Today's Environmentalists Are Really Luddites

The Supremes are addressing late ballots, oh my.
 
AccessBlaster said:
Nope, but you can fly and enter certain secure areas like TSA
Ur
A birth certificate proves citizenship
A REAL ID (under the REAL ID Act) proves identity to a federal standard
Click to expand...
I'm telling you that in Virginia and Texas you have to show your birth certificate to get a drivers license. Meaning you have already proven citizenship. The regs for getting a ''Real' Id for US citizens is to show a birth certificate.
 
Thales750 said:
I'm telling you that in Virginia and Texas you have to show your birth certificate to get a drivers license. Meaning you have already proven citizenship. The regs for getting a ''Real' Id for US citizens is to show a birth certificate.
Click to expand...
If you have the U.S. birth certificate required to obtain a REAL ID, then you can vote problem solved, were arguing about semantics.

Once loopholes like ballot drop boxes, ballot counting practices, and the appearance of newly found ballots are addressed, our system will no longer be the joke that it is now.
 
Louisiana is often the butt of a lot of jokes, but most of our voting practices are fairly good. For instance, we are required to show a valid government ID, which includes state driver's licenses (which have pictures) or state-issued non-driver ID cards (again, with pictures). You must sign in on a pre-printed form which lists registered voters for the particular ward and precinct in which you are registered, and you have to vote at the official polling place. Absentee ballots are collected BEFORE the voting date and there is a prior cutoff after which absentee ballots are no longer accepted. At least two polling volunteers must check your ID before they also write your name in the official log book. None of that follows you into the voting booth because your vote and signature are not ever linked up to each other. Your ballot is still private.

Perfect? Probably not. But tighter than some other states? It seems to be, based on what I'm seeing in the news and on this forum.
 
The problem:

Twenty-eight states offer "no-excuse" absentee voting, which means that any voter can request and cast an absentee/mail ballot, no excuse or reason necessary.

Eight states and Washington, D.C., conduct elections entirely by mail (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington), which means voters do not need to request a ballot, and instead automatically receive one.

The remaining states require a voter to provide an excuse to qualify for an absentee/mail ballot.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
Louisiana is often the butt of a lot of jokes, but most of our voting practices are fairly good. For instance, we are required to show a valid government ID, which includes state driver's licenses (which have pictures) or state-issued non-driver ID cards (again, with pictures). You must sign in on a pre-printed form which lists registered voters for the particular ward and precinct in which you are registered, and you have to vote at the official polling place. Absentee ballots are collected BEFORE the voting date and there is a prior cutoff after which absentee ballots are no longer accepted. At least two polling volunteers must check your ID before they also write your name in the official log book. None of that follows you into the voting booth because your vote and signature are not ever linked up to each other. Your ballot is still private.

Perfect? Probably not. But tighter than some other states? It seems to be, based on what I'm seeing in the news and on this forum.
Click to expand...
Very similar to both Texas and Virginia the bottom line is all of this broken voting system news is absolutely fake news, there's no real problem.
 
Thales750 said:
all of this broken voting system news is absolutely fake news, there's no real problem.
Click to expand...

Other than those who say there is no problem in a system that invites repeated criticism because of repeated incidents regarding voter irregularity.
 
AccessBlaster said:
The Supremes are addressing late ballots, oh my.
Click to expand...
Which they should not be doing. The law states votes must be "cast" by election date not "received" by election date. Legitimate arguments have been made for "received" but it is the job of congress not the courts to write laws.
 
RogerCooper said:
Which they should not be doing. The law states votes must be "cast" by election date not "received" by election date. Legitimate arguments have been made for "received" but it is the job of congress not the courts to write laws.
Click to expand...
Late ballots undermined voter confidence as do mail-in ballots and drop boxes.
 
RogerCooper said:
That is question for the legislature not the courts to decide. The Supreme Court is not the third house of Congress.
Click to expand...

What IS for the courts to decide is whether whatever is happening is consistent with existing law. It is true that SCOTUS isn't supposed to make law, but when there is a dispute over either the law itself or an implementation of that law, SOMEONE has to get involved, and this one was dropped in the lap of SCOTUS. It is still possible for them to decide after consideration that Mississippi's law, while unwise, is not unconstitutional.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
What IS for the courts to decide is whether whatever is happening is consistent with existing law. It is true that SCOTUS isn't supposed to make law, but when there is a dispute over either the law itself or an implementation of that law, SOMEONE has to get involved, and this one was dropped in the lap of SCOTUS. It is still possible for them to decide after consideration that Mississippi's law, while unwise, is not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Constitutionality is not the question. Federal law specifies that all votes must be "cast" by election day.

Most states have interpreted that as covering mail-in ballots as long as they were post-marked by election day. This is consistent with contractual law where tendering something into the mail constitutes acceptance at that date. States have been doing this for years.

Now, some Republicans have decided that law should be rewritten to say "received" by election day without bothering to actually change the law through a legislative process. SCOTUS should refuse them.
 
RogerCooper said:
Federal law specifies that all votes must be "cast" by election day.
Click to expand...

I smell a "Bill Clinton" answer... It depends on what "cast" means. And the Progressive Liberals are casting a wide net, if they can get away with it.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
I smell a "Bill Clinton" answer... It depends on what "cast" means. And the Progressive Liberals are casting a wide net, if they can get away with it.
Click to expand...
Laws depend on what words mean. In this case the RNC has decided to redefine "cast" from the meaning that is historically had to meaning "received".

Who do you consider to be the "Progressive Liberals" in this? The Republican National Committee or the State of Mississippi? The Republican Party has swung sharply to the left in recent years but I don't I would characterize them as "Progressive Liberals".

Have you embraced the Critical Legal Studies movement's view that laws are all about power relationships and the actual text has no relevance.
 
RogerCooper said:
Who do you consider to be the "Progressive Liberals" in this?
Click to expand...
The ones who made the law ambiguous enough for this question to come up. The ones who would, if they could, flood the ballot box with late-arriving votes in enough quantity to flip an already-counted election.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
The ones who made the law ambiguous enough for this question to come up. The ones who would, if they could, flood the ballot box with late-arriving votes in enough quantity to flip an already-counted election.
Click to expand...
The law was passed by the heavily Republican legislature of the state of the Mississippi in 2020. Are you stating that they are "Progressive Liberals"?

Your statement about an "already-counted election" is curious. If the votes are arriving late, the counting is not finished. Mississippi law has 5 day cutoff so the count can be brought to an end.

The Federal law was passed in 1872. This is the first case to suggest that receiving ballots after election day is a violation.

www.scotusblog.com

Justices seem ready to overturn state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to overturn a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and then received within […]
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
 
Bottom line: all mail-in ballots should be received not just postmarked by Election Day, with no grace period. This could help standardize the process and improve confidence in the system, as neither side would have a clear advantage.
 
AccessBlaster said:
Bottom line: all mail-in ballots should be received not just postmarked by Election Day, with no grace period. This could help standardize the process and improve confidence in the system, as neither side would have a clear advantage.
Click to expand...
What clear advantage? wouldn't both sides need to have a postmark by the same day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Interesting artical about what government can and can't do. It's a bit longish, but worth the read.
2
Replies
38
Views
5,754
AccessBlaster
A
Steve R.
Doomsday Clock - A serious Concern Reduced to Comical Irrelevance
Replies
0
Views
1,283
Steve R.
Steve R.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom