GOP seeks to place limits on Absentee voting and Early Voting on Sunday

[Deuce]

It's not really 'mental gymnastics'. You have to have people willing to staff the polling places, More hours = more people. Some areas had to close polling locations last election because they didn't have enough people to run them.

So why Sunday and not Saturday or Wednesday? See, Sunday is the easiest time for many to vote. So it should be the last on the chopping block.

 

[dcsports]

They have recently introduced 100 or so laws that would tend to limit the franchise.

More than 100 bills that would restrict voting are moving through state legislatures

State lawmakers across the US have filed more than 100 bills since the November election aimed at reforming election procedure and limiting voter access, according to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice.

www.cnn.com

One of my favorites in the past few years was a rule that accepted concealed carry picture ID's but not student picture ID's. Look, it's axiomatic that republicans benefit when fewer people vote. Trump said you'd never "have a republican elected again" if everyone voted. Just check a map of the state's covered by the VRA, then check a map of which states limited voting after the Surpreme court decision. All of the old South, plus a scattering of GOP-controled states. At least one republican leader has said he doesn't think it's w good thing if everyone votes.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

That's not voter suppression.

Yes - as I pointed out, these states were handcuffed in terms of making changes or improvements by the VRA - unreasonably so. So they went to work once it was removed.

I agree - voter ID makes sense to verify the voter is who they say they are. And Student ID's are not issued by a government entity, and do not follow the same standards for verification as a state issued ID. (Many even say something to the effect of "not to be used for identification". Outside of the school they are intended for, they are useless.

 

[dcsports]

So why Sunday and not Saturday or Wednesday? See, Sunday is the easiest time for many to vote. So it should be the last on the chopping block.

It's the least used day - only a few states have voting on Sundays. I would imagine between family commitments and religious commitments, there is neither a large demand for it, nor a desire for people to staff the polling locations. Note that Sunday voting also rules out using churches for early voting locations - which would otherwise be ideal for this purpose.

 

[Nickyjo]

That's not voter suppression.

Yes - as I pointed out, these states were handcuffed in terms of making changes or improvements by the VRA - unreasonably so. So they went to work once it was removed.

I agree - voter ID makes sense to verify the voter is who they say they are. And Student ID's are not issued by a government entity, and do not follow the same standards for verification as a state issued ID. (Many even say something to the effect of "not to be used for identification". Outside of the school they are intended for, they are useless.

Good point on the diff between student and state-issued ID, tho some student ID's are indeed issued by a government entity.

You have the following:
-Trump cried fraud in 2016, in a primary and in the eventual populat vote
-Trump cried fraud in 2020
-The majority of GOPers in Congress voted not to approve the 2020 Electoral College results
-One of the leaders of the modern conservative movement, Paul Weyerich, said in 1980, "I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
-US post reconstruction history shows how demographic changes (new black citizens) caused the South to restrict voting
-The Voting Rights Act ended that proble,
-The Supremes said the Act was out of date
-States covered by the act quickly enacted laws that republicans admitted were designed to help them win
-Every interpretation I have seen for the reasons for the recent new pending laws suggests they are attempts to restrict voting
-The former AG Barr, very loyal to Trump, said there was no widespread fraud. No one I have asked to provide me with a source outlining the alleged massive fraud has provided one

Based on all the above, the old and new history of voter suppression from Reconstruction's end through the early 1960s to recent events, you state with a straight face that the Southern states were "handcuffed" by the VRA, and that conservatives intentions have been pure in imposing restrictions once they were freed to do so. Really?

 

[dcsports]

Good point on the diff between student and state-issued ID, tho some student ID's are indeed issued by a government entity.

eh. Probably be better to look on a state by state basis. In Texas, for example, you could argue that student ID's at the University of Texas or a public high school come from a 'government entity' - but that's only part of the equation. They don't have the standards of verification or tracking that an ID issued by the 'state' for identification would have. They work for that school, but can't be used for travel, opening a bank account, or other things you could use legal identification for. They may not have expiration dates, forgery protections, etc. No one bumped them up against state databases, or required documentation to issue. That's why you can't use these for voting.... but you can use a concealed carry permit, which does have those protections.

