Jump to content

Voter Suppression

Pancho

By Pancho
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nivek

Nivek 17417

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

What, you haven't read all these articles about people bringing their voter ID cards to schools and paper cutting students to death? It's an epidemic!

only thing protecting our students from voter id card paper cuts are people with AR15's with bump-stocks.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

aggie08
aggie08

This is how fucked up all of this is: this is pretty much the only CR thread with no GRHorn or Donkey or Don Johnson or Johnny Sack, etc. playing the both sides card or trolling or telling everyone th

bolverk
bolverk

One thing that strikes me is tha lack of voices here or elsewhere to defend against this worst act against democracy. Sure, you're against the abuse of FISA warrants. Me too! We should totally ha

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Today's Wisconsin vote will go down as one of the most shameful episodes in the post-civil rights era.  And it is 100% on the GOP.  This is their baby -- they INSIST on in-person voting in the middle

Posted Images

GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Does a county of a whopping 7000+ people need 9 fully staffed voting stations?  (Plus the equipment/delivery and logistics of serving 9 stations) 

the horror. 

Then why haven't they been shutdown before and coincidentally are only being proposed to be shutdown after the primary? You are a knuckle dragging moron.

This story is why I bitch so much about my state and Brian Kemp (running for Governor and still acting SoS) and our piss poor delectionsecurity and practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Nine stations!?!? Who can afford that? I mean you figure 3 people at a station making minimum wage. Well except for the volunteers of course but whose counting. I mean we’re talking about several hundred dollars here.

Not to mention the logistics of it all. Don’t forget about the logistics. I think I’m gonna take that new chick from logistics to the party. Gonna show her my o face. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87213

Posted
Posted (edited)

You always hear about GOP controlled states trying to cut early voting in heavily populated urban counties or where colleges are located.  Never in rural counties.

In Indiana in 2016, Marion County (Indianapolis) had 1 early voting site. Population: 900,000 people. 
Boone County (56,000 people) people had 9.

Marion County votes heavily Democratic. Boone County is a rural fuckwad county who votes R all day long.

 

It's a joke. It's blatant voter suppression.  Georgia wants to close polling locations for the gubernatorial general election, but they were sure as hell open for the GOP primary run-off.

Edited by Js1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16426

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nine stations!?!? Who can afford that? I mean you figure 3 people at a station making minimum wage. Well except for the volunteers of course but whose counting. I mean we’re talking about several hundred dollars here.

Not to mention the logistics of it all. Don’t forget about the logistics. I think I’m gonna take that new chick from logistics to the party. Gonna show her my o face. 

Maybe buy 2 Jet Fighters with that money - Dotard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13739

Posted
Posted

A group called Empower Texans challenged the voter registration of 4000 Houston voters so now those voters have to actively confirm their voting information or their voter registration is cancelled.  This group also claims that 30% of the 14.1M Texas voters are suspected fradulent voters.

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/third-ward-voter-rights-under-challenge-after-republican-initiative-10775764

I don't understand how a person or group can issue a challenge and then the person being challenged has to confirm their right to vote.  I would think the challenger has to actively prove the person doesn't have a right to vote or that they live somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18158

Posted
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

A group called Empower Texans challenged the voter registration of 4000 Houston voters so now those voters have to actively confirm their voting information or their voter registration is cancelled.  This group also claims that 30% of the 14.1M Texas voters are suspected fradulent voters.

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/third-ward-voter-rights-under-challenge-after-republican-initiative-10775764

I don't understand how a person or group can issue a challenge and then the person being challenged has to confirm their right to vote.  I would think the challenger has to actively prove the person doesn't have a right to vote or that they live somewhere else.

Do you understand how the GOP has a majority in Texas?  Because there's your answer.  

 

*looks like AHB beat me to it.  

Edited by Chad Fuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16702

Posted
Posted
A group called Empower Texans challenged the voter registration of 4000 Houston voters so now those voters have to actively confirm their voting information or their voter registration is cancelled.  This group also claims that 30% of the 14.1M Texas voters are suspected fradulent voters.
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/third-ward-voter-rights-under-challenge-after-republican-initiative-10775764
I don't understand how a person or group can issue a challenge and then the person being challenged has to confirm their right to vote.  I would think the challenger has to actively prove the person doesn't have a right to vote or that they live somewhere else.
That is absolute horseshit.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90663

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Do you understand how the GOP has a majority in Texas?  Because there's your answer.  

Given how much data these groups can access, it wouldn't be hard to automate the process - just go after X number of voters in certain neighborhoods in the larger cities.  

If they are faking address changes, I would think this starts to get into felony territory, since you're fucking with official documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Not surprised at all by anything Republicans do in Texas anymore.  They are scared shitless of increased Taxes.  

No doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13739

Posted
Posted

I think these groups claim that the DPS name/address record do not match the voter registration name/address.    And since it doesn't appear they have to demonstrate why they think this, their logic may be that 123 Main St may not equal 123 Main Street.     

It's not in the interest of Empower Texans to perform due diligence since there isn't a penalty for falsely challenging a voter registration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106952

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I think these groups claim that the DPS name/address record do not match the voter registration name/address.    And since it doesn't appear they have to demonstrate why they think this, their logic may be that 123 Main St may not equal 123 Main Street.     

It's not in the interest of Empower Texans to perform due diligence since there isn't a penalty for falsely challenging a voter registration.

Not so fast, my friend.....

The statute at issue:

Quote 


 

Sec. 16.092. SWORN STATEMENT REQUIRED. A voter desiring to challenge a registration must file with the registrar a sworn statement of the grounds for the challenge that:

(1) identifies the voter whose registration is being challenged; and

(2) states a specific qualification for registration that the challenged voter has not met based on the personal knowledge of the voter desiring to challenge the registration. 



 

Sec. 16.0921. CONFIRMATION NOTICE ON CHALLENGE BASED ON RESIDENCE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), on the filing of a sworn statement under Section 16.092 alleging a ground based on residence, the registrar shall promptly deliver to the voter whose registration is challenged a confirmation notice in accordance with Section 15.051.

(b) If the voter fails to submit a response to the registrar in accordance with Section 15.053, the registrar shall enter the voter's name on the suspense list.

(c) The registrar may not deliver a confirmation notice resulting from a sworn statement filed after the 75th day before the date of the general election for state and county officers until after the date of that election. This subsection does not apply to a person who submits a registration application after the 75th day and prior to the 30th day before the general election for state and county officers.

So, it was a statement, UNDER OATH, that Person X's address doesn't match their voter registration address.  Sworn statement means "under penalty of perjury."  If I got one of these notices, I would:

1) submit a public information act request for all 16.092 sworn statements submitted with respect to me and/or my address.

2) see who filed that statement.

3) file a criminal complaint of perjury with the district attorney.

4) (need to research whether/how this is actionable) file a suit against that person for conspiracy to violate the Voting Rights Act (evidence to support this would include the last name of the voters to be stricken -- I bet a disproportionate number are hispanic -- whether the challenged names fall in specific census tracts that have a disproportionately high number of minorities, and similar evidence).  But I confess to not knowing the ins and outs of voting rights litigation.

5) alternatively/additionally, a civil action for defamation/libel, as you have falsely represented that I am not properly registered to vote.

 

Bottom line, I'm betting these suckers LIED on their sworn statements, and I'm betting an analysis/overlay of the 4,000 they filed are heavily weighted towards minority voters.  It's repugnant, disgusting, and needs to have the full light of day cast on it for all to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13739

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not so fast, my friend.....

The statute at issue:

So, it was a statement, UNDER OATH, that Person X's address doesn't match their voter registration address.  Sworn statement means "under penalty of perjury."  If I got one of these notices, I would:

1) submit a public information act request for all 16.092 sworn statements submitted with respect to me and/or my address.

2) see who filed that statement.

3) file a criminal complaint of perjury with the district attorney.

4) (need to research whether/how this is actionable) file a suit against that person for conspiracy to violate the Voting Rights Act (evidence to support this would include the last name of the voters to be stricken -- I bet a disproportionate number are hispanic -- whether the challenged names fall in specific census tracts that have a disproportionately high number of minorities, and similar evidence).  But I confess to not knowing the ins and outs of voting rights litigation.

5) alternatively/additionally, a civil action for defamation/libel, as you have falsely represented that I am not properly registered to vote.

 

Bottom line, I'm betting these suckers LIED on their sworn statements, and I'm betting an analysis/overlay of the 4,000 they filed are heavily weighted towards minority voters.  It's repugnant, disgusting, and needs to have the full light of day cast on it for all to see.

Of course they confined their analysis/challenges on areas where they would expect close to zero political support.  It's basically the opposite of sending operatives in supportive areas to register votes.    It would seem unlikely that someone challenging voters would be required to be an equal opportunity suppressor.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106952

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Of course they confined their analysis/challenges on areas where they would expect close to zero political support.  It's basically the opposite of sending operatives in supportive areas to register votes.    It would seem unlikely that someone challenging voters would be required to be an equal opportunity suppressor.  

