Limits to voter registration

[AnonymouseUser]

I can hardly wait to read why what we can see happening with our own eyes did not really happen. I'll stay tuned.

lol--James O'Keefe nonsense. Not surprised you swallowed the bait and the hook on this one.

That didn't take long.

 

[boomerang]

That didn't take long.

And from one of the most likely suspects too!

Well, I've got to go and take money out of the pocket of some illegal by mowing my own lawn right now. I'll check back later.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

take money out of the pocket of some illegal by mowing my own lawn right now.

Careful, that could be a hate crime**!

** against Democrats, of course

 

[fskimospy]

Disregarding our own laws like the deadline for voter registration? Hell, why not just throw out any and all voter registration deadlines why you're at it then since the same reasoning applies in any other state, why bother with the rationale of a hurricane if the highest priority is maximum voter registration? But of course you won't do that, you'll continue to pick and choose what laws to follow or which to disregard based solely on what you perceive is in your political benefit.

Because federal law trumps state law and a federal judge determined that federal law required an extension. This is the exact opposite of throwing out the law. In fact, to not have extended it would have been to disregard the law.

 

[fskimospy]

That didn't take long.

Even though O'Keefe has been shown to deceptively edit and present videos multiple times in the past I'm sure that THIS TIME he's telling the truth.

I mean how many times do you guys need to be duped by the same idiot before you stop paying attention to him?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Even though O'Keefe has been shown to deceptively edit and present videos multiple times in the past I'm sure that THIS TIME he's telling the truth.

I mean how many times do you guys need to be duped by the same idiot before you stop paying attention to him?

Fine, ignore that one if you must. How will you downplay the others?

 

[Cozarkian]

What am I missing here? Why do so many states put limits on registering?

1. With no registration deadline you could use early voting or absentee voting in one state, then decide to "move" to a different state and vote there as well, permitting you to vote twice in one election.

2. Polls are often ran by volunteer workers that are provided the resources only to verify voter ID by checking the approved registration rolls. States don't want to train poll workers and proved the resources necessary for same-day registration. The States would also need to update their records with same-day registrations and I suspect there is a greater chance of losing registrations if it is done at the polling place.

3. Having an early registration deadline encourages people to become involved in the political process in advance of the election, rather than waiting for the last day when they don't have time to become an informed voter.

I suspect that most people will agree the first reason is a good one and that the second is a practical necessity. The third will be hotly contested. I've chosen to phrase it in the manner I think it would be presented by a State as a favorable reason, although I reject it as a valid reason myself.

Personally, I think registration deadlines should be set based upon #1 and #2 solely, so that that registration closes on the early of 1) the day before polling places open and 2) the date it must close in order for the State to finalize, publish and transport the registration records to the polling places.

 

[glenn1]

Because federal law trumps state law and a federal judge determined that federal law required an extension. This is the exact opposite of throwing out the law. In fact, to not have extended it would have been to disregard the law.

Not surprised you still don't get it. If you think it disenfranchises people to not have a voter registration deadline extension, then setting the date later in the first place as a means to avoid that disenfranchisement is way too intelligent for you to grasp.

 

[fskimospy]

Not surprised you still don't get it. If you think it disenfranchises people to not have a voter registration deadline extension, then setting the date later in the first place as a means to avoid that disenfranchisement is way too intelligent for you to grasp.

No, that would be preferable. It doesn't change the fact that in this case the law isn't being disregarded, it is in fact being followed. To NOT extend the deadline would be to disregard the law and we both already agreed that following the law was important, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Fine, ignore that one if you must. How will you downplay the others?

I'm not 'ignoring it if I must', I'm just saying that videos produced by a known liar are stupid to accept uncritically. Do you dispute that O'Keefe is a known liar or do you dispute that videos produced by known liars shouldn't be taken uncritically? Presumably not.

As to the other one you posted I have no idea what's happening there. It's a contextless Youtube video.