You have the following:
-Trump cried fraud in 2016, in a primary and in the eventual populat vote
-Trump cried fraud in 2020
-The majority of GOPers in Congress voted not to approve the 2020 Electoral College results
-One of the leaders of the modern conservative movement, Paul Weyerich, said in 1980, "I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
-US post reconstruction history shows how demographic changes (new black citizens) caused the South to restrict voting
-The Voting Rights Act ended that proble,
-The Supremes said the Act was out of date
-States covered by the act quickly enacted laws that republicans admitted were designed to help them win
-Every interpretation I have seen for the reasons for the recent new pending laws suggests they are attempts to restrict voting
-The former AG Barr, very loyal to Trump, said there was no widespread fraud. No one I have asked to provide me with a source outlining the alleged massive fraud has provided one

Based on all the above, the old and new history of voter suppression from Reconstruction's end through the early 1960s to recent events, you state with a straight face that the Southern states were "handcuffed" by the VRA, and that conservatives intentions have been pure in imposing restrictions once they were freed to do so. Really?

Bunch of rhetoric and talking points. And yes, Southern States were handcuffed by the VRA. They couldn't move, open, or close a polling space without extensive paperwork - even in cases where the building was destroyed. In fact - extended early voting is a change that was difficult under the VRA - that exploded in use after it was removed and counties were able to implement new systems. My county now has dozens of early voting locations, and I can vote at the one most convenient to me - near my home or my work. This last election, some were even changed to 24 hours a day in the last week. They even recently extended a system developed for early voting, where any voter in the county can vote from any polling location - eliminating the need to 'find' your specific place, or to reroute voters to the correct one. None of that was possible with the VRA.

 

[Nickyjo]

eh. Probably be better to look on a state by state basis. In Texas, for example, you could argue that student ID's at the University of Texas or a public high school come from a 'government entity' - but that's only part of the equation. They don't have the standards of verification or tracking that an ID issued by the 'state' for identification would have. They work for that school, but can't be used for travel, opening a bank account, or other things you could use legal identification for. They may not have expiration dates, forgery protections, etc. No one bumped them up against state databases, or required documentation to issue. That's why you can't use these for voting.... but you can use a concealed carry permit, which does have those protections.



Bunch of rhetoric and talking points. And yes, Southern States were handcuffed by the VRA. They couldn't move, open, or close a polling space without extensive paperwork - even in cases where the building was destroyed. In fact - extended early voting is a change that was difficult under the VRA - that exploded in use after it was removed and counties were able to implement new systems. My county now has dozens of early voting locations, and I can vote at the one most convenient to me - near my home or my work. This last election, some were even changed to 24 hours a day in the last week. They even recently extended a system developed for early voting, where any voter in the county can vote from any polling location - eliminating the need to 'find' your specific place, or to reroute voters to the correct one. None of that was possible with the VRA.

So the Voting Rights Act was intended to restrict voting? Coulda fooled me. Of course it restricted what states could do, because what the state's did effectively was prevent black people from vioting. And as Gomer Pyle would say, "SURPRAHS, SURPRAHS!" More blacks blacks voted and were elected to office than since the time of Reconstruction.

Look, I used republicans' own words and actions to make my point. They admit they are more likely to win when they pass laws requiring ID's, ending Sunday voting, etc. Trump admitted it last year, Weyerich forty years ago, democrat segregationists 145 or so years ago. Same song different beat. I take them at their word. Or do you deny that in general, these days democrats benefit when more people vote, republicans when fewer people vote?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

All you are doing is trying to do what you always do, shout the other guy down with mass.

