Georgia republicans Back Away From Some Voting Restrictions

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

When that happens we can discuss it.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

 

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

When that happens we can discuss it.

It is happening. Democrats want to make election more ripe for fraud by allowing more voting and less verification. Republicans attempt to secure elections by asking for voter and Democrats cry voter disenfranchisement.

As for the Voting Rights Act, the SC just said that states can change their voting laws without federal approval. Seems as though that was done by key battleground states in this last election and Democrats didn’t have a problem with it.

 

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

 

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

^ ' IF' ... that means you are giving a hypothetical, based on yer own faulty reasoning from the start.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud
Grace Panetta
Nov 11, 2020, 3:17 PM

• The campaign has not succeeded in proving the evidence of widespread fraud in court, and election officials in the majority of states confirmed the lack of fraud in their states to The New York Times.
• Historically, voter and election fraud has been incredibly rare and affected a tiny percentage of all votes cast in the 21st century, academic studies and journalistic reviews have found.

A comprehensive but nonexhaustive database of voter and election fraud cases maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation finds documented cases of fraud with mail ballots are more common than cases of in-person voter impersonation, ballot petition fraud, and registration fraud, but that overall rates of fraud are infinitesimally low.

Heritage's database identified 193 criminal convictions, civil penalties, diversions, or other official findings for fraudulent use of mail ballots between 2000 and 2020, a time period during which approximately 250 million mail ballots were cast.


As MIT elections scholar Charles Stewart and National Vote At Home Institute CEO Amber McReynolds noted in an April op-ed, that puts the rate of mail ballots resulting in criminal convictions at 0.0006% and the rate of mail ballots resulting in any kind of official action at 0.00007%.

Rates of fraud are also extremely low in states that send all voters ballots. Heritage's database reports two documented cases of fraudulent use of mail ballots in Oregon, five in Colorado, six in Washington, and none in Hawaii or Utah over the past fifteen years.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

fake news. try researching claims b4 you blindly believe such claims. not doing so only proves how much donny loves the poorly educated long time.

Fact Check: Did House Democrats Vote to Ban Voter ID Nationwide with HR-1?
By Mary Ellen Cagnassola On 3/4/21 at 5:20 PM EST



Fact Check: Did House Democrats vote to ban voter ID nationwide with HR-1?

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

 

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

^ ' IF' ... that means you are giving a hypothetical, based on yer own faulty reasoning from the start.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud
Grace Panetta
Nov 11, 2020, 3:17 PM

• The campaign has not succeeded in proving the evidence of widespread fraud in court, and election officials in the majority of states confirmed the lack of fraud in their states to The New York Times.
• Historically, voter and election fraud has been incredibly rare and affected a tiny percentage of all votes cast in the 21st century, academic studies and journalistic reviews have found.

A comprehensive but nonexhaustive database of voter and election fraud cases maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation finds documented cases of fraud with mail ballots are more common than cases of in-person voter impersonation, ballot petition fraud, and registration fraud, but that overall rates of fraud are infinitesimally low.

Heritage's database identified 193 criminal convictions, civil penalties, diversions, or other official findings for fraudulent use of mail ballots between 2000 and 2020, a time period during which approximately 250 million mail ballots were cast.


As MIT elections scholar Charles Stewart and National Vote At Home Institute CEO Amber McReynolds noted in an April op-ed, that puts the rate of mail ballots resulting in criminal convictions at 0.0006% and the rate of mail ballots resulting in any kind of official action at 0.00007%.

Rates of fraud are also extremely low in states that send all voters ballots. Heritage's database reports two documented cases of fraudulent use of mail ballots in Oregon, five in Colorado, six in Washington, and none in Hawaii or Utah over the past fifteen years.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud

Basically you are saying we should just trust people to do the right thing. Imagine if we implement this idea throughout our entire legal system. Law ENFORCEMENT wouldn’t even be necessary.

Democrats are a hoot.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

^ ' IF' ... that means you are giving a hypothetical, based on yer own faulty reasoning from the start.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud
Grace Panetta
Nov 11, 2020, 3:17 PM

• The campaign has not succeeded in proving the evidence of widespread fraud in court, and election officials in the majority of states confirmed the lack of fraud in their states to The New York Times.
• Historically, voter and election fraud has been incredibly rare and affected a tiny percentage of all votes cast in the 21st century, academic studies and journalistic reviews have found.

