since they were weakened in 2013. In 1965 American citizens across parties agreed that it was wrong for states to attempt to make it harder for certain citizens to vote. Therefore they got together to pass a law to guarantee it would not happen.
Unfortunately as noted in the first link, SCOTUS decided that Congress should clarify the 1965 law. Then something worse happened, modern conservative voters and the GOP politicians decided to leave the law weakened. And even worse some States are taking advantage of the weakness to disenfranchise poor and highly mobile voters.
Now we Americans have a chance to make this right, and yet conservative voters seem okay with State's making it harder for some citizens to vote. They seem to believe that voting is a "privilege" and not a "right". Something that I and the Constitution totally disagree with !!!
I hope every citizen decides to protect Voter Rights.
And to demand that both parties win with honesty and open debate.
Not by suppressing votes and gerrymandering.
I notice that as usual you start off with the conclusion, go immediately to the proof of your confirmation bias, and skip all the intervening fact, logic and reason. I lived in Mississippi and was DENIED the right to vote, for two years, because I was white, because of the ruling you cite as "denying voting rights." B as in B, S as in S, as the old radio host used to say.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think the current "voting rights bill" in Congress has anything to do with voting rights OR with "free and fair elections" you are more deluded than I can imagine. If nothing else, Joe Biden's over-the-top race-baiting diatribe ought to convince you of that.
ReplyDeleteJerry, there's no way you were denied the right to vote because you were white. That's the conclusion you choose to draw because you didn't like the reason they told you. Why did they actually tell you that you couldn't vote? I don't for one minute think someone said, "You're white so get out." Doesn't pass the smell test.
ReplyDeleteHey conservatives, how about this as a deal?
ReplyDeleteWhen you turn 18, you get a federal voter id (for free!) valid for all elections and you are automatically registered to vote. Said voter id is then required for all elections. (and obviously, we would need to go back and retroactively do this for all Americans over the age of 18)
Hi Sean,
ReplyDeleteI am all for a Federal ID and Database for each citizen...
I am not sure the "Voter ID" will prevent people from voting twice, voting while dead, etc unless there is a database tied to it?
And do we take it back while they are in jail , etc?
And if they lose it?
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteSo are you against reinstating the full protections of the 1965 Voter Rights act?
What is your rationale?
The court has just ruled that you cannot single out any particular jurisdiction for targeted federal persecution because of past action, while leaving all /equal/ protection and voting rights fully intact. In my case, my district was DENIED a Representative in Congress for two years because the required "notification" to the US Government (the part of the Act set aside by the court) was not properly tendered. ONE polling place was moved (the surrounding area had built up and made it impossibly crowded) and the notification typeface was one size too small. A court set aside the election and did not order another.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you are telling me to ignore what I know and saw with my own eyes, because it disagrees with what you /imagine/ is real.
"I am all for a Federal ID and Database for each citizen..." -- John
ReplyDeleteAnd yet when Trump wanted to do the simple thing of simply comparing the voter rolls across states, to see if people were registered in multiple states, the one-time initiative was fought tooth and nail by Democrats.
What district number in Mississippi and when?
ReplyDeleteWhat Trump asked was illegal and part of a witch hunt.
That is something very different than national ongoing database like the SS database.
Stop asking me to give you real information just so you can deny it. I'm done playing that game with you.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Trump did, Prove it. And explain how requesting a one-time comparison of voter rolls between states is different than a national database that goes on forever.
That's fine... But no proof... No convincing anyone that you are not just making things up...
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteIt is kind of like the GOP election "audits"...
They only target precincts that they lost...
That is just wrong on so many levels...
His witch hunt was certainly a failure.
ReplyDeleteNow just because I think it is a good idea to have big brother keep citizen information in a national database... That does not mean that it is legal today.
Apparently Trump Etal asked the States to give out a bunch of classified info... And the States said "Hell No !!!"
Of course if Biden asked for that same information...
ReplyDeleteYou would be the first person to say "Hell NO". :-)
I am sure Biden would have had the same standing problems as Trump. The problem would have been that Biden had no rights at issue.