 

[glenn1]

No, that would be preferable. It doesn't change the fact that in this case the law isn't being disregarded, it is in fact being followed. To NOT extend the deadline would be to disregard the law and we both already agreed that following the law was important, right?

Actually no, that's not what the law says. "Federal law requires the state to provide voters with enough time to register before the election," said Myrna Pérez, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "With this extension, more citizens will be able to exercise their most fundamental right in our democracy.

You can't argue when other states require registration even earlier than Florida, that without an extension Florida voters wouldn't have "enough time." Enough time is an inherently arbitrary standard and if that's the case for Florida then I fully expect that you'll file suit against every state that doesn't have some arbitrarily long registration period that you define.

How you and your fellows make up arbitrary rationales after the fact isn't surprising, but you should at least maintain the pretense of logic.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually no, that's not what the law says. "Federal law requires the state to provide voters with enough time to register before the election," said Myrna Pérez, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "With this extension, more citizens will be able to exercise their most fundamental right in our democracy.

You can't argue when other states require registration even earlier than Florida, that without an extension Florida voters wouldn't have "enough time." Enough time is an inherently arbitrary standard and if that's the case for Florida then I fully expect that you'll file suit against every state that doesn't have some arbitrarily long registration period that you define.

How you and your fellows make up arbitrary rationales after the fact isn't surprising, but you should at least maintain the pretense of logic.

So in other words you're saying you have a superior grasp on the law than a federal judge. I do not find this argument convincing. If the decision is overturned then let's talk again. Until then the law is being followed and to NOT extend it would be to violate the law, which we both agreed was wrong.

 

[glenn1]

So in other words you're saying you have a superior grasp on the law than a federal judge. I do not find this argument convincing. If the decision is overturned then let's talk again. Until then the law is being followed and to NOT extend it would be to violate the law, which we both agreed was wrong.

If it went to SCOTUS then I have little doubt the decision would be overturned. This is also the kind of ruling that will be counterproductive to your aims since now other states are likely to move back their voter registration deadlines. Nothing in the CRA of 1964, Motor Voter, or any other law stipulates how far from the election a state can set the deadline for voter registration. So to account for future lawsuits where the deadline gets moved back x days for the next (fill in reason here) it will be moved up from a base of 45 or 60 days before the election.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I'm not 'ignoring it if I must', I'm just saying that videos produced by a known liar are stupid to accept uncritically. Do you dispute that O'Keefe is a known liar or do you dispute that videos produced by known liars shouldn't be taken uncritically? Presumably not.

As to the other one you posted I have no idea what's happening there. It's a contextless Youtube video.

I'm not seeing any reports that Schulkin is denying the authenticity of the video. The Washington Times also seems to be falling for the "lies." If you want more Democratic voter fraud, you just have to look for it:

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not seeing any reports that Schulkin is denying the authenticity of the video. The Washington Times also seems to be falling for the "lies." If you want more Democratic voter fraud, you just have to look for it:

So your link is someone else commenting about a James O'Keefe video? Are you even bothering to read the things you link?

 

[Aegeon]

If it went to SCOTUS then I have little doubt the decision would be overturned. This is also the kind of ruling that will be counterproductive to your aims since now other states are likely to move back their voter registration deadlines. Nothing in the CRA of 1964, Motor Voter, or any other law stipulates how far from the election a state can set the deadline for voter registration. So to account for future lawsuits where the deadline gets moved back x days for the next (fill in reason here) it will be moved up from a base of 45 or 60 days before the election.

This is a preposterous position to be polite about it. (And clearly ignores how the SCOTUS would realistically respond to this issue.)

Your logic does not even make remote sense. First of all, the actual specific most glaring problem with Governor Scott's decision is he ordered mandatory evacuations and then made no allowance for adjusting the voting deadlines. Whatever you think about it, people who do to a busy schedule (or whom had just moved and had prioritized a couple other things first) may have intentionally planned to submit their voting registration requests close to the deadline but clearly in time, and suddenly found they could not do so. Someone who put their registration request in the mail with what should ordinarily be plenty of time, could easily have found that it was not enough after having bad luck with general mail delays along with specifically post offices and other parts of the USPS temporarily shut down in the area due to the hurricane further delaying delivery. In other words, part of the problem had nothing to do with the general date, but specifically the failure to make a reasonable accommodation for a specific emergency which could prevent people who otherwise would have successfully registered to vote from doing so.

