Judges Overturn Racially Motivated Voter Suppression Laws in WI, TX, & MI

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
Sure there is, sorry that the illegal aliens and dead people your idiot party relies are going to have a difficult time voting in Texas. Normal people don't need two years to get a photo ID, no matter how much liberals insist that their pet minorities are incapable of performing simple tasks.

Illegals and dead people are voting? That sounds like election fraud! I'll take a reputable source for that claim!
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Illegals and dead people are voting? That sounds like election fraud! I'll take a reputable source for that claim!

I suspect that it was from this guy

angry-computer.jpg
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
The Mussolini comparison is interesting.

The Mussolini comparison has always been spot on in my mind.

He's been channeling that a long time now.

I like Pasta and Meatballs obviously, and never have liked the guy.

He's like a fake Godfather wannabe, forget about it :p
 
Last edited:

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,452
6,878
136
Willfully constructing deceitful obstacles so as to restrict, disenfranchise and suppress specific demographics right to vote.

And then lie with a straight face about the true intent of establishing such heinous laws.

All this to keep control of state governments in which changes in demographics make holding on to the reins of government increasingly unrealistic and untenable.

There will come a point in time when all of these tricks that are designed to sidestep the letter and intent of the constitution won't work any more simply because there will be too many voters to disenfranchise and suppress.

Then what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
Sure there is, sorry that the illegal aliens and dead people your idiot party relies are going to have a difficult time voting in Texas. Normal people don't need two years to get a photo ID, no matter how much liberals insist that their pet minorities are incapable of performing simple tasks.

It ain't the democratic party that can't win without manipulating the vote. Wonder why that is?

:D. ROFLMAO
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,946
23,711
136
Sure there is, sorry that the illegal aliens and dead people your idiot party relies are going to have a difficult time voting in Texas. Normal people don't need two years to get a photo ID, no matter how much liberals insist that their pet minorities are incapable of performing simple tasks.

You really should stick to the gamer gate thread.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...e_strikes_blow_to_wisconsin_voter_id_law.html




I particularly like this part:


So the state can't make up bullshit to justify removing constitutional rights. Something I hope we can all agree on.


Edit: And now Texas Voter Law goes down

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...uled_illegal_under_the_voting_rights_act.html

Edit2:
And now Michigan!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...e_strikes_down_straight_party_voting_ban.html


Ok don't cite Michigan when talking voter ID laws. What you cited is NOT Michigan's voter id law. Michigan's voter ID law does not stop anyone from voting ever. Yes it requires ID however if you cannot produce and acceptable ID all you have to do is sign an affidavit saying who you are and your vote will be counted. If the election is contested in any way requiring a recount then your vote may be thrown out if upon investigation it is determined you voted fraudulently. What you cited was a law to not allow a straight party ticket voting option on the ballot. You could still vote for whomever you liked even straight ticket you just couldn't do it with a single selection. I don't by the courts argument that this somehow was violating your voting rights because you could still vote for anyone you liked regardless. I think people that vote straight ticket are mindless sheep but whatever it matters little at the end of the day.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
Ok don't cite Michigan when talking voter ID laws. What you cited is NOT Michigan's voter id law. Michigan's voter ID law does not stop anyone from voting ever. Yes it requires ID however if you cannot produce and acceptable ID all you have to do is sign an affidavit saying who you are and your vote will be counted. If the election is contested in any way requiring a recount then your vote may be thrown out if upon investigation it is determined you voted fraudulently. What you cited was a law to not allow a straight party ticket voting option on the ballot. You could still vote for whomever you liked even straight ticket you just couldn't do it with a single selection. I don't by the courts argument that this somehow was violating your voting rights because you could still vote for anyone you liked regardless. I think people that vote straight ticket are mindless sheep but whatever it matters little at the end of the day.

Well you do have a point. I could change the title to be more generic. Maybe overturned racially discriminatory voter suppression laws?
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
Ok don't cite Michigan when talking voter ID laws. What you cited is NOT Michigan's voter id law. Michigan's voter ID law does not stop anyone from voting ever.

As a Michigan resident I was really confused about the title given that Michigan has never, in my life, required an ID to vote.

