Democrats Threaten the Voting Rights Act

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  4 months ago  •  60 comments

By:   By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

Democrats Threaten the Voting Rights Act
Of no less importance, supporters of the Voting Rights Act must oppose efforts to commandeer its extraordinary legacy for crass partisan gain. After Democrats regained control of Congress, they introduced the highly partisan For the People Act, which federalizes state election laws and procedures, violating established constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers. Cut from the same cloth but with a different short title is the Freedom to Vote Act, scheduled for Senate...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



As the Supreme Court observed in 1964, “the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights.” Enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act helped black and minority voters realize more fully the voting rights the Constitution extends to all Americans. As one of the legislators who helped lead congressional reauthorization of the law in 1982 and 2005, I urge Congress to restore important provisions of the Voting Rights Act while rejecting efforts to eviscerate its protections for rank partisan gain.


The bipartisan history of the law affirms the foundational constitutional principles it protects. In 1965, the Senate approved the Voting Rights Act 77-19; the House 333-85. Martin Luther King Jr. , Rosa Parks, John Lewis and other leaders of the civil-rights movement attended the bill signing.

Key provisions were reauthorized in 1970 and 1975. In 1982, I served as a Republican co-sponsor of reauthorizing legislation approved 389-24 in the House and 85-8 in the Senate. At the East Room signing ceremony, I was struck by President Reagan’s remarks, which resonate with equal force today: “For this nation to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American’s vote to be denied, diluted or defiled. The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished.”

Before the Voting Rights Act, a vicious circle was repeating itself: States and localities would discriminate against minority voters; Congress or courts would ban the discriminatory practice; and states would then come up with new discriminatory voting practices.

Because there is no effective remedy for voter discrimination after an election, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act included a landmark preclearance provision requiring states and localities with a documented history of discrimination to clear specified changes to voting practices before they are implemented. During the 2006 reauthorization of the law, the House Judiciary Committee held about 20 hearings, leaving a 15,000-page legislative record documenting discrimination, the continued need for federal oversight, and the importance of preclearance. Yet in 2013 the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in  Shelby County v. Holder  had the legal effect of rendering Section 5 meaningless.

I introduced the bipartisan Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015 with more than 100 co-sponsors. The legislation would modernize the Voting Rights Act to extend preclearance criteria to all states and lift preclearance requirements from states without a history of voter discrimination. It also contained vital transparency provisions, expressly declined to federalize state election laws, and preserved reasonable voter identification laws. Congress hasn’t passed this bill, but it still should.

Of no less importance, supporters of the Voting Rights Act must oppose efforts to commandeer its extraordinary legacy for crass partisan gain. After Democrats regained control of Congress, they introduced the highly partisan For the People Act, which federalizes state election laws and procedures, violating established constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers. Cut from the same cloth but with a different short title is the Freedom to Vote Act, scheduled for Senate consideration on Wednesday.

The Voting Rights Act recognizes that voter fraud dilutes and denies equal protection rights of lawful voters. The perversely titled For the People Act and Freedom to Vote Act would dismantle established practices that protect the voting rights of all Americans, including racial minorities. And both bills jettison bipartisan safeguards essential to the Voting Rights Act’s broad public and congressional support.

Democratic efforts to suspend the filibuster to pass either bill present a clear danger to “the crown jewel of American liberties,” and would mar the law’s half-century bipartisan legacy. Honor the law and those who sacrificed for its passage by restoring its key provisions; don’t suspend Senate rules to impose a “Freedom to Vote” bill that betrays and dishonors both.



sensenbrenner2.gif

Mr. Sensenbrenner, a Republican, served as a U.S. representative from Wisconsin, 1979-2021, and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 2001-07.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was a temporary rule, a departure from Constitutional law, used as a weapon to fight serious resistance to voting rights in the segregated south. Progressives loved that provision and wanted it to continue forever.  We have overcome southern resistance long ago. Every piece of data shows minorities voting in record numbers. So why return to federal control of elections? (which is unconstitutional btw)  It may just be that democrats have an enthusiasm problem. Many of their voters need a ballot sent to them and placed under their noses before they find the fortitude to actually cast a vote. There is also the question of fraud. If your key argument is not having to show a photo ID, or allowing non-citizens to vote or ballot harvesting then the real objective is obvious.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

A great read.  Thanks for sharing it here!  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1    4 months ago

My pleasure and don't forget what I recently told you.