You said PA "has never allowed administrative law to creep into election rules." I knew this to be untrue so I highlighted the source material you have previously referenced as being valid and the foundation of your arguments, the PA election law statutes, and the PA Constititution. What is administrative law? It's the body related to how a legislative branch delegates "rule making, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda." What is an election board as defined by the PA Statutes and the PA Constitution? It's that body that has been delegated the ability to create rules, adjudicate, and enforce the agenda of the legislative branch and the Constitution.

The judiciary and executive in Pennsylvania have never edited election limits to suit their needs.

To suit their needs? What do you mean to "suit" their needs?

The purpose of the election boards is to carry out what has already been passed as law, not rewrite it.

1. So do you agree or not agree that the PA county election boards have been delegated powers by the legislative branch to conduct elections in PA? Yes or no.

2. That's the argument pro-Trump lawyers have been making. It may not necessarily be true that an implemented change runs contrary to the statute.

3. Furthermore, Laws CAN be changed contrary to the will of the legislative branch. This happens all the time. Within the framework of our legal system at both the federal and state level, the legislative branch does not always have the final say in how a law is implemented or how it is written. And I gave an example previously of a Poll Tax. The Poll Tax is illegal according to the 24th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't matter how many times a legislature in a state passes a law implementing a poll tax, it's always going to be illegal.

4. What is your specific argument? How can you back up your argument? Just waving your hands around and saying the state government and the state court erred is not good enough. What did they do wrong? How did they do it wrong? So on so and so forth. You take it for granted that they broke the law. You take it for granted that everyone should just agree with you that they broke the law.

That's what I mean by thinking, you keep proving you are incapable of thinking, you keep putting out aha!

The only reason why these seem like ah-Ha moments to you is that you failed to read anything before spouting off and I am backing up my arguments, each and every ****ing time, with a reference to solid sources.

moments that are self owns.

How can we talk about election law as it relates to PA statutes and the PA Constitution without linking to them, and reading them, and posting them? Should we be imagining them? Why don't you want to share this information with others? Should the rest of us just take your word for everything? If they're not relevant why have you repeatedly referenced them? And if you repeatedly referenced them why do you now consider them to be unimportant?

There is a self-own though. It's obvious you are unwilling to put in the work to support your argument. And I keep trying to engage with you as if you were engaging in a good-faith debate about this topic.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The relief sought would have upended the election. They were not prepared to do that.

No, the explicitly stated there was no basis for the relief sought.

You can keep trying to paint this like SCOTUS was just too scared to rule, but lying isn't going to change anything.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, the explicitly stated there was no basis for the relief sought.

You can keep trying to paint this like SCOTUS was just too scared to rule, but lying isn't going to change anything.

That is NOT what he said.

Was SCOTUS unanimous in tossing Texas' election suit on standing ground? Alito a cipher

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday evening refused to allow Texas to file a lawsuit directly with the court that challenged the election results in four other states.

www.abajournal.com

Alito’s statement read: “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U.S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

 

[OpportunityCost]

You said PA "has never allowed administrative law to creep into election rules." I knew this to be untrue so I highlighted the source material you have previously referenced as being valid and the foundation of your arguments, the PA election law statutes, and the PA Constititution. What is administrative law? It's the body related to how a legislative branch delegates "rule making, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda." What is an election board as defined by the PA Statutes and the PA Constitution? It's that body that has been delegated the ability to create rules, adjudicate, and enforce the agenda of the legislative branch and the Constitution.



To suit their needs? What do you mean to "suit" their needs?



1. So do you agree or not agree that the PA county election boards have been delegated powers by the legislative branch to conduct elections in PA? Yes or no.

2. That's the argument pro-Trump lawyers have been making. It may not necessarily be true that an implemented change runs contrary to the statute.