You could still vote for whomever you liked even straight ticket you just couldn't do it with a single selection. I don't by the courts argument that this somehow was violating your voting rights because you could still vote for anyone you liked regardless. I think people that vote straight ticket are mindless sheep but whatever it matters little at the end of the day.

I really think this deserves its own thread considering that only 10 states even allow STV and its considered to be a large impediment to third party candidates
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx

Not sure what other state ballots look like but I am not a fan of STV. Having looked into the candidates for local government here there are often a lot of extreme candidates who get by on party affiliation alone. Hell that was cited as a partial reason for Kwame Kilpatrick's re-election after everyone already knew he was corrupt and that sure worked out well for Detroit
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
As a Michigan resident I was really confused about the title given that Michigan has never, in my life, required an ID to vote.



I really think this deserves its own thread considering that only 10 states even allow STV and its considered to be a large impediment to third party candidates
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx

Not sure what other state ballots look like but I am not a fan of STV. Having looked into the candidates for local government here there are often a lot of extreme candidates who get by on party affiliation alone. Hell that was cited as a partial reason for Kwame Kilpatrick's re-election after everyone already knew he was corrupt and that sure worked out well for Detroit

While you may have a point about straight party voting the court did not find that it was done for a legal reason.

Oh and I've updated the title to be more accurate for you guys. Don't say I never did anything for you!
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
Maybe overturned racially discriminatory voter suppression laws?

Given that none of the top 5 states with african american populations allow STV and only 1 of the top 15 allows it I'm not sure its an overall racial problem. I can see a limited time issue though given the recent change with the upcoming election. The ballot is still separated with R and D candidates in their own row. You can go down and fill in bubble by bubble a D is you want. Might take all of 1 minute longer if you don't read the ballot.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Oh I see you are confused. If this was about improving the vote then they would have given a lot of runway to give the 600,000 plus voters who didn't have the right IDs a couple of years to get them. It's still a wasteful use of tax payer dollars since there is no in person voter fraud.

Instead they didn't give enough time and made it hard to get the ID in a treasonous move to affect the election. Although. I'm sure the 2nd amendment people will be right in top of this assault on our very right to self-government.
animated-smileys-rolleyes-07.gif

Get to learn and love the Indiana version of the law because that's what's going to be implemented in all these places. Voter ID is never going to go away.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
Given that none of the top 5 states with african american populations allow STV and only 1 of the top 15 allows it I'm not sure its an overall racial problem. I can see a limited time issue though given the recent change with the upcoming election. The ballot is still separated with R and D candidates in their own row. You can go down and fill in bubble by bubble a D is you want. Might take all of 1 minute longer if you don't read the ballot.

From the article:

This impact, Drain concedes, might be justifiable if the state had a good reason for banning straight-party voting. It emphatically did not. In court filings, the state argued that the prohibition was necessary to “preserve the purity of elections,” “to guard against abuses of the elective franchise,” and to ensure that voters are truly “engaged” in the electoral process. But “[t]hese interests are tenuous at best,” Drain asserts. Michigan

has not demonstrated how straight-party voting has damaged, or could possibly damage, the “purity” of the election process. There is nothing “impure” or “disengaged” about choosing to vote for every candidate affiliated with, for example, the Republican Party. A voter may base their vote on any criteria he or she wishes, including party affiliation.
Drain then adds this acid coda:

Moreover, the idea that voting one’s party reflects ignorance or disengagement is, ironically, disconnected from reality. Voters may, and often do, have substantive reasons for voting only for members of certain political parties. Even if “disengaged” voting was problematic—and it is not—the Court finds that P.A. 268 does nothing to encourage voters to be any more “engaged.” … [T]here is nothing in the record to suggest that changing the ballot form will encourage voters to become political science scholars before voting. Therefore, functionally P.A. 268 is “disengaged” from its own justifications.

The main impact of this law is to slow voting in black neighborhoods. The judge found it does nothing to improve voting as the state suggested. You yourself said you could easily take an extra minute or two and select each candidate manually. So again what was the point of this law?

It's either a benignly intended but incompetently crafted law that doesn't do what it was created to do or it's meant to disenfranchise minorities.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
Get to learn and love the Indiana version of the law because that's what's going to be implemented in all these places. Voter ID is never going to go away.
I'll state it again. You've always had to identify yourself to vote.

