Explain to me how these laws, I see as voter suppression, make voting more secure?

[Captain Adverse]

I’ve listed them, you refused to address a single one.

You know you are lying, why not admit what you stand for?

Actually, you listed things allegedly "in the bill" with no citation to the source. Then asserted these things, if true, somehow "suppress the vote."

I've been following along to see when you'd provide your factual basis, and foundations for assessment.

Until then, you have not proven anything.

 

[Fletch]

I did no such thing, all we agree is that you are lying in this thread and terrified to admit you support Republican efforts to support the vote of those with a better tan than you.

I gave you a dozen opportunities to explain how a single vote would be suppressed by this law and you couldnt do it. Your silence demonstrates that you agree that these arent voter suppression laws despite your dishonest claims to the contrary.
Better luck next time.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Actually, you listed things allegedly "in the bill" with no citation to the source. Then asserted these things, if true, somehow "suppress the vote."

I've been following along to see when you'd provide your factual basis, and foundations for assessment.

Until then, you have not proven anything.

Section 1.03 and 1.04 allows the registrar to question the voter rolls and deny what is deemed to be in question by them alone.

Section 1.06 discourages early voting.

Section 2.02 reduces those that qualify for vote by mail.

Section 2.04 reduces the means to increase voter application additions and discourage voting by mail or early voting.

Section 3.06 changes where a poll place can be, must be in a building, and cannot be what Austin, Dallas, and Houston used because of the pandemic.

Section 3.08 and 3.09 removed drive through again aimed at Austin, Dallas and Houston.

Secton 4.01, 4.02, and several others allow poll watchers to have more direct engagement with the voter questioning their actions. I.e. intimidation.

Section 4.01 of the bill changes what the assistance to voters has to attest to allowing Texas to say no to helping those needing assistance.

Section 4.06 allows for poll watchers to quickly challenge the results turning the whole thing over the legislature to work out.

All of these are in the bill, care to dispute them or are you joining the cheep seats with @Fletch lying about the intentions of Republicans in Texas?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I gave you a dozen opportunities to explain how a single vote would be suppressed by this law and you couldnt do it. Your silence demonstrates that you agree that these arent voter suppression laws despite your dishonest claims to the contrary.
Better luck next time.

They are there, care to come down from the cheap seats and finally admit you do not like black and brown people voting?

 

[OrphanSlug]

@Fletch or @Captain Adverse you guys go quiet, or finally reading the bill, or consulting FoxNews for the best spin to defend Republicn efforts to suppress the voters Republicans cannot count on?

 

[Bullseye]

Florida removed weekend voting.

Find

No
Requiring voters to show their state ID cards obviously is voter suppression and unconstitutional.

Nonsense.

 

[LostInSeattle]

there is no constitutional right to vote btw

Article one section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

How else will the People choose representatives except by voting?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Every law that makes voting more difficult is unconstitutional. PROVEN FACT.

I agree with your sentiment but not your interpretation. Making voting more difficult is certainly undemocratic, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

Article one section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

How else will the People choose representatives except by voting?

you don't quite understand the constitution I suspect

The right to vote is not in the Constitution

The framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget. They intentionally left it out.

theconversation.com

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

 

[Patriotic Voter]

How is being required to show a state issued ID voter suppression and unconstitutional?

If you have to ask, you don't really want to know. The answer is extremely obvious to everyone with critical thinking skills and a high school education.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Section 1.03 and 1.04 allows the registrar to question the voter rolls and deny what is deemed to be in question by them alone.

Section 1.06 discourages early voting.

Section 2.02 reduces those that qualify for vote by mail.

Section 2.04 reduces the means to increase voter application additions and discourage voting by mail or early voting.

Section 3.06 changes where a poll place can be, must be in a building, and cannot be what Austin, Dallas, and Houston used because of the pandemic.

Section 3.08 and 3.09 removed drive through again aimed at Austin, Dallas and Houston.

