• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US Major Voting Reforms: HR1

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here is the bill: H.R.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Its summary:
For the People Act of 2021

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.
It recently passed the House, but it would be hard for it to pass the Senate without ending the filibuster.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The overall vote:
Roll Call 62 | Bill Number: H. R. 1 - Mar 03, 2021, 11:02 PM | 117th Congress, 1st Session
D: Y 220, N 1
R: N 209, nv 2
The only Democrat to vote against it was Bennie G. Thompson of MS-02.

Cori Bush offered this amendment: H.Amdt.18 to H.R.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022) | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
"An amendment numbered 14 printed in Part B of House Report 117-9 to clarify that felony convictions do not bar any eligible individual from voting in federal elections, including individuals who are currently incarcerated."

Roll Call 53 | Bill Number: H. R. 1 - Mar 02, 2021, 01:29 PM | 117th Congress, 1st Session
D: Y 97, N 119, nv 4
R: N 209, nv 2
Total: Y 97, N 328, nv 6
Being able to vote while still in jail was a bit much for many Reps, it seems.

Ayanna Pressley offred this amendment: H.Amdt.22 to H.R.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022) | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
"An amendment numbered 37 printed in Part B of House Report 117-9 to lower the mandatory minimum voting age in Federal elections to 16 years of age."

Roll Call 57 | Bill Number: H. R. 1 - Mar 03, 2021, 01:04 PM | 117th Congress, 1st Session
D: Y 125, N 93, nv 2
R: N 209, nv 2
Total: Y 125, N 302, nv 4
There was a little bit more willingness to consider voting at 16.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Cori Bush on Twitter: "For the first time ever, the House took a vote on whether or not to end the cruelty of denying incarcerated people their right to vote. Our amendment didn’t pass, but 97 Democrats voted with us.

We will not stop fighting until we dismantle white supremacy in all of its forms." / Twitter

then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Proud to stand with you, @CoriBush." / Twitter


Trump CPAC Speech Attacks H.R. 1 Democracy Reform Bill
Naturally, at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, he and plenty of others railed against a bill currently making its way through Congress that would actually do something to shore up the health of that republic.
Then on the contents of HR 1.
The bill's sponsor, John Sarbanes, told me it's an amalgamation of what his constituents have told him, over and over, since he got to Congress in 2007: "We want to be able to vote for you, when you get there we want you to keep paying attention to us, and don't get tangled up in the money." Title one of the bill is the John Lewis Voter Empowerment Act, which would create automatic voter registration across the country, expand early and absentee voting, restore voting rights for felons, streamline the vote-by-mail process, and more. The bill also takes on partisan gerrymandering, which drives polarization and dysfunction in Congress, granting the power to draw congressional districts to independent commissions rather than party leaders who stand to benefit from hyper-partisan maps. The legislation takes on dark money and big money in our elections, introducing more transparency to the question of who—including big corporate entities—is spending millions to get people elected. It seeks to break the influence economy in Washington by introducing lobbying reforms.
Trump's response:
We have no time to waste. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress are racing to pass a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment and the integrity of our elections known as H.R. 1. Do you know what H.R. 1 is? It’s a disaster. Their bill would drastically restrict political speech, empower the federal government to shut down dissent and turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan political weapon. In addition, it virtually eliminates voter ID requirements nationwide. Effectively ends all registration deadlines. Can you believe this? Requires states to give ballots to felons. Automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote and puts unaccountable unelected bureaucrats in charge of drawing congressional districts. That’s going to be a lot of fun. This monster must be stopped. It cannot be allowed to pass.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is the sort of thing that Democrats are worried about.

Stolen-Election Myth Fuels G.O.P. Push to Change Voting Laws - The New York Times - "Republican legislators want big changes to the laws for elections and other aspects of governance. A fight over the ground rules for voting may follow."
Led by loyalists who embrace former President Donald J. Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election, Republicans in state legislatures nationwide are mounting extraordinary efforts to change the rules of voting and representation — and enhance their own political clout.