ReplyDeleteRegistration rolls are public information. If political parties wanted to compare them between the states, I don't know of anything that would stop them. It would be a big and expensive job with very inclusive results. For one thing, I am sure many people are registered in multiple jurisdictions and states. There is, after all, no requirement that when you move, you have to revoke your former voter registration. For another, there would be a vast number of duplicate names. A voter registration can't be revoked simply because someone else with a same or similar name registeres.
There is a common theme here. Measures are tossed out as election integrity proposals, which because of the inherent complexity of the subject both increase and decrease election integrity. What is entirely absent from these measures is any substantive program for actually doing it. No legislation is drafted, no money is appropriated, no bureaucracies created. There is never any substance to these proposals because the people making them don't actually care about actual integrity. What they do care about is attacking election integrity for political advantage. That can be done very cheaply by talking heads on Fox News.
--Hiram
Federal ID is an answer in search of a question. It could be on Jeopardy. My first question about it is, "What problem is it intended to solve?" Without a clear answer to that question, I simply don't know what Federal Id might be and am completely unable form an opinion on the issue. Just as a casual observation, in a country where people find it problematic to have vaccine ID issues, quite literally a life and death issue, and can't imagine that there will ever be much support for national ID should they issue ever come into focus.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I am aware that my "Card / Database" idea is unlikely to go anywhere...
ReplyDeleteHowever it is silly, expensive and inconvenient that there is not "one safe source".
What useful information should be easily available?
- home address
- voter registration status
- citizenship status
- gun authorization status
- sexual predator?
Since I have a pre-school in my house, I just went through my yearly background check. I often wonder how many databases they check and if they would miss things?
So, rather than discuss the real solutions to my concerns, you simply label me a bald-faced liar, not worth your time. Really?
ReplyDelete"I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue." And it's only January.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteMy "assume good intent" rule promotes me believing that you are writing what you believe to be true.
One is not lying when they write what they truly believe. Even when they are incorrect, delusional, etc.
Of course your unwillingness to provide districts, dates, precincts, etc indicates you may be aware that what you are writing can not withstand basic analysis.
That would indicate that you may be lying. Though I am not sure what you would hope to gain by doing so?
Maybe this is the White Privilege talking?
ReplyDelete"discuss the real solutions to my concerns"
An old white man thinking that his concerns
are more important than those of the young,
poor, homeless, students, etc...
Even though there is no proof to support
that his concerns are worthy of focus.
Where as there is proof that in many places,
it is challenging register, keep addresses
up to date and they wait in long lines to vote.
I wonder what Jerry's view and concerns would
be if he was poor, Black, housing insecure, etc?
For years I have been working to get better at feeling empathy. (the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.)
ReplyDeleteIt is hard, but I think it is worthwhile.
How Changes May Impact Military personnel
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhat useful information should be easily available?
- home address
- voter registration status
- citizenship status
- gun authorization status
- sexual predator?
I am not sure what's being asked for here. A unified federal database? In any event, what seems to be asked for is a massive effort to acquire and compile information far beyond anything we have today. This is a time and place where major political disruptions are caused by rather gentle requirements that folks produce in certain situations a little card they got from Hy Vee for free saying they were vaccinated.
--Hiram
Actually the government has pretty much all that info... And more...
ReplyDeleteThey just keep it very distributed.
And I do not think "the card" is the causal factor of the discord.
"Even when they are incorrect, delusional, etc." I see. I am not a bald-faced liar, I am simply insane. Because my concerns are shared by more than half the population.
ReplyDelete"Where as there is proof that in many places,
it is challenging register, keep addresses
up to date and they wait in long lines to vote."
Talk about delusional...
In MN you can register same day and there is no provisional balloting, and even illegal aliens can register and vote.
Addresses should be kept up to date IF the Secretary of State chooses to keep the voter rolls current per the USPS and SS death databases. Proof, please. But even at that, studies reveal the average voter roll contains 10% errors, yet that is the basis for 100% mail-in ballots?