Secton 4.01, 4.02, and several others allow poll watchers to have more direct engagement with the voter questioning their actions. I.e. intimidation.

Section 4.01 of the bill changes what the assistance to voters has to attest to allowing Texas to say no to helping those needing assistance.

Section 4.06 allows for poll watchers to quickly challenge the results turning the whole thing over the legislature to work out.

I asked you to provide evidence. All you've done is provide your interpretation of how those listed Sections function.

This could all simply be your own confirmation bias talking. However...

All of these are in the bill, care to dispute them or are you joining the cheep seats with @Fletch lying about the intentions of Republicans in Texas?

Provide me with a link to your source material and I will be happy to review it myself.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I asked you to provide evidence. All you've done is provide your interpretation of how those listed Sections function.

This cold all simply be your own confirmation bias talking. However...



Provide me with a link to your source material and I will be happy to review it myself.

Do you think of all this like @Fletch does helping the voter?

Go and Google the passed version of the Texas law, I am not interested in you guys trying to cower behind me looking at the wrong one or from some source you disagree with.

It’s now law, signed and on the books, I’ll be looking for you and @Fletch suggesting this helps voters.

 

[Captain Adverse]

@Fletch or @Captain Adverse you guys go quiet, or finally reading the bill, or consulting FoxNews for the best spin to defend Republicn efforts to suppress the voters Republicans cannot count on?

Dude, unlike some, I don't LIVE in this Forum. I come in and go out as it pleases me.

Try it sometime.

Meanwhile, YOU cited the source, so don't go telling other people to "look for it themselves."

That often leads to "denying" the new source as not YOUR's, so it's not as valid as "YOUR's."

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I agree with your sentiment but not your interpretation. Making voting more difficult is certainly undemocratic, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

Since the Constitution expanded who can vote three times (first black people, then women, then people ages 18-20), any attempt to make voting harder for those three groups is obviously unconstitutional. And that is what Republican voting laws do: make it hard for these three groups specifically to vote because they are mostly Democrats. All Republicans seem to want America to go back to the bad old days when only white men at least 21 years old could vote.

BTW even old white men who do not have much money are being obstructed from voting.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Dude, unlike some, I don't LIVE in this Forum. I come in and go out as it pleases me.

Try it sometime.

You jumped in on this, no one coerced you, get to it.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you have to ask, you don't really want to know. The answer is extremely obvious to everyone with critical thinking skills and a high school education.

well Lets see, I was top in my class in Political science and I have a law degree. I know people have to show an ID to exercise their second amendment rights-a right specifically set forth in the bill of rights. There is no actual constitutional right to vote. So tell me why the answer is not obvious to me and millions of other citizens.

 

[TurtleDude]

Since the Constitution expanded who can vote three times (first black people, then women, then people ages 18-20), any attempt to make voting harder for those three groups is obviously unconstitutional. And that is what Republican voting laws do: make it hard for these three groups specifically to vote because they are mostly Democrats. All Republicans seem to want America to go back to the bad old days when only old white men could vote.

how is being asked to show an ID harder for blacks, women and people 18-20?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Since the Constitution expanded who can vote three times (first black people, then women, then people ages 18-20),

It was four times actually if you include Native Americans.

any attempt to make voting harder for those three groups is obviously unconstitutional.

I'm sorry but it's not that simple. Gerrymandering is one example of a completely constitutional method for disenfranchisement. The laws are also sometimes subtly crafted, mixing legitimate concerns with nefarious ends. I encourage you to take a look at the link I posted earlier.

And that is what Republican voting laws do: make it hard for these three groups specifically to vote because they are mostly Democrats. All Republicans seem to want America to go back to the bad old days when only white men at least 21 years old could vote.

Yes, I agree with that.

Fletch and the others like him in this thread ought to remember that the Republican Party has a long and notorious recent history of effots at voter suppression and disenfrachisement. Their posts remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca, "I'm shocked - shocked - to find that gambling is going on here!" "your winnings, sir..."

