Voter Suppression

[Guest Lobo]

^

It should be, but it can't.  I've learned you can fuck with a lot of people.  You can expose them, embarrass them, shame them, coerce them, even threaten them.  But you can't touch judges.  Don't even type their names into your computer.  You can fuck with Members of Congress, but don't even daydream about fucking with a judge.  /protip

[gmr548 16681]

On 2/4/2022 at 9:19 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Not sure what to make of that. First, I think it’s silly for anyone who isn’t a politician and a member of a political party, in office or running for office, to identify themselves as either a Republican or a Democrat. And second, if I’m voting for Democratic candidates, what difference does it make if I’m considered to be a registered Republican by the local elections board (or whatever)? Would that necessarily be a bad thing if I happened to think that the Republicans had gone off the deep end and didn’t represent my interests in any way? So I’m voting for the Democratic candidate. Good. You should record that a registered Republican is voting for the Democratic candidate because the Republican Party is too fucked up.

Well for starters, it disenfranchises them in the Democratic primary. Depending on what voter data is available to campaigns in FL (I am not sure), it could inundate them with GOP messaging and insulate them from contact with Democratic campaigns.

May or may not make a difference in the general election, but it's a thumb on the scale.

Edited February 5, 2022 by gmr548

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

15 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Well for starters, it disenfranchises them in the Democratic primary. Depending on what voter data is available to campaigns in FL (I am not sure), it could inundate them with GOP messaging and insulate them from contact with Democratic campaigns.

May or may not make a difference in the general election, but it's a thumb on the scale.

I didn’t consider the primaries. I live in a State with open primaries so it doesn’t matter what you’re registered as. I honestly don’t know what I’m registered as. If anything, it’s probably Republican. That’s how I was voting when I first registered to vote. 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I didn’t consider the primaries. I live in a State with open primaries so it doesn’t matter what you’re registered as. I honestly don’t know what I’m registered as. If anything, it’s probably Republican. That’s how I was voting when I first registered to vote. 

In some states, you can easily see online what party people are registered as (such as Oklahoma). Other states, you can see what elections people voted in (such as primaries) and guess pretty accurately (although it can't tell you if they are crossing over into the other party's primary to try and influence it).

Some states also sell a lot of access to voter data.

Texas isn't too bad, although a simple name, birthday, and country/zip will show you a voter ID #, their address, and when they first registered.  I'm sure if you pulled voting records, you could get a pretty clear picture of somebody's affiliation. 

 

[tx 3 putt 78477]

18 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Texas isn't too bad, although a simple name, birthday, and country/zip will show you a voter ID #, their address, and when they first registered.  I'm sure if you pulled voting records, you could get a pretty clear picture of somebody's affiliation. 

 

 

both parties have all your information and they obsess over it. blows me away that Texas R's want to restrict mail in ballots, when was involved in some races, R mail in ballots greatly out numbered D mail in ballots 

Edited February 6, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[Asu2215 259]

On 1/25/2022 at 9:01 PM, Mdhorn said:

It was never about ID and licenses and always about disenfranchisement.  If everybody produces ID or a license, then it becomes another obstacle.  Denying people water and organized mass transit via buses/vans to polling stations has not a damn thing to do with ID or voter fraud.  

About disenfranchisement?? I can't believe you are buying into that bullshit. 

That being said, there needs to be some type of compromise between the two sides that provides reasonable, easy access to vote in a timely manner for all as well as election security. 

[gmr548 16681]

6 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

That being said, there needs to be some type of compromise between the two sides that provides reasonable, easy access to vote in a timely manner for all as well as election security. 

There is no election security issue. The only place that idea holds up against even the slightest bit of contact with reality is with physical voting machines themselves.

[atomheartbevo 90550]

3 hours ago, Asu2215 said:

That being said, there needs to be some type of compromise between the two sides that provides reasonable, easy access to vote in a timely manner for all as well as election security. 

3 hours ago, gmr548 said:

There is no election security issue. The only place that idea holds up against even the slightest bit of contact with reality is with physical voting machines themselves.

We could move to electronic voting if we wanted to.  Well, except that the voting machine companies would lobby (bribe) Congress against it.  And making it easy to vote scares the shit out of some folks.

The government collects taxes and issues tax refunds, stimulus payments, and credits electronically.  All of our banking is done electronically and online (including ATM machines).  All of our medical records and billing use the internet.  Our property taxes, utility bills, etc., that we deal with the local governments on, are dealt with online.

We could keep some physical voting machines around for the olds/poors if needed, but if we have systems where we interact with our medical records and finances electronically and so many other things that we worry about far more than voting, we could do the same with voting.

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

4 hours ago, Asu2215 said:

About disenfranchisement?? I can't believe you are buying into that bullshit. 

Whats' the point of denying people in line water, or making it hard to transport people who can't drive or don't have cars to voting locations?

It's a fucking misdemeanor to give food or water to somebody in Georgia who is in line to vote, yet I can legally do this in dozens of other states.  Is there something special about voters in Georgia who are in line versus voters in surrounding states or Texas, that giving Georgia voters water is going to help them commit fraud?

[Asu2215 259]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Whats' the point of denying people in line water, or making it hard to transport people who can't drive or don't have cars to voting locations?

It's a fucking misdemeanor to give food or water to somebody in Georgia who is in line to vote, yet I can legally do this in dozens of other states.  Is there something special about voters in Georgia who are in line versus voters in surrounding states or Texas, that giving Georgia voters water is going to help them commit fraud?

This pertains only to political organizations providing food or water. Poll workers are free to provide food, water, etc. Seems reasonable to me. 

[Satchel 6982]

19 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

This pertains only to political organizations providing food or water. Poll workers are free to provide food, water, etc. Seems reasonable to me. 

What’s reasonable about limiting the distribution of water to poll workers who should be busy overseeing the voting process?

[Asu2215 259]

10 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What’s reasonable about limiting the distribution of water to poll workers who should be busy overseeing the voting process?

It's reasonable because it removes the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. If you can't see that then you are either unable to see how different groups can view the same situation or you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. 

[Satchel 6982]

11 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

It's reasonable because it removes the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. If you can't see that then you are either unable to see how different groups can view the same situation or you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. 

 

11 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

It's reasonable because it removes the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. If you can't see that then you are either unable to see how different groups can view the same situation or you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. 

What possible conflict of interest could arise from giving people you don’t know, waiting in long lines, a drink of water?

[Biff Tannen 46063]

New troll has entered the chat. 

[Mdhorn 6153]

9 hours ago, gmr548 said:

There is no election security issue. The only place that idea holds up against even the slightest bit of contact with reality is with physical voting machines themselves.

And all the failed Trump lawsuits where they could've shown election security issues they provided exactly none.  What was it 0-59 or worse?  Lost count somewhere along the way.  

[Mdhorn 6153]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

 

What possible conflict of interest could arise from giving people you don’t know, waiting in long lines, a drink of water?

First they'll ask for water, then they'll need chairs because people will get tired of standing since polling places in their home towns were closed, ensuring longer lines and wait times.  What then?  If you can't see the election security at risk then I don't know what to tell you.  Voting should be done in person and totally inconvenient.  That's how Democracy works and election security depends on it.  

[NWBuck 8621]

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

First they'll ask for water, then they'll need chairs because people will get tired of standing since polling places in their home towns were closed, ensuring longer lines and wait times.  What then?  If you can't see the election security at risk then I don't know what to tell you.  Voting should be done in person and totally inconvenient.  That's how Democracy works and election security depends on it.  

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

7 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

And all the failed Trump lawsuits where they could've shown election security issues they provided exactly none.  What was it 0-59 or worse?  Lost count somewhere along the way.  

61. 

[Guest Lobo]

I thought he "won" 1 of the judge's decisions.  

I had it in my head that Trump was 1-63, batting a cool .016.  But his OBP was much higher since...you know...he's gonna walk on every charge.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

I’ve heard 61-1 but I don’t know what the 1 claimed win was. 

[pyrohornIII 4845]

There is no way an objective person can look at the fallout of SB1 and other measures taken along the line and not agree that reducing the voting power of certain blocs was the intent.  

Most people's voter registration is tied to their DL#, and then some to the SSN.  But people age and eventually stop driving.  They surrender their DL, and can be issued a Election Identification Certificate.  Now their DL# was unique to them, but instead of letting them keep that and issue it as an EIC, they issue a whole new EIC, which then makes the DL# invalid.  Why?  Why not just let them keep the same number?  Makes no sense, unless you are hoping to interfere with their ability to vote.  Fortunately the EIC isn't a widely used instrument. 

That's just an example, and their logic behind these moves is shallow.  Same as the logic on making it illegal for County Election Administrators to send out unrequested VBM applications.  Honestly, they should be the only ones sending them, requested or not.  If the state wants to make this ridiculous rule that people have to apply to VBM every single year, then they should make that as painless as possible and at the same time keep things standardized, less confusing and more controlled instead of the parties and every jackleg candidate sending out apps of various look.

But no, they don't.  And they did it to squelch a lot of the votes in the big counties.  And it will work, for the primaries.  

I'm just hoping it pisses enough of those who have been victimized by this shady shit to make sure they get registered to VBM by the general.   

Here's another thing.  When you apply to VBM there's a little area where you choose which elections you want to vote in.  You choose the wrong one, and you're not voting in the general.    Just more smoke and mirrors.  

