Removed from the rolls, but permitted to vote if they show up and cast a provisional ballot and then confirm their registered address, which they failed to do ahead of time.
Not seeing the major flaw.
Right you are.
Absolutely.
Not a problem in the world.
Not exactly. You’re quoting 52 USC §20507:
My emphasis.
No one is removed for failing to return a card. But if you fail to return the card and then fail to vote in an election and then fail to vote in the next election, then your name is removed from the rolls, but you can still cast a provisional ballot.
Your memory is different from mine. I recall 2000 being all about butterfly ballots, hanging chads, and wouldn’t it be better if this could all be done electronically (before we realized that that would be even worse) I don’t recall either side arguing that the people who voted weren’t who they said they were.
The rest of society does not agree with you at all. The majority think that residents being knocked off the rolls is a problem. They think this purge was overly broad, using shady tactics to try and remove people from the rolls.
The majority also believe there should be minimal barriers to voting–only that which is necessary to ensure a secure vote. That is why Voter ID laws push a security narrative. They don’t push a “there should be an additional barrier to voting,” something they would not support. In fact, proponents always go out of their way to act as if there are no barriers, making light of the ones that they are adding.
But that’s not relevant here. The only people where there is even arguably a security problem are those who are no longer in the state (or are dead). Everyone else is fine. But the majority of the people removed from the rolls are not part of the state. Meaning that the attempt was not narrowly tailored to a security purpose.
There is no reason for this additional burden except to try and discourage people from voting. Because, again, there is no voter fraud to the level that it can affect an election. That is just Right wing scare tactics, something you’ve admitted since you say it’s about how the voters “feel.”
Oh, and while not a part of this post: you are entirely disingenuous with Roe v. Wade when you have constantly been fighting to get it overturned. You did not just sit back and follow the law.
No – but the realization that the ultimate vote differential in Florida was 530 and that decided the presidency was enough to speak the realization that in such (concedely rare) cases were vulnerable to getting tipped by a level of voter fraud that was certainly plausible.
In other words, while it’s vanishingly rare that Florida’s vote total would be ultra-close like that, and even rarer that Florida’s electoral votes would decide the presidency, it’s NOT absurd to imagine that 500 fraudulent or improper votes were cast in Florida, out of over 3 million cast.
But a legitimate way is to require identification of voters, which may incidentally increase the difficulty, although not to a level that society is prepared to recognize as onerous.
There you are.
Another case of a narrowly passed law that many people are not happy with and are vehemently opposed to.
I’m not one of them, but I recognize that many people have a problem with it, and are perfectly justified in pointing out that it was far from a unanimous ruling.
Haven’t you yourself voiced dissatisfaction with RvW and how it was passed?
Sorry, but that gotcha has got nothing in this argument.
OK. Honestly, if it’s as simple as you make it sound, I don’t think people need to get worried too much about it then. If there are no impediments to their making a provisional ballot.
I still question the intent.*
It seems mighty fishy that the purging seems to be affecting mostly blacks and other minorities, and that the guy in charge of the purge just happens to also be running for Governor, in a tight race against a black Democratic candidate.
*Actually, not I don’t. I’m pretty certain of the intent.
Smashing!
So, you’ve got nothing against people voicing their dissatisfaction with how the current laws are being applied, and suggesting that the laws should be changed?
And yet, here you are.
Still seems to amount to the same thing.
You can’t remove someone from the rolls for not voting, but you can take their failure to vote as grounds for presuming that they’ve moved, after the bare minimum effort of verification, and remove them for that.
And as I’ve said, when thousands of people who have not actually moved are removed from the rolls, that is a demonstrably flawed method of registry maintenance.
And again I say, a government truly committed to serving the people should be encouraging and facilitating participation in the democratic process, not throwing up roadblocks.
There are ways to confirm the identity of voters without requiring them to present ID cards every time they vote. Other states do it, and have done it all the time.
There is an unmistakable pattern of behavior here, which is that in Republican-governed states, Republicans identify the types of voters who are likely to vote against them, and then proceed to use the law to make it more complicated for them to vote. Regardless of whether a 5-4 majority on the Court fails to find it blatantly onerous, it’s the underlying motive behind the effort to make voting more difficult that represent an affront to the Constitutionally-enshrined right to vote.