3. Furthermore, Laws CAN be changed contrary to the will of the legislative branch. This happens all the time. Within the framework of our legal system at both the federal and state level, the legislative branch does not always have the final say in how a law is implemented or how it is written. And I gave an example previously of a Poll Tax. The Poll Tax is illegal according to the 24th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't matter how many times a legislature in a state passes a law implementing a poll tax, it's always going to be illegal.

4. What is your specific argument? How can you back up your argument? Just waving your hands around and saying the state government and the state court erred is not good enough. What did they do wrong? How did they do it wrong? So on so and so forth. You take it for granted that they broke the law. You take it for granted that everyone should just agree with you that they broke the law.



The only reason why these seem like ah-Ha moments to you is that you failed to read anything before spouting off and I am backing up my arguments, each and every ****ing time, with a reference to solid sources.



How can we talk about election law as it relates to PA statutes and the PA Constitution without linking to them, and reading them, and posting them? Should we be imagining them? Why don't you want to share this information with others? Should the rest of us just take your word for everything? If they're not relevant why have you repeatedly referenced them? And if you repeatedly referenced them why do you now consider them to be unimportant?

There is a self-own though. It's obvious you are unwilling to put in the work to support your argument. And I keep trying to engage with you as if you were engaging in a good-faith debate about this topic.

They do not promulgate rules, they enforce and administer the rules already there. You arguing this just shows you just don't know what you are talking about and think talking about it more gives your arguments weight. The opposite is true.

 

[RealityNow]

Link.

First try at posting a thread. I don't know what qualifies as MSM. Admins of course are free to move this as need be.

That said, this stinks to high heaven. Absentee voting has been shown to be perfectly reliable. Getting rid of early voting on Sunday? This just seems to be such a blatant attempt at voter suppression. Thoughts?

GOP tried everything to steal the last election, we saw the acts engaged against and upon Ukraine by Trump, and every other methods they could conjure up, including post election Terrorist Insurrection to engage sedition, subversion and Treason. they controlled and influenced the narrative in 2015-2016 as they set out 2yrs prior to smear Hillary, and they got away with it. But, not in 2020 their bullshit games did not work, they are now pissed off because they could not dupe society with their evil a second time.

Democracy and Equality Respecting White People must remain awake and aware and have no reservations of want or expectation of white privilege's, and be motivated to acknowledge and stand against, the vile of these White Nationalist GOP'er.. and their Regiments.

Minorities of Every Non White Ethnicity already know and have known for centuries, they can never trust "White Nationalist to any level". History has shown and document facts, and chronicled acts of evil by these types of people; who bastardized religion to promote their savagery, they desecrated by and through malice attacks of vile, upon and against the principles and values of The Constitution, and tried to Hijack the Principles and Values of The Preamble and claim it was only for them, and they have no respect for the Principles and Standard of The Declaration of Independence.

Look around in this forums, social media and other such public commentary portals others, these people are so "efficiently ignorant", (efficient ignorance produces savages) they can't digest the truth when they see it and/or hear it with their own eyes and ears. Their motivation is to engage "evil" by any means. We saw it vividly with "the savages" who attacked the U.S. Capitol and threatened the people within.

 

[RealityNow]

Good point on the diff between student and state-issued ID, tho some student ID's are indeed issued by a government entity.

You have the following:
-Trump cried fraud in 2016, in a primary and in the eventual populat vote
-Trump cried fraud in 2020
-The majority of GOPers in Congress voted not to approve the 2020 Electoral College results
-One of the leaders of the modern conservative movement, Paul Weyerich, said in 1980, "I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
-US post reconstruction history shows how demographic changes (new black citizens) caused the South to restrict voting
-The Voting Rights Act ended that proble,
-The Supremes said the Act was out of date
-States covered by the act quickly enacted laws that republicans admitted were designed to help them win
-Every interpretation I have seen for the reasons for the recent new pending laws suggests they are attempts to restrict voting
-The former AG Barr, very loyal to Trump, said there was no widespread fraud. No one I have asked to provide me with a source outlining the alleged massive fraud has provided one

Based on all the above, the old and new history of voter suppression from Reconstruction's end through the early 1960s to recent events, you state with a straight face that the Southern states were "handcuffed" by the VRA, and that conservatives intentions have been pure in imposing restrictions once they were freed to do so. Really?

