RESTORE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
No one's right to vote has been taken away.
How many congressional districts have been drawn with majority minority populations in order to all but guarantee a minority wins the seat?
Pappy Jones
Verified User
If you don't have a photo ID you are too damned lazy. DMV's are all over the place; if you don't drive you can walk or take the bus; small town, Dmv in the next town over, no bus, have a friend drive you. And don't bother mentioning cost, in California for example a new ID cost $29, a renewal or replacement if lost is $6. Applying for a SS card is free and it comes quick, a copy of your birth certificate (in California) is $13 and arrives quick (I got mine in the mail in 5 days).
THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.
Activities Where Requiring A Photo ID Is Apparently Not Racist:
Purchasing alcohol/tobacco
Opening a bank account
Applying for food stamps/welfare/medicaid
Applying for social security/employment/unemployment
Renting/buying/mortgaging a house
Driving/renting/buying a car
Taking a flight/train/bus
Getting a hunting/fishing license
Filling a prescription
Donating blood
The list goes on
Activities Where Requiring A Photo ID Must Be Racist:
Voting
THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.
Activities Where Requiring A Photo ID Is Apparently Not Racist:
Purchasing alcohol/tobacco
Opening a bank account
Applying for food stamps/welfare/medicaid
Applying for social security/employment/unemployment
Renting/buying/mortgaging a house
Driving/renting/buying a car
Taking a flight/train/bus
Getting a hunting/fishing license
Filling a prescription
Donating blood
The list goes on
Activities Where Requiring A Photo ID Must Be Racist:
Voting
Attachments
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-suppression-incidents-2008
Voter Suppression Incidents 2008
A list of voter suppression incidents from the 2008 election.
Wendy R. Weiser, Margaret Chen
November 3, 2008
Voter Suppression Incidents 2008
A list of voter suppression incidents from the 2008 election.
Wendy R. Weiser, Margaret Chen
November 3, 2008
evince
Truthmatters
With less than two weeks before Election Day, substantial barriers remain that will continue making it difficult – and occasionally impossible – for some eligible voters to vote, and to be certain that their votes will count.* The past year has seen a spike in challenges facing voters – from no match-no vote policies, to partisan challenges to voter eligibility, voter purges, misguided voter matching policies, and voter intimidation.* Additionally, other systemic problems, including problems with ballots and voting technology, continue to plague the elections process.* In light of this developing story, the Brennan Center has compiled a comprehensive synopsis of current voter suppression incidents around the country.* The stories are categorized by theme, and this document will be continually updated in the days prior to the election.* Download PDF*here.
The Brennan Center will be updating and re-posting this document regularly until Election Day.
No Match, No Vote
Some states will not register voters or will purge them from the voter rolls if election officials cannot match their voter registration information against information in other government databases.* The problem is the computer match processes states use are inherently unreliable.* Between 15% and 30% of all match attempts fail because of typos, other administrative errors, and minor discrepancies between database records, such as a maiden name in one record and a married name in another or a hyphen in one record and not another.* No match, no vote policies can block hundreds of thousands of voters through no fault of their own.* More information on no match, no vote policies is available here.* This year, no match, no vote efforts across the country, if successful, could have a significant impact on the election, affecting tens of thousands of new voters.
Ohio.* On September 26, 2008, the Ohio Republican Party asked a federal court to issue an emergency ruling requiring the state to generate a list of more than 200,000 new voters whose information did not match other state records, presumably so those voters could be purged from the rolls right before the election, forced to vote provisional ballots, or challenged at the polls.* They asked the court before the absentee ballots cast by new registrants were opened and counted.* A federal court granted the temporary restraining order, and after a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed that order, the full appeals court, sitting en banc, reinstated it.* On emergency review, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the TRO on October 17, 2008, preventing chaos in the election in Ohio and protecting hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens from disenfranchisement-by-typo.* That same day, one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit filed a virtually identical suit with the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking essentially the same relief they lost in the federal courts.* He also asked the court to prevent the counting of absentee ballots cast by unmatched voters unless or until the mismatches are cleared.* The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on October 21, 2008, and on October 22, 2008, the Secretary of State issued two directives, which ensure that (1) no voter may be challenged at the polls solely on the basis of a mis-match; and (2) no absentee ballot may be rejected (or not counted) solely on the basis of a mis-match. *Despite these directives and the failure of the efforts in court, Representative John Boehner of Ohio wrote to President Bush asking him to pressure the Department of Justice to weigh in on the issue. *President Bush forwarded the request to Attorney General Mukasey, but press reports have indicated that the Attorney General will refrain from getting involved.
Florida.* On September 8, 2008, the Florida Secretary of State instructed election officials to reject voter registration applications that do not pass an error-prone computer match process.* In the first three weeks of the policy, 15% of registrations were initially bounced because of failed computer matches; election officials were able to catch and correct obvious typos in about ¾ of these cases, but to date, more than 12,000 voters are being kept off the rolls.* An analysis of the list reveals that African Americans make up 39% of blocked voters, and Latinos make up 34% of blocked voters whose race is known.* There will likely be not enough time for election officials to correct the errors in the tens of thousands of registrations that came in right, but there is some reason for optimism. *On October 21, 2008, legal counsel for the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections issued a legal opinion stating that election officials could implement an Election Day solution in which un-matched voters could resolve matching problems at the polls, ensuring that their votes will count. *The Brennan Center and other groups have called upon the supervisors to adopt a polling-place solution. *Even Secretary of State Kurt Browning, who initially took the position that county election officials were prohibited from developing an Election Day fix, has acknowledged in recent public statements that they are authorized to do so.* More information about "no match, no vote" in Florida, including the pending lawsuit filed by the Brennan Center in 2007, is available here.