I'm not sure we'll see Indiana type laws everywhere either. Since it reduces disenfranchisement from requiring Voter ID it makes it less attractive to certain legislatures to propose those laws in the first place.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Well you do have a point. I could change the title to be more generic. Maybe overturned racially discriminatory voter suppression laws?

Well except for the fact the not having a straight ticket voting option doesn't racially discriminate or suppress people from voting in any way. You cannot lump that in to a thread about racially discriminatory voter suppression laws ever because that's not what it is. Straight ticket voting is lazy voting and anyone who does it is the worst kind of lazy voter. They do their country a disservice with their failure to properly fulfill their responsibilities as a voter. While Voting is constitutional a right it is also a responsibility and we as citizens availing ourselves of those constitutional guarantees have a responsibility to use them wisely. Straight ticket voting is not very wise. It is just people being to lazy to actually take the time to gather a rudimentary amount of information about who they are voting for and why.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
From the article:



The main impact of this law is to slow voting in black neighborhoods. The judge found it does nothing to improve voting as the state suggested. You yourself said you could easily take an extra minute or two and select each candidate manually. So again what was the point of this law?

It's either a benignly intended but incompetently crafted law that doesn't do what it was created to do or it's meant to disenfranchise minorities.

I don't see how it will slow voting in black neighborhoods any more than any other neighborhoods. That description is nonsensical. That somehow taking 120 seconds to cast your votes vs 20 seconds to cast a vote is a ridiculous argument for racially motivated voter suppression especially when it applies equally to all voters.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,221
136
Well except for the fact the not having a straight ticket voting option doesn't racially discriminate or suppress people from voting in any way. You cannot lump that in to a thread about racially discriminatory voter suppression laws ever because that's not what it is.

If I'm not mistaken straight ticket voting was removed after it was found that black people used it disproportionately highly so it's absolutely racially discriminatory.

Straight ticket voting is lazy voting and anyone who does it is the worst kind of lazy voter. They do their country a disservice with their failure to properly fulfill their responsibilities as a voter. While Voting is constitutional a right it is also a responsibility and we as citizens availing ourselves of those constitutional guarantees have a responsibility to use them wisely. Straight ticket voting is not very wise. It is just people being to lazy to actually take the time to gather a rudimentary amount of information about who they are voting for and why.

It's not up to you to decide what type of voting is good and/or acceptable.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,221
136
I don't see how it will slow voting in black neighborhoods any more than any other neighborhoods. That description is nonsensical. That somehow taking 120 seconds to cast your votes vs 20 seconds to cast a vote is a ridiculous argument for racially motivated voter suppression especially when it applies equally to all voters.

Black neighborhoods often have fewer voting machines and dramatically longer waits than other neighborhoods. Sometimes the wait can be as much as several hours. If you increase the amount of time to vote by 500% as you describe in your post then the wait times will be even longer. Surely any rational person can see why several hour wait times would depress the black vote because who wants to wait that long and who has the time?

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites...s/ElectionDayLongLines-ResourceAllocation.pdf
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
The judges own words in the decision clearly say this was overturned because Blacks overwhelmingly vote for democrats over republicans and this might make that take longer leading to a lot of what ifs and might's about what would happen. Not one of those what ifs or might's deny anyone the ability to exercise their constitutional right to vote so the judge clearly overstepped here and made up a new constitutional right. If it does not deny anyone the right to vote there is nothing to strike down. Judge was wrong. 40 other state do not allow it and there is no precedent whatsoever for his decision.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Black neighborhoods often have fewer voting machines and dramatically longer waits than other neighborhoods. Sometimes the wait can be as much as several hours. If you increase the amount of time to vote by 500% as you describe in your post then the wait times will be even longer. Surely any rational person can see why several hour wait times would depress the black vote because who wants to wait that long and who has the time?

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites...s/ElectionDayLongLines-ResourceAllocation.pdf
That is a different problem altogether. Also you are assuming that all black voters vote straight ticket already which I seriously doubt. My guess is that more don't than do. In addition the hypothesized problems you are citing don't seem to have manifested themselves in the 40 states that don't allow it so there isn't really a factual basis for the argument. If there seriously is a time concern because of lack of equipment then that is a completely different issue however since it doesn't seem to exist in 40 other states then it is just another make believe argument until proven otherwise. The judge completely stepped outside his constitutional authority on this.