We will get new laws with policy rules to reinstate and to re-enforce the Laws, Policies and Rules of Re-Construction Era - and they will be cast in stone with no end date and no means to repeal it, because "Voting Right" is a principle component of American Democracy, Representative Form of Governance.

'Everyone has a Finger Print, and "Finger Print Scanners" are a common use tool. We have Facial Recognition Technology, which can identify any person who loiters for any reason at any or near any polling station, such people can easily be charged with "seditious activity"

Sedition
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority.

Each individual "is an established authority who has the right of voice to vote". as well as there is the "established authority" of polling places, voter register and other appointed and elected officials who has the responsibility to conduct the voting processes for elections.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

They do not promulgate rules, they enforce and administer the rules already there.

This is not true.

PA county election boards have rule-making authority.

Pennsylvania Statutes Title 25 P.S. Elections & Electoral Districts § 2642 | FindLaw

Pennsylvania Title 25 P.S. Elections & Electoral Districts Section 2642. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Read the following:

The county boards of elections, within their respective counties, shall exercise, in the manner provided by this act, all powers granted to them by this act, and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them by this act, which shall include the following:

... snip ...

(f) To make and issue such rules, regulations and instructions, not inconsistent with law, as they may deem necessary for the guidance of voting machine custodians, elections officers and electors.

"To make and issue such rules"

This is the legislature delegating to the county election boards rule-making authority, is it not?

Was the PA legislature joking when it wrote this? Is this like when Trump says something on Twitter and we shouldn't take him seriously? Should we not take this seriously either?

You arguing this just shows you just don't know what you are talking about and think talking about it more gives your arguments weight. The opposite is true.

1. A simple answer often sounds nice but it isn't always the right answer. Sometimes issues are complicated. With respect to these various false notions you've presented, it takes effort to explain why you're wrong. For example, when you stated, PA "has never allowed administrative law to creep into election rules" I had to present to you those aspects of PA election law and the PA constitution that created county election boards as an executive-judicial body that has been delegated the power to administer elections in PA (meaning the creation and function of the county election boards is an aspect of the domain of law we would describe as administrative law). The very nature of the county election boards involves administrative law. If that's not what you intended to say, it's not my fault you were careless with your words.

2. My arguments do have weight, but the thing that gives my arguments weight is that I cite the relevant authorities such as the PA election law statutes, the PA Constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. You had previously referenced these sources as sources we must look to for guidance, you, yourself kept saying these sources were important for the present discussion, but at no point have you ever cited any specific part of any of these sources. However, I did, and I did it over and over again and then your only response when I cite the sources you defer to, you accuse me of being too wordy. You can't have it both ways. Again, as always, you simply assert things and expect everyone to accept what you write at face value without any further examination. This isn't how a debate works. And the name of this website is Debate Politics. And I get it. Everyone wants to give their opinion, but nobody wants to do the work to support it. And you're no different.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That is NOT what he said.

Yes, it is. If he had though otherwise he would have stated so. Literally the only thing he said was that by protocol it should be heard. What do think "but would not grant other relief" means?

It's funny how you complained that so many court cases were thrown out on "procedure" when that's exactly what Alito referenced here. Not merit; procedure.

 

[Anthony60]

Can you be specific about how mail-in ballots are "less" secure?

Should be pretty obvious.

 

[Anthony60]

Do you have a source for this?

Yes, most developed nations only allow this if you can't get to the polls.

 

[Anthony60]

How do you figure?

I didn't figure, It's just true, nothing I had to figure out.

 

[Anthony60]

There is not any statistically significant fraud in either system. So it's as secure and safe as in-person voting.