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
1.2  RU4Real  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

Thanks for the posting and share.

My main, I guess "rub" in my understanding is that it is a Voting Rights Act, not Voting Law, where this Act needs to be reviewed and can be gutted.  Maybe it is my misunderstanding.

You are correct in that many think while they were given the right to vote, they can just roll up and vote without any verification.  It's like you can wait in line at the Apple Store to get a new iPhone, iTablet, whatever but you can't go in to apply for a position at the Apple Store.  You can wait in line at Starbucks and buy a hella $$$ coffee but you can't go to the grocery and buy a bag of coffee and snacks and make your own.  Voting is precious as my past kin-folk were on the line to vote.  Again, I agree w/o ID you can't vote, but I do disagree with polling places closing in predominately low-income and /or "brown" areas, moving polling places 10, 20, 30 miles away, limiting opening days and hours, disallowing giving elderly people water while waiting in line on an extremely hot day, mysteriously having registered voters' info deleted from databases or redistricting to enhance a party's chances of winning.  Whether Dem or Repub, call a spade a spade.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    4 months ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    4 months ago

Did you read the article?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

Marc Elias not only called ballot harvesting one of the "four pillars" of a successful election but also, along with other Democrats, sued to overturn harvesting bans in two states. He lost in Georgia in 2020 and lost in Arizona last year in a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.





Biden heads down to Georgia to deliver speech pushing to change the filibuster

ban-rIgT?format=jpg&name=small

justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/biden-heads-down-georgia-deliver-speech-pushing-change-filibuster

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.1  bccrane  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 months ago

Ballot harvesting isn't actually named right, it should be named signature harvesting because the signature on the envelope makes whatever ballot that's enclosed legal even though it may have been modified or replaced along the way to the polling center.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  bccrane @3.1    4 months ago

If was to become legal in every state, I'd become a ballot harvester. Just watch me turn blue districts red! 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
4  Thomas    4 months ago
So why return to federal control of elections? ( which is unconstitutional btw

From the original text of the constitution, Article I :

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations , except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December , unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

I think that you are conflating elections with the right to suffrage. To the suffrage point, neither you nor anyone else has shown a meaningful or significant "dilution" of the vote caused by any fraud or other means. You are poking at the largest strawman in recent history.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @4    4 months ago
I think that you are conflating elections with the right to suffrage.

I'm not conflating anything. Section 4 which you posted, shows that election laws were left to State Legislatures.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
4.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    4 months ago

Just because I highlighted something does not mean that you get to ignore it. Section 4 also states that the Congress (of the United States) gets to monitor and change any and all said regulations. That is why the Congress could and did enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So your assertion that federal control is somehow unconstitutional is incorrect.

The whole article is about federal control of the electoral process. Following your line of reasoning, you would say Mr. Sensenbrenner, whose article this is, is unconstitutional in his championing of the Voting Rights Act, and by extension every person involved in the continuation of said Act, including Ronald Reagan et.al., was committing an act against their oaths of office???

How Bizarre!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @4.1.1    4 months ago
Just because I highlighted something does not mean that you get to ignore it.

I didn't ignore it. The time-to-time allowed was utilized under the infamous section 5 of the Voting Rights Act we talked about. It certainly didn't mean that one day democrats could nationalize elections.


That is why the Congress could and did enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So your assertion that federal control is somehow unconstitutional is incorrect.

Maybe you missed it - the Court has already ruled. It is no longer 1964, nor do those conditions exist any longer. The federal government no longer gets to control elections in seven southern states. It was an unconstitutional act, just like Lincoln's Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863. One can argue at various times for extreme measures, but we should always try to follow the Constitution, lest we nullify it completely. 


The whole article is about federal control of the electoral process. Following your line of reasoning, you would say Mr. Sensenbrenner, whose article this is, is unconstitutional in his championing of the Voting Rights Act, and by extension every person involved in the continuation of said Act, including Ronald Reagan et.al., was committing an act against their oaths of office???