At the top of those efforts is a slew of bills raising new barriers to casting votes, particularly the mail ballots that Democrats flocked to in the 2020 election. But other measures go well beyond that, including tweaking Electoral College and judicial election rules for the benefit of Republicans; clamping down on citizen-led ballot initiatives; and outlawing private donations that provide resources for administering elections, which were crucial to the smooth November vote.

...
The party’s battle in the past decade to raise barriers to voting, principally among minorities, young people and other Democrat-leaning groups, has been waged under the banner of stopping voter fraud that multiple studies have shown barely exists.

“The typical response by a losing party in a functioning democracy is that they alter their platform to make it more appealing,” Kenneth Mayer, an expert on voting and elections at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said. “Here the response is to try to keep people from voting. It’s dangerously antidemocratic.”
Stolen-election myth? When Republicans did better than expected? This seems like the stab-in-the-back political myth that became popular in Germany after WWI. According to it, Germany's WWI leaders stabbed their nation in the back by surrendering to the Western Allies, even though they wanted to save all that they could rather than risk a much worse defeat. One of its big advocates was Adolf Hitler, and he did an unsuccessful coup against the Weimar successors of those leaders, the Beer Hall Putsch.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Gerrymander Battles Loom, as G.O.P. Looks to Press Its Advantage - The New York Times
With new census results coming, Republicans control redistricting in key states, while Democrats prepare for legal challenges and look to redraw some maps of their own.

...
Already, Republicans are discussing redrawing two suburban Atlanta districts held by Democrats to make one of them more Republican; slicing Democratic sections out of a Houston district that Republicans lost in 2018; and carving up a northeastern Ohio district held by Democrats since 1985.

“I would say that the national vote could be the same as this year two years from now, and redistricting by itself would easily be enough to alter who controls the chamber,” said Samuel S. Wang, the director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. He estimated that reapportionment alone could net the Republicans three seats, and gerrymandering in North Carolina, Georgia and Florida another five seats.

...
This year, Texas (with potentially three new seats) and Florida (two) are expected to be the biggest winners, while Illinois, New York and, for the first time, California will each lose seats once the Census Bureau makes the reapportionment figures official. That could give Republicans an inherent advantage in the midterm elections in November 2022 — regardless of Mr. Biden’s popularity then.
There are some jokers in the deck, however. The Republicans did unusually well last year, likely because of Trump being on the ballot, but he wasn't on the ballot in the Georgia Senate runoffs, and Democrats won both seats. So there's at least a chance that Republicans will lose more seats in 2022, though out-of-Presidency powers usually do better in midterms.
Adam Kincaid, the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the party’s main mapmaking organization, said his energy will be directed toward the inevitable legal battles that will follow this year’s partisan map-drawing.

“If it wasn’t for lawsuits that were brought in Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Florida, Republicans would be in the majority today,” Mr. Kincaid said. The things to focus on, he said, were “defending maps drawn by Republican legislatures and also being more aggressive about going after Democrat gerrymanders in the blue states.”
Republican gerrymandering good, Democratic gerrymandering bad.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Senator Joe Manchin, D-WV, does not want to vote for HR 1. I like Mondaire Jones's response to his recent arguments.

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Sen. Manchin’s op-ed on the #ForThePeopleAct is full of unsound, unserious arguments.

Let’s unpack it." / Twitter


"Unfortunately, we now are witnessing that the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized. Today's debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek tc needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won't instill confidence in our democracy - it will destroy it."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Only Democrats are having a “debate about how to best protect our right to vote.” State Republicans are ramming through voter suppression laws along party lines. There’s no comparison.

