The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), disability, religion, familial status, national origin, and citizenship status.
Hence the law suit.
Discrimination is as common as rain in the south, especially GA.
Like Obama & Clinton are going to be indicted by Durham?
Go get it. One thing I never accused you of was making shit up. Today I am.
Barr will nail McCabe?
Barr was nailed by the IG. He wasn't prosecuted for unspecified reasons. No prediction there.
Half the government was going to jail weren't they?
Show me where I ever made that pronouncement?
Your predictions won't buy a cup of coffee at Star Bucks.
I don't drink Star Bucks coffee. Let's deal with reality. I told everyone that Trump wasn't going to be removed from office (I won a bet right here on that), that the Steele Dossier was BS and was likely used as a pretext to get a FISA warrant, that the Travel Ban would be upheld by the SCOTUS and that the democrats would find someone to launch some BS allegation against Brett Kavanaugh.
That's the record. My current predictions involve two things. The democrats losing congress in 2022 and now Biden's DOJ losing on this 44 page specious lawsuit. So if you want to tell people about my predictions, you better start copying them instead of making stuff up.
Court cases by DOJ are better than 50/50 in their favor, statistically the Civil Rights Division wins about 85% of their cases.
I don't know if that is a fact, but 50/50 isn't much to brag about, I'll bet the Civil Rights Division won most of those cases when the south was still resisting the law of the land. The historical record of the DOJ isn't relevant to Merrick Garland's DOJ or his race baiting head of the Civil Rights Division Kristen Clarke. More importantly will be trying to prove that a state that expanded early voting access for some Georgia voters, adds an ID requirement for absentee voting, codifies the use of drop boxes with strict rules on how they can be used and sets reasonable rules for state and local election officials is somehow discriminatory. I'll say it again it's a loser.
suddenly counties started citing the Americans with Disabilities Act,
stating that 70% of the polling stations had to be closed because they did not have wheel chair ramps.
"Remarkably" those stations were mostly in predominately poor rural areas like Randolf County.
If I was a liberal I'd be happy with whatever they've been doing because it has turned out the minority vote en masse:
"In 2019, the Black voting population in Georgia reached a record high of 2.5 million eligible voters, making up a third of the state’s total electorate. As a share of eligible voters in the state overall, Black voters saw a 5 percentage point increase between 2000 and 2019. This was the highest growth rate of any racial or ethnic group in Georgia – and also the largest percentage point increase among Black voters in any state in the country."
So now there is something wrong with making elections even more secure?
That is an odd stance to take.
But not totally unexpected from those who insist on believing the whole "voter suppression" myth currently being pushed by progressive liberals without a clue.
yeah, it won't make any difference after august, will it? providing oppressive solutions to non-problems that have been created in the minds of the willfully ignorant does make it seem like their leadership is actually doing some work, doesn't it?
funny how it's now become a dire issue that suddenly needs to be addressed after the election loss of a criminal autocrat on the verge of being indicted for multiple crimes committed before, during, and after his single, yet twice impeached, POTUS term.
Wow, you think I am a Trump supporter. Sorry, I voted for the lesser of two evils last time around. I used to go for the best candidate available; which means 3rd party; instead of the lesser of two eviils. Democrats are the most evil vile things in the land; so it will be straight Republican ticket until Dems prove they aren't more power hungry, corrupt, and evil than than the Republicans.
As for "siccing" government agencies on their opponents the left should just shut up after the Obama administration. FBI, DOJ, doxxing, IRS, BBB, and others were used to try and silence their political opponents. Obama even used the intelligence agencies to spy on the media. Now you know where Trump got that from. So pot meet fucking kettle.
I don't understand where the voter suppression is. The laws apply equally to all voters, so, unless there's some provision that prevents a certain portion of the population from voting, I don't understand why they call it voter suppression. From what I've read, it doesn't make it harder to vote, it makes it harder to cheat. That seems only common sense, to me. I read an article last night that compared Georgia's new law to other states and it seems that in some aspects, it's actually easier to vote than some Dem states.
Is this the complaint? It is all I can find in the article. I don't see how this targets Black people.
In addition to the denial of water and food to waiting voters, some of the most controversial provisions include additional voter identification requirements; optional early voting on Sundays — traditionally a day in which the Black vote spikes during "Souls to the Polls" campaigns. The Georgia law also shortens runoff election periods.