How would you come to that conclusion? I stated the reason why the Congress had to take the unprecedented step of temporarily overseeing elections in 7 states. It was an extreme measure taken when all else failed. The Court wisely ended the practice once the south gave up on it's resistance. I think all of that was justified, unlike what democrats are doing now.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
4.1.3  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    4 months ago

Ok, I'll bite. What, specifically, are the, "... democrats are doing now ," (besides holding opinions contrary to yours) that upsets you in particular to this article? 

And, to further my above argument, the ruling by the SCOTUS in no way abridged Section 4, and Congress can and does have the authority to "...   by Law make or alter such Regulations. " You cannot have it both ways. The ruling by the SCOTUS merely took away the specific authority to require any certain states to have their voting laws given approval before going into effect. 

To Wit:

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,  Shelby County v. Holder , 570 U.S. 529 (2013). The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself. The effect of the  Shelby County  decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @4.1.3    4 months ago
Ok, I'll bite. What, specifically, are the, "... democrats are doing now ," (besides holding opinions contrary to yours) that upsets you in particular to this article? 

You are way too smart to play it that way. They are trying to nationalize elections. What they seem to have forgotten is that although Trump lost in 2020, Republicans did well in that election.


 the ruling by the SCOTUS in no way abridged Section 4, and Congress can and does have the authority to "...   by Law make or alter such Regulations. "

No, it simply ended the section 5 provision of the Voting Rights Act. The fact that the court didn't rule on it's constitutionality was a smart move. The federal government taking over the election laws of 7 states clearly is a violation.

For democrats to get what they want now they need to legislate. It's not looking good.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
4.1.5  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    4 months ago
The federal government taking over the election laws of 7 states clearly is a violation.

Vic, you can't credibly hold that opinion, because it does not match what Justice John Roberts held in the majority opinion. To Wit :

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. 

So it ended the formula given in §4, the criteria under which the jurisdictions deemed in violation of could be regulated, which left nothing for §5 to regulate. Justice Thomas wanted to declare unconstitutional §5 as well, under the reasoning that it has worked and the conditions which it seeks to remedy no longer exist, therefore it is no longer an exceptional circumstance. The Court, however, did not hold this opinion. The court held that, as Mr. Sensenbrenner is arguing for (through however partisan a looking glass), Congress could have come up with a new formula to fit the problems of today and also new solutions to those problems, as long as there was a compelling need. Indeed, if the formula is altered to encompass all jurisdictions, as Mr. Sensenbrenner suggests, the Act could still be of use because there is a whole lot of discriminatory thinking out there and it has only gotten worse since the last president encouraged that despicable behavior. 

And, of course, Article I, Section 4 of the COTUS is still applicable and valid, and that section expressly states that, ... but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    4 months ago
They are trying to nationalize elections.

Proclamations mean NOTHING. 

What they seem to have forgotten is that although Trump lost in 2020, Republicans did well in that election.

Actually, the 'they' that want to forget that are the Trumpsters. Trump lost but Republicans did well. Yet Trump wants to overturn that election which would have to include overturning the down ballot wins for Republicans TOO. 

It's comical.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    4 months ago

Why does the gop see voting rights as "threatening"? 

Because, when more people vote the gop will lose...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5    4 months ago
Why does the gop see voting rights as "threatening"? 

Why does the left fear voter integrity?

Because, when legitimate concerned voters vote the democrats will lose...


Don't believe it?  You have 10 months to find out.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
5.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @5    4 months ago

Why do democrats want to make it easier for dead people to vote in an election?

Because, the only way they can win is if they cheat.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.2    4 months ago
Why do democrats want to make it easier for dead people to vote in an election?

I know that was directed at JBB, but may I have a shot at it?  Democrats have long had what is known as an enthusiasm problem. There are casual voters out there who wouldn't necessarily vote if they had to get themselves out to the polls. Most of them identify as democrats. Thus the DNC/Marc Elias cause of mass mailing ballots. Michelle Obama is off on a mission to register one million first time voters. Republicans should be doing the same thing!


Because, the only way they can win is if they cheat.

They do that too!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.1    4 months ago

If that was true then Trump would have won...