The rest of your argument ignores that no state in the US has more than a true 30 day ahead of the election registration deadline, and any attempt to measurably change this to a higher number would be extremely unlikely to hold up to legal scrutiny. (The only arguable slight variation is Nevada which requires the mail in registration requests to be merely postmarked by 31 days before the election, but allows in person and online voter registration closer to the election.) The reality as noted in this thread is with computers and other forms of electronic transmission today, an argument that the logistical process suddenly requires a measurably longer deadline is not going to be an argument courts will buy. The hypothetical change is virtually certain to be struck down by the remaining provisions in the Voting Rights Act since its going to be viewed as a clearly unnecessary measure realistically aimed and primarily suppressing the votes of certain groups. The move might also run afoul of other Federal laws given the degree to which is could suppress the vote of people who have recently moved to become permanent residents of the state in question for example.

In other words, the possible consequence you're talking about it are not even a true realistic threat.

 

[emperus]

Everybody should understand why the Governor did this. It is the same reason some people wait 6 hours to vote. For a party that claims to love freedom and liberty, they do everything to limit the fundamental freedom we have.

This should have been a no brainer. A natural disaster happens, you extend the registration period to compensate.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The Washington Times also seems to be falling for the "lies."

So your link is someone else commenting about a James O'Keefe video? Are you even bothering to read the things you link?

That's what I said. You're not very bright, are you?

 

[fskimospy]

That's what I said. You're not very bright, are you?

I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think someone else acting stupidly would make you acting stupidly any better. Can you help us 'not very bright' individuals out and explain it?

 

[Aegeon]

That's what I said. You're not very bright, are you?

You seem to be admitting you have no creditable evidence of voting fraud then...

 

[BurnItDwn]

I think that the first time you contribute or pay a tax in your life, you should be registered to vote. You buy a pack of gum in a 7-11 and you pay sales tax, then you have a right to vote.

No more taxation without representation.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

You seem to be admitting you have no creditable evidence of voting fraud then...

If by "credible" you mean "as reported by Clinton News Network", then you're not going to get it.

More voter fraud:

SURPRISE. Democrats Registering Dead People To Vote In Virginia

The FBI and local police are investigating how at least 19 dead Virginians were recently re-registered to vote in this critical swing state.

 

[BurnItDwn]

When somebody says "credible" they generally mean "not make believe".

 

[AnonymouseUser]

When somebody says "credible" they generally mean "not make believe".

There's no smoke and mirrors in those videos.

 

[Aegeon]

If by "credible" you mean "as reported by Clinton News Network", then you're not going to get it.

Ok, looking over the top of the two videos, the guy making it is clearly a jerk, (and fairly creepy in a way that may have made the individual concerned about her personal safety) and its possible the volunteer was confused on a rule or possibly two if I'm missing another detail, but it absolutely indisputably was not a case of actual voter fraud or voter registration fraud. (Which requires something like a person being falsely registered to vote or possibly someone throwing away a voter registration request after its filled out once they learn the person plans to vote for the "wrong" candidate.) Some of the details such as the license plate were not even very relevant. (We don't know if the person very recently moved, and it there is no legal issue with an out of state volunteer registering people in another state.)

The reality is you're wasting our time by posting videos which clearly are not about actual voter fraud, in spite of what the individual posting the video may say. This does not exactly help your credibility.

(For the record, voter registration or other voter fraud does rarely happen, but usually this has been about paid canvassers cheating the organization paying them by putting in bogus information and getting paid for doing so by the tricked organization, but this has no impact of the actual election results since there is no intent by anyone to actually have the false registrants actually vote. There are are reasonable questions about what protections are actually necessary to protect against the rare instances of voting fraud which actually occur.)