And "long lines" were the reason why my Mississippi polling place was moved to a larger venue, but the courts set aside the entire election rather than allow all the black people there to easily vote.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteWhat would you think if "Peter" claimed to see GOP operatives cheating in an election precinct. Then insists that it is proof that GOP cheating is rampant and significant...
Then Peter was unwilling or unable to provide any where, when, who, etc information?
Yes, MN is a pretty good place for Voter Rights. It is the GOP controlled states where they making it harder for the poor, mobile, etc to vote.
And you seemingly support their new restrictions.
As for
ReplyDelete- my concerns are shared by more than half the population.
- the average voter roll contains 10% errors, yet that is the basis for 100% mail-in ballots
As always...
Sources please.
Actually the government has pretty much all that info... And more...
ReplyDeleteIt has a lot of it but not in an easily obtainable form. And the fact that it lacks much of it is problematic. Birth certificates, for example, are evidence of citizenship, but many people don't have them. Possibly a million or more. That means in each case, the government would have to conduct an inquiry determining the citizenship of each individual. Bear in mind, this is made much harder because huge numbers of those people don't have birth certificates because they and their parents have chosen to live "off the grid". Good luck tracking them down and obtaining their cooperation in some sort of quasi legal proceeding, all of which would have to be done solely at taxpayer expense.
The government makes lots of errors. But a governmental error can never be a reason for depriving someone of the right to vote. A ballot cannot be discarded simply because the government mishandled it in some way.
Rights are independent of how widely concerns about them are shared. Indeed, it's the rights of those of whom we care about least which are most in need of protection. And rights should never in any way be related to how issues surrounding them are marketed. They aren't determined by how much special interest groups advertise with respect to them. Rights are not Oreo cookies.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteIf someone can not prove they are a citizen and eligible to vote...
They should not be allowed to vote... What am I missing here?
If someone can not prove they are a citizen and eligible to vote...
ReplyDeleteThey should not be allowed to vote.
No, the right to vote is not contingent. That, among other things, would be a poll tax forbidden by the constitution. I would also argue that it would be a clear, and in fact, blatant discrimination under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
The fact is, getting three hundred million Americans to prove their citizenship would be perhaps the most monumental, and for that matter, unimaginable bureaucratic achievement in human history. Can you imagine going through all those birth certificates in a county by county effort throughout the 50 states and then matching them up with adults?
--Hiram
So you think non-citizens should be allowed to vote?
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure the Social Security agency knows who is considered citizens.
I mean non-citizens will not be getting checks...
Not to mention that "Real ID" requires proof of citizenship / legal residency.
ReplyDeleteMore on Real ID
ReplyDeleteSo you think non-citizens should be allowed to vote?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that a separate issue? But what is clear is that non citizens would have federal IDs.
A requirement of a Real ID to vote would be a clear violation of the poll tax amendment. Any government requirement to vote must be paid for by the government. It can burden the voter. And I don't know why anyone would want to make it more difficult or costly to vote.
It is possible for the government to do more behind the scene things to address election security. I wouldn't necessarily oppose those things. But they aren't being proposed for the very reason I don't oppose them, that is, they wouldn't make it more difficult for people to vote.
--Hiram
Yes I assume we would need to waive the nominal fee for those who do not have an adequate ID.
ReplyDeleteThough I assume that number is pretty low. Since pretty much anyone with a bank account needs an ID.
The federal ID would / should state clearly their VISA status. I assume...
It is odd how Liberals fight these most simple checks.
The SD Voter ID laws seem pretty rational
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYes I assume we would need to waive the nominal fee for those who do not have an adequate ID.
I know of no one know has an adequate ID evidencing a right to vote. We will have to make over three hundred million of them. It would require hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars and decades to create, and an immense continuing effort to maintain.
The funny thing is that we could do this. People say they want it. But nobody is proposing it. There are no bills, nobody is costing it out. No one who says they want it has even for a moment given any thought what it would mean.
--Hiram
"Yes, MN is a pretty good place for Voter Rights. It is the GOP controlled states where..." This is one time I am not going to read your cite, because it is a lie. In MN, illegal aliens are allowed to vote; indisputable fact. You keep complaining about "voter suppression" while making absolutely zero distinction between the suppression of legitimate votes and the "suppression" of illegitimate votes. And every illegitimate vote takes away a legitimate one. Why are you defending it?