 

 

[Captainant 28414]

5 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

There is no way an objective person can look at the fallout of SB1 and other measures taken along the line and not agree that reducing the voting power of certain blocs was the intent.  

None of this is a bug - it's all a feature. Again, a huge congrats to slorch and sack and the rest of the anti-democracy advocates who donate to and vote for the politicians that put this policy in place. It really is a policy coup - pun intended.

[CooterBrown 18273]

I’ve heard 61-1 but I don’t know what the 1 claimed win was. 

There was that one case of a guy that voted twice by forging a parent’s voter registration. It was votes for Trump.

[Guest Lobo]

9 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

There was that one case of a guy that voted twice by forging a parent’s voter registration. It was votes for Trump.

Estevez, “what do you need a fake ID for?”

AMH, “so I can vote.”

Edited February 7, 2022 by Lobo

[Asu2215 259]

17 hours ago, Satchel said:

 

What possible conflict of interest could arise from giving people you don’t know, waiting in long lines, a drink of water?

Not sure if this is a serious question??

Second, we need to move to either a secure vote by mail or online voting process in the future. 

[Satchel 6982]

12 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

Not sure if this is a serious question??

Second, we need to move to either a secure vote by mail or online voting process in the future. 

It’s a serious question.

[Asu2215 259]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

It’s a serious question.

I don't want MAGA types within two miles of any line of voters. I don't care what they are handing out. Same for Dems. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34081]

28 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

I don't want MAGA types within two miles of any line of voters. I don't care what they are handing out. Same for Dems. 

I think if you're outside the harassment boundary (whatever the proper term is) I think you should be able to do/say whatever is legal/very cool in the rest of the area. I don't care of MAGAts or Dems or Joe C Blow wants to hand out water to people outside the solicitation boundary. In fact, I would go as far to say there should be no prohibitions there. Any attempt to restrict what people can do near a polling place is a taking and every conservative and liberal in this country should be able to rally around why that is bad.

[pyrohornIII 4845]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

None of this is a bug - it's all a feature. Again, a huge congrats to slorch and sack and the rest of the anti-democracy advocates who donate to and vote for the politicians that put this policy in place. It really is a policy coup - pun intended.

Yeah, I am well aware of this.   I wish we were seeing more articles on it by the press, but since most of the Texas Press is red owned, it won't come out.   I will say that combined with Covid, all these new regulations on voting (mainly unfunded) and redistricting, the life of the county clerk or election administrator is getting considerably less enjoyable.   The Secretary of State has had it's own issues dealing with all this, firstly trying to correctly translate SB1 and get that intent into workable solid rules and regulations.  Then the EAs have had to wait to get their houses in order due to the delays coming out of Austin.  Plus the Lege didn't increase the funding for elections at all to compensate for the new requirements like state wide ballot tracking for VBM.    No telling how many good EA's the state will lose over all this this year.    

 

9 minutes ago, Asu2215 said:

I don't want MAGA types within two miles of any line of voters. I don't care what they are handing out. Same for Dems. 

A) get ready for lots of MAGA stuff, because Trump isn't on the ballot this time, and since MAGA is associated with his campaign, it has now turned into general messaging, like BLM.    B) It would be nice to have a 2 mile barrier around the polling places, but it's only 100 feet.   Dan Crenshaw has his goons out in full force last ED at NRG and other places in Houston.    Not much the election judges can do about that outside that 100 ft boundary.

[Satchel 6982]

When Roberts, who is no friend of voter rights protections, sides with the liberals, his assertion rings true. The Court’s majority went too far. I don’t know what can be done to thwart this kind of activism, other than to expand the Court:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Alabama to implement a redistricting plan that is being challenged as illegal racial gerrymandering. A lower court ruled last month that the state’s new congressional map likely violates the Voting Rights Act, and it ordered the state to draw a new map. But the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision put the lower court’s ruling on hold, effectively allowing Alabama to proceed with its preferred map as it prepares for primary elections in May.

Alabama created the redistricting plan after the 2020 census for the state’s seven seats in the House of Representatives. One of the seven districts in the plan is a majority-Black district. Registered voters, along with the Alabama chapter of the NAACP and Greater Birmingham Ministries, a multifaith community organization, went to federal court to challenge the map. They argued that the state had illegally packed many Black voters into a single district while dispersing other clusters of Black voters across multiple districts. The effect of the map, according to the challengers, is to minimize the number of districts in which Black voters can elect their chosen candidates.

