthiest trends I see is a blatant effort to politicize the courts and deny the vote to people you think will vote against you.

I dunno. I’m all for disenfranchising white males (and I happen to be one of them).

[arc_of_the_universe]

@ncsteve

“in every way possible, Republicans show us that their billionaire owners are out to destroy democracy itself, chip away at the right to vote it until every election is the kind of sham it is in Russia.”

Exactly!

[ncsteve]

Actually, I think they’re gonna lose this one. The idea that not voting is a First Amendment right is exactly the kind of thing that gets Kennedy to swing.

[ncsteve]

Gorsuch votes the same, but they really did manage to scour the Circuit Courts and come up with someone who was in ever other way worse.

[mattinpa]

@arc_of_the_universe

I dunno. I’m all for disenfranchising white males (and I happen to be one of them).

That thought did drift through my own mind. It’s one of those things that’s wrong in principle but probably in practice a net gain.

[arc_of_the_universe]

Ahhh. But I jest. Perhaps our votes should only count as 3/5s.

[ottnott]

Denying the vote isn’t the end of it. I recall that there was a lawsuit asserting that redistricting should be based on the number of people who vote rather than on population. The claim made was that voters in high-turnout districts were suffering from dilution of their votes versus those of voters in low-turnout districts.

Sounds lame, but we have a Supreme Court that found that for-profit businesses have deeply held religious beliefs (which deserved protection even when based on a false understanding of biology).

Maybe the redistricting suit won’t pay off, but these guys will never stop probing for ways to decouple political power from the need to get approval from a majority of voters.

[shorebreeze]

Puh-leeze. Don’t do the right-wing trolls’ work for them.