ReplyDeleteAs for SD, notice they do NOT have same-day registration as MN does. Good rule?
ReplyDeleteHiram,
ReplyDeleteYou only have the right to legally vote if:
- you are a citizen
- you are registered / approved in that place
And we know that voter ID is constitutional since many state have it.
Jerry,
I am fine with "no same day registrations", and/or holding the ballots separate until the registration checks can be completed.
I don't dispute that requiring ID is constitutional. The Supreme Court has allowed it. But It must be done at government expense. And that can get pretty expensive.
ReplyDeleteAs always, having government issued ID is not evidence of qualification to vote. Lots of people have it who don't have the right to vote. Having identification is identifying. It proves nothing else.
--Hiram
Yes. That is why you must also pass the registration process.
ReplyDelete"I am fine with "no same day registrations", and/or holding the ballots separate until the registration checks can be completed." Hooray! So, that being the case, is it possible that MN election law PERMITS cheating because it lacks such provisions?
ReplyDeleteHistory shows that voter id is not needed.
ReplyDeleteAlmost never has someone shown up and found that someone voted in their place.
You are just adding hurdles with infinitesimal benefit
Making it hard for poor / mobile people...
I don't have data for how many people lie during same day registration. Do you?
Yes, I do. It is substantial. And since there is not provisional balloting, those votes count.
ReplyDeleteSource Please.
ReplyDeleteLook at the SOS website, or the MVA. I remember the numbers, just not where I found them. If I tell you what they are, you will demand sources. If I give you sources you dismiss them. Even when you look it up yourself you deny what you find.
ReplyDeleteAnd while you are at it, would you PLEASE stop yammering on about "voting rights" as if the Democrat legislation is anything of the sort? It is a "Legalize Election Theft" bill, nothing more.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteHR4 (Lewis Act) just patches the SCOTUS ruling flaws and returns us to 2012.
Apparently you are okay with States returning to their racist beginnings.
I am thinking you would like to allow them to start forcing poll taxes, knowledge tests, etc again. It is so sad how far the GOP has fallen. :-(
YOUR opinion is that SCOTUS ruling was flawed. Seems very reasonable to me.
ReplyDelete"I am thinking...." No, you aren't. You are projecting on to me all the evils your mind can imagine, just assuming that Southern states (when run by Democrats) were racist and those same states, decades later and run by Republicans, will go back, CONTRARY TO LAW, to previous ways. Election Integrity is where you find it, and right now Democrats are on the wrong side of the "voting rights" involved in that.
You are against fixing what the SCOTUS broke.
ReplyDeleteThat puts you on the wrong / Jim Crow side of history.
This explains the John Lewis and Electoral bills well
ReplyDeleteOnce you get past that crazy Freedom to Vote act description.
ReplyDelete"The John Lewis VRAA takes particular aim at the Supreme Court and federal courts, seeking to undo rulings that have struck down or weakened key components of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Most significantly, it creates a new formula to restore the federal preclearance requirement mandating states with histories of discrimination to seek permission from the federal government before enacting new voting rules or redistricting plans. The Supreme Court struck down the previous coverage formula in the landmark 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision.
It also undoes the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Brnovich vs. DNC, which significantly watered down the protections against race-based voter discrimination under Section 2 of the VRA.
The House version of the bill passed that chamber in late August. The Senate version, which has some relatively minor differences, was filibustered by all but one Senate Republican in November.
1. Reverses the Supreme Court's new "guideposts" and standards from the Brnovich decision that make it harder for plaintiffs to prove racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Enshrines judicial precedent and legislative history to strengthen efforts to draw majority-minority districts under the parameters of the Voting Rights Act.
3. Restores the federal preclearance regime that the Supreme Court struck down in Shelby. The bill creates a new coverage formula that requires states with recent histories of voting rights violations.
4. Takes aim at the federal courts by requiring judges to explain their reasoning in emergency rulings they take up on the so-called shadow docket, and tries to limit judges' from relying solely on the proximity to the election in deciding emergency cases on election rules, known as the Purcell principle.