A comprehensive but nonexhaustive database of voter and election fraud cases maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation finds documented cases of fraud with mail ballots are more common than cases of in-person voter impersonation, ballot petition fraud, and registration fraud, but that overall rates of fraud are infinitesimally low.

Heritage's database identified 193 criminal convictions, civil penalties, diversions, or other official findings for fraudulent use of mail ballots between 2000 and 2020, a time period during which approximately 250 million mail ballots were cast.


As MIT elections scholar Charles Stewart and National Vote At Home Institute CEO Amber McReynolds noted in an April op-ed, that puts the rate of mail ballots resulting in criminal convictions at 0.0006% and the rate of mail ballots resulting in any kind of official action at 0.00007%.

Rates of fraud are also extremely low in states that send all voters ballots. Heritage's database reports two documented cases of fraudulent use of mail ballots in Oregon, five in Colorado, six in Washington, and none in Hawaii or Utah over the past fifteen years.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud

Basically you are saying we should just trust people to do the right thing. Imagine if we implement this idea throughout our entire legal system. Law ENFORCEMENT wouldn’t even be necessary.

Democrats are a hoot.

People overwhelmingly are doing the right thing. We already have laws.

You want restrictions.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

It was irrelevant anyway so I was just dismissing it.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

^ ' IF' ... that means you are giving a hypothetical, based on yer own faulty reasoning from the start.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud
Grace Panetta
Nov 11, 2020, 3:17 PM

• The campaign has not succeeded in proving the evidence of widespread fraud in court, and election officials in the majority of states confirmed the lack of fraud in their states to The New York Times.
• Historically, voter and election fraud has been incredibly rare and affected a tiny percentage of all votes cast in the 21st century, academic studies and journalistic reviews have found.

A comprehensive but nonexhaustive database of voter and election fraud cases maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation finds documented cases of fraud with mail ballots are more common than cases of in-person voter impersonation, ballot petition fraud, and registration fraud, but that overall rates of fraud are infinitesimally low.

Heritage's database identified 193 criminal convictions, civil penalties, diversions, or other official findings for fraudulent use of mail ballots between 2000 and 2020, a time period during which approximately 250 million mail ballots were cast.


As MIT elections scholar Charles Stewart and National Vote At Home Institute CEO Amber McReynolds noted in an April op-ed, that puts the rate of mail ballots resulting in criminal convictions at 0.0006% and the rate of mail ballots resulting in any kind of official action at 0.00007%.

Rates of fraud are also extremely low in states that send all voters ballots. Heritage's database reports two documented cases of fraudulent use of mail ballots in Oregon, five in Colorado, six in Washington, and none in Hawaii or Utah over the past fifteen years.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud

Basically you are saying we should just trust people to do the right thing. Imagine if we implement this idea throughout our entire legal system. Law ENFORCEMENT wouldn’t even be necessary.

Democrats are a hoot.

lol ... you didn't even bother to read the fact check. my god, donny must REALLY love you long LONG time. he counts on lazy humpers to believe everything he & his flying monkeys tell you.

without question ... without curiosity ... with the overwhelming desire to stay ignorant.

 

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

fake news. try researching claims b4 you blindly believe such claims. not doing so only proves how much donny loves the poorly educated long time.

Fact Check: Did House Democrats Vote to Ban Voter ID Nationwide with HR-1?
By Mary Ellen Cagnassola On 3/4/21 at 5:20 PM EST



Fact Check: Did House Democrats vote to ban voter ID nationwide with HR-1?

Per your source:

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.om your article:

LOL...Yeah, they can SWEAR they are who they say they are by signing a document before voting. LIke I said, no voter ID required. Democrats can’t even figure out that their “fact checking” is lying to them?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Thanks to a couple corporations, Coca Cola and Home Depot, Georgia republicans are backing down from two of their proposals that take away the ability to vote mostly from democrats.

None of the proposals they are passing into law will stop voter fraud. Mostly because there isn't any real voter fraud happening.

All the proposals will do is make it much harder for mostly democrats to vote. Which is the point. They don't want those pesky democrats to exercise their constitutional right to vote in an election.

If the republicans in Georgia kept allowing democrats to vote, republicans would keep losing elections.

The republicans in Georgia can't allow that to keep happening so they are passing legislation that is specifically designed to prevent mostly democrats from voting.

I'm sure whatever legislation ends up passing into law will immediately be taken to court and overturned.

Which means the republicans in Georgia are just wasting time and tax payer's money.

Georgia Republicans back away from some voting restrictions

Top Republicans in Georgia’s state legislature are backing away from a controversial plan to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting and to do away with early voting on Sundays after increasing critici…

thehill.com

/----/ " Mostly because there isn't any real voter fraud happening. "
Except where it does happen. And yeas, Tinkerbell, there are plenty more examples.

Watch: Voter Fraud Exposed in Texas By Project Veritas | KPRC AM 950 | Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness

A Democrat operative has purportedly been engaging in illegal ballot harvesting and it was all caught on tape!

kprcradio.iheart.com

 

[DBA]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

^ ' IF' ... that means you are giving a hypothetical, based on yer own faulty reasoning from the start.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud
Grace Panetta
Nov 11, 2020, 3:17 PM

• The campaign has not succeeded in proving the evidence of widespread fraud in court, and election officials in the majority of states confirmed the lack of fraud in their states to The New York Times.
• Historically, voter and election fraud has been incredibly rare and affected a tiny percentage of all votes cast in the 21st century, academic studies and journalistic reviews have found.

A comprehensive but nonexhaustive database of voter and election fraud cases maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation finds documented cases of fraud with mail ballots are more common than cases of in-person voter impersonation, ballot petition fraud, and registration fraud, but that overall rates of fraud are infinitesimally low.

Heritage's database identified 193 criminal convictions, civil penalties, diversions, or other official findings for fraudulent use of mail ballots between 2000 and 2020, a time period during which approximately 250 million mail ballots were cast.


As MIT elections scholar Charles Stewart and National Vote At Home Institute CEO Amber McReynolds noted in an April op-ed, that puts the rate of mail ballots resulting in criminal convictions at 0.0006% and the rate of mail ballots resulting in any kind of official action at 0.00007%.

Rates of fraud are also extremely low in states that send all voters ballots. Heritage's database reports two documented cases of fraudulent use of mail ballots in Oregon, five in Colorado, six in Washington, and none in Hawaii or Utah over the past fifteen years.

Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit election fraud

Basically you are saying we should just trust people to do the right thing. Imagine if we implement this idea throughout our entire legal system. Law ENFORCEMENT wouldn’t even be necessary.

Democrats are a hoot.

lol ... you didn't even bother to read the fact check. my god, donny must REALLY love you long LONG time. he counts on lazy humpers to believe everything he & his flying monkeys tell you.

without question ... without curiosity ... with the overwhelming desire to stay ignorant.

MORON...they are TRUSTING people by allowing them to sign a document. Big whoopie doo, they essentially do that anyway by signing the ballot for mail-in, which Democrats no longer want signature verification, and they sign somebody’s name when they go to a polling station.

You are being taken for a ride, but you don't care because as long as your side wins, you don’t care. The problem is, it is ruining our voting system. Short-sighted thinking seems to be all the rave today.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

fake news. try researching claims b4 you blindly believe such claims. not doing so only proves how much donny loves the poorly educated long time.

Fact Check: Did House Democrats Vote to Ban Voter ID Nationwide with HR-1?
By Mary Ellen Cagnassola On 3/4/21 at 5:20 PM EST



Fact Check: Did House Democrats vote to ban voter ID nationwide with HR-1?

Per your source:

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.om your article:

LOL...Yeah, they can SWEAR they are who they say they are by signing a document before voting. LIke I said, no voter ID required. Democrats can’t even figure out that their “fact checking” is lying to them?

That is and has always been the law. We have had provisional voting for years.

 

[Dana7360]

Suppression of the vote will be going on in all states, esp. Florida, TX, Arizona, PA, MI, WI.
Anywhere state republicans are in charge of the senate.

Yes it is.

It should stop.