Correct, a tie means the committee cannot make a recommendation. But I’m sure that the committee will pass a recommendation for his expulsion — probably next summer when Santos has already lost his primary and Republicans don’t have anything pressing left where they need his vote.
I think it’s clear the long term Republican strategy is voter suppression. They’ll ensure they remain in office but preventing Democratic-leaning people from voting.
And we’ve seen that works. The Democrats set up a system like that in southern states and it ensured them a political base for close to a century. And it’s important to note that the system did not collapse from within; it was broken up when the federal government decided to intervene.
This means that if the Republicans succeed in setting up a comparable system on the national level, they’ll be able to hold power perpetually. There’ll be no higher level of government that can break the system up.
I got a good laugh outta this!
It look a couple decades of terrorizing Black people do that in a thorough manner.
Requiring ID does not make much difference. You need something more like literacy tests where the reliably racist judge knows the race of the judged potential voter. And even that needed the capstone of lynching.
If it does happen, it will be too late for Santos.
Sure it does. It just means that you need the functionary at the DMV to see the race of the person, instead of the person at the voter-registration table. With the extra bonus that now you have an excuse to arrest folks when they’re forced to drive.
That depends on what ID is needed, how you get it, and how much it costs.
Legal Eagle weighs in on the Santos charges. (Ok, it’s mostly his friend Scowl Owl.)
The Democrats might not be the party of the billionaires, but they have recently become much more a party of the affluent suburbs. Democrats are as likely to be able to afford ID as Republicans.
I’m against voter suppression! But both parties are mistaken to think the 21st century variants have any big or predictable effect on who wins elections.
It does if you want it to make a difference.
This isn’t about addressing any actual problem. This is all about giving Republicans a process they can use to turn away voters. If declaring that an ID isn’t acceptable is a process that can be used to stop somebody from voting, it will be used as a weapon against Democratic voters regardless of what their ID’s are. Whatever ID they show up with won’t be an acceptable one.
When the Republican candidates win the elections and hold office, they get to appoint the officials who check ID’s and the judges who decide if this is legal.
There are literally over a million adults who have been disenfranchised in Florida. Florida handed the 2000 election to George Bush. The five Republicans on the Supreme Court gave those votes to him. Donald Trump voted illegally in Florida in 2020. No charges were filed. Ron DeSantis won the 2018 Governor’s election by thirty thousand votes. He’s got a good shot at being our next President and turning the rest of the country into Florida.
The Republicans taking power via voter suppression isn’t something that’s going to happen. It’s something that’s already been happening,
If there’s only one place in the county to get the ID, and the office keeps regular office hours, 9 to 5, closed at lunch, who do you think will have more trouble getting id: someone with a car and who can take some personal time, or someone without a car and who works a job that is 9 to 5?
Yep. It’s a modern day literacy test and grandfather clause.
So on voting day you show up at the polling place with your completely legit ID. The ID-checking goon says “That pic doesn’t look enough like you and the sigs don’t match well enough.” His companion goon says “I agree w my pal”. You get turned away all nice and legal-like.
I don’t think this is an accurate take on what Republicans are doing. The vast majority of poll workers in both red and blue areas are decent, civic-minded volunteers doing their best to implement whatever byzantine laws their legislature has adopted.
The Republican maneuver these days is to starve urban areas of voting resources or enact burdens that disproportionately impact voting in these areas. Things like caping the number of voting places in each county to a certain number – whether that county is home to 4 million voters or 40 voters. Eliminating or reducing early, after-hours, drop-off and drive-through voting so that long lines in high-population areas discourage voters. And scrutinizing and interfering in election administration in just high population counties.
“Sorry, that’s not the correct number of jelly beans in the jar. Better luck next year.”
You can file a provisional ballot here now, and then come back to the county court house next Thursday to appeal our decision about your ID. But there are going to be a lot of appeals so you might be there a few days waiting for your turn to be heard.
The latter.
I’m just not convinced it affects election results in any common or predictable way.
This got some press coverage when it came out in 2021:
Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018
One thing giving me pause here. Usually I’m the poster denying that the Trumpers are idiots. And I don’t think they are, generally, just in this one area. Unless you do it in a thorough manner, voter suppression is a dumb waste of effort that motivates voting.
P.S. Now how do I bring it back to Santos? I fear I can’t, because 21st century voter suppression doesn’t explain election results.
Say something about Santos.
And Republicans are quite aware that they don’t have to suppress lots of votes to impact an election. Didn’t we have these discussions when Bricker was posting?
What they don’t seem to be aware of is that when you try to supress votes, without the systematic violence that can actually make it work, you are gifting your opponents. I vote by mail. If the GOP forces me to go back to voting at the church, I am going to be annoyed, and more motivated to vote straight Democratic.
Does this mean that Democratic posters, who lean into the voter suppression narrative, are just being good advocates of their POV? Maybe, but I don’t like to send lurkers the false idea that the system is rigged against them.
I thought you wanted to say something about Santos…
Moderating:
Those who are hijacking the thread with discussions re voter suppression, please start a new thread. This thread is to discuss George Santos’s indictment and prosecution, not voter suppression matters. Thanks.