5. The Senate version of the law also includes the Election Worker and Polling Place Protection Act, which provides greater federal protections for election workers against harassment and intimidation.
6. The Senate version further tacks on the Native American Voting Rights Act, a bill that strengthens voting rights and voter protections for voters in Indian Country.
Maybe Jerry supports "states with recent histories of voting rights violations"... :-O
ReplyDeleteLikes them continuing their suppression of minority voters?
"The John Lewis VRAA takes particular aim at the Supreme Court and federal courts, seeking to undo rulings that have struck down or weakened key components of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965." I don't know what wacko Democrat talking point that came from, but obviously you have never lived through the shameful misapplication of what SCOTUS has now set aside. All the rest is mere demagoguery and sham, including "suppression of minority voters." BS. Find me a court case where election laws (recent) have been found to do so. Most I know of fail because of "lack of standing," that is, plaintiffs cannot find anybody who was "suppressed."
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteYou would not believe any court case results.
So why would I waste my time. It is simple, you are okay with suppressing the votes of the poor and mobile if it helps your party win.
That is a damnable lie and does zero, zip, nada for promoting your view of the truth. You simply refuse to admit that people have doubts about election integrity and rather than discuss ways in which those doubts might be eased, you chose to insult them for not believing YOUR tightly-held but unexamined viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteYou approve of letting states / districts that have a history of racist behavior and policies go off and return to them without over sight...
It is as simple as that.
Even people in the 1960's knew that was wrong...
Even if your libelous statement were true, it would not be legal to "return" to racist voting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act still stands. The only thing struck down by SCOTUS was the unequal and unfair treatment of the States. I am appalled that Democrats have succeeded so well in demagoging this issue, and with such blatant lies. "Simple as that."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the law was apparently significantly weakened...
ReplyDeleteHaving a law is somewhat pointless if the enforcement mechanism is destroyed.
blah, blah, blah. Or in other words, black people are too stupid to figure out how to go vote, and ONLY if they vote Democrat should their votes be counted fairly. I see so much of this, where we talk about what somebody SAYS about a ruling or a law or a bill, rather than look at the actual thing or, somehow, find an objective assessment. It is a triumph of the demagogic arts.
ReplyDeleteI challenged you to find cases where a POC was denied the right to vote by a Voter ID law, so that your contention "black people are too stupid to get an ID" might be anecdotally confirmed. I challenged you to find how the lack of Voter ID might allow someone to cheat the election, and all you did was prove the point.
Again, let me make this simple. If cheating does not occur, as you contend, then laws which reduce the opportunity to cheat should have no effect, correct? If only cheaters are "disenfranchised," that is a Good Thing (TM) right?
Rationalize your supporting taking voter suppression back to the 1950's any way you wish.
ReplyDeleteRemember that IDs are only one of the techniques you are supporting.
Rationalize? How about simply being rational? It was Republicans who pushed through the original Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills in the 60s, over Democrat opposition (and still in place). The "Party of Lincoln" strikes again to uphold its racist leanings!
ReplyDelete61 forms of "voter suppression," eh? Can you name even ONE that actually "suppressed" the vote of legitimate voters? Did you even read through the whole list? I didn't; it's BS.
And I want to know how you know I support all 61 of them. And I wouldn't, if they were truly suppressing the vote. I want to worry about all the LEGITIMATE ballots cancelled out-- i.e. "suppressed" by this chicanery, now proposed by Democrats under the ludicrous banner of "voting rights."
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteAs long it helps your guy win, you would support it...
That is what is so sad...
The Florida wants to create a police force monitoring polling. That will certainly suppressing voting by legitimate voters.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
John-- As long as it helps your guy cheat and win, you would support it.
ReplyDeleteHiram, it hasn't happened yet, and I do not believe it would have the effect you claim if it did. After all, we have "poll challengers" here in MN, and election judges, SUPPOSEDLY of balanced political parties.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteWho exactly is "My Guy"?