The courts first imposed a ban on Republican voter suppresion efforts in 1982, again in 86 and again in 90, each time following instances where the GOP was intimidating or excluding minority voters in the name of fraud. And again in 2004. The almost 40 year-long court imposed restrictions were lifted following a federal court ruling in 2018.

The Republican Party Emerges From Decades of Court Supervision

After being bound by a consent decree for 35 years, the Republican National Committee is now free to continue its “ballot security” campaign.

www.theatlantic.com

BTW even old white men who do not have much money are being obstructed from voting.

That's interesting. Where?

 

[LostInSeattle]

you don't quite understand the constitution I suspect

The right to vote is not in the Constitution

The framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget. They intentionally left it out.

theconversation.com

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

Well, gee, I too can post stuff other people wrote to bolster my argument.

Interpretation: Article I, Section 2 | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Article I, Section 2 by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

But neither of the pieces you posted are convincing. Maybe rather than impugning my understanding you could tell me what you think? After all, you didn't answer my question.

Sure, the Constitution doesn't say explicitly, "The People have the right to vote." But since Art. 1, Sec. 2, clearly specifies the mechanism by which Reps are to be chosen - i.e., by the People (as opposed to legislatures for the Senate and electors for the President and VP), it is describing a selection by popular vote. Unless there is some other procedure that you think Congress had in mind...

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, gee, I too can post stuff other people wrote to bolster my argument.

Interpretation: Article I, Section 2 | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Article I, Section 2 by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

But neither of the pieces you posted are convincing. Maybe rather than impugning my understanding you could tell me what you think? After all, you didn't answer my question.

Sure, the Constitution doesn't say explicitly, "The People have the right to vote." But since Art. 1, Sec. 2, clearly specifies the mechanism by which Reps are to be chosen - i.e., by the People (as opposed to legislatures for the Senate and electors for the President and VP), it is describing a selection by popular vote. Unless there is some other procedure that you think Congress had in mind...

so if only people with property were allowed to vote-would that be unconstitutional.

can you cite something in that article you referred to that says voting is a constitutional right? (Vs it is unconstitutional to deprive someone of being able to vote-when voting is provided for-based on race, ethnicity, gender, or condition of prior servitude?)

 

[LostInSeattle]

so if only people with property were allowed to vote-would that be unconstitutional.

The Constitution leaves it up to the States to define who qualifies as, "the People" but gives Congress the power to intercede (as it has) if the States are ****ing it up (which they have). I don't think it would be unconstitutional to restrict voting to property owners (doesn't sound like it would conflict the 24th Amendment, but maybe there are sections in the voting rights act?). Good luck passing that though at the State level.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Constitution leaves it up to the States to define who qualifies as, "the People" but gives Congress the power to intercede (as it has) if the States are ****ing it up (which they have). I don't think it would be unconstitutional to restrict voting to property owners (doesn't sound like it would conflict the 24th Amendment, but maybe there are sections in the voting rights act?). Good luck passing that though at the State level.

can you find me something in that article you cited that actually establishes a constitutional right to vote

 

[LostInSeattle]

can you find me something in that article you cited that actually establishes a constitutional right to vote

Would you mind telling me what you think the Art 1 Sec 2 means, if not voting by the People? Heck, I think the second piece you posted agrees with me, though in muted and obfuscating language. There is a constitutionally specified voting mechanism by the People. It was not and still isn't a universal right (you have to be an adult, not a felon, etc.), but has been consistently expanded by federal law and Constitutiona amendment. I see a clear right to vote but one not couched in the language of rights (as in the bill of rights) because it is qualified.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That's interesting. Where?

Rural communities and districts that have a lot of homeless white men.

 

[Fletch]

If you have to ask, you don't really want to know. The answer is extremely obvious to everyone with critical thinking skills and a high school education.

Great. Then explain it