I see that you added the word "only". That's called moving the goalposts.
Uh no..
The Justice Department is suing Georgia in an effort to overturn a state law that federal officials claim restricts Black voters' access to the polls.
In addition to the denial of water and food to waiting voters, some of the most controversial provisions include additional voter identification requirements; optional early voting on Sundays — traditionally a day in which the Black vote spikes during "Souls to the Polls" campaigns. The Georgia law also shortens runoff election periods.
Please do tell what goalpost was moved. And what restrictions deny Black voters access. Details please.
Here you go, the DOJ's complaint is that the new voter laws only target Black voters. Do you see any other race mentioned? I guess other races are insequentiall.
"Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Garland said in a Friday speech, adding, "The rights of all eligible citizens to vote are the central pillars of our democracy. They are the rights from which all other rights ultimately flow." DOJ sues Georgia over election laws (yahoo.com)
If all you have are some weak semantics, then what is your point?
Semantics? Words make up sentences, when you add words you change the meaning of the sentence.
Under your 1st quote, if someone pointed out a law that would effect 100 people, 99 of which were black. It would satisfy your request about targeting black people.
HOWEVER, it would not satisfy your 2nd request. Where, if even 1 person, out of 200 million was white, your response would be, "I knew you couldn't give me an example".
Now do you understand how you've moved the goal posts?
Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color,
Does it say for the purpose of any other race than black?
The author or the seeder? Maybe it is just the editor saving space in a paper that prints 100's of stories a day and today in the news it's all about a building tumbling down.
I always read the articles and even the imbedded links, and quite often the comment sections to see how well the partisan propaganda is being swallowed ... the right wing rags are a hoot for that stuff.
Few journalists have say in what the editor chooses to print. You have heard of hierarchies, yes?
Personally I think when you turn 18 you should automatically be registered to vote in the district/state you are a resident of (registration doesn’t expire) a drivers license counts as a voter ID (and if you don’t drive you can still get a voter ID from the DMV), and Election Day becomes election week with polls being open from 6am-10pm Monday-Sunday.
Personally I think when you turn 18 you should automatically be registered to vote in the district/state you are a resident of (registration doesn’t expire) a drivers license counts as a voter ID (and if you don’t drive you can still get a voter ID from the DMV), and Election Day becomes election week with polls being open from 6am-10pm Monday-Sunday.
Automatic registration is fine. But automatic registration should not include any questions about party affiliation. Government offices and services should not be used for party organizing.
Political parties are private sector corporations; they are not a function of government. Party affiliation is not required to vote in elections. So, automatic registration as a government service should only apply to elections and not political party participation.
I actually agree with you. One should be able to register for federal elections without having to register with a party. If one wants to join one after, fine.
Yet states and in some cases political parties institute that requirement for primary voting. So it would require a Federal law to remove that requirement in all states.
I don't believe there is any federal statute for that. IMO this is an example of the power and abuse the political parties hold over elections.
IMO if a political party wants to hold a primary election to determine which of their candidates should advance to the general election then that political party should pay all costs associated with that primary election. Stop using taxpayer dollars for their private enterprise.
I would put a caveat on that. Your voter registration doesn't expire so long as you actually vote. If you have not voted in the past 2 or 3 elections then the voter rolls should be cleaned up. If we as a country mandated that you had to have permission from the government to move then this could be looked at differently but as that is not the rule in the US there is nothing to stop someone from moving from GA to MA for example. If someone has left their district / state why should they continue to be carried on the voter rolls there?
a drivers license counts as a voter ID (and if you don’t drive you can still get a voter ID from the DMV
Don't most states that require voter ID recognize a state issued drivers license as proof for voting? And don't most states now offer a state issued ID card for those who do not want a drivers license? I know AZ does.
That's why I said 2 or 3 elections. If someone doesn't care to go vote and doesn't vote for several cycles why should they stay on the state rolls? Citizens have a right to vote and they have a right to not vote. But it takes a little bit of effort to exercise that right.
You say the IRS, SS and every other agency knows where people are, I say they do not. These agencies only know where people are based on the last interaction they had with them. If a person lives in Texas and files taxes, gets his refund and then moves to New Mexico, how up to date is the info at the IRS level? What about the person who doesn't file taxes and doesn't collect SS? Just because they are breaking the law by not paying taxes doesn't mean they have lost their right to vote, but if big brother doesn't know where they are at then how can they go vote?