The solution is not to unilaterally surrender. It is to undo the damage. (link)" / Twitter


"As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Not a single Democrat voted for the 15th Amendment. Did that destroy our republic? (link)" / Twitter

"Democrats in Congress have a proposed a sweeping election reform bill called the For the People Act. This more than 800-page bill has garnered zero Republican support. Why? Are the very Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump because of actions that led to an attack on our democracy unwilling to support actions to strengthen our democracy? Are these same senators, whom many in my party applauded for their courage, now threats to the very democracy we seek to protect?"

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Yes. In any event, only 7 Senate Republicans voted to impeach Trump — not enough to overcome a filibuster.

If there aren’t 10 Republicans willing to investigate an insurrection that almost claimed their lives, there aren’t 10 Republicans willing to protect the right to vote. (link)" / Twitter


"As a reminder, just four short years ago, in 2017 when Republicans held control of the White House and Congress, President Donald Trump was publicly urging Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster. Then, it was Senate Democrats who were proudly defending the filibuster. Thirty-three Senate Democrats penned a letter to Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warning of the perils of eliminating the filibuster."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Four years and one insurrection later, Democrats have learned that today’s Republican Party poses a mortal threat to our democracy. (link)" / Twitter

"It has been said by much wiser people than me that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, what I've seen during my time in Washington is that every party in power will always want to exercise absolute power, absolutely. Our founders were wise to see the temptation of absolute power and built in specific checks and balances to force compromise that serves to preserve our fragile democracy. The Senate, its processes and rules, have evolved over time to make absolute power difficult while still delivering solutions to the issues facing our country and I believe that's the Senate's best quality."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "The filibuster has nothing to do with the Founders. In fact, the Founders specifically rejected the idea of requiring supermajority support for passing laws.

We cannot let this Jim Crow relic cement the new Jim Crow. (link)" / Twitter


"Yes, this process can be frustrating and slow. It will force compromises that are not always ideal. But consider the alternative. Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants? I"

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "That is exactly what we’re facing if we don’t pass the For the People Act: a generation of far-right minority rule by a party hostile to democracy itself.

The #ForThePeopleAct would simply give people the power to choose a better future. (link)" / Twitter


"The Voting Rights Act, for example, was monumental in the fight to guarantee freer and fairer elections in the United States. Since its original passage, it has been reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan votes five separate times. In addition, there is bipartisan support to pass the latest iteration of this legislation, the rightfully named John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "If we introduced H.R.4 and brought it to a vote, it would receive no more than 51 votes — not enough to overcome a filibuster.

And the bill would do nothing about gerrymandering, Big Money in politics, or the damage the GOP has already done in the states. (link)" / Twitter


"Of course, some in my party have argued that now is the time to discard such bipartisan voting reforms and embrace election reforms and policies solely supported by one party. Respectfully, I do not agree."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Actually, we’re arguing that we should pass necessary civil rights legislation that is bipartisan *among the people*. Just not with GOP politicians and the billionaires who bankroll them.

By dooming our democracy in the name of bipartisanship, Senator Manchin is betraying both. (link)" / Twitter


"American democracy is something special, it is bigger than one party, or the tweet-filled partisan attack politics of the moment. It is my sincere hope that all of us, especially those who are privileged to serve, remember our responsibility to do more to unite this country before it is too late."

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Senator Manchin is correct — democracy is special.

But if he refuses to budge from his position, ours will continue to unravel. (link)" / Twitter
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
It’s kinda funny that lefty Dems do not understand why a senator from a very red state resists being pushed to the left. I mean, hello?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Trump's response:
This monster must be stopped. It cannot be allowed to pass.

Given recent history this could be interpreted as a call for violence.

Of course it is. So what? And why not?
There is no penalty for Republicans making calls for violence, or for carrying out the violence that is called for by the Republican Leader.
Not like they're BLM or something.
HR1 is dead.
The fact of acreage getting more Senate representation than people, ensures the continuance of the current tyranny of the minority.
Once the rigged 2022 bloodbath is over, there will be no turning back from it.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
Weird. When McCain went against his party he was a lauded as a hero.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Weird. When McCain went against his party he was a lauded as a hero.
We’d all be better off if politicians didn’t merely vote in lockstep together, regardless of the party.