Again, from the late 1800s until just within the past 5-10 years, the franchise had been steadily expanded. That expansion of the franchise was sometimes over the objections of society’s patriarchs, oligarchs, bigots, and elitists, but our society ultimately become more inclusive in that regard anyway. Today, generally, people expect to have the right to vote, and they expect to have unfettered access to polls. And that’s a reasonable expectation. Deliberately interfering with that right threatens to delegitimize the outcomes of elections in these states, which is a powder keg with a fuse waiting to be lit.
I realize that this is a separate question, but, given your stipulation, doesn’t this make you question the suitability of such an electoral system in the first place? In other words, in an election where over 100 million votes were cast, doesn’t it seem a bit absurd that the results could ever be decisively determined on the issue of a few hundred votes in just one state out of fifty?
Yes, it could have been decisively determined in a way the public would have had confidence in and accepted, IF good faith and a respect for democracy above party had prevailed on more than one side. Bricker’s party’s position, which of course he stoutly defends as the party-first antidemocrat he is, was, however, based on *preventing *a full and fair count from being done. Holders of that position included 5 Supreme Court justices, whose anticonstitutional intervention has not and will not receive the vindication they long for.
Yes, but as a general observation that substantive law should not be a creation of the judiciary, no matter what it is.
Good!
Nowhere here do I suggest people should not voicing their dissatisfaction with how the current laws are being applied, aor not suggesting that the laws should be changed.
Correct. Not voting, then not returning mail, then not voting twice more.
Or the government truly committed to serving the people should not infantilize the people, and expect them to be able to navigate incidental burdens that exist to maintain the registry.
We disagree about this philosophy. But there is a system in which each of us is permitted to make a public case for which view should control. Mine won. Yours did not.
You can of course keep arguing yours should win. But you should not argue that mine did not REALLY win, when it actually did.
Please define “infantilizing”. With the same semantic precision and rigor that has become the hallmark of your contributions. There is a case to be made for making voting more accessible, you rebut that case by flinging a single word, then you dust your hands off and scurry away to your victory lap.
But at least tell us that the word actually means something.
Yeah, Lawful evil is the guy that slaughters your family, then makes you listen to a lecture on why he legally had to do it.
Assuming that you actually had a good reason to believe that more than 500 votes were cast illegitimately, why do you have reason to think that they were all cast for the same party?
I know someone that was struck by lightening, even though it is vanishingly rare. Does that anecdote actually make it less rare, or is it just an anecdote that you can repeat over and over, trying to scare people into thinking it is less rare?
So, all these people casting provinsal ballots? I had to do that once, when for some reason the County Board of Elections decide that it didn’t believe that I had a 5 digit address and truncated it, making me not have a match.
When I did it, It took up quite a bit of extra time from the poll workers to set me up with it, and then more time when I was done and turned it in.
If we are adding 100,000 provincial voters to the elections, what is that going to do to lines that can already be absurdly long?
Are you infantilized by the fact that you have never had to do any of the things that are being asked of these other eligible voters?
You struck a point there that I think deserves emphasis. We are told, in tones of offended dignity, that of course those people on The List can vote! Just, you know, provisionally, while we confirm their legitimacy.
Georgia permits three days for the process. What steps have been taken to prepare for thousands of provisional voters to be investigated, all inside of three days?
Suppose they can’t be, what happens then? Mr Kemp, he decides? He could say, well, shucks, couldn’t git 'er done! Darn shame about that, law is the law, sucks to be you?
After all, Mr Kemp is duly elected, its his official function, he’s not the kind of man to shirk his duty by recusing himself like a coward! Suppose he wins by a few thousand votes, and there are yet thousands of provisional ballots, but the overworked bureaucracy can only plow through a few hundred in three days. He gets to say, OK, stop counting, take 'em out and burn 'em? I win, voice of the people, mandate!
'Course, Dems could sue over this flagrant theft, take it all the way to the Supreme…oh. Right.
I’m not really interested in getting into a discussion of your legal system, but weren’t you the one that brought the supreme court ruling into this discussion?
Why, yes you were.
Right, but you’re happy to mock them for expressing justified outrage at blatantly politically-motivated rule-bending.
To quote you’re first post:
We get it! It’s (probably) technically legal.
You’re constant mantra of “but it’s leeeeeeeeegal!” is the equivalent of “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!”