And if these agencies know where everybody is at, why are they not sharing that information with the state levels? Hell, they don't even share it with law enforcement agencies. I believe there are restrictions and privacy concerns about sharing such information. I know from first hand experience that some states are terrible at maintaining their voting roles. I have a friend who used to live in Phoenix, and many years ago he got married and moved to Vegas. His parents still get his absentee ballot every election cycle. They had sent it back with the envelope marked that the person no longer lived there, they sent it back with his Vegas address, they even called the election site to report it. It still shows up. So they have given up and just shred the ballot now.
Personally I think when you turn 18 you should automatically be registered to vote in the district/state you are a resident of
I disagree; only because some states tie registering to vote with jury duty. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to register to vote; and assume the responsibilities that are tied to it.
(registration doesn’t expire)
Except at time of death; or when the registrant moves out of the voting district, or if they commit a crime that restricts their right to vote. All of which should be easy to track today.
a drivers license counts as a voter ID (and if you don’t drive you can still get a voter ID from the DMV)
I am trying to think of a state that isn't that way. Admittedly I have only lived in Michigan and Ohio since being able to vote.
and Election Day becomes election week with polls being open from 6am-10pm Monday-Sunday.
A lot of polls on are done at churches; the whole Sunday thing isn't going to work for many places until their last services are done. No problem with them openning after services are over.
Democrats bitch when in the minority that they can't stop anything the mean old GOP does, and then when in the majority, claim the GOP blocks them at every turn.
Why vote for incompetent asses who can't govern while in the minority or majority?
Oh, BTFW, an amendment would require 14 votes in the Delaware Senate. The Democrats could pass it in the Senate without a single GOP vote.
The AMENDMENT was blocked in the HOUSE with EVERY Republican voting against.
Democrats in Delaware have 3/5's control of BOTH chambers.
Do explain, if you can, of course, how the GOP can block Democrats in Delaware from passing anything at all.because everything I can find says exactly OPPOSITE of what YOU claim.
Well gee Tex, since an Amendment in Delaware has to pass by 2/3 and of course even YOU have to admit that 3/5 is LESS than 2/3, you should have been able to figure that out for yourself.
Democrats in Delaware have 3/5's control of BOTH chambers.
I merely pointed out that an Amendment requires 2/3 and that is MORE than 3/5.
Oh and BTFW, the roll call for House Bill 75, which you can't seem to find, was 25 to14, 2 Republicans voted present.
The Delaware Senate has 21 members.
14 are Democrats, 7 are Republican.
It requires 14 votes to amend. Do the fucking math.
Why, it was blocked in the House by Republicans?
There are 41 members of the Delaware House, 27 of which are Democrats, 14 Republican.
Nope. It's 26 Democrats and 15 Republicans. Try to keep up.
It requires 27 votes to amend. Do the fucking math.
Yep and since 13 Republicans voted against it, even though an almost identical bill passed in the prior session 38-3, the 26 Democrats couldn't pass the Amendment.
The Democratic sponsor changed her vote to no so the bill could be laid on the table.
Now, do regale me with some more tales of how the fucking GOP is "blocking" anything!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The United States of America Versus Georgia
individual states have no jurisdiction over the national election process.
And it is a loser.
Election laws are largely set state-by-state.
The Georgia provisions have considerable overlap with other states.
The federal government has no say, nor should it.
Surely by now you have learned not to jump to conclusions. SCOTUS has surprised all of us scores of times over scores of years.
Sorry for the late edit ... but this is me being really snarky and mean. Not the other b.s. you flag.
The Civil Rights division of the DOJ disagrees.
Hence the law suit.
Discrimination is as common as rain in the south, especially GA.
Prediction; THEY LOSE
Except it's not discrimination.
You have my prediction - IT IS A LOSER!
The DOJ needs to sue every state where the gqp is trying to pass these bills to suppress the votes of Democrats.
Except it is discrimination.
You said that already.
I made a note and saved it in Windows trash can.
But, it will have to be proven
Wasn't your last prediction that Trump would win?
... he still thinks that trump did win.