However, we’d also be better off of everyone had equal access to voting, so we could be sure that politicians are best representing the values and priorities of all of their constituents.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It’s kinda funny that lefty Dems do not understand why a senator from a very red state resists being pushed to the left. I mean, hello?

We understand. However you live in a democracy. you are in the minority, man up.
I think it is funny that this is a partisan issue. It is funny that the GOP is scrambling to prevent all that voter fraud that didn't happen in 2020 from happening again by reducing voting sites and voting hours and days you can vote.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
This Bill sounds like the feather dusting of old cobwebs off the current law books. The things conservatives seem to have the most issue with are the end of gerrymandering & felons getting their voting rights back. With both of those being considered a devastating blow to them, I can't help but wonder what is wrong with their party that it's hanging by these threads?
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,277
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Weird. When McCain went against his party he was a lauded as a hero.

That is weird. It's almost as though the Republicans are such a pack of vile cunts, any position against them is met with approval.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Weird. When McCain went against his party he was a lauded as a hero.

That is weird. It's almost as though the Republicans are such a pack of vile cunts, any position against them is met with approval.

Well yeah, except for vile cunts, who like to pretend there's something weird about disapproving of vile cunts.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
76% of W Virginians support HR1. 68% support the infrastructure bill. I don't understand what Manchin is thinking.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
76% of W Virginians support HR1. 68% support the infrastructure bill. I don't understand what Manchin is thinking.

I think all those times he was made to sing kumbaya in elementary school are catching up with him.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Gotta admit; Trausti has a point. McCain's thumbs-down moment helped the democrats. The Manchin kumbaya songs are helping republicans.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Gotta admit; Trausti has a point. McCain's thumbs-down moment helped the democrats. The Manchin kumbaya songs are helping republicans.

The differences are profound. For one thing Manchin has not yet cast any decisive votes. For another, the leader of McCain’s party condemned and vilified him.
If Manchin ever stood up to those tests and Repugs praised him, that would be fair. But I sense that unlike McCain, Manchin is an opportunistic weenie milking the moment of fame for his personal benefit, and to the detriment of American democracy.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Standing in the way of this, however, are Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). In his column, Manchin says he opposes the For The People Act because it is not bipartisan legislation.

[P]artisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.

As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.

...Democrats in Congress have proposed a sweeping election reform bill called the For the People Act. This more than 800-page bill has garnered zero Republican support.


This argument is very strange. On an entirely partisan basis, Republicans in the states are taking steps that Manchin himself acknowledges "needlessly restrict voting." But Manchin says he will only agree to stop this partisan power grab if Republicans agree to join him.

This is the exact same argument the Chamber used in talking points it sent to Senators in April opposing the legislation.

The Chamber believes the ability of Americans to exercise their right to vote in accessible and secure elections and to be able to trust in a free and fair outcome is fundamental to who we are as a nation. The Chamber is deeply troubled by efforts at the state and federal level to enact election law changes on a partisan basis. Changes enacted on a partisan basis are the most likely to erode access and security and undermine public confidence and the willingness of the American people to trust and accept future election outcomes.

The Chamber acknowledges that state laws, like Texas' SB 7, are being advanced by Republicans alone. The Chamber, however, has not opposed SB 7 or any other state legislation. But it insists federal legislation to stop this Republican power grab must be bipartisan.

While the argument crafted by the Chamber and adopted by Manchin is designed to seem centrist and reasonable, it has the same practical effect as opposing all federal legislation to protect voting rights. Why? Because there do not appear to be ten Republicans that will support any federal law to protect voting rights.

The Heritage Foundation is actually running commercials in support of Manchin in WV. So it's coming down to money.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Republicans in the states are taking steps that Manchin himself acknowledges "needlessly restrict voting." But Manchin says he will only agree to stop this partisan power grab if Republicans agree to join him.

IOW he's grandstanding. Call his bluff, Chuck.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

Sheesh - I hate cartoon physics.
Actually, as drawn, he WOULD be helping - his feet are either firmly affixed to the plank, or he'd topple onto the Dem side of the seesaw.
I do suspect that the latter is the actual case, and he'll cave when the rest of the Party gets sick enough of his grandstanding.

E3U-3XUWQAEtrYR.jpg
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,229
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
Seems a bit hypocritical to whine about free speech while applauding efforts to have debate on a bill.

Yeah. As the Dems did this quite a lot when Trump was President, super hypocritical for them to complain.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,229
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Seems a bit hypocritical to whine about free speech while applauding efforts to have debate on a bill.

Yeah. As the Dems did this quite a lot when Trump was President, super hypocritical for them to complain.
It is. I used to be in favor of keeping the actual filibuster and dumping the procedural one. I am leaning now to just getting rid of them.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "Your daily reminder: the 50 Democratic Senators represent 41,549,808 more people than the 50 Republican Senators who filibustered critical voting rights legislation last night.

We need to end the tyranny of the minority by ending the filibuster." / Twitter


-

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Call me radical, but I do not believe a minority of Senators should be able to block voting rights for millions of people.

But I guess I’m just from that far-left school of thought that legislation should pass when a majority of legislators vote for it" / Twitter


-

Someone grumbled that AOC changed her mind. This is from

NBC News on Twitter: "JUST IN: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has "set the record for the longest continuous speech in the House since at least 1909," House Historian says. Pelosi has been speaking for more than 7 hours about Dreamers and DACA. Watch live: (links)" / Twitter
Time: 2:19 PM · Feb 7, 2018

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "
Seven hour filibuster 🕰
in 4 inch heels, 👠
without water, 🗣
and no bathroom breaks? 🙅🏽*♀️

This is the spirited defense DREAMers have earned.

Now let’s translate it to results. (link)" / Twitter


But that was the old-fashioned kind of filibuster, where one gets up and talks and talks and talks. The Senate's current version is that any Senator can call in a hold, and that is only a few decades old. Sort of like the fake war in Star Trek TOS "A Taste of Armageddon", done out of fear of a real war.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
What I'm confused about is this whole State having the right to decide how to conduct its own elections thingy. I get it when talking about state elections (all levels) but isn't the presidential election a federal election? If it's a federal election why wouldn't the Fed's have a say in how their election goes in every state?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Was this it? :confused: Why did you quote it, laughing dog? Afraid that some of us would miss out on Trausti's brilliancy?

What I'm confused about is this whole State having the right to decide how to conduct its own elections thingy. I get it when talking about state elections (all levels) but isn't the presidential election a federal election? If it's a federal election why wouldn't the Fed's have a say in how their election goes in every state?

"Wouldn't" or "Shouldn't"?

There was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but that was annulled several decades later by Chief Justice Roberts and four other GOP stooges. (That Act was passed when it was the Ds — not the Rs — which was the party of anti-black racism. "On May 26, the Senate passed the bill by a 77-19 vote (Democrats 47-16, Republicans 30-2); only senators representing Southern states voted against it." The Ds knew they needed racist voters to win elections — sure enough, they lost the next Presidential election — but voted for the good of democracy. Contrast that with present-day Rs, some of whom may not actually hate Blacks, but make such hatreds their guiding principles anyway.)

There was also a consent decree from the early 1980s directed against GOP mischief which was allowed to expire a few years ago.

Finally, 50 Senators is not enough to pass a law, and won't be until Joe Manchin gets tired of suckling at Charles Koch's teet.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I guess they do have a (limited) say after all.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Why Democrats Are Reluctantly Making Voter ID Laws a Bargaining Chip - The New York Times
"While party leaders have long worried about the discriminatory effects of such laws, many now see other restrictive voting measures pushed by Republicans as a more urgent threat."