Butt, Trump lost by over seven million votes! 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
5.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @5.2.2    4 months ago
Thus the DNC/Marc Elias cause of mass mailing ballots

Guessing you misunderstood the comment and thus the reason he lost........................

voters out there who wouldn't necessarily vote if they had to get themselves out to the polls.

But they didn't have to................

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.2.2    4 months ago
If that was true then Trump would have won...

Trump = enthusiasm for the left. That being said, Trump lost because the left wing media successfully hung the covid death toll on him and Fauci got him to shut down the economy.


Butt, Trump lost by over seven million votes! 

But Trump got  74,222,958 votes!  That's more than anyone in history, other than the puppet Biden. Even more than fucking Obama. Go figure!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.2    4 months ago
Why do democrats want to make it easier for dead people to vote in an election? Because, the only way they can win is if they cheat.

funny how the vast majority of dead voters discovered voted for trump, huh?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.4    4 months ago
But Trump got  74,222,958 votes!  That's more than anyone in history, other than the puppet Biden. Even more than fucking Obama. Go figure!

Sad commentary on our country. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.6    4 months ago
Sad commentary on our country. 

Where is the old glittering 2021 avatar?  Long thrown away, I ssume.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.6    4 months ago
Sad commentary on our country.

Yeah, it does say something when a joke like Biden wins.

But it's all good, now there are no more mean tweets!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @5    4 months ago

"Why does the gop see voting rights as "threatening"? 

Because, when more people vote the gop will lose..."

YA!  You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200788949_10224840540136992_2612129282280635092_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SUa-Sksj5zEAX8C4Wri&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9pWpx59rGraESxTFcckbDCmP0O4p5FBa_-nbJ93v5yTg&oe=62037027

I haven't made anyone's argument for them.  

The truth is the truth.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.3    4 months ago

That's what Putin said as well.

Thanks for the sign. How about a valid argument?

(Other than making mine for me)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @5.3    4 months ago

Lots more ways and means to cheat.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3.1    4 months ago
That's what Putin said as well.

So because Putin rigs Russian elections we should add a bunch of Republican voting rules even when there is NO fucking evidence of any widespread vote fraud here in the US? That's some fucked up whacko reasoning.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @5.3.2    4 months ago

How so?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6  Tessylo    4 months ago

The blame for Co-Vid spread during his regime falls squarely on whatshisname due to his inaction.  

He lost bigly to Biden, BIGLY

It's thanks to whatshisname that we are where we are now and where all the blame belongs.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 months ago

Bigly huh?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
6.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 months ago

So who gets the blame for 2021 and the number of deaths AND this year with the rapid spread of Omicron? You damned right it isn't whatshisname. It's the Bidenmeister.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 months ago
The blame for Co-Vid spread during his regime falls squarely on whatshisname due to his inaction.

Still trying to play the blame game.  The Biden administration inherited a vaccine and yet the virus is far more widespread with more deaths under the Biden administration than under Trumps without a vaccine.  By Biden's standards -

"any one who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America."

So, when can we expect his resignation?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3    4 months ago
Still trying to play the blame game.  The Biden administration inherited a vaccine and yet the virus is far more widespread with more deaths under the Biden administration than under Trumps without a vaccine.  By Biden's standards -
"any one who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America."

So, when can we expect his resignation?

See, here's how THAT works.

Trump was supposed to have known about an unknown virus before it manifested. He was to anticipate every possible need connected to a pandemic. He was supposed to force everyone to get vaccines.

Biden, on the other hand, gets a pass on it all because he is a Democrat.

That is what is passing as logic to many of today's Democrats.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3    4 months ago

I am placing all the blame where it belongs - on trumpturd.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.2    4 months ago

Yeah.  When your candidate is an absolute utter failure blame the previous administration.  Like I said playing the blame game.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.1    4 months ago
That is what is passing as logic to many of today's Democrats.