Wisconsin. *After the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (the state's election board) rejected a proposal in July to retroactively implement a no "match, no vote" policy for all voters who registered since 2006, on September 10, the Attorney General sued the board seeking to force such a policy right before the election.* The Board conducted an audit of its voter rolls and found a 22% match failure rate, including for 4 of the 6 members of the board.* On October 23, 2008, the court dismissed the Attorney General's lawsuit, after concluding he lacked standing to bring the case; HAVA did not require the Government Accountability Board to link voters' eligibility to a successful match; and that doing so would violate the materiality provision of the Voting Rights Act.* More information can be found here.
Other states.* No match, no vote policies are in place also in Louisiana, Iowa, and South Dakota pursuant to policies adopted well before the 2008 elections.* Tens of thousands of voters have been denied registration in those states.* Evidence suggests that Colorado also may be treating some voter registrations that fail to match as incomplete.
*
The Brennan Center will be updating and re-posting this document regularly until Election Day.
No Match, No Vote
Some states will not register voters or will purge them from the voter rolls if election officials cannot match their voter registration information against information in other government databases.* The problem is the computer match processes states use are inherently unreliable.* Between 15% and 30% of all match attempts fail because of typos, other administrative errors, and minor discrepancies between database records, such as a maiden name in one record and a married name in another or a hyphen in one record and not another.* No match, no vote policies can block hundreds of thousands of voters through no fault of their own.* More information on no match, no vote policies is available here.* This year, no match, no vote efforts across the country, if successful, could have a significant impact on the election, affecting tens of thousands of new voters.
Ohio.* On September 26, 2008, the Ohio Republican Party asked a federal court to issue an emergency ruling requiring the state to generate a list of more than 200,000 new voters whose information did not match other state records, presumably so those voters could be purged from the rolls right before the election, forced to vote provisional ballots, or challenged at the polls.* They asked the court before the absentee ballots cast by new registrants were opened and counted.* A federal court granted the temporary restraining order, and after a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed that order, the full appeals court, sitting en banc, reinstated it.* On emergency review, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the TRO on October 17, 2008, preventing chaos in the election in Ohio and protecting hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens from disenfranchisement-by-typo.* That same day, one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit filed a virtually identical suit with the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking essentially the same relief they lost in the federal courts.* He also asked the court to prevent the counting of absentee ballots cast by unmatched voters unless or until the mismatches are cleared.* The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on October 21, 2008, and on October 22, 2008, the Secretary of State issued two directives, which ensure that (1) no voter may be challenged at the polls solely on the basis of a mis-match; and (2) no absentee ballot may be rejected (or not counted) solely on the basis of a mis-match. *Despite these directives and the failure of the efforts in court, Representative John Boehner of Ohio wrote to President Bush asking him to pressure the Department of Justice to weigh in on the issue. *President Bush forwarded the request to Attorney General Mukasey, but press reports have indicated that the Attorney General will refrain from getting involved.
Florida.* On September 8, 2008, the Florida Secretary of State instructed election officials to reject voter registration applications that do not pass an error-prone computer match process.* In the first three weeks of the policy, 15% of registrations were initially bounced because of failed computer matches; election officials were able to catch and correct obvious typos in about ¾ of these cases, but to date, more than 12,000 voters are being kept off the rolls.* An analysis of the list reveals that African Americans make up 39% of blocked voters, and Latinos make up 34% of blocked voters whose race is known.* There will likely be not enough time for election officials to correct the errors in the tens of thousands of registrations that came in right, but there is some reason for optimism. *On October 21, 2008, legal counsel for the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections issued a legal opinion stating that election officials could implement an Election Day solution in which un-matched voters could resolve matching problems at the polls, ensuring that their votes will count. *The Brennan Center and other groups have called upon the supervisors to adopt a polling-place solution. *Even Secretary of State Kurt Browning, who initially took the position that county election officials were prohibited from developing an Election Day fix, has acknowledged in recent public statements that they are authorized to do so.* More information about "no match, no vote" in Florida, including the pending lawsuit filed by the Brennan Center in 2007, is available here.
Wisconsin. *After the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (the state's election board) rejected a proposal in July to retroactively implement a no "match, no vote" policy for all voters who registered since 2006, on September 10, the Attorney General sued the board seeking to force such a policy right before the election.* The Board conducted an audit of its voter rolls and found a 22% match failure rate, including for 4 of the 6 members of the board.* On October 23, 2008, the court dismissed the Attorney General's lawsuit, after concluding he lacked standing to bring the case; HAVA did not require the Government Accountability Board to link voters' eligibility to a successful match; and that doing so would violate the materiality provision of the Voting Rights Act.* More information can be found here.
Other states.* No match, no vote policies are in place also in Louisiana, Iowa, and South Dakota pursuant to policies adopted well before the 2008 elections.* Tens of thousands of voters have been denied registration in those states.* Evidence suggests that Colorado also may be treating some voter registrations that fail to match as incomplete.
*
cawacko
Well-known member
What say you Desh?
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerrymander
gerrymandering\-d(ə-)riŋ\
transitive verb
1
:* to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible
2
:* to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group gerrymander a school district
See gerrymander defined for English-language learners
gerrymandering\-d(ə-)riŋ\
transitive verb
1
:* to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible
2
:* to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group gerrymander a school district
See gerrymander defined for English-language learners
evince
Truthmatters
see merriam websters
cawacko
Well-known member
Majority minority districts is gerrymandering