About such laws,
As such laws were first cropping up decades ago, Democrats fought them tooth and nail, insisting that they would be an impossible barrier to scale for the nation’s most vulnerable voters, especially older people and people of color.

But in recent years, as the concept of voter identification has become broadly popular, the idea that voters bring some form of ID to the polls has been accepted by Democrats ranging from Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia on the center-right to Stacey Abrams of Georgia, a hero of the left.

“As I have always said, a person should have to confirm that they are who they are in order to vote,” Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia and a key ally of Ms. Abrams, said in an interview. “What I get concerned about is when you say gun licenses are OK, when a student ID is not. Then I think any reasonable person has to ask, ‘Well, what’s that game?’”

...
While the idea of voter identification requirements remains popular in national polling, the implementation of such laws throughout history has at times been discriminatory and even weaponized to target and suppress votes in certain communities. Numerous federal court rulings in the past decade alone have struck down voter ID laws in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina as discriminatory.

...
Under Mr. Manchin’s version, states would be allowed to require photo identification, but they would have to define ID broadly — to include student IDs, hunting licenses, conceal-carry gun permits, and any form of government paper that includes the voter’s name, like a utility bill.

...
Some Black lawmakers — whom Democratic leaders have looked to for advice on the voting bill — have examined the Manchin proposal and have generally blessed it.
I myself don't absolutely oppose voter ID as long as the voter ID is any legally-recognized form of ID.

But some right-wingers oppose national ID cards.

If You Value Privacy, Resist Any Form of National ID Cards | Cato Institute - November 28, 2018
The New National ID Systems | Cato Institute - January 30, 2018
Do We Need a National ID Card? No. | Cato Institute - August 5, 2006
National Identification System | Cato Institute - May 13, 1997
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,577
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Why Democrats Are Reluctantly Making Voter ID Laws a Bargaining Chip - The New York Times
"While party leaders have long worried about the discriminatory effects of such laws, many now see other restrictive voting measures pushed by Republicans as a more urgent threat."

About such laws,
As such laws were first cropping up decades ago, Democrats fought them tooth and nail, insisting that they would be an impossible barrier to scale for the nation’s most vulnerable voters, especially older people and people of color.

But in recent years, as the concept of voter identification has become broadly popular, the idea that voters bring some form of ID to the polls has been accepted by Democrats ranging from Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia on the center-right to Stacey Abrams of Georgia, a hero of the left.

“As I have always said, a person should have to confirm that they are who they are in order to vote,” Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia and a key ally of Ms. Abrams, said in an interview. “What I get concerned about is when you say gun licenses are OK, when a student ID is not. Then I think any reasonable person has to ask, ‘Well, what’s that game?’”

...
While the idea of voter identification requirements remains popular in national polling, the implementation of such laws throughout history has at times been discriminatory and even weaponized to target and suppress votes in certain communities. Numerous federal court rulings in the past decade alone have struck down voter ID laws in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina as discriminatory.

...
Under Mr. Manchin’s version, states would be allowed to require photo identification, but they would have to define ID broadly — to include student IDs, hunting licenses, conceal-carry gun permits, and any form of government paper that includes the voter’s name, like a utility bill.

...
Some Black lawmakers — whom Democratic leaders have looked to for advice on the voting bill — have examined the Manchin proposal and have generally blessed it.
I myself don't absolutely oppose voter ID as long as the voter ID is any legally-recognized form of ID.

But some right-wingers oppose national ID cards.

If You Value Privacy, Resist Any Form of National ID Cards | Cato Institute - November 28, 2018
The New National ID Systems | Cato Institute - January 30, 2018
Do We Need a National ID Card? No. | Cato Institute - August 5, 2006
National Identification System | Cato Institute - May 13, 1997

If you're a Republican these days, hypocrisy is patriotism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Why Democrats Are Reluctantly Making Voter ID Laws a Bargaining Chip - The New York Times
"While party leaders have long worried about the discriminatory effects of such laws, many now see other restrictive voting measures pushed by Republicans as a more urgent threat."

