AP: In big states, tiny counties, Trump attacking voting rules

[JonNC]

It is quite possible that I was registered in more than one place when I moved out from state to state. I don’t remember ever saying that I was moving. But I didn’t vote twice.

But you very well could have. Thank you for proving my point.

That could be what is happening in Detroit.

Could be? You mean it isn’t important that we know for sure?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Ah, it’s so cute when you try to be obnoxious.

Should you really be the one to say that?

 

[JonNC]

That would have been illegal and the case would have been easily proved in a court of law.

I have a better idea. Why not require people to have to register to vote, have an ID, and either go to vote or request an absentee ballot?

The fact did you can only cite registration and not actual court convictions is telling.

People have clearly been getting away with it. 2018 Southern California. And numerous recent cases in Pennsylvania and other states.

Not unless there is evidence of actual voter fraud.

There have been cases. Even some new ones.

His attempt was so cute and he tried so hard, I wanted to give him encouragement.

I appreciate the expertise.

 

[Nepperhan]

If a conservative were to contend that a racial minority was incapable of following the basic steps of registering to vote, getting an ID, then actually going and voting, imagine the screams and accusations.

Look, a federal judge in NC said the new rules by the GOP targeted blacks and Democrats “with razor-like precision” in banning the law’s implementation.

Some poor folks don’t have the ID called for. In TX student ID’s were not good for identification for voting but gun ID’s were. Just who is being fooled here?

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I’d rather not hear any complaints. We were told mail-in voting was a smooth, seamless process (paraphrasing) that was just as effective as traditional voting.

It would seem that isn’t the case, as many of us predicted.

 

[JonNC]

Look, a federal judge in NC said the new rules by the GOP targeted black and Democrats “with razor-like precision” in banning the law’s implementation.

I live in NC. The rules were exactly the same for everyone. The only explanation is the belief that some people are incapable of following simple requirements. Clearly that was the view of the six circuit.

Some poor folks don’t have the ID called for.

You go yo the DMV and get one. There was almost no cost. I went and got my drivers license when I moved here. I registered to vote at the same time. Simple.

In TX student ID’s were not good for identification for voting but gun ID’s were.

Then go get a gun ID. Any adult without a criminal record can. Why is that so hard?

Just who is being fooled here?

No one. Clearly the belief is some people are incapable of doIng what others can.
Or, there is an ulterior motive.

 

[JonNC]

Is it necessary to stop voter fraud? If not, then why bother except to suppress voters.

The Democrats are the experts on voter suppression. Requiring an ID or requesting a ballot is not voter suppression.

Strangely, when given an opportunity you didn’t cite those cases, so go ahead and let’s examine them. Court documents or articles on the court cases will be fine.

Maybe that’s where the real suppression is.
We’ll see.

 

[JonNC]

I’d rather not hear any complaints. We were told mail-in voting was a smooth, seamless process (paraphrasing) that was just as effective as traditional voting.

It would seem that isn’t the case, as many of us predicted.

It was never intended to be.

 

[Nepperhan]

No one. Clearly the belief is some people are incapable of doIng what others can.
Or, there is an ulterior motive.

No, you are wrong. The new laws had an ulterior motive. You parrot those who said that favoring the banning of literacy tests for voting means a person thinks that minorities are too stupid to pass. It is certainly elitist to think that all a person need do is ‘get a driver’s license or a gun card’. That’s not the point at all.

 

[Rockoh22]

The question is who was affected by the new rules. The GOP knows who – the rules were designed that way.

What did they do, that the poor and minorities can not vote?

 

[JonNC]

No, you are wrong. The new laws had an ulterior motive.

The ulterior motive is to prevent those who have no right to vote from voting. That protects the integrity of the vote.

You parrot those who said that favoring the banning of literacy tests for voting means a person thinks that minorities are too stupid to pass.

No. That was Democrats, who now say that some people are incapable of following requirements. It is the exact same party with the exact same view of minorities and the poor.

It is certainly elitist to think that all a person need do is ‘get a driver’s license or a gun card’.

It is condescending and elitist, and perhaps bigoted to assume they can’t.

 

[Nepperhan]

It is condescending and elitist, and perhaps bigoted to assume they can’t.

No false assumptions were made. Remember the lawsuits had to have plaintiffs and show proof. So there were folks in court without the new documentation and the lawyers had to show that others did not have it, too. And the lawyers had to prove what it was all about.

So your statement about getting a drivers license or a gun card is elitist speculation but mine on folks who did not have ID is actually evidence which was educed in court.

 

[JonNC]

No false assumptions were made.

I think the assumption is false. Apparently some progressives think it is true.

Remember the lawsuits had to have plaintiffs and show proof.