You’re no doubt sick of all these infantile leftists whining “but it’s not faaaaaaiiiiiiir.”
Just try to realize that in terms of power and advantage, the situation is more akin to a kid crying “but it’s not fair!” from the bottom of a very deep pit. And your party is standing at the top holding the shovel.
Now Bricker . . . let’s keep it straight.
The legally acceptable reason given for why these folks were removed from the rolls was NOT because they didn’t vote in the past.
It was NOT because they failed to return mail.
It was because they were PRESUMED to have MOVED out of the state. Even though a great many of them . . . had . . . NOT . . . moved.
Maybe, just maybe, the method of verification was not at all “reasonable” and the system of maintaining voter registry is flawed.
If 70% of those removed through this method are of one particular minority, then maybe, just maybe, the system is biased, whether by intent or circumstance.
If the implementation of the system is being overseen by the party in power, and the outcome seems to greatly disadvantage the opposition party, then maybe, just maybe there is cause to suspect intentional bias rather than circumstantial bias.
Maybe, just maybe, the man in charge of that system, who is also running a tight race for governor against an opponent who is of the particular minority most affected by the voter purge, has taken unfair advantage of the system to secure a victory not by appealing to the people but by turning to trickery — following the letter of the law while completely subverting the principle of democracy
You didn’t win, Bricker. You lost, along with the rest of the nation.
You voted against Trump because you recognized what a disaster he would be for America, and you were right.
But you still haven’t realized what a disaster the broader Republican-led Ultra-conservative, Antidemocratic movement has become.
Trump is just the obvious symptom, the fetid tumor breaking through the skin, but the cancer runs much deeper, and your philosophies are just another aspect of it.
Just a dozen or so cases of actual voter fraud throughout the entire nation and you think that’s grounds for implementing voter ID laws that will suppress voting among minorities — giving a political advantage to your own party while disadvantaging thousands of people you feel no affinity for.
Hundreds of thousands of minority citizens are removed from voter rolls in a single state and you think everything’s just fine as it is and no changes should be made — giving a political advantage to your own party while disadvantaging thousands of people you feel no affinity for.
Under Republican oversight, the number of voting machines made available to Democratic-leaning minority communities are severely limited, and early voting is restricted, forcing people to wait in line for hours to cast their vote — giving a political advantage to your own party while disadvantaging thousands of people you feel no affinity for.
Of course you see no problem when the advantage is all your own and you don’t care about the people actually affected by it.
Don’t pretend to believe in Democracy when you champion the control of power through subterfuge.
The reports linked and referenced above by Dominion may have thrown a bomb into the whole mess. At present, it is only a Rachel Maddow scoop, if she’s right, it won’t stay that way. Boiled down, the Russians were fiddling about with breaking into the election records of a few states, one of them being Georgia. They succeeded in Georgia. What mischief they may have created is not yet clear.
At any rate, it is possible that the very databases that Mr Kemp would rely upon to provide his “exact matches” are compromised.
You have made it repeatedly clear that you consider obstacles that others face and you do not to be “reasonable” and “not difficult to manage”, particularly when they skew the result in your favor.
Tell you what - let’s have some races. 100 meter sprints. But in your lane there will be an 18" hurdle every ten meters. And the race officials could, perfectly legally, place the same hurdles in my lane if they so chose to but as it happens they have an interest in me winning and so - again, perfectly legally - have chosen not to. But those aren’t unreasonable obstacles, right? Anyone could step right over a short little hurdle like that. And okay, it might make it harder for you to participate in the race, but clearly if you’re not willing to make the effort it’s your fault if you win far fewer races.
Three days. That’s the time limit, three days to get the shit together to turn your provisional ballot into a real one. And if the clock runs out, too bad for you and whoever you wanted to vote for. I’m talking about the voter registration applications that are “on hold”, we are assured that the voter can cast a provisional ballot with the same privileges, three days.
And if there are thousands? Those fifty thousand voters wanted to vote, they tried to register. And about seventy percent of them are pretty likely to be Dem voters. What happens if the state officials cannot deal with that many in three days? Gosh, darn shame about that, guess that means if Sec. State Kemp decides so, then those ballots are gone, poof! Candidate Kemp will no doubt be grateful if he’s leading at that point.
If anyone has a reason why this ugly little scenario cannot happen, I would love to hear it. Or the crickets, crickets are nice.