The Democrats in Pennsylvania did no such thing, everything went through and was upheld by the courts. That's our system. There was a reason to do it, and that was to allow people to vote and allow people's votes to be counted while in the middle of a global pandemic.

You might want to take a quick look at the Constitution on that one. Listen, I know you are trying to defend that election, but to tell me that counting mail in ballots with signatures that don't match, no signatures, and no post marks is just as secure as going to a polling place and voting in person is just nuts.

 

[JustAFella]

Do you have any evidence of an election being swung due to voter fraud?

Until you produce something, this is a joke of a discussion. 60+ lawsuits has produced nothing. A bunch of worthless affidavits. Nothing is stopping any of these people from making whatever evidence they have public. At any time they can release it out into the world.

I was getting text alerts tracking my ballot in November. Are you seriously telling me you think the production it would take to intercept my ballot along the way, alter it, deliver it to a facility, and get it counted could happen undetected? Who do you think was doing this? Who coordinated it? Where is a money or paper trail?

Evidence, dude. Provide. Evidence. Or shut up.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, it is. If he had though otherwise he would have stated so. Literally the only thing he said was that by protocol it should be heard. What do think "but would not grant other relief" means?

It's funny how you complained that so many court cases were thrown out on "procedure" when that's exactly what Alito referenced here. Not merit; procedure.

You shitting me? I directly quoted him.

"Alito’s statement read: “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U.S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” "

The relief sought was too onerous to the election.

 

[OpportunityCost]

This is not true.

PA county election boards have rule-making authority.

Pennsylvania Statutes Title 25 P.S. Elections & Electoral Districts § 2642 | FindLaw

Pennsylvania Title 25 P.S. Elections & Electoral Districts Section 2642. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Read the following:



"To make and issue such rules"

This is the legislature delegating to the county election boards rule-making authority, is it not?

Was the PA legislature joking when it wrote this? Is this like when Trump says something on Twitter and we shouldn't take him seriously? Should we not take this seriously either?



1. A simple answer often sounds nice but it isn't always the right answer. Sometimes issues are complicated. With respect to these various false notions you've presented, it takes effort to explain why you're wrong. For example, when you stated, PA "has never allowed administrative law to creep into election rules" I had to present to you those aspects of PA election law and the PA constitution that created county election boards as an executive-judicial body that has been delegated the power to administer elections in PA (meaning the creation and function of the county election boards is an aspect of the domain of law we would describe as administrative law). The very nature of the county election boards involves administrative law. If that's not what you intended to say, it's not my fault you were careless with your words.

2. My arguments do have weight, but the thing that gives my arguments weight is that I cite the relevant authorities such as the PA election law statutes, the PA Constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. You had previously referenced these sources as sources we must look to for guidance, you, yourself kept saying these sources were important for the present discussion, but at no point have you ever cited any specific part of any of these sources. However, I did, and I did it over and over again and then your only response when I cite the sources you defer to, you accuse me of being too wordy. You can't have it both ways. Again, as always, you simply assert things and expect everyone to accept what you write at face value without any further examination. This isn't how a debate works. And the name of this website is Debate Politics. And I get it. Everyone wants to give their opinion, but nobody wants to do the work to support it. And you're no different.

I guess you just bypassed not inconsistent with law. That means they make rules that are consistent with the law. Like I said, you keep thinking you have eureka moments when you are self owning.

Read your own content FFS.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I guess you just bypassed not inconsistent with law. That means they make rules that are consistent with the law.

I agree with this statement, but that's not what you wrote.

Like I said, you keep thinking you have eureka moments when you are self owning.

Read your own content FFS.

FFS that's not what you wrote.

You wrote: They do not promulgate rules, they enforce and administer the rules already there.

Have a little integrity, okay? Show some character. Be honest about what you write.

If you had intended to say something different, that's on you, not me.

Are you now changing your statement?

Did you mean to write something different than what you actually wrote?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes, most developed nations only allow this if you can't get to the polls.