About such laws,
As such laws were first cropping up decades ago, Democrats fought them tooth and nail, insisting that they would be an impossible barrier to scale for the nation’s most vulnerable voters, especially older people and people of color.

But in recent years, as the concept of voter identification has become broadly popular, the idea that voters bring some form of ID to the polls has been accepted by Democrats ranging from Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia on the center-right to Stacey Abrams of Georgia, a hero of the left.

“As I have always said, a person should have to confirm that they are who they are in order to vote,” Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia and a key ally of Ms. Abrams, said in an interview. “What I get concerned about is when you say gun licenses are OK, when a student ID is not. Then I think any reasonable person has to ask, ‘Well, what’s that game?’”

...
While the idea of voter identification requirements remains popular in national polling, the implementation of such laws throughout history has at times been discriminatory and even weaponized to target and suppress votes in certain communities. Numerous federal court rulings in the past decade alone have struck down voter ID laws in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina as discriminatory.

...
Under Mr. Manchin’s version, states would be allowed to require photo identification, but they would have to define ID broadly — to include student IDs, hunting licenses, conceal-carry gun permits, and any form of government paper that includes the voter’s name, like a utility bill.

...
Some Black lawmakers — whom Democratic leaders have looked to for advice on the voting bill — have examined the Manchin proposal and have generally blessed it.
I myself don't absolutely oppose voter ID as long as the voter ID is any legally-recognized form of ID.

But some right-wingers oppose national ID cards.

If You Value Privacy, Resist Any Form of National ID Cards | Cato Institute - November 28, 2018
The New National ID Systems | Cato Institute - January 30, 2018
Do We Need a National ID Card? No. | Cato Institute - August 5, 2006
National Identification System | Cato Institute - May 13, 1997

... So, I can't help but wonder if that was not actually the plan all along: whip up animosity to an easily available ID and then require an ID (whose difficulty targets the socioeconomic divide that perpetuates a racial divide).
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,220
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Many Americans lack proof that they were born in the USA. Their first step would be to obtain a birth certificate, but that can be difficult. And it doesn't really provide proof of anything anyway, except a name match. A minor mismatch between current name and birth certificate can be (and has been) used to deny people voting rights.

People who have trouble getting ID strongly tend to be Democratic voters. Difficulty is compounded because so much will be left to the discretion of officials:

"Of course you can use your gun license, Billie Bob! We all know ya. Just take a selfie and staple it to the permit, making it a photo ID. Ha ha!."

"No ma'am. Your name is Gertrude M. Brown; the birth certificate just says Gertrude Brown. Yeah, well maybe you should have thought of that when you were being born and getting your birth certificate."

At a minimum, a delay of several years should be provided before such ID laws are enforced, giving plenty of time for IDs to be issued.

I've always supported such ID laws in principle. U.S.'s refusal to join the rest of the world out of a confused notion of privacy is increasingly silly. But in the near term, voter ID laws will definitely be used to further facilitate GOP cheating.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I've always supported such ID laws in principle. U.S.'s refusal to join the rest of the world out of a confused notion of privacy is increasingly silly. But in the near term, voter ID laws will definitely be used to further facilitate GOP cheating.

Exactly. GOP knows exactly what it is doing when it says, “voter ID required to vote. Also, voter ID hard to get.” None of this is an *unintended* consequence.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
States across the country are dropping barriers to voting, widening a stark geographic divide in ballot access - The Washington Post
More than half of U.S. states have lowered some barriers to voting since the 2020 election, making permanent practices that helped produce record voter turnout during the coronavirus pandemic — a striking countertrend to the passage this year of restrictions in key Republican-controlled states.

