State politicians flee Texas to derail legislation on voting restrictions, abortion access

[Metaphor]

Easy. You want to force the democratic legislators to go back and cast their votes. You want to force them to speak even though the laws of the legislative body they work for has given them the opportunity to not do so.

No, I want to force them to do the jobs they were paid for. And if they refuse to do them, they should be fired and replaced with people who will do them.

They are doing their jobs by blocking a vote as the legislature rules allowed.

The rules were written--I am certain--to help make sure that legislators attended to their jobs. This is obvious because the rules allow for the arrest and attendance of a legislator who is within the Texas jurisdiction, if she fails to attend. The rules were not written--I am certain--for a minority of legislators to conspire to block any legislation they do not want by wagging their jobs and running away out of State where they cannot be forced to do the jobs they were elected to do.

 

[Metaphor]

Just because it won't end democracy doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

I didn't say the legislation was a good idea. I said the Democrats were subverting democracy by running away, and that any bill that makes it harder to vote does not automatically entail that that bill is a subversion of democracy.

It's an incredibly stupid one if you consider the reason why the bill was written. It's for the nonexistent widespread voter fraud. If we can make up things to fear and write laws for them is that not an issue for democracy in and of itself anyway?

Evidence of voter fraud is not needed to justify changes to election rules. Extending voting hours is not 'restricting voter access'. Asking for an embarrassing minimum of identification for mail voting is not "Jim Crown on steroids". Having different levels of voter access by design in different polling places is unfair to the voters who do not have that level of access.

And for fuck's sake, the outright racism of the Democrats--to imagine that black people can't produce ID to vote--never fails to upset me.

 

[ZiprHead]

They are doing their jobs by blocking a vote as the legislature rules allowed.

The rules were written--I am certain--to help make sure that legislators attended to their jobs. This is obvious because the rules allow for the arrest and attendance of a legislator who is within the Texas jurisdiction, if she fails to attend. The rules were not written--I am certain--for a minority of legislators to conspire to block any legislation they do not want by wagging their jobs and running away out of State where they cannot be forced to do the jobs they were elected to do.

Boo hoo.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They are doing their jobs by blocking a vote as the legislature rules allowed.

The rules were written--I am certain--to help make sure that legislators attended to their jobs. This is obvious because the rules allow for the arrest and attendance of a legislator who is within the Texas jurisdiction, if she fails to attend. The rules were not written--I am certain--for a minority of legislators to conspire to block any legislation they do not want by wagging their jobs and running away out of State where they cannot be forced to do the jobs they were elected to do.

They are doing the job the people elected them to do. This legislation is one or two bridges too far to "prevent" "voter fraud". Trump won Texas by around 5 pts, the worst for a GOP candidate since 1996 (three man race). The demographics are shifting in that state and the GOP is doing what they can to maintain a hold on the power they have consolidated through the years.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An exhaustive search in Ohio detailed that there were 117 suspected cases of voter fraud, or more specifically non-citizens who tried to register to vote. Of those only 13 actually tried to vote... out of nearly 6,000,000 people.

This "voter fraud" scare is the fraud and the GOP across the US is passing legislation with the intent to make voting harder for one set of voters over another.

 

[Gospel]

Just because it won't end democracy doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

I didn't say the legislation was a good idea. I said the Democrats were subverting democracy by running away, and that any bill that makes it harder to vote does not automatically entail that that bill is a subversion of democracy.

Arbitrary laws are inherently a subversion of democracy. Though I understand why; I do not agree with the Democrat's decision to abandon their duties.

It's an incredibly stupid one if you consider the reason why the bill was written. It's for the nonexistent widespread voter fraud. If we can make up things to fear and write laws for them is that not an issue for democracy in and of itself anyway?

Evidence of voter fraud is not needed to justify changes to election rules. Extending voting hours is not 'restricting voter access'. Asking for an embarrassing minimum of identification for mail voting is not "Jim Crown on steroids". Having different levels of voter access by design in different polling places is unfair to the voters who do not have that level of access.

Again, writing bills arbitrarily is a subversion. In this case, considering that the voting process is not broken (there is no proof that it is) then the question becomes what is the bill trying to fix? Whether you or I consider the new requirements reasonable or not the bill increases the difficulty to vote (If it doesn't then it's not a good security measure). Being that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud the bill only affects the law-abiding voter.

And for fuck's sake, the outright racism of the Democrats--to imagine that black people can't produce ID to vote--never fails to upset me.

I wonder why black people haven't hit the streets with picket signs over this then. You seem to be more pissed about it than we are.

 

[Rhea]

I didn't say the legislation was a good idea. I said the Democrats were subverting democracy by running away, and that any bill that makes it harder to vote does not automatically entail that that bill is a subversion of democracy.