And just for the sake of throwing around misleading numbers that 500% gasp! increase is 1 minute 40 seconds. Seriously! Not allowing someone all the time they need to cast their votes is far more egregious. Basing a decision on moving the voter through quicker is backwards thinking.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,279
10,192
136
Illegals and dead people are voting? That sounds like election fraud! I'll take a reputable source for that claim!
How do dead people vote in person, sounds like the fraud is being committed by the vote counters.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,221
136
That is a different problem altogether. Also you are assuming that all black voters vote straight ticket already which I seriously doubt. My guess is that more don't than do.

It's most certainly not a different problem, they are two strongly related problems. If people have to wait a long time to vote and you want to implement a change that makes people take 500% longer to vote, those seem pretty hugely related, no? Also I don't know where you got the idea that I assumed all black voters vote straight ticket as that's totally irrelevant, the court made a finding of fact that black people hugely disproportionately use this method of voting. Each person that would have and now can't is quintupling their time in the booth by your estimate. That adds up really fast.

In addition the hypothesized problems you are citing don't seem to have manifested themselves in the 40 states that don't allow it so there isn't really a factual basis for the argument. If there seriously is a time concern because of lack of equipment then that is a completely different issue however since it doesn't seem to exist in 40 other states then it is just another make believe argument until proven otherwise. The judge completely stepped outside his constitutional authority on this.

Huh? On what possible basis are you making that determination that these problems haven't manifested themselves? The factual basis for the argument is as simple as can be: if voting times are already disproportionately long in some precincts and you're making it so wait times will be even more disproportionately longer, that's going to suppress the vote of minorities. I'm not sure how you get around taht logic.

And just for the sake of throwing around misleading numbers that 500% gasp! increase is 1 minute 40 seconds. Seriously! Not allowing someone all the time they need to cast their votes is far more egregious. Basing a decision on moving the voter through quicker is backwards thinking.

Uhmm, you realize that precincts can have thousands of people vote, right? 1:40 times 2,000 people is hours and hours of additional time.

Everyone has as much time as they need to cast their vote, not sure why you thought otherwise. This is simply preventing people from casting their votes as quickly and as easily as they want. It's not up to you how someone votes, you should let them express their preferences in whatever way works for them. I can't believe this is even an argument.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That is a different problem altogether. Also you are assuming that all black voters vote straight ticket already which I seriously doubt. My guess is that more don't than do. In addition the hypothesized problems you are citing don't seem to have manifested themselves in the 40 states that don't allow it so there isn't really a factual basis for the argument. If there seriously is a time concern because of lack of equipment then that is a completely different issue however since it doesn't seem to exist in 40 other states then it is just another make believe argument until proven otherwise. The judge completely stepped outside his constitutional authority on this.

And just for the sake of throwing around misleading numbers that 500% gasp! increase is 1 minute 40 seconds. Seriously! Not allowing someone all the time they need to cast their votes is far more egregious. Basing a decision on moving the voter through quicker is backwards thinking.

Please. The larger issue is voter suppression in general & the cumulative effect of more than one method. Your 1 min 40 sec delays turn into huge discouraging lines & hours long delays when voters arrive faster than the system can handle them. That's also enabled thru unfair distribution of voting machines, polling place location, voting days & hours, strict voter ID & other more subtle means, I'm sure.

It all comes down to enabling honest egalitarian democracy or inhibiting it. Repub legislatures in several states have made it clear which side they're on & it's not the right side of the argument at all. Their willingness to resort to underhanded methods tells us that they don't believe in democracy at all.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
There are already a disproportionately low number of polling stations and at said polling stations, a disproportionately low number of voting booths in Detroit, Flint, etc... Anyone who pretends that forcing an already 6-8 hour wait to vote into an 8-10 hour wait to vote isn't discriminatory is either blind, stupid, disingenuous, obtuse, or all of the above. Let us know when you have to wait 6+ hours to vote in a city like Livonia and get back to us...

And again, NOT TO MENTION, the voters in Michigan have 2x voted to keep straight party voting in place. When the majority party comes along and decides to kill it and attach appropriations on the measure so it can never be undone, you KNOW for a fact it is 100% political. Anyone who who claims otherwise is a fucktard....