Just waiting for August....
Your prediction?
Like Obama & Clinton are going to be indicted by Durham?
Barr will nail McCabe? Half the government was going to jail weren't they?
Your predictions won't buy a cup of coffee at Star Bucks.
They want $2.45 USD but it's delicious.
Court cases by DOJ are better than 50/50 in their favor, statistically the Civil Rights Division wins about 85% of their cases.
Not that hard for a decent DOJ lawyer. Remember this is GA where after several elections in 2018
when Abrams was going against Kemp, suddenly counties started citing the Americans with Disabilities Act,
stating that 70% of the polling stations had to be closed because they did not have wheel chair ramps.
"Remarkably" those stations were mostly in predominately poor rural areas like Randolf County.
Instead of suturing an injured hand the county was amputating. Legal? Sure. Also pretty transparent.
LOL
I had forgotten all about those imminent investigations of the investigations and the entire Obama administration heading to the pokey any day now!
Go get it. One thing I never accused you of was making shit up. Today I am.
Barr will nail McCabe?
Barr was nailed by the IG. He wasn't prosecuted for unspecified reasons. No prediction there.
Half the government was going to jail weren't they?
Show me where I ever made that pronouncement?
Your predictions won't buy a cup of coffee at Star Bucks.
I don't drink Star Bucks coffee. Let's deal with reality. I told everyone that Trump wasn't going to be removed from office (I won a bet right here on that), that the Steele Dossier was BS and was likely used as a pretext to get a FISA warrant, that the Travel Ban would be upheld by the SCOTUS and that the democrats would find someone to launch some BS allegation against Brett Kavanaugh.
That's the record. My current predictions involve two things. The democrats losing congress in 2022 and now Biden's DOJ losing on this 44 page specious lawsuit. So if you want to tell people about my predictions, you better start copying them instead of making stuff up.
Court cases by DOJ are better than 50/50 in their favor, statistically the Civil Rights Division wins about 85% of their cases.
I don't know if that is a fact, but 50/50 isn't much to brag about, I'll bet the Civil Rights Division won most of those cases when the south was still resisting the law of the land. The historical record of the DOJ isn't relevant to Merrick Garland's DOJ or his race baiting head of the Civil Rights Division Kristen Clarke. More importantly will be trying to prove that a state that expanded early voting access for some Georgia voters, adds an ID requirement for absentee voting, codifies the use of drop boxes with strict rules on how they can be used and sets reasonable rules for state and local election officials is somehow discriminatory. I'll say it again it's a loser.
If I was a liberal I'd be happy with whatever they've been doing because it has turned out the minority vote en masse:
"In 2019, the Black voting population in Georgia reached a record high of 2.5 million eligible voters, making up a third of the state’s total electorate. As a share of eligible voters in the state overall, Black voters saw a 5 percentage point increase between 2000 and 2019. This was the highest growth rate of any racial or ethnic group in Georgia – and also the largest percentage point increase among Black voters in any state in the country."
It's not quite like the "Jim Crow" era, is it?
Not yet. Give republicans time.
There is no voter suppression, it is a progressive liberal myth.
Next thing you know, they'll complain that polls aren't open early enough, or open 24/7, and that makes it suppressive to some certain folks.
It's nonsense.
then why the big moves by red state legislatures to tighten voter security after the most secure election in history?
So now there is something wrong with making elections even more secure?
That is an odd stance to take.
But not totally unexpected from those who insist on believing the whole "voter suppression" myth currently being pushed by progressive liberals without a clue.
yeah, it won't make any difference after august, will it? providing oppressive solutions to non-problems that have been created in the minds of the willfully ignorant does make it seem like their leadership is actually doing some work, doesn't it?
Please stop pushing the whole voter suppression myth.
funny how it's now become a dire issue that suddenly needs to be addressed after the election loss of a criminal autocrat on the verge of being indicted for multiple crimes committed before, during, and after his single, yet twice impeached, POTUS term.
Voter suppression remains a progressive liberal myth.
Voter fraud remains a conservative myth.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
I have never made any claims about fraud.
Direct your comment to someone who has.
Proving Garland is a true Democrat toady. Thankful the ultimate loser is not on the Supreme Court, and never will be.
Dodged that bullet. Thanks Mr. McConnell.
