Colorado Sued For Having More Voters Than People

[TNHarley]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

Duh, dumbass. They are being sued because they fail to keep up with the National Voter Registration Act.
It doesnt "mean" fraud. It MEANS there is a possibility of people taking advantage of their failure. Thats why the Democrats voted for this Act.

It just means they are careful in kicking people off the voter rolls.

Dead people don’t vote, people who moved don’t vote. Those ballots just remain unfilled

Yeah, thats what it means.

 

[rightwinger]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

Duh, dumbass. They are being sued because they fail to keep up with the National Voter Registration Act.
It doesnt "mean" fraud. It MEANS there is a possibility of people taking advantage of their failure. Thats why the Democrats voted for this Act.

It just means they are careful in kicking people off the voter rolls.

Dead people don’t vote, people who moved don’t vote. Those ballots just remain unfilled

Yeah, thats what it means.

Oh, I stand corrected

I forgot I was talking to a Conservative.

It means that millions of Democrats are running to the polls and voting for dead people. But you don’t realize how hard that is because they have to stand in line behind all those illegal Mexicans

 

[Dick Foster]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

It's either incompetence or corruption. Either way you slice it, it's yet more evidence of democratic stupidity and unsuitability for any office.

 

[TNHarley]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

Duh, dumbass. They are being sued because they fail to keep up with the National Voter Registration Act.
It doesnt "mean" fraud. It MEANS there is a possibility of people taking advantage of their failure. Thats why the Democrats voted for this Act.

It just means they are careful in kicking people off the voter rolls.

Dead people don’t vote, people who moved don’t vote. Those ballots just remain unfilled

Yeah, thats what it means.

Oh, I stand corrected

I forgot I was talking to a Conservative.

It means that millions of Democrats are running to the polls and voting for dead people. But you don’t realize how hard that is because they have to stand in line behind all those illegal Mexicans

Thats not what i meant either, dumbfuck.
And im not a conservative. You tunnel vision morons just cant see there are more than 2 ideologies.

 

[DrLove]

You lost me at "according to Judicial Watch"

Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.

Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the Presidency of Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The organization has described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government climate scientists. JW has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims that have been picked up by right-wing news outlets and promoted by conservative figures. President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited false claims by Judicial Watch about voter fraud. Courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits.[2]

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

• Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and a very poor fact check record.

 

[rightwinger]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

It's either incompetence or corruption. Either way you slice it, it's yet more evidence of democratic stupidity and unsuitability for any office.

Been happening for decades
Cleaning the rolls costs money. Money to contact voters, follow up on responses, verify SS Death reports

The norm is to ignore it until the numbers become a problem

 

[rightwinger]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

Duh, dumbass. They are being sued because they fail to keep up with the National Voter Registration Act.
It doesnt "mean" fraud. It MEANS there is a possibility of people taking advantage of their failure. Thats why the Democrats voted for this Act.

It just means they are careful in kicking people off the voter rolls.

Dead people don’t vote, people who moved don’t vote. Those ballots just remain unfilled

Yeah, thats what it means.

Oh, I stand corrected

I forgot I was talking to a Conservative.

It means that millions of Democrats are running to the polls and voting for dead people. But you don’t realize how hard that is because they have to stand in line behind all those illegal Mexicans

Thats not what i meant either, dumbfuck.
And im not a conservative. You tunnel vision morons just cant see there are more than 2 ideologies.

Sure don’t look like a tree hugging Liberal to me

 

[TNHarley]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

Duh, dumbass. They are being sued because they fail to keep up with the National Voter Registration Act.
It doesnt "mean" fraud. It MEANS there is a possibility of people taking advantage of their failure. Thats why the Democrats voted for this Act.

It just means they are careful in kicking people off the voter rolls.

Dead people don’t vote, people who moved don’t vote. Those ballots just remain unfilled

Yeah, thats what it means.

Oh, I stand corrected

I forgot I was talking to a Conservative.

It means that millions of Democrats are running to the polls and voting for dead people. But you don’t realize how hard that is because they have to stand in line behind all those illegal Mexicans

Thats not what i meant either, dumbfuck.
And im not a conservative. You tunnel vision morons just cant see there are more than 2 ideologies.

Sure don’t look like a tree hugging Liberal to me

There ya go! Double down

 

[OldLady]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that proof of citizenship can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

 

[TNHarley]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that voter ID'S can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Rule? I dont know of one. I just know there isnt congressional action on it.

 

[OldLady]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that voter ID'S can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Rule? I dont know of one. I just know there isnt congressional action on it.

State Still Can’t Require Voters to Prove Citizenship, Federal Court Rules - Texas Scorecard

Court of appeals upholds earlier bans on Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. What does that mean for Texas?

texasscorecard.com

This is how it impacts Texas, but I read an article on it last year that I'd rather not hunt for: Only one state that has voted in a proof of citizenship requirement is implementing it because voters have to vote in two separate polling stations, there needs to be double the staff, etc., all because of rules for the federal elections. I have nothing against requiring proof of citizenship, but right now, people who want it are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[TNHarley]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that voter ID'S can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Rule? I dont know of one. I just know there isnt congressional action on it.

State Still Can’t Require Voters to Prove Citizenship, Federal Court Rules - Texas Scorecard

Court of appeals upholds earlier bans on Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. What does that mean for Texas?

texasscorecard.com

That ruling was way beyond congressional action requiring a national voter id.
There were multiple steps involved. Photo id, some voter number and verified signatures and crap/
That law was even denying registration to people who were OKd to get drivers licenses. It was a jacked up bill.
Here is amendment 26
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[OldLady]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that voter ID'S can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Rule? I dont know of one. I just know there isnt congressional action on it.

