To be ruthlessly fair, gerrymandering is not entirely their fault, it is the product of political horse-trading by the Incumbency Party, the party that doesn’t much care what happens so long as they keep their seats. The grasping greed of the Forces of Darkness in exploiting that is more than a little disgusting, but it wasn’t all their idea.
Equality in voting, that’s the ticket. Equal access to voting, expanded voting, expanded voter registration. A constipated Republican only has to think about those, they are cured!
Right… I’m not saying “you, Bricker, are responsible for Gerrymandering” or even necessarily “Republicans are responsible for Gerrymandering”. I’m saying “Crowing about how you keep winning elections, implying that the will of the people is on your side, when in fact significantly fewer votes were cast for your side than our side in the last set of congressional elections, rings fairly hollow… and in fact illustrates precisely one of the main points I’ve been trying to make through all my contributions to this thread, which is that when an elected body controls the election that elect it, an anti-democratic feedback loop can occur”.
Then why do they cheat? Why do they need to implement the force of law to give them an advantage? If they truly believed that they had the majority of the American people behind them, wouldn’t they be eager to see more people vote and be registered to vote?
And yet, oddly, they are not. Point of fact, they are willing to move Heaven and earth to prevent such a disaster from befalling them.
Oh, just a helpful hint: that noise the dog makes just before he bites a hole in your ass? That isn’t “whining”.
Upon reflection, I recall that you already explained this, they have to do this because of the treachery and skulduggery of CASA volunteers, undermining our electoral confidence with voter fraud schemes. Yes, you already explained that, I had quite forgotten.
I’m just impressed that you have a sufficiently extensive knowledge of Pennsylvania law (and the state constitution) to know whether or not to be surprised.
Read the ruling. It isn’t based on narrow, technical points of law, but on all the other basic-principles and simple Duh stuff we’ve been discussing in this thread.
I’ll read it when I get home; it’s too long for at work. Glancing at it, it looks like a perfectly plausible discussion of impermissible delegation between state agencies and the view that requiring ID burdens those without it becuase they have to get it (and they have to produce the underlying documents to verify it) (and while the “alternative IDs” don’t seem to pose a burden, there’s no obligation that they be issued – which I don’t understand whether that means that he thinks that a requirement that all colleges issue IDs would be permissible (which makes sense) or that it’s that each colleges issue IDs to all people (which makes less sense)). It’s a lot about the difficulties of implementation and a faulty effort to raise awareness of the requirement. And the rejection of the equal protection challenge.
I haven’t read the thread, so I don’t know what you all have been discussing, but a good chunk of that doesn’t strike me as “simple Duh stuff.”
Edit: If, as the news reports suggest, this hinges on the line about “house of cards” and the DOS ID scheme, and the whole thing lives or fails with that, then it really is about agency authority and delegation and that strikes me as fairly technical.
Wow…I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Google search that goes all the way back to the sixth page before a neutral source shows up. That’s a metric fuckton of right-wing nutso carrying that story.
Incidentally, “suggestion” does not equal “requirement”. And “attending a protest” does not equal “casting a vote”.