This bill is a subversion of democracy. The only reason why the GOP has such a hold on the chamber is previous subversions on democracy by conservatives, which go back centuries. The current Dem legislators are using whatever means they can to fught against the subversion of democracy. You use terms like “run away” and it creates a certain flavor to your argument. Facts are, the dems went to Washington to appeal to the federal government to help stop this anti-American behavior. This is a step better than previous instances of this tactic, IMHO, as it makes clear what is wrong and what needs to change. I’m glad they went to washington instead of just any old place to avoid being pulled back and made party to this circus. I’m glad they went to Washington and the public to make their case and showcase the anti-American actions of the GOP in Texas.

Evidence of voter fraud is not needed to justify changes to election rules. Extending voting hours is not 'restricting voter access'. Asking for an embarrassing minimum of identification for mail voting is not "Jim Crown on steroids". Having different levels of voter access by design in different polling places is unfair to the voters who do not have that level of access.

And for fuck's sake, the outright racism of the Democrats--to imagine that black people can't produce ID to vote--never fails to upset me.

It sounds like you don’t understand how that is done, then. YOu may be assuming that getting ID is equally easy for everyone. But, from Jim Crow on down, it is most assuredly and deliberately not. Perhaps you are unaware of this. We are not. Consevatives have spent decades making sure it is harder for Black Americans to get ID. And here you are upset when we point it out. They have moved the places where you can get ID away from places that Black residents can access them. They have…


Well, you need a long course in the ways in which white America has denied and inhibited access to Black Americans. You seem to not know any of it. Have you ever been to a DMV in a black area of an American city? You make these statements like you have some inside scoop on what it is like to be Black in America, and it doesn’t match with what Blacks in America say.

You make this sweeping statement that it is effortless for Black people to produce an ID. On what do you base this assertion? Have you never even read the myriad articles on exactly how it works that it is not?

 

[laughing dog]

The main purpose of a quorum rule is to ensure that a sufficient number if people are present to conduct business. It has nothing to do with forcing people to do their job. After all, in this case, legislators could be present and abstain which would satisfy these attendance rule.

Making voting harder is the essence iof subverting democracy.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Georgia and Iowa already have laws that make it possible for election officials to overturn the vote if there are allegations of voter fraud -- can you think of anyone recently who made claims of election fraud? Can you remember the standard of proof in those claims? This stuff can be made up from nothing, as witness the Rudy circus after the election last year -- for which he's been disbarred.
If election officials or a legislature can overturn election results because they claim that fraud has been detected -- then the phrase 'will of the people' has no meaning anymore. Actual cases of voter fraud are as common as being bitten by an Egyptian fruit bat while riding a ferris wheel. Everyone knows the miniscule percentages. So it is brick-wall-obvious that something else is putting this frenzy of "election reform" laws in motion in red states.
The main game is point shaving, and the Repubs have think tanks to spare on this stuff. They've been crafting these laws for at least a decade now. They know that any additional barrier or ID requirement discourages some voters to register and vote -- particularly the economically disadvantaged. If you've ever taken part in a get-out-the-vote canvassing operation, you've seen it. The apathy, the disbelief that a vote can change anything -- this is pronounced in the lower economic stratum. I canvassed to get out the Obama vote in '08, and at least then there was a novelty issue, the possibility of the first black President.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Texas law would mandate one drop box per county. Can this be right? One drop box for all of metro Houston? If that's true, it's designed to make the drop-off system collapse.

 

[Metaphor]

Arbitrary laws are inherently a subversion of democracy. Though I understand why; I do not agree with the Democrat's decision to abandon their duties.

I did not say the laws were arbitrary.

Again, writing bills arbitrarily is a subversion. In this case, considering that the voting process is not broken (there is no proof that it is) then the question becomes what is the bill trying to fix?

The bill was trying to change many things so there is no one thing that it was trying to 'fix'.

Whether you or I consider the new requirements reasonable or not the bill increases the difficulty to vote (If it doesn't then it's not a good security measure). Being that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud the bill only affects the law-abiding voter.

Security is not the only reason to change voting regulations, as I've already said.

I wonder why black people haven't hit the streets with picket signs over this then. You seem to be more pissed about it than we are.

So...I'm not allowed to point out Democrat bigotry?

 

[Metaphor]

The main purpose of a quorum rule is to ensure that a sufficient number if people are present to conduct business. It has nothing to do with forcing people to do their job. After all, in this case, legislators could be present and abstain which would satisfy these attendance rule.

Making voting harder is the essence iof subverting democracy.

