Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The article whines it will make it harder to vote.
It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.
Getting the wrong precinct isn't voting illegally. Especially this year considering how many regular places people voted before were shut down.
So in your view a "free" country that is suppose to respect and support the right to vote should throw out someone's ability to vote that ends up at the wrong place because the regular place they voted at for years is no longer there and after standing in line for three hours they find out they are supposed to vote somewhere else?
Sounds more like what some third world country would do. We should go out of our way to see that people can exercise their Constitutional acknowledged rights.
The ballots all end up at the same place. It's no hardship to see that they get to the right precinct to be checked at the end of the day.
The article whines it will make it harder to vote.
It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.
Getting the wrong precinct isn't voting illegally. Especially this year considering how many regular places people voted before were shut down.
So in your view a "free" country that is suppose to respect and support the right to vote should throw out someone's ability to vote that ends up at the wrong place because the regular place they voted at for years is no longer there and after standing in line for three hours they find out they are supposed to vote somewhere else?
Sounds more like what some third world country would do. We should go out of our way to see that people can exercise their Constitutional acknowledged rights.
The ballots all end up at the same place. It's no hardship to see that they get to the right precinct to be checked at the end of the day.
If people value those rights, they'll take the time to figure out the correct way to exercise them.
These measures are to keep things clear and orderly.
I am so looking forward to all the garbage that will happen after Nov 3 (in the courts). Nothing will be decided for weeks and likely the courts will pick the winner.
I didn't like Al Gore, but I thought it sucked he lost the way he did.
The article whines it will make it harder to vote.
It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.
Getting the wrong precinct isn't voting illegally. Especially this year considering how many regular places people voted before were shut down.
So in your view a "free" country that is suppose to respect and support the right to vote should throw out someone's ability to vote that ends up at the wrong place because the regular place they voted at for years is no longer there and after standing in line for three hours they find out they are supposed to vote somewhere else?
Sounds more like what some third world country would do. We should go out of our way to see that people can exercise their Constitutional acknowledged rights.
The ballots all end up at the same place. It's no hardship to see that they get to the right precinct to be checked at the end of the day.
If people value those rights, they'll take the time to figure out the correct way to exercise them.
These measures are to keep things clear and orderly.
I am so looking forward to all the garbage that will happen after Nov 3 (in the courts). Nothing will be decided for weeks and likely the courts will pick the winner.
I didn't like Al Gore, but I thought it sucked he lost the way he did.
We should make voting easier, not harder.
"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.
It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act
And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.www.vox.com
And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.
In the right's stated efforts to protect voting integrity you never see any effort to make sure legitimate voters are not disenfranchised. Now why is that?
awe..........the Mail In Virus isn't going so well for the DNC.
Well, it's Vox, so......The article whines it will make it harder to vote.
It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.
Traditionally the Corrupt and Racist Democratic Party has been opposed to democracy and Voting Rights, that is why they are opposed to clean, secure and fair elections."The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.
It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act
And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.
Both seem very reasonable to me. If voting is important to a voter he or she should deliver that ballot themselves and it's not hard to determine the correct voting location, it took me all of thirty seconds on line and a call to the registrar of voter's office wouldn't take much longer. Are the liberals implying that minorities are too stupid to make a phone call or look something up on line? To make their cases even weaker Arizona has been a vote by mail state for years all you need to do to get an absentee ballot is check a box when you register."The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.
It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act
And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.
No going for a selective recount in counties that favor you is just wrong. If he had wanted a state-wide recount I would have respected him, but he would have lost.The article whines it will make it harder to vote.
It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.
Getting the wrong precinct isn't voting illegally. Especially this year considering how many regular places people voted before were shut down.
So in your view a "free" country that is suppose to respect and support the right to vote should throw out someone's ability to vote that ends up at the wrong place because the regular place they voted at for years is no longer there and after standing in line for three hours they find out they are supposed to vote somewhere else?
Sounds more like what some third world country would do. We should go out of our way to see that people can exercise their Constitutional acknowledged rights.
The ballots all end up at the same place. It's no hardship to see that they get to the right precinct to be checked at the end of the day.
If people value those rights, they'll take the time to figure out the correct way to exercise them.
These measures are to keep things clear and orderly.
I am so looking forward to all the garbage that will happen after Nov 3 (in the courts). Nothing will be decided for weeks and likely the courts will pick the winner.
I didn't like Al Gore, but I thought it sucked he lost the way he did.
Both seem very reasonable to me. If voting is important to a voter he or she should deliver that ballot themselves and it's not hard to determine the correct voting location, it took me all of thirty seconds on line and a call to the registrar of voter's office wouldn't take much longer. Are the liberals implying that minorities are too stupid to make a phone call or look something up on line? To make their cases even weaker Arizona has been a vote by mail state for years all you need to do to get an absentee ballot is check a box when you register."The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.
It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act
And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.
No going for a selective recount in counties that favor you is just wrong. If he had wanted a state-wide recount I would have respected him, but he would have lost.The article whines it will make it harder to vote.
It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.
Getting the wrong precinct isn't voting illegally. Especially this year considering how many regular places people voted before were shut down.
So in your view a "free" country that is suppose to respect and support the right to vote should throw out someone's ability to vote that ends up at the wrong place because the regular place they voted at for years is no longer there and after standing in line for three hours they find out they are supposed to vote somewhere else?
Sounds more like what some third world country would do. We should go out of our way to see that people can exercise their Constitutional acknowledged rights.
The ballots all end up at the same place. It's no hardship to see that they get to the right precinct to be checked at the end of the day.
If people value those rights, they'll take the time to figure out the correct way to exercise them.
These measures are to keep things clear and orderly.
I am so looking forward to all the garbage that will happen after Nov 3 (in the courts). Nothing will be decided for weeks and likely the courts will pick the winner.
I didn't like Al Gore, but I thought it sucked he lost the way he did.
Any adequate controls will do both.In the right's stated efforts to protect voting integrity you never see any effort to make sure legitimate voters are not disenfranchised. Now why is that?
The Antifacrats just keep proving over and over again that they want to violate everyone's Right to Vote
The Antifacrats just keep proving over and over again that they want to violate everyone's Right to Vote
The want to violate all of the Rights, not just the one to vote.......from religion and speech to guns and property Rights, they want them all.......and will take them if they have the chance....
The Antifacrats just keep proving over and over again that they want to violate everyone's Right to Vote
The want to violate all of the Rights, not just the one to vote.......from religion and speech to guns and property Rights, they want them all.......and will take them if they have the chance....
The real disappointment to me is how easily "Patriots" rolled over and surrendered to Marxists
I was wrong, but I thought the 2nd Amendment was suppose to help with that.
when the left wing is rounding up people and openly killing their political enemies...
Clayton Jones, you be . . . like trippin'."The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.
It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act
And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.