Curious that someone can’t get a voting card, but can find a lawyer that will tell them they can’t so they should sue.
Again, It is condescending and elitist, and perhaps bigoted to assume they can’t.

 

[Rockoh22]

drivers license or a gun card

Was the problem that they changed the law to say only people with a license (driver?) or a gun card can vote?

 

[pnewton]

There has always been some bar of basic functionality one must meet to vote, even if it is just filling out a voter’s registration card in a timely manner. Between this most simple of acts, there is a lot of ground to the literacy tests. The deadline could be moved up. Some form of ID could be needed. Time frames for voting can vary. I question the bigotry that must exist to say somehow this would disproportionately affect black people. These are not high bars to meet and pretty much anyone from 8 years old and up can understand them.

My only complaint is that none of this is Trump’s business. He infamously won the electoral college without winning the popular vote. Why? Because the Constitution places some value in state’s rights when it comes to voting. These complaints about how state’s choose to run elections is not his business, and his concern is hypocritical.

How California votes is a matter pertinent only to the state of California. How Texas votes does not matter outside of Texas. If that is a problem, then propose an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

 

[Ridgerunner]

They also have a long-standing practice of intimidation and voter suppression.

I don’t think you have ever worked as a poll watcher. It would be very hard to intimidate voters as a poll watcher when both parties are represented. Poll watchers are not normally near where the voters get their ballots and cast them. They’re busy examining and tallying votes, then preparing a report for the county clerk.

 

[JonNC]

There has always been some bar of basic functionality one must meet to vote, even if it is just filling out a voter’s registration card in a timely manner. Between this most simple of acts, there is a lot of ground to the literacy tests. The deadline could be moved up. Some form of ID could be needed. Time frames for voting can vary. I question the bigotry that must exist to say somehow this would disproportionately affect black people. These are not high bars to meet and pretty much anyone from 8 years old and up can understand them.

Well stated.

My only complaint is that none of this is Trump’s business. He infamously won the electoral college without winning the popular vote. Why? Because the Constitution places some value in state’s rights when it comes to voting. These complaints about how state’s choose to run elections is not his business, and his concern is hypocritical.

While I agree yo an extent, it is not outside federal concern. Attempts to disenfranchise voters with poll taxes or enabling foreign nationals to vote off under that concern. As the federal judiciary has seen fit to interfere in a way that threatens the American voters’ franchise recently, I’m not surprised that Trump might complain.

How California votes is a matter pertinent only to the state of California. How Texas votes does not matter outside of Texas. If that is a problem, then propose an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

Yes, though there are constitutional principles involved, one being that only Americans citizens of majority age vote.
We are also headed toward a constitutional crisis with the so called popular vote compact, a bald attempt at voter suppression

 

[PaulinVA]

Poll watchers are not normally near where the voters get their ballots and cast them. They’re busy examining and tallying votes, then preparing a report for the county clerk.

Could you define poll watchers in this context?

Are they party-affiliated volunteers making sure things are running smoothly, or poll worker volunteers checking people in, handing out ballots, and causing the ballots to be counted?

Not a gotcha question, just want to make sure of terms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

They are party affiliated people, paid by the county, to ensure the proper operation of the polling place, reviewing ballots for possible challenge, documenting challenges, counting them and reporting the results to the county clerk.

They do not check identities or hand out ballots themselves, but if they see any improprieties in that sector, they report it to the county clerk who informs representatives of both parties and sends the sheriff to straighten things out if need be.

The terminology is sometimes used to refer to people on the outside of the polling places who report who arrives at the polls, asks questions if the voter will cooperate, and report to the party headquarters. Their function is to notify party headquarters who shows up so the party workers can call those who didn’t. Typically those people are volunteers. They must remain at a significant distance from the polling place, outside, and cannot hand out literature of any kind or otherwise campaign.

 

[PaulinVA]

hey are party affiliated people, paid by the county, to ensure the proper operation of the polling place, reviewing ballots for possible challenge, documenting challenges, counting them and reporting the results to the county clerk.

Ah, okay. In Virginia, party-affiliated poll watchers aren’t paid by the county and can only observe. “Election Officials”, paid by the county, do the checkins, hand out ballots, and do the counting.

One poll watcher from each party is allowed in each precinct and can observe machine setup, opening the polling place, and watch checkins and voting.

The people outside are just obnoxious. They can hand out sample ballots, etc, and in my precinct set up on a walkway that you have to walk on to get to the door.

Funny story - one time I voted before work at 6AM. Walking the gauntlet, some guy asked if I wanted a sample ballot. I just stopped and looked at him and said, “Do you think the I’d be here at six in the morning if I didn’t know who I was voting for?”. Just then a guy trotted up and asked loudly, “Hey, anyone have one of those sample ballots?”