 

If that's the case, good.  Problem is, by submitting what are surely numerous FALSE sworn statements, they committed a crime in doing so.  They made false representations about folks, with intent to harm them, in doing so.  That was bad.  They shouldn't have done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28934

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

 

I saw something about that yesterday. They want to shut down a bunch of polling stations in mostly black districts because they're not wheelchair accessible. I'd be willing to bet a lot of polling stations in districts more likely to vote R aren't wheelchair accessible and won't suffer the same fate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I saw something about that yesterday. They want to shut down a bunch of polling stations in mostly black districts because they're not wheelchair accessible. I'd be willing to bet a lot of polling stations in districts more likely to vote R aren't wheelchair accessible and won't suffer the same fate. 

This is precisely what is happening in that rural black majority southern Georgia county, even though somehow it was open for the primaries and runoffs. Suddenly we must think of all the handicapped and how we shouldn't let any polling place be open that isn't 100% accessible to everyone!

We're closer to the 60's in terms of voting rights now than we were 10 years ago before the voter ID laws started getting passed. Fuck everyone of you who doesn't see this as blatant voter suppression by the GOP.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3828

Posted
Posted
On 8/21/2018 at 12:41 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

A group called Empower Texans challenged the voter registration of 4000 Houston voters so now those voters have to actively confirm their voting information or their voter registration is cancelled.  This group also claims that 30% of the 14.1M Texas voters are suspected fradulent voters.

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/third-ward-voter-rights-under-challenge-after-republican-initiative-10775764

I don't understand how a person or group can issue a challenge and then the person being challenged has to confirm their right to vote.  I would think the challenger has to actively prove the person doesn't have a right to vote or that they live somewhere else.

For whatever reason, challenges based on residence have different rules than other challenges (say on felony conviction).  Maybe the lawmakers thought residence was easy enough to show without a hearing.  They also don't "cancel" the registrations like other challenges can.  If residency suspends your registration, you stay on the voter rolls for up to 4 years and can unsuspend yourself by simply filling out a form at the polling location:

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pol-sub/7-14f.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13739

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

For whatever reason, challenges based on residence have different rules than other challenges (say on felony conviction).  Maybe the lawmakers thought residence was easy enough to show without a hearing.  They also don't "cancel" the registrations like other challenges can.  If residency suspends your registration, you stay on the voter rolls for up to 4 years and can unsuspend yourself by simply filling out a form at the polling location:

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pol-sub/7-14f.pdf

Good to know.  The Harris county letter, referenced in the Houston Press story, is confusing.  Yes, a thorough reading indicates that it's most likely 2-4 years but it's worded as "...confirming your address when voting by November 30 following the second general election for state and county officers that occurs after the date the confirmation notice is mailed."

While I'm sure its legally and factually correct, why not just state "you have to confirm your address by November 30, 2020 (or whenever) or you will be removed from the voter rolls.  And then state exactly the ways to confirm your address.  

One would think the Voter Registrar wants people to be confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87213

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Lulz. Like Kansas can afford to hire someone

You laugh, but they'll just cut public school to 3 days a week to pay for this guy to drive around and close polling sites in any precinct that votes over 51% D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13739

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

If Randolph County is majority African-American, who are the county leaders that are trying to disenfranchise the African-Americans?   Something doesn't add up unless its barely majority A-A, and their voter turnout is low.     This isn't a majority white county that is disenfranchising the black part of town?

I can also see some legitimacy to the closing if they're required to make the voting locations ADA compliant but don't have the money or the will to do so.   It's poor governing to not serve your constituents but not unheard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87213

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Randolph County is majority African-American, who are the county leaders that are trying to disenfranchise the African-Americans?   Something doesn't add up unless its barely majority A-A, and their voter turnout is low.     This isn't a majority white county that is disenfranchising the black part of town?

I can also see some legitimacy to the closing if they're required to make the voting locations ADA compliant but don't have the money or the will to do so.   It's poor governing to not serve your constituents but not unheard of.

The article mentions Randolph County does not currently have a serving Elections Supervisor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87213

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Texas wants to make it more difficult for people to obtain photo IDs by closing 83 DPS offices, 78 of which are the only DPS offices in their counties.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/08/23/four-d-fw-drivers-license-offices-could-close-along-83-others-texas-dps-list

"A sTaTe IsSuEd IdEnTiFiCaTiOn Is NoT hArD tO gEt."

-Republicans who support voter ID like StupidSlorch

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted

Amazing what shining a light on voter suppression can do, very happy at least this story shows how fucked up our state's (and most of the other southern states) voting priorities are.

 

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

Texas wants to make it more difficult for people to obtain photo IDs by closing 83 DPS offices, 78 of which are the only DPS offices in their counties.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/08/23/four-d-fw-drivers-license-offices-could-close-along-83-others-texas-dps-list

 

Alabama did that very same thing with grotesque accuracy. Pass voter ID laws then immediately shut down DPS and DMV officers in majority black areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...