New laws in states from Vermont to California expand access to the voting process on a number of fronts, such as offering more options for early and mail voting, protecting mail ballots from being improperly rejected and making registering to vote easier.

Some states restored voting rights to people with past felony convictions or expanded options for voters with disabilities, two long-standing priorities among voting advocates. And in Virginia, a new law requires localities to receive preapproval or feedback on voting changes as a shield against racial discrimination, a first for states after the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Voting Rights Act in 2013.
The article noted Voting Rights Lab - Welcome with A Tale of Two Democracies: How the 2021 Wave of State Voting Laws Created a New American Fault Line - Voting Rights Lab

Back to the article.
The trend is not limited to blue states, though they have led the charge. Indiana and Kentucky made several significant changes this year, including expanding the availability of ballot drop-off locations and establishing processes for voters to correct certain errors that would otherwise invalidate their mail ballots. At least four red states created systems for voters to track their ballots through the mail. Louisiana eliminated hurdles for people with past felony convictions as they register to vote. Montana made voting more accessible for people with disabilities, even as it ended same-day voter registration.

Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, a Republican who fought for his state’s policy changes, said the GOP needs to “stop being scared of voters.”

“Let them vote, and go out and make the case,” he said in an interview, adding: “I want Republicans to succeed. I think it’s an unforced error to shoot themselves in the foot in these states by shrinking access. You don’t need to do that.”
Overall, it's good to see that *some* states are adopting sensible policies.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,155
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Why not REAL election reforms?

When will they propose some real election reforms?

examples of real reform:

Have elections every day, 365 days a year.

Allow anyone to vote who shows up, no matter who, with no ID requirement of any kind, other than just to participate, by attending some meetings or educational and communicating activities.

Allow voters to vote for anyone, rather than imposing a list of "candidates" from which they must choose.

Allow any eligible person (meeting age or residency requirements e.g.) to run for office, with no required procedures limiting who has "ballot access" or can be voted for.

Eliminate "district" boundaries, which serve no necessary purpose, and which are not required by the Constitution, nor by virtually any federal law.

Allow all donations to any campaign, from any source (including foreign), with no limits.

Allow voters to vote AGAINST someone, as well as in favor of a candidate.

Provide hundreds (thousands?) of possibilities/candidates/issues for voters to choose from, instead of the current very limited range of candidates and ballot measures approved by the elitist-exclusionist process.



And there are many other possible reforms which would make voting more honest and authentic than the artificial restrictedness of our present voting systems.

Some of the above would require changes to the present system. However, this wouldn't necessarily mean eliminating the present system, but simply putting some new procedures into place which would operate in addition to the present system, so that elections would expand to allow more participation or more ways to participate than the present very narrow system of restrictions and exclusionism and elitism and demagoguery serving the currently-dominating special interests.

The reforms we need might require some rethinking, or some "deprogramming" from some of our cultural prejudice and dogmatism, but no one can give any good reason why reforms like the above would not work to better serve the interests of all.
 
Last edited:

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "56 years ago, heroes like John Lewis shed blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the right of all Americans to vote.
Today, I couldn't be prouder to vote YES on #HR4 to restore and protect the right to vote. (link)" / Twitter

then
Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "🚨BREAKING: The House just PASSED the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Now it’s time for the Senate to do the same." / Twitter


Here it is:
H.R.4 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2021)

John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021

This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.

A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if
  • 15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years;
  • 10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least 1 of which was committed by the state itself; or
  • 3 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years and the state administers the elections.
A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.

States and political subdivisions that meet certain thresholds regarding minority groups must preclear covered practices before implementation, such as changes to methods of election and redistricting.

Further, states and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.

Next, the bill authorizes DOJ to require states or political subdivisions to provide certain documents or answers to questions for enforcing voting rights.

The bill also outlines factors courts must consider when hearing challenges to voting practices, such as the history of official voting discrimination in the state or political subdivision.
 
Top Bottom