Map of developed countries:

Developed country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No excuse needed (meaning allowed even if you can get to the polls):

Canada:

Ways to Vote – Elections Canada

Ways to vote in a federal election in Canada.

www.elections.ca

--

Reference for countries below:

Postal voting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United Kingdom

Absentee voting in the United Kingdom is allowed by proxy or post (known as postal voting on demand) for any elector. Postal voting does not require a reason

Switzerland (Universal postal voting)

Swiss federal law allows postal voting in all federal elections and referenda,[29] and all cantons also allow it for cantonal ballot issues. All voters receive their personal ballot by mail and may either cast it at a polling station or mail it back. As of 2019, approximately 90% of Swiss voters cast ballots using Remote Postal Voting.[30]

Germany

Postal voting is common in Germany, with 29% of the electorate voting by post in the 2017 general election.[16] Absentee voting has existed in Germany since 1957, originally in order to ensure that all German citizens, especially the old, sick, and disabled, and citizens living abroad, have the opportunity to participate in elections. At first, postal voters had to state why they could not cast their vote in person on Election Day; but this requirement was dropped in 2008, allowing everyone to use postal voting. Like in many other countries, in more recent years voting by mail has become increasingly popular among younger and non-disabled citizens residing within the country.

Austria

Austria enabled postal voting in 2007 by amending Article 26 of the Constitution of Austria. Electors request an electoral card that can be completed in person or in private and sent via post. In the 2017 election, roughly 780,000 postal ballots were cast representing 15% of all ballots.

South Korea

Greatly expanded use of mail-in voting during the pandemic.

How South Korea Conducted Its Elections During the Pandemic: A Comparative Case Study

As a result of precautionary measures, South Korea was able to minimize voters’ risk of exposure to the coronavirus while maintaining the integrity of its election.

www.lawfareblog.com

Iceland

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Reference for countries below:

Loading…

www.ifes.org

Poland (Universal postal voting)

Luxembourg

New Zealand (Universal postal voting)

--


Reference for countries below:

Postal voting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excuse needed or living abroad:

Italy
Spain
Ireland
Finland

Banned:

France

Early Voting:

Norway

Instead of mail-in voting, what Norway has is a long early voting period and a lot of flexibility in polling locations.

Denmark

Advance Voting

Advance voting is the preferred Danish term for postal voting, since the procedure is quite different from what is usually associated with postal voting.

elections.im.dk

Could find no information:

Japan

 

[OpportunityCost]

I agree with this statement, but that's not what you wrote.



FFS that's not what you wrote.

You wrote: They do not promulgate rules, they enforce and administer the rules already there.

Have a little integrity, okay? Show some character. Be honest about what you write.

If you had intended to say something different, that's on you, not me.

Are you now changing your statement?

Do you mean something different than what you actually wrote?

If they promulgate any rule of any sort it must comport with the law on the books, they cant just go crazy and change whatever they want. IN ESSENCE, they are facilitating election law within their own county.

BTW stop with the integrity, character bullshit. Its aimed at me, not my comments, put that nonsensical bullshit back in your hat and quit getting personal.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Same day, no fault registration, unlinked to any state ID and unable to be marked ineligible even under color of law (IE illegal voting).

Federal determination of voter eligibility, requires states to count ballots outside their district boundaries, outright prevention of checking ID or addresses----banning of witness signatures and notaries, forcing states to accept absentee ballots up to 10 days after election day.

Finally, MANDATES vote harvesting.

HR 1 is a gigantic pile of dog shit.

Your post is a gigantic pile of dog shit.
https://ballotpedia.org/Same-day_voter_registration

"In those states that permit same-day registration, voters must generally provide proof of residency (e.g., utility bill, pay stub) and identity (e.g., driver's license) at the time of registration."

'No fault registration'? Have no idea what that is or even means and I strongly suspect that you don't either. Just something you pulled out of your butt.