Please remember that the GOP's departure from Reagan, Bush, Romney, Kasich, Truth, Fiscal Restraint, Free Trade, Zero Deficits, Good Moral Character, Supporting Free Elections, etc has left me without a "Guy".
I simply support making it easy, safe, convenient, etc for all legal voters to vote.
And to minimize / eliminate the intentional use of gerrymandering to disenfranchise block of voters.
"poll challengers" Source please. Prove your claims.
ReplyDeleteYour guy is the guy that won, whether by cheating or not is something I have many reasons to suspect, and that you simply deny can possibly occur. I have personal experience and knowledge; you have "faith."
ReplyDeleteAnd your questioning of poll challengers really tells me how truly out of touch you are with MN election law and practice. Poll challengers are part of election law and practice and have been for ages. I (among many others) recruit them and train them on behalf of the Party. I was one for a short time, until the Secretary of State unlawfully limited their effectiveness.
"I simply support making it easy, safe, convenient, etc for all legal voters to vote."
ReplyDeleteWith absolutely no effort made to make it difficult for ILLEGAL voters to vote. I will grant you there is a balance to be struck, but MN and HR1 are far too "left" of that balance.
"And to minimize / eliminate the intentional use of gerrymandering to disenfranchise block of voters." OK, let's examine that. First, the word "gerrymander" was named for a legislator named Gerry who produced a redistricting map where one district looked like a "salamander." If you see something like that, there is something highly partisan going on. You can also observe how competing redistricting plans compare, with Democrats caring little for contiguity in pursuit of partisan advantage. Republicans, I know, start with a mathematical model and tweak from there, presumably to keep cities and counties together in a district.
But let's take another example. In Mississippi one year, the lines were redrawn, and there was a great cry (may have been federal push) to create a "majority minority" district. The MS Delta was a good place to do that, and the district had a 70% black population (just the way that area was). That, however, left the nearby Jackson district 70% white. Then the Delta district elected a white guy, and the Jackson dist4ict elected a black guy. May have been the first case where folks didn't vote like they were "supposed to."
Treating voters as part of "blocks" is part of what is driving the mess we are in. Congresscritters in "safe seats" can run off and do the stupidest stuff and never have to explain those votes to the voters. The result is a partisan war with little if any regard to actual substance or problem-solving.
I sure wish Romney had been running. Like in 2016, I voted for the lesser of 2 evils. Neither being my guy.
ReplyDeleteActually I have audits, recounts, court rulings, legislative certifications, etc. You have NO proof.
That is why I support HR4... And MN is fine. That is unless you have proof otherwise?
Worst Gerrymandered Districts
Most Gerrymandered States
It looks like someone is gerrymandering Mississippi
ReplyDeleteMore Detail
"The 52-member Senate has 15 black majority districts, including the current District 22." Oh, yeah, and black voters all vote exactly alike? How racist do you want to appear?
ReplyDelete"Actually I have audits, recounts, court rulings, legislative certifications, etc. You have NO proof." I have audits, recounts, court rulings, and considerable knowledge of the very weak MN election law. You have argument based on what you've been told, from those we are SUPPOSED to trust.
Please remember that the GOP set those boundaries.. And that is all you got out that piece?
ReplyDeleteBy they way, here is the full paragraph...
"The 52-member Senate has 15 black majority districts, including the current District 22. But plaintiffs argued that the elongated District 22 that had no base made it difficult for an African American candidate to win elections. There are currently 13 African Americans serving in the Senate."
Minorities make up 40% of the population. I am betting the White folk made sure as many votes as possible would be wasted. :-O
So now you do not trust our courts? Or our state legislators?
ReplyDeleteAnd again... You have NO proof.
A wisconsin court has just ruled that votes put in untended drop boxes are open to fraud and ballot harvesting. We have open drop boxes in Minnesota, and anecdotal evidence of massive ballot harvesting, and people working on finding more. Many have been found.
ReplyDeleteA MN court has found (Hennepin, I think) wildly out of compliance with the requirement for election count observers. They have agreed not to do that anymore, meaning that the possibility of massive cheating was possible there. Several other counties are still in court on the same issue.
