Supreme Court Disses Repubs

I'm surprised no one thought this newsworthy. If Obama wins Ohio by a slim margin (and the electoral college by a slim margin also), this court decision will be to Republicans what Gore Vs. Bush was to Democrats.
 
Oliver said:
I listened to those news with half an ear since it didn't sound dramatic.
Some beef over state-vs-federal law. The story is dead anyway, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It is NOW. If the court had ruled the other way, up to half a million voter registrations would have been affected. Ohio would have had to find a way to account for all those discrepancies in about two and a half weeks time.
 
What suprises me is that someone would champion this in the manner you did. Deliberate dishonesty, or just misunderstanding the reality of it being turned over on a technicality?

ETA: Why anyone would be against attempts to curb voter fraud is beyond me. Keep your heart in your chest and off your sleeve when fabricating responses please.
 
Last edited:
Malerin said:
It is NOW. If the court had ruled the other way, up to half a million voter registrations would have been affected. Ohio would have had to find a way to account for all those discrepancies in about two and a half weeks time.
Click to expand...


Well, I heard about it when it was over - due to the ruling. But I also
have to admit that the whole voter validation/registration process sucks
from any democratic POV. Why don't you guys just get "general automatic
Federal registration" and a free invitation to the elections like in other
western countries? It sounds scary that people have to fear to be excluded.
 
Oliver said:
Well, I heard about it when it was over - due to the ruling. But I also
have to admit that the whole voter validation/registration process sucks
from any democratic POV. Why don't you guys just get "general automatic
Federal registration" and a free invitation to the elections like in other
western countries? It sounds scary that people have to fear to be excluded.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. We just had a federal election in Canada. I've recently moved, so my "registration" info was incorrect. What did I have to do to vote in my new riding? Show up to the polling station on voting day with my driver's license (which had my old address on it) and a copy of my lease (with my new address on it). Simple. Even if I had no ID whatsoever, I could still have voted by swearing an oath and being vouched for by someone with ID.
 
D'rok said:
Amen to that. We just had a federal election in Canada. I've recently moved, so my "registration" info was incorrect. What did I have to do to vote in my new riding? Show up to the polling station on voting day with my driver's license (which had my old address on it) and a copy of my lease (with my new address on it). Simple. Even if I had no ID whatsoever, I could still have voted by swearing an oath and being vouched for by someone with ID.
Click to expand...


I have no Idea why Americans didn't implement those simple "voting rights" yet.
The explanation I heard was that you don't have to register when you move to
a new place. And Americans "don't want to let the Fed's know where you live".

At least that was the explanation I got. And it's not really a convincing answer
in light of all the drama going on before and on election days regarding voting-
problems.

A sad reality - and it's 2008.
 
These 200,000 new registrants were just flagged because they didn't match records in other government databases (driver's licenses and SSNs). It could be nothing more than mismatches due to different ways of typing the address (do you put "Street" or "St."?) or data entry errors, or legit mismatches like people who recently moved or had recent name changes.

The point of the decision, as I read it, is that the data matching law wasn't written to determine voter eligibility. Other than the matching failure, the GOP offered no evidence of fraud in these cases.

I was discussing this on a neighborhood list yesterday and today. Someone was trying to argue that these databases aren't so prone to error. Funny--I'd just made 3 phone calls to AT&T to try to get them to stop calling me (by automated machine--not a human) about my overdue wireless bill. . . for the simple reason that I am not now and never have been an AT&T wireless customer in my entire life. Just after I posted that this morning, I got yet another call from the machine!

Sorry, I just don't believe databases are so infallible!

On the other hand, I think they should verify as many as they can, and any that look bad upon closer look should be made to cast provisional ballots (if they show up to vote).
 
Last edited:
It's telling that we still see these efforts to deny the right to vote to voters in "key states".

It doesn't matter who is trying this kind of disenfranchisement of citizens, it is unacceptable in any case, and should be treated as an attempt to illegally remove citizenship from citizens. It is next to treason.
 
It is now crystal clear that the SCOTUS is just another branch of the leftist, activist-judiciary which needs to be reined in...

... that's the SCOTUS headed by "conservative" Justice Roberts, btw ;)

[sarcasm off]
 
jj said:
It's telling that we still see these efforts to deny the right to vote to voters in "key states".

It doesn't matter who is trying this kind of disenfranchisement of citizens, it is unacceptable in any case, and should be treated as an attempt to illegally remove citizenship from citizens. It is next to treason.
Click to expand...


+1

Maybe someone introduces some "universal voter registration" like in
all the western parliamentary systems some day - to get rid of those
horrible circumstances.
 
Does anyone have a copy of the ruling?

I ask because I'd really like to know if the SCOTUS made the ruling based on pragmatic (not enough time to check voter registrations) or principled (siding with the GOP on this would amount to voter disenfranchisement) reasons.

In any case, bully for the Roberts SCOTUS - I think they got this one right. :)

ETA: Ah, I see now. The SCOTUS basically kicked the suit because the Ohio GOP, as a private group, didn't have the proper standing to mount a challenge...

... they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

"They didn't deal with the merits of the case," said Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett. "What they dealt with was a technicality on whether we had standing or not to bring the action." ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GOP Caging lists have already purged several million voters from the rolls nationwide.

As I had it explained to me, a common tactic they use is to exclude lists of convicted Felons. If a "John Brown" from Tallahassee is a felon, they challenge every John Brown from in and around that city and they are dropped from the rolls without any verification whatsoever.
 
Pardalis said:
-1

You've never voted, remember.
Click to expand...


I remember that each time I get automatically invited. Which doesn't
disprove my point - quite the opposite, as your fellow Canadian citizen
pointed out.
 
BenBurch said:
GOP Caging lists have already purged several million voters from the rolls nationwide.

As I had it explained to me, a common tactic they use is to exclude lists of convicted Felons. If a "John Brown" from Tallahassee is a felon, they challenge every John Brown from in and around that city and they are dropped from the rolls without any verification whatsoever.
Click to expand...

How are able to use this to their advantage? Are people named 'John Brown' more likely to vote democrat?
 
Oliver said:
I remember that each time I get automatically invited. Which doesn't disprove my point - quite the opposite, as your fellow Canadian citizen
pointed out.
Click to expand...

Again:

Oliver said:
the whole voter validation/registration process sucks from any democratic POV.

snip

It sounds scary that people have to fear to be excluded.
Click to expand...

Oliver said:
I have no Idea why Americans didn't implement those simple "voting rights" yet.

snip

A sad reality - and it's 2008.
Click to expand...

Oliver said:
to get rid of those horrible circumstances.
Click to expand...

You don't vote, not even on a municipal level, never have, ever, what do you care about another country's voting system?

You're simply incredible.
 
Pardalis said:
Again:

You don't vote, not even on a municipal level, never have, ever, what do you care about another country's voting system?

You're simply incredible.
Click to expand...


How so? Don't you think the American registering system sucks,
no matter if you voted before or not? How does this even relate
to anything? Do I need a driving license to say that uneconomic
Cars suck? :boggled:

Derailing mood, again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom