The push to federalize voting rules.
There has been a lot of discussion here recently about the democrats successfully getting state voting rules changed shortly before the 2020 election. Some argue that those rules didn't really benefit Biden. Nobody on the left thinks anyone has a right to question those changes. Obviously congressional democrats think those changes helped their cause or they wouldn't be working so hard to federalize those changes. Tomorrow the Senate will vote on a radical bill which would drastically change elections. The bill is called (of all things) "the For the People Act." Progressives are adept at labeling things aren't they? George Orwell warned us about that.
The For the People Act, (AKA The One Party Rule Act) would expanding voting exponentially, among other things. It would require states to offer mail-in ballots and a minimum of 15 days of early voting, while calling for online and same-day voter registration. All of which makes voter identity less certain and voting itself incredibly easy. Currently voting laws are enacted by state legislatures under the Constitution. Also included in this "bill" are changes to the makeup of the Federal Election Commission, new ethics rules for public officials and the establishment of new requirements for congressional redistricting. Kind of like what the Voting rights act once did to the old south. Strict federal control over elections. That by itself may require a constitutional amendment. Democrats know it and this may simply be a political stunt. At the moment Republican Senators, as you can imagine, are against it. Democrats find themselves in a familiar position - they have to convince Joe Manchin (who represents a state that went from very blue to very red in a very short time.)
Joe Manchin key moderate
Manchin said he could vote for the "bill" provided: We make election day a public holiday, we mandate at least 15 consecutive days for early voting in federal elections, we ban gerrymandering and we allow automatic voter registration through the DMV. (In California the DMV auto voter registration asks that drivers simply check a box confirming citizenship and one instantly becomes a registered voter!) I wonder how the people of West Virginia feel about that?
Here is the best part: While he supports absentee voting he doesn’t go so far as to endorse no-excuse absentee voting and furthermore he is proposing voter ID requirements with the possibility of alternatives such as a utility bill to provide proof of identity in order to vote. Can democrats move on that?
We will all find out tomorrow, two days before the Senate leaves for their 4th of July recess on Thursday.
It will be another day of tribulation for the Republic.
Tags
Who is online
407 visitors
If we could only get more illegal aliens and felons and teens voting!
Tomorrow's the day.
Prove that's been happening in any sort of substantial way. If not then you can go stuff that bullshit straw man narrative back in the Orange con-mans keister from which it came.
You insist that States should control voting yet whine about felons and teens voting.
STATES decide if and/or when felons can vote Vic.
The 26th Amendment changed the voting age to 18, STATES decide how early teens can register to vote.
Your comment about illegal aliens is bullshit.
Like most things coming out of politicians these days, there's a lot of partisan over-reach going on. Some of the things in this "For the people act" (that's really funny to me how they use words to deceive but let's be honest both sides do this) I can agree with but other pieces of it I do not.
I agree with 15 days of early voting, happen to think every state should allow for it. If they don't have early voting then election day should be moved to a three day weekend (think Friday-Sunday) with polling stations open from 6:00am local time until 6:00pm local time to allow for everybody to vote. Election day on Tuesday is a very old standard that made sense when horse and buggy was the standard method of transportation and we were a more agrarian culture and Tuesdays were when most farmers/ranchers could come into town. And just declaring election day a holiday does not guarantee everybody gets that day off.
I agree with no-excuse mail-in voting. I've been using this method for years. The state needs to set up to insure they can properly verify ID's for the ballots I do not agree however with ballot harvesting, it should remain the responsibility of the person who is voting to both validate who they are to the election commission and to get the ballot returned. If they put it on a table and forget about it that's their fault.
I agree with voter ID laws. States that have set up voter ID laws have so many ways that a person can prove their identity for voting that this really seems to be a no-brainer to me. Most people when asked also support voter ID laws. Democrats used to support voter ID laws, it's only when it's politically expedient that they turned against them.
Personally I hate gerrymandering and do wish a non-partisan fix could be found but due to party politics I don't expect to see any changes here. And if everybody were to be honest, Democrats don't have any problem with gerrymandering when they are the party in charge at the state level and can make the maps.
I do not agree with allowing federal control over state voting. Seems to me the Constitution is fairly clear that control over voting is to be managed at the state level. And that makes sense, the only election that is not simply a state issue is the presidential election. All other voting is for offices at the state level, who will represent the state and the people of the state in Congress (and within state houses). So the federal government should keep itself out of state issues IMO.
IMO the biggest problem with our method of voting is partisan politics.
There is only one thing that matters in how a ballot is cast, and that is that the vote is made by election day by a specific registered voter . How and when beyond that is somewhat immaterial. I do believe there should be a national uniformity of what types of identification are acceptable. For one state to disallow a form of identification that a next door state allows is a problem. One's ability to vote as an American citizen should not vary depending on what state you live in.
Members of the US Congress (Representatives and Senators) are both state and national offices. They are elected in individual states but go to the nation's capitol and vote almost exclusively on national issues and pass laws that effect every state.
How about we federalize proof of citizenship on those voter registration forms given out by state DMVs?
While I agree with most of your statement I do believe in states rights and their right to determine how they will establish state residency and what is required to prove you are a resident and eligible to vote. I believe that most states, if you are a resident and driving in their state that you are required to get a state drivers license and to register your car in the state of residency. Most states put a time limit on how long before you need to reregister your car as a resident. And if you are using other types of identification such as utility bill then you are following what the state allows.
IMO if we are going to push for a National ID card then it needs to cover everything needed. You shouldn't then need to get a separate drivers license, or a gun permit or anything. And that is taking away from states rights so I would believe there would be a lot of pushback on any sort of National ID.
They vote on national issues, but are there to represent the people of the state that elected them (Representatives) or the State (Senator) that elected them. If they didn't need to cooperate with other Representatives or Senators to get things passed I believe they would not compromise but solely work for the people they represent.
IMO, for a Federal election, it's insanity not to have absolute consistency in every respect.
That's the thing. In the US, we do not have a federal election. All elections are state elections. The only office in the country that is not a direct vote is the president which is still a state election to determine electoral college voters.
This is the United States not the united peoples, all elections are state level events and I believe It is a state level expense
Yeah, a system that worked so well in containing the virus and limiting the number of deaths.
We desperately need a national voting rights law now because the damn gop is trashing our voting rights at the state level. And, that is the bottom line...
i disagree - we desperately need the partisan politics of the two parties to get out of voting laws. But while some of the state level laws are overreach I do not see them as trashing voting rights. Please provide some specifics so that we can discuss.
Every time an illegal immigrant votes in CA an American citizens vote has been stolen.
All those illegal immigrant votes that republicans are unable to prove? Those votes?
You'd think Trump, after 4 years of being POTUS, would have been able to prove those 3 million illegal immigrant votes he claimed were the reason he lost the popular vote.
In California all you have to do is check a box claiming that you are a citizen at the DMV and you're a registered voter.
You'd think that the state of California would want to turn over their voter rules to prove how honest they are.
Voter for what kind of election?
Are you claiming that they would be able to vote in federal elections Vic? Just answer this question, do you think that an illegal alien, is able to vote, legally, in a federal election in California?
Next, of course, I will ask you to prove that they have. Then I will ask you why Trump has never been able to prove this claim after 4 years as POTUS.
Any and all. The box is checked and NOBODY confirms whether the individual is a citizen.
Are you claiming that they would be able to vote in federal elections Vic? Just answer this question, do you think that an illegal alien, is able to vote, legally, in a federal election in California?
Yes.
Next, of course, I will ask you to prove that they have.
I'm happy to accommodate you. And my proof comes directly from the CA Secretary of State:
"California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has conceded that noncitizens have been registered to vote in California. He attributes those instances to mistakes in the voter registration process."
Then I will ask you why Trump has never been able to prove this claim after 4 years as POTUS.
And here you are:
"California has managed to create a firewall by passing certain laws so that the secretary of state cannot access the list of noncitizens and illegal people from the DMV, which has a very complete list," said EIPCa's vice president, Ruth Weiss.
"They're not allowed to access that list from the Department of Homeland Security," said Weiss. "And yet they're the ones responsible to make sure that only legitimate citizens get on the voter rolls."
Next you may be thinking of asking me to prove that Hillary Clinton had anything classified on her private server?
That I can't answer because the evidence was destroyed.
The same with the Wuhan Lab records.
The idea is always to destroy or withhold the evidence.
Total bullshit. To get a standard CA drivers license you must show birth certificate and/or social security card. Once you have a standard license you can automatically register to vote. Dishonest conservatives are claiming that because the CA DMV also issues non-citizen drivers licenses that somehow that means those non-citizens are able to register to vote. This is a blatant lie, the non-citizen drivers license does not have the option to register to vote because they have to apply for it as a non-citizen, they are admitting to the CA DMV when they get such a license that they are not eligible to vote and are not registered to vote. Don't believe conservative lies, this claim about CA is as false as the bullshit narrative that Trump won the election or there was somehow widespread voter fraud which Republicans haven't been able to prove.
The need to combine those two things kind of brings your rebuttal to an end, doesn't it?
Well, if some people still inexplicably believe Trump won the election or voter fraud changed the outcome, it's no surprise they would believe non-citizens can vote.
Another fail Vic. This does not show they have voted.
Another fail Vic. Now you have a single claim by a partisan person that is not a part of any federal or state agency. Make it an "official" claim if you want anyone to believe it.
Wow, still stuck on Hillary lies, huh Vic? Trying to deflect again?
Well, Trump is the expert on that.
CA licences of which I had one while living there are clearly marked: "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY." That means anyone reading it will have a pretty good idea that you are not a U.S. citizen" ... they cannot be used in federal elections.
Key words, "anyone reading it". If they don't look, (no ID required at the poll) how would they know?
And how long ago did you live there and that was the case?
2001-2003 and it is still the case today.
Voting illegally can get one upto 3 years jail time ... it is suggested one take 10 years of martial arts before toying with entering the California penal system. While I am sure there are some dumbfucks who take the risk, I doubt there are enough to elect a dog catcher in very small town. Voter fraud is about as prevalent as witches in Salem ... same mindset bought into either.
The fact about how CA drivers licenses are issued including the facts about non-citizen drivers licenses brought my irrefutable rebuttal to an end. Are you going to continue trying to make false claims about it even though your lie was exposed?
From YOUR link Vic:
FAIL.
Before any new voting laws can be enacted, I think they should be required to show 2 specific things about the law.
1 - How many voters could potentially be disenfranchised.
2 - How many illegal votes from the previous election will this be addressing.
If it is going to block more legal votes, than illegal votes, it should not be able to become law.
The states have plenary power over elections. The feds have none. And that is the real bottom line
The Democrats' logic is difficult to understand. If Republicans are as nefarious as Democrats claim, wouldn't weakening election security give an advantage to Republicans?
I think you just proved who the nefarious are.
Since the thousands of elections in the United States are state and local elections, with the one exception of the Presidential election, the Democrats' agenda doesn't seem above board. Democrats aren't selling fresh fish; something smells.
Um-hum! As the bind man who passed the fish market once said "Good morning Madame."