That would have worked better as sarcasm coming from the left.
But...But...there's no voter suppression happening! Isn't that what we were told over and over all day yesterday?
Yes, as the gqp try to pass yet another voter suppression bill.
There isn't.
Garland is just carrying the Democrats water. Of course Democrats have no problem with the Head of the DOJ being a toady; so long it is their toady.
Wow, yet you had no problem with trumpturd using the DOJ as his toady.
He even tried to sic the DOJ (and the FCC and anyone else he could think of) on late night comedians for making fun of him!
Wow, you think I am a Trump supporter. Sorry, I voted for the lesser of two evils last time around. I used to go for the best candidate available; which means 3rd party; instead of the lesser of two eviils. Democrats are the most evil vile things in the land; so it will be straight Republican ticket until Dems prove they aren't more power hungry, corrupt, and evil than than the Republicans.
As for "siccing" government agencies on their opponents the left should just shut up after the Obama administration. FBI, DOJ, doxxing, IRS, BBB, and others were used to try and silence their political opponents. Obama even used the intelligence agencies to spy on the media. Now you know where Trump got that from. So pot meet fucking kettle.
No suppression at all....and you can't prove otherwise
I don't understand where the voter suppression is. The laws apply equally to all voters, so, unless there's some provision that prevents a certain portion of the population from voting, I don't understand why they call it voter suppression. From what I've read, it doesn't make it harder to vote, it makes it harder to cheat. That seems only common sense, to me. I read an article last night that compared Georgia's new law to other states and it seems that in some aspects, it's actually easier to vote than some Dem states.
Is this the complaint? It is all I can find in the article. I don't see how this targets Black people.
Of course you don't!
Please enlighten us. I don't either. And please, no cop outs this time.
Tell me how anything in that paragraph targets only Black voters.
I see that you added the word "only". That's called moving the goalposts.
Because in her mind suppression of votes has to mean suppression of black votes only
Uh no..
Please do tell what goalpost was moved. And what restrictions deny Black voters access. Details please.
That won't happen.
Of course you don't!
You think you've won something by saying no cop outs - no cop outs - it's truth.
So you can't answer. Okay. And I think I know why.
No, you got your answer. You're just trolling at this point.
Please direct me to said answer........if you can
Shall I quote you?
Quote 1 : "I don't see how this targets Black people ."
Quote 2 : "Tell me how anything in that paragraph targets only Black voters ."
If you can't see the difference, it is only because you are willfully not seeing the difference.
If all you have are some weak semantics, then what is your point?
Where are your details that Black voters are restricted by GA new voter laws?
Can you answer the fucking question or not?
That's what I thought. You won't. Because you can't without coming across as something you would rather not be associated with.
Here you go, the DOJ's complaint is that the new voter laws only target Black voters. Do you see any other race mentioned? I guess other races are insequentiall.
Your goal post complaint is really rather stupid.
Semantics? Words make up sentences, when you add words you change the meaning of the sentence.
Under your 1st quote, if someone pointed out a law that would effect 100 people, 99 of which were black. It would satisfy your request about targeting black people.
HOWEVER, it would not satisfy your 2nd request. Where, if even 1 person, out of 200 million was white, your response would be, "I knew you couldn't give me an example".
Now do you understand how you've moved the goal posts?
Semantics, my ass!!!!
Read it again. It says that NOWHERE!!! It says who is "targeted", nothing more.
My goal post comment is accurate and on the nose. That is the reason you added "only" to your 2nd quote.
No answer because it is hard to prove something that doesn't exist.
Well I guess you can’t read...
Does it say for the purpose of any other race than black?
Take your nonsense somewhere else now.
You're just pissed that we tore you a new on on your President Biden's 'aggressive whispering' article😝
Does it say the word "only"? It states who is targeted, it does not state who all would be effected.
You know, your argument is almost word for word the same as another right wing poster here, from a couple months ago.
Good luck, but you can't win an argument with someone who thinks "nu uhhh" is a valid argument.
Ironically that is exactly the rightwinger's response to the United States Justice Department's lawsuit against Georgia...
"NU UHHH!"
They're going to have to do better than that!
Got any proof?
Read the article for once. Obviously the US Justice Department has enough proof to sue.
I was asking for proof for THIS:
but since you don't, oh well, just another opinion.