So how many blows to the head with a ball peen hammer does it take to get to that level of "logic"?  Maybe some of our left leaning "friends" can tell us.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3.3    4 months ago

No - the absolute utter failure was #45.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.5    4 months ago

Aren't you supposed to be debunking a link?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3.6    4 months ago

Already been done, time and time again.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.7    4 months ago

Where?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3.8    4 months ago

Keep looking.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.9    4 months ago

So...... Like Biden.   You failed again.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3.10    4 months ago

271568065_310279691203612_9006841836047053260_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=TLaGEur6Z5kAX_C8VD7&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8ZBss7FM9gWI846BNygmWsD02igc1WRmUdbAYSAWB7DA&oe=61E371A2

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.3.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.11    4 months ago

I guess you couldn't find anything to debunk the links I provided and decided to double down on nonsense. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

“We need some good rules changes to make the place work better. But getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” Manchin said.

kiX2pCOY?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8  Texan1211    4 months ago

Democrats keep screeching about voter suppression.

One of these days (maybe before I die), one of the brilliant members of the Democratic Party will finally provide some proof for all the bullshit they claim about it.

Maybe.

We can always hope, right?

And if anyone chooses to dispute what I say, kindly provide the proof I am asking for or don't even bother responding.

The silence will be deafening, I am sure.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @8    4 months ago

I bet tomorrow you'll still be telling the same lie!

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.1    4 months ago

Yawn. Not one thing suppressive in that no matter how you manage to spin it.

Democrats and other progressives really, really, REALLY need to learn the damn difference between suppression and common-sense laws.

Say, why don't any of ya'll ever bitch about Delaware's laws?  Or New Hampshire? Or Connecticut?

You are trying to call limiting times to vote as suppression, and that is seriously a fucked-up charge.

Using that obviously dubious logic, any law limiting voting in any way is "suppressive".

SMMFH

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    4 months ago
You are trying to call limiting times to vote as suppression

If you take something that people already have like early voting, study the voting patterns by race and once you realize that black Americans use early voting at twice the rate as whites you draft a law to limit early voting, that's voter suppression and that's fucked up. The ones trying to twist facts are those desperate to defend these bullshit white conservative voting laws because they know that's the only way their fucking racist conservative party can ever win any elections except in the deepest of red hollars.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.2    4 months ago

Looks like everyone  in a state has the same chance to vote as the next person does. 

That isn't suppressive, no matter how loud some liberals screech about it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
8.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.3    4 months ago
That isn't suppressive, no matter how loud some liberals screech about it.

Well considering the vagarity of the English language, it does.  It doesn't prevent a person from voting, but if the person walks out their front door at 3:00am and thinks they need to go vote cuz they haven't yet cast their ballot and the 24 hour a day polling station has been shut down then it's not as easy for them to go vote as it was in the past so their opportunity has been suppressed.  They can still go vote, they just have to do it when the polling station is open.  So suppressing the vote is to me a poor phrase due to the multiple meanings of the word, but it's a good phrase for a politician because how they say it (with the frothing of the mouth and the banging of the fists) will allow their party to "fully understand" what is being said while at the same time being so inoffensive as to be meaningless.

And for all the complaining the Democrats do about the voting law changes in places like Texas or Georgia or any of the other states that recently passed laws, they never bitch about places like Delaware with some of the most restrictive voting laws in place.  Now why won't they talk about that?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.4    4 months ago
And for all the complaining the Democrats do about the voting law changes in places like Texas or Georgia or any of the other states that recently passed laws, they never bitch about places like Delaware with some of the most restrictive voting laws in place.  Now why won't they talk about that?  

Simple.

It is perfectly acceptable for blue states to suppress votes, but not red states.  That IS the "logic" used, right?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
9  Dismayed Patriot    4 months ago

Conservatives already gutted the voting rights act back in 2013. The SCOTUS conservative majority, split along ideological lines, voted to rip the heart out of the voting rights act.

" The Supreme Court on Tuesday  effectively struck down  the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval."

Trying to now claim modern day liberal/progressive Democrats are the ones threatening the voting rights act is beyond hilarious and disingenuous, it's fucking moronic. The ones who have always been against the voting rights act have been right wing white conservative Christians. They fought against it when it was first signed and they fought against it in the courts till their white conservative SCOTUS majority finally managed to slit it's throat. Those telling you anything different have their heads shoved up their own asses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9    4 months ago

The Voting Rights Act

Forcing states to change things so that the abuses suffered under Democratic rule don't happen when the GOP is in charge.

LOL!

 
 

Who is online

Kavika
Drinker of the Wry


34 visitors