If that were true--and it is not--then the Democrats are guilty of democracy subversion in the highest degree, as they made voting in the legislature impossible.

 

[Toni]

Easy. You want to force the democratic legislators to go back and cast their votes. You want to force them to speak even though the laws of the legislative body they work for has given them the opportunity to not do so.

No, I want to force them to do the jobs they were paid for. And if they refuse to do them, they should be fired and replaced with people who will do them.

1. Sadly for you, you are not God and cannot force a US legislator to do anything. You aren't even a US citizen nor are you a registered voter in the state of Texas. You have no power or authority, legal or moral, to force any legislator to behave as you wish. You have no say in the matter. I have no say in the matter and I am a US citizen and a registered voter.

2. Elected officials are not 'hired' or 'fired' in the USA. They can be removed from office when their terms are up, if the voters choose to do so.

Legislators leaving the jurisdiction is not unheard of, although it is not common. Even at the federal level, legislators leave the state in order to avoid having to go on record for having voted on a piece of legislation that will prove problematic to them on their next election, whichever way they vote.

 

[Metaphor]

This bill is a subversion of democracy.

Even if that were true--and it is not--that does not mean that any bill that makes it harder to vote is a subversion of democracy.

The only reason why the GOP has such a hold on the chamber is previous subversions on democracy by conservatives, which go back centuries.

Tell me, in a world where conservatives had not engaged in 'centuries' of subversion, would America be a one-party state?

The current Dem legislators are using whatever means they can to fught against the subversion of democracy. You use terms like “run away” and it creates a certain flavor to your argument.

Well, they did run away.

Facts are, the dems went to Washington to appeal to the federal government to help stop this anti-American behavior. This is a step better than previous instances of this tactic, IMHO, as it makes clear what is wrong and what needs to change. I’m glad they went to washington instead of just any old place to avoid being pulled back and made party to this circus. I’m glad they went to Washington and the public to make their case and showcase the anti-American actions of the GOP in Texas.

I do not doubt that Washington, which is currently controlled by Democrats, will be sympathetic to the cause of Texas Democrats.

It sounds like you don’t understand how that is done, then. YOu may be assuming that getting ID is equally easy for everyone.

No, I am not assuming that. But I am assuming that having a minimum standard is not a subversion of democracy, and expecting a minimum standard from everyone is fair.

But, from Jim Crow on down, it is most assuredly and deliberately not. Perhaps you are unaware of this. We are not. Consevatives have spent decades making sure it is harder for Black Americans to get ID. And here you are upset when we point it out. They have moved the places where you can get ID away from places that Black residents can access them. They have…

Look, I plain don't believe you. Do black Americans not drive on roads? Do black Americans not have social security numbers?

Well, you need a long course in the ways in which white America has denied and inhibited access to Black Americans. You seem to not know any of it. Have you ever been to a DMV in a black area of an American city? You make these statements like you have some inside scoop on what it is like to be Black in America, and it doesn’t match with what Blacks in America say.

No, I haven't been to a DMV in America. So what? You don't need a driving license to vote.

You make this sweeping statement that it is effortless for Black people to produce an ID. On what do you base this assertion? Have you never even read the myriad articles on exactly how it works that it is not?

On what do you base the assertion that I said it was 'effortless'? I do not believe that obtaining ID need be effortless to be reasonable.

Do black people pay rent, or own houses, or drive cars, or use electricity, or fly on planes, or do any other thing necessary for the carrying out of ordinary life in America? Is asking all people who vote by mail for the last four digits of their social security number a particular and evil burden on black people?

 

[Metaphor]

1. Sadly for you, you are not God and cannot force a US legislator to do anything. You aren't even a US citizen nor are you a registered voter in the state of Texas. You have no power or authority, legal or moral, to force any legislator to behave as you wish. You have no say in the matter. I have no say in the matter and I am a US citizen and a registered voter.

I did not imagine or say I had the power to do so.

2. Elected officials are not 'hired' or 'fired' in the USA. They can be removed from office when their terms are up, if the voters choose to do so.

Legislators leaving the jurisdiction is not unheard of, although it is not common. Even at the federal level, legislators leave the state in order to avoid having to go on record for having voted on a piece of legislation that will prove problematic to them on their next election, whichever way they vote.

That sounds grubby and underhanded.

 

[Toni]

1. Sadly for you, you are not God and cannot force a US legislator to do anything. You aren't even a US citizen nor are you a registered voter in the state of Texas. You have no power or authority, legal or moral, to force any legislator to behave as you wish. You have no say in the matter. I have no say in the matter and I am a US citizen and a registered voter.

I did not imagine or say I had the power to do so.

Maybe you should write more clearly? You wrote that you wanted to force.....