I'm sure the brief has much more in it. They always do,
Seems the author thinks those points are what is important. Where's the beef?
The author or the seeder? Maybe it is just the editor saving space in a paper that prints 100's of stories a day and today in the news it's all about a building tumbling down.
The author of the article. You didn't read it?
Well I would think the author would use the most relevant complaints in the claim to the article.
You do come up some weird shit though.
I always read the articles and even the imbedded links, and quite often the comment sections to see how well the partisan propaganda is being swallowed ... the right wing rags are a hoot for that stuff.
Few journalists have say in what the editor chooses to print. You have heard of hierarchies, yes?
Hold on ... I just bit my dog.
Are you saying the publisher is right wing? Too funny.
Anyways it is clear from the details provided that the DOJ is blowing smoke up someone's ass.
Did I mention a publisher? Any further reply to you would result in a site violation, and you are not worth it ... have a good day.
You are a hoot.
You have a good day too.
In the DOJ Complaint, go read it.
Let’s see how this plays out.
Personally I think when you turn 18 you should automatically be registered to vote in the district/state you are a resident of (registration doesn’t expire) a drivers license counts as a voter ID (and if you don’t drive you can still get a voter ID from the DMV), and Election Day becomes election week with polls being open from 6am-10pm Monday-Sunday.
Automatic registration is fine. But automatic registration should not include any questions about party affiliation. Government offices and services should not be used for party organizing.
Political parties are private sector corporations; they are not a function of government. Party affiliation is not required to vote in elections. So, automatic registration as a government service should only apply to elections and not political party participation.
I actually agree with you. One should be able to register for federal elections without having to register with a party. If one wants to join one after, fine.
Yet states and in some cases political parties institute that requirement for primary voting. So it would require a Federal law to remove that requirement in all states.
And what statute gives the federal government jurisdiction over primaries in states?
I don't believe there is any federal statute for that. IMO this is an example of the power and abuse the political parties hold over elections.
IMO if a political party wants to hold a primary election to determine which of their candidates should advance to the general election then that political party should pay all costs associated with that primary election. Stop using taxpayer dollars for their private enterprise.
I would have to agree with that. It's not like they don't have millions upon millions of dollars.
Imo the two parties put a stranglehold on government.
Obtuse question.
Stupid non-answer
I don't believe there is a statute either, which makes the suggestion of a federal law rather silly.
Your obtuse question has already BEEN answered Tex. YOU replied to that answer, why pretend it doesn't exist?
What's silly is your inability to understand a simple concept.
Maybe if you read my comment again, more slowly and applied your vast knowledge of grammar.
Here's a hint: "would" indicates a conditional mood.
It is so cute that you always want to play word games.
I understand what you write--trust me, it just ain't that hard.
well, gee, your comment is exactly as it was before when I read it the first time.
And to think, I know, and I know people who know also, that states run elections.
And now you do too!
Yet you continue to make obtuse comments about it.
Yet that has NO relevance to my comment or your critique of it, does it Tex?
Failure to understand what I write isn't my personal problem.
It does, but I can't understand it for you.
I understand what you write--trust me, it just ain't that hard.
I understand what you write--trust me, it just ain't that hard.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I would put a caveat on that. Your voter registration doesn't expire so long as you actually vote. If you have not voted in the past 2 or 3 elections then the voter rolls should be cleaned up. If we as a country mandated that you had to have permission from the government to move then this could be looked at differently but as that is not the rule in the US there is nothing to stop someone from moving from GA to MA for example. If someone has left their district / state why should they continue to be carried on the voter rolls there?
Don't most states that require voter ID recognize a state issued drivers license as proof for voting? And don't most states now offer a state issued ID card for those who do not want a drivers license? I know AZ does.
I would have to disagree with that. Some people do not vote in every election.
In this day and age, the IRS, SS and every other agency knows where people are.
That's why I said 2 or 3 elections. If someone doesn't care to go vote and doesn't vote for several cycles why should they stay on the state rolls? Citizens have a right to vote and they have a right to not vote. But it takes a little bit of effort to exercise that right.
You say the IRS, SS and every other agency knows where people are, I say they do not. These agencies only know where people are based on the last interaction they had with them. If a person lives in Texas and files taxes, gets his refund and then moves to New Mexico, how up to date is the info at the IRS level? What about the person who doesn't file taxes and doesn't collect SS? Just because they are breaking the law by not paying taxes doesn't mean they have lost their right to vote, but if big brother doesn't know where they are at then how can they go vote?
And if these agencies know where everybody is at, why are they not sharing that information with the state levels? Hell, they don't even share it with law enforcement agencies. I believe there are restrictions and privacy concerns about sharing such information. I know from first hand experience that some states are terrible at maintaining their voting roles. I have a friend who used to live in Phoenix, and many years ago he got married and moved to Vegas. His parents still get his absentee ballot every election cycle. They had sent it back with the envelope marked that the person no longer lived there, they sent it back with his Vegas address, they even called the election site to report it. It still shows up. So they have given up and just shred the ballot now.
I think that is one of the problems. Too many agencies and not enough unison.
Two or three years is not even a presidential election cycle.
I think there needs to be more unity between all the states and the feds.
Too many different laws and regulations.
I said two or three elections, not two or three years. I'm even willing to stretch that to two or three presidential elections.
Ah, my bad.
I disagree; only because some states tie registering to vote with jury duty. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to register to vote; and assume the responsibilities that are tied to it.
Except at time of death; or when the registrant moves out of the voting district, or if they commit a crime that restricts their right to vote. All of which should be easy to track today.
I am trying to think of a state that isn't that way. Admittedly I have only lived in Michigan and Ohio since being able to vote.
A lot of polls on are done at churches; the whole Sunday thing isn't going to work for many places until their last services are done. No problem with them openning after services are over.
In the meantime, Georgia's revised election laws are less restrictive than those of Delaware, Biden's home state.
Republicans are blocking the election reform amendment in Delaware.
Hmmmm.
Not according to this:
Please do detail when and how the GOP has blocked it as you claim.
Because according to the link, it came out of committee on 6/23/21.
From the link:
Oh, BTFW, an amendment would require 14 votes in the Delaware Senate. The Democrats could pass it in the Senate without a single GOP vote.
Democrats in Delaware have 3/5's control of BOTH chambers.
Do explain, if you can, of course, how the GOP can block Democrats in Delaware from passing anything at all.
because everything I can find says exactly OPPOSITE of what YOU claim.
Republicans are always at fault when Democrats can't get things done. Even when Republicans have no chance of blocking anything.
They are the left's ultimate boogeyman.
Democrats bitch when in the minority that they can't stop anything the mean old GOP does, and then when in the majority, claim the GOP blocks them at every turn.
Why vote for incompetent asses who can't govern while in the minority or majority?
Delaware House Bill 75.
The AMENDMENT was blocked in the HOUSE with EVERY Republican voting against.
Well gee Tex, since an Amendment in Delaware has to pass by 2/3 and of course even YOU have to admit that 3/5 is LESS than 2/3, you should have been able to figure that out for yourself.
Except Republicans DID block the amendment in Delaware.
Except Republicans DID block the amendment in Delaware.
Check yourself.
The Delaware Senate has 21 members.
14 are Democrats, 7 are Republican.
It requires 14 votes to amend. Do the fucking math.
There are 41 members of the Delaware House, 27 of which are Democrats, 14 Republican.
It requires 27 votes to amend. Do the fucking math.
Now, do regale me with some more tales of how the fucking GOP is "blocking" anything!
I really don't know how to explain math to you.
Let's start small.
What is 2/3 of 21? Will you recognize that it is 14?
What is 2/3 of 41? Will you recognize that it is 27?
When you figure that out, get back to me with some more tales of woe how Democrats are ineptly allowing the GOP to block something they can not block.
Because it simply isn't fucking the truth,
You first. Your stated:
I merely pointed out that an Amendment requires 2/3 and that is MORE than 3/5.
Oh and BTFW, the roll call for House Bill 75, which you can't seem to find, was 25 to14, 2 Republicans voted present.
Why, it was blocked in the House by Republicans?
Nope. It's 26 Democrats and 15 Republicans. Try to keep up.
Yep and since 13 Republicans voted against it, even though an almost identical bill passed in the prior session 38-3, the 26 Democrats couldn't pass the Amendment.
The Democratic sponsor changed her vote to no so the bill could be laid on the table.
Do the math.