State Still Can’t Require Voters to Prove Citizenship, Federal Court Rules - Texas Scorecard

Court of appeals upholds earlier bans on Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. What does that mean for Texas?

texasscorecard.com

That ruling was way beyond congressional action requiring a national voter id.
There were multiple steps involved. Photo id, some voter number and verified signatures and crap/
That law was even denying registration to people who were OKd to get drivers licenses. It was a jacked up bill.
Here is amendment 26
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Maybe that legislation didn't allow drivers' licenses because drivers licenses don't require proof of citizenship. The reason the courts turned it down was because the state couldn't provide evidence there was a problem with illegal voters. Probably because there isn't one unless you go by Fox.

 

[TNHarley]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that voter ID'S can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Rule? I dont know of one. I just know there isnt congressional action on it.

State Still Can’t Require Voters to Prove Citizenship, Federal Court Rules - Texas Scorecard

Court of appeals upholds earlier bans on Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. What does that mean for Texas?

texasscorecard.com

That ruling was way beyond congressional action requiring a national voter id.
There were multiple steps involved. Photo id, some voter number and verified signatures and crap/
That law was even denying registration to people who were OKd to get drivers licenses. It was a jacked up bill.
Here is amendment 26
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Maybe that legislation didn't allow drivers' licenses because drivers licenses don't require proof of citizenship. The reason the courts turned it down was because the state couldn't provide evidence there was a problem with illegal voters. Probably because there isn't one unless you go by Fox.

Yeah but you need Social Security number and such. They said it wasnt worth the inconvenience without proof of a major problem.

 

[DrLove]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

It's either incompetence or corruption. Either way you slice it, it's yet more evidence of democratic stupidity and unsuitability for any office.

Been happening for decades
Cleaning the rolls costs money. Money to contact voters, follow up on responses, verify SS Death reports

The norm is to ignore it until the numbers become a problem

Yep, when people move from state to state or someone in their family dies, the last thing on their mind is to take time they don't have to get themselves or that family member off the rolls. To listen to Republicans, you must somehow believe that people are going through obituaries and changes of address to steal those names in order to stack the deck for their favorite candidate.

Criminals aren't the slightest bit political (with the exception of criminal politicians like Rump ;-). Criminals would be more likely to steal an identity or something of that nature. Dead people don't vote, and if they did we'd have more than a handful of voter fraud cases in 2016. It's pretty tough to duplicate a signature and voting twice ain't worth prison.

 

[rightwinger]

It's pretty tough to duplicate a signature and voting twice ain't worth prison.

It is easier to get a fake ID than to fake a signature while someone is watching you sign

 

[DrLove]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

Duh, dumbass. They are being sued because they fail to keep up with the National Voter Registration Act.
It doesnt "mean" fraud. It MEANS there is a possibility of people taking advantage of their failure. Thats why the Democrats voted for this Act.

It just means they are careful in kicking people off the voter rolls.

Dead people don’t vote, people who moved don’t vote. Those ballots just remain unfilled

Yeah, thats what it means.

Oh, I stand corrected

I forgot I was talking to a Conservative.

It means that millions of Democrats are running to the polls and voting for dead people. But you don’t realize how hard that is because they have to stand in line behind all those illegal Mexicans

Thats not what i meant either, dumbfuck.
And im not a conservative. You tunnel vision morons just cant see there are more than 2 ideologies.

Sure don’t look like a tree hugging Liberal to me

TN is definitely a conservative. He MIGHT be somewhat left of center on a few issues but far more often he's defending Republicans.

 

[DrLove]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that proof of citizenship can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Now you are asking people to go find their birth certificates. Older people most often don't have them and getting a replacement takes time and money. Hell, I had to get a new one from California when I was 40 years old and wanted to go on a cruise. Imagine an elderly person jumping through those hoops.

I haven't seen my social security card since I was around 30. No one ever asked me for it after that including employers. Actually, I think maybe one or two did and I simply directed them to my credit report, gave them a birth certificate copy or a DL number. They are just not relevant in an information age.

 

[OldLady]

Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died

Doesnt mean fraud

/-----/ "Just means they have to clean up their voter rolls of people who have moved or have died"
1.) Did you fail 5th-grade math? If you have 10,000 registered voters, but 12,000 voted, it's even worse than stated according to you your logic that many registered voters have moved or died.
2.) When Red states try to clean up the voter rolls, democRATs rush to sue the state from doing so.

The rolls aren't a list of who votes.

 

[OldLady]

Problem is the federal government has no jurisdiction over voting.
Only states have that jurisdiction.

The best you could do is for the federal government to issue an ID card that states then can be urged to use by bribing them with grants.

Amendment 26 gave the fed gov the power to force an ID to verify citizenship and age.

Then WHY is there still a rule that proof of citizenship can't be required in Presidential elections? Someone needs to straighten out that red tape tangle.

Now you are asking people to go find their birth certificates. Older people most often don't have them and getting a replacement takes time and money. Hell, I had to get a new one from California when I was 40 years old and wanted to go on a cruise. Imagine an elderly person jumping through those hoops.

I haven't seen my social security card since I was around 30. No one ever asked me for it after that including employers. Actually, I think maybe one or two did and I simply directed them to my credit report, gave them a birth certificate copy or a DL number. They are just not relevant in an information age.

I lost mine well over thirty years ago. I looked into getting a replacement when I was thinking about getting a passport, but you have to get it in person, and the nearest SS office is over 90 miles away--would have been a whole day out of work. It wasn't worth a vacation day, so I never did it.