Secretary of State Simon eliminated the signature requirement for absentee ballots, AND converted several hundred precincts to total mail-in, enabling massive cheating by general agreement, and BOTH with any permission from the legislature. I don't trust him. Why do you?
Again opportunities do NOT equal proof of cheating...
ReplyDeleteI have to checkout your house someday... I envision it has no windows because they may allow a burglar access... :-)
It will be interesting if the WISC ruling goes to their State's Court.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually the court ruled no such thing...
"Judge Bohren agreed, noting that while the Elections Commission's guidance went into great detail on the construction and placement of drop boxes, the law did not allow them.
"All of that is good and nice, but there's no authority to do it," Bohren said.
Bohren called the commission's memo "a major policy decision that alter[s] how our absentee ballot process operates" and said it was broad enough that it should have been issued as an administrative rule, which would require the Legislature's approval."
Please share... "anecdotal evidence of massive ballot harvesting"
ReplyDeleteI see no info regarding the count observers... Must have been pretty unimportant.
ReplyDeleteApparently what you are hinting at is at the MN Supreme Court
ReplyDeleteAll those nasty things to say about Secretary of State Simon with no proof. And if you have proof... Get him fired...
"Again opportunities do NOT equal proof of cheating..." I guess you are determined to believe what you want to believe, and that at all times and places you leave your car doors unlocked with the keys in it. And the Christmas presents clearly visible in the back seat, in season. You keep missing the applicable axiom here, which is "absence of proof is not proof of absence."
ReplyDeleteYou go out of your way to not check directly the proof I offer, and to find (and in some cases misinterpret) the proof you find that confirms your bias. Even when cases are dismissed, the grounds for the case clearly support cause for suspicion-- changing the rules without legislative approval, for example (and then enshrining them into law through a Democrat Congress' usurpation of States' rights through HR1).
And don't you think I am working furiously to fire Simon? My problem is I do not have the megabucks that George Soros, the America-hater, did with his "Secretary of State project." And since he "counts the votes" what chance does he have to lose?
And by the way, I found another for your argument: "The left-of-center candidates bearing the Secretary of State Project’s seal of approval typically say that: a) voter fraud is as real as the Loch Ness monster; b) Republicans routinely practice vote suppression; c) voter rolls should never be cleansed of the dead and fictional characters; and d) anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist."
ReplyDeleteNow, please continue telling me that I did not see what I saw and do not know what I know.
I don't know what you think you saw...
ReplyDeleteYou have NO proof... Just like people who see Nessie...
So, sworn eyewitness testimony is not admissible in your "court"? Do you wear a powdered wig when you pontificate on matters of which you know only what you choose to have heard?
ReplyDeleteNot without hard facts to back it up...
ReplyDeleteImagine if someone accused someone of stealing something...
And yet there is no sign that anything has been stolen...
Would you believe them?
Many women have sworn that Donald Trump sexually assaulted them.
Do you believe them?
We have open drop boxes in Minnesota, and anecdotal evidence of massive ballot harvesting, and people working on finding more. Many have been found.Hiram
ReplyDeleteWe have absentee ballots in Minnesota. The drop boxes are otherwise known as mail boxes. They are everywhere and hardly ever monitored.
--Hiram
Apparently we also have some drop boxes...
ReplyDeleteOK. question? If I perjured my sworn affidavit, why have I not been prosecuted?
ReplyDeleteBecause they don't have the time or patience that I apparently do...
ReplyDeleteWe are still waiting for date, precinct, etc...
As usual, you completely missed the point. According to you, I committed a crime but no prosecution occurred. And the election been above reproach, I SHOULD have been, to uphold the honor and integrity of the election. The alternative is to believe that cheating DID occur and that nobody wanted to see themselves prosecuted for it. Looks to me like a lot of things just being swept under the rug. Seems like the least we can do is to close some of these massive loopholes so we don't have this problem again.
ReplyDeleteYes I understand your dream of replacing the locked windows with cement blocks...
ReplyDeleteEven if you have no proof of crimes being committed...
I found a game for you...
Wouldn't the folks at MVA even believe you? I would assume they would have sued someone with you as their star witness?