2. Elected officials are not 'hired' or 'fired' in the USA. They can be removed from office when their terms are up, if the voters choose to do so.

Legislators leaving the jurisdiction is not unheard of, although it is not common. Even at the federal level, legislators leave the state in order to avoid having to go on record for having voted on a piece of legislation that will prove problematic to them on their next election, whichever way they vote.

That sounds grubby and underhanded.

Which part? The part where legislators serve out their term and are re-elected or not, at the will of the voters?

Or the fact that some legislators choose to avoid going on record with regards to controversial legislation that will affect their chances at re-election?

What are your thoughts on Mitch McConnell's efforts to subvert the will of the US voters by refusing to bring to vote legislation which he opposed and by refusing to bring to vote nominations for various positions (Supreme Court Justices, federal judgeships, cabinet nominees) throughout his tenure as Speaker of the House? Or how he exerts what remaining authority has has even now? Where are your threads about that?

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you should write more clearly? You wrote that you wanted to force.....

2. Elected officials are not 'hired' or 'fired' in the USA. They can be removed from office when their terms are up, if the voters choose to do so.

Legislators leaving the jurisdiction is not unheard of, although it is not common. Even at the federal level, legislators leave the state in order to avoid having to go on record for having voted on a piece of legislation that will prove problematic to them on their next election, whichever way they vote.

That sounds grubby and underhanded.

Which part? The part where legislators serve out their term and are re-elected or not, at the will of the voters?

Or the fact that some legislators choose to avoid going on record with regards to controversial legislation that will affect their chances at re-election?

What are your thoughts on Mitch McConnell's efforts to subvert the will of the US voters by refusing to bring to vote legislation which he opposed and by refusing to bring to vote nominations for various positions (Supreme Court Justices, federal judgeships, cabinet nominees) throughout his tenure as Speaker of the House? Or how he exerts what remaining authority has has even now? Where are your threads about that?

It's sad that I wouldn't need Metaphor on ignore to not see those posts/threads...

 

[Elixir]

It's sad that I wouldn't need Metaphor on ignore to not see those posts/threads...

What? You mean you’d be okay with missing the high level education on American government that is so graciously offered by our Australian scholar friend?

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe you should write more clearly? You wrote that you wanted to force.....

I did not imagine I had the power to force anybody and I did not say or imply it. The fault is with your comprehension skills. "I want" is not "I have the power".

Which part? The part where legislators serve out their term and are re-elected or not, at the will of the voters?

Or the fact that some legislators choose to avoid going on record with regards to controversial legislation that will affect their chances at re-election?

The latter. How grubby.

What are your thoughts on Mitch McConnell's efforts to subvert the will of the US voters by refusing to bring to vote legislation which he opposed and by refusing to bring to vote nominations for various positions (Supreme Court Justices, federal judgeships, cabinet nominees) throughout his tenure as Speaker of the House? Or how he exerts what remaining authority has has even now? Where are your threads about that?

My threads about that are nowhere, because I get to choose the topics I post on and the threads I start.

Does it seem to you, Toni, that this board needs more threads and opinions in opposition to Republicans? Does it seem to you that there is a dearth of threads about Republican misbehaviour? Does it seem to you that your whataboutery does not change the grubby, democracy-subverting behaviour of the Texas Democrats?

 

[Metaphor]

It's sad that I wouldn't need Metaphor on ignore to not see those posts/threads...

What? You mean you’d be okay with missing the high level education on American government that is so graciously offered by our Australian scholar friend?

I did not propose to educate anyone on the machinery of American gov't. I posted a story that described the machinery in a particular situation, and asserted that legislators fleeing their state to obstruct the passage of legislation that had majority support in the legislature is a subversion of democracy.

Your sarcastic implications about my academic mettle are neither justified nor necessary.

 

[Elixir]

Does it seem to you, Toni, that this board needs more threads and opinions in opposition to Republicans?

Sorry to butt in, but I wanted to offer my own preference FWIW.
I wish there were some threads in support of what Republicans are doing.
There are lots of threads criticizing the hapless Democrats, accusing them of dereliction of duty, anti-democratic behavior ineffective leadership, promoting chaos, looting, rioting, BLM and queers.
But there is a real paucity of threads pointing out the democracy-enhancing, standard of living improving, economic equality producing ideas of the Republican Party.
I don't mean defending their attempts to destroy the electoral system or further elevate the power of billionaires over government policies, I mean showing us all the GOOD things that Republicans are doing.
Maybe Republicans' idea of a Great America don't include enhancing democracy, raising the standard of living or helping create economic stability?
Since you are so very well versed in party politics, Meta, why can't you come up with some threads that do that?