On Jan. 24, a three-judge district court – made up of two district judges appointed by President Donald Trump and a court of appeals judge appointed by President Bill Clinton – ordered the state to draw a new map. The court agreed with the challengers that the plan likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policies. The court explained that the state’s legislature should have the first chance to draw a redistricting plan that includes two majority-Black districts, rather than just one, and it gave the state two weeks to do so. But if the legislature can’t get the job done in time, the court continued, it would hire an expert to draw a new and improved map.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-5-4-vote-justices-reinstate-alabama-voting-map-despite-lower-courts-ruling-that-it-dilutes-black-votes/

Edited February 9, 2022 by Satchel

[Poolflood 845]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

When Roberts, who is no friend of voter rights protections, sides with the liberals, his assertion rings true. The Court’s majority went too far. I don’t know what can be done to thwart this kind of activism, other than to expand the Court:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Alabama to implement a redistricting plan that is being challenged as illegal racial gerrymandering. A lower court ruled last month that the state’s new congressional map likely violates the Voting Rights Act, and it ordered the state to draw a new map. But the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision put the lower court’s ruling on hold, effectively allowing Alabama to proceed with its preferred map as it prepares for primary elections in May.

Alabama created the redistricting plan after the 2020 census for the state’s seven seats in the House of Representatives. One of the seven districts in the plan is a majority-Black district. Registered voters, along with the Alabama chapter of the NAACP and Greater Birmingham Ministries, a multifaith community organization, went to federal court to challenge the map. They argued that the state had illegally packed many Black voters into a single district while dispersing other clusters of Black voters across multiple districts. The effect of the map, according to the challengers, is to minimize the number of districts in which Black voters can elect their chosen candidates.

On Jan. 24, a three-judge district court – made up of two district judges appointed by President Donald Trump and a court of appeals judge appointed by President Bill Clinton – ordered the state to draw a new map. The court agreed with the challengers that the plan likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policies. The court explained that the state’s legislature should have the first chance to draw a redistricting plan that includes two majority-Black districts, rather than just one, and it gave the state two weeks to do so. But if the legislature can’t get the job done in time, the court continued, it would hire an expert to draw a new and improved map.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-5-4-vote-justices-reinstate-alabama-voting-map-despite-lower-courts-ruling-that-it-dilutes-black-votes/

Imo better analysis re Alabama case.  

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/08/throwing-shade-at-the-shadow-docket-in-the-alabama-redistricting-cases/

 

[Satchel 6982]

15 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Imo better analysis re Alabama case.  

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/08/throwing-shade-at-the-shadow-docket-in-the-alabama-redistricting-cases/

 

Not better, imo. Certainly different.

[elfenix 34661]

On 2/7/2022 at 3:42 PM, Asu2215 said:

I don't want MAGA types within two miles of any line of voters. I don't care what they are handing out. Same for Dems. 

so more an @anastasis style conflict of interest than an actual one

[tx 3 putt 78477]

My voting precinct. is heavy Dem, one of many around Houston. In my lifetime, a Qmaga nut is going to show up at one of these precincts, on Election Day and shoot up the place. They’ll claim it was to stop a massive voting fraud scheme involving child trafficking. 
 

I vote during the early voting period, 50% for that reason and 50% because it’s faster 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

15 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Imo better analysis re Alabama case.  

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/08/throwing-shade-at-the-shadow-docket-in-the-alabama-redistricting-cases/

 

Let's see.

Scotus Blog

Quote

SCOTUSblog is devoted to covering the U.S. Supreme Court comprehensively, without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards. The blog is provided as a public service.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, husband and wife, founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston, who retired from the blog in 2016 after 58 years of covering the court, signed on a few years later. Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time. Significant contributions have come from other lawyers at Tom’s law firm (where Amy was formerly a partner), as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. Now during the course of any given year, up to 100 people work on or write for the blog.

vs

Josh Blackman - Reason.com

Quote

Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute

 

 

[wildcat09 29562]

South Texas is a perfectly fine law school and Josh Blackman is an enormous embarrassment.

[elfenix 34661]

i'm assuming today's episode of the strict scrutiny pod entitled "further erosion" is about this new shadow docket ruling

[Satchel 6982]

Judge temporarily halts some provisions in Texas’ Jim Crow voter suppression law:

https://www.kut.org/texas/2022-02-11/federal-judge-raises-concerns-over-chilling-effect-of-new-vote-by-mail-rules-created-by-texas-law

A federal judge issued a temporary injunction Friday against provisions in Texas' new voting law that prohibit public officials from "soliciting" vote-by-mail applications. 

Lawyers representing plaintiffs — including Harris County Election Administrator Isabel Longoria and Cathy Morgan, a deputy voter registrar in the Austin area — say the law, known as Senate Bill 1, violates their clients’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. 

Longoria told the court earlier Friday the provision prevents her from “recommending, advising, urging” voters to cast a ballot by mail, even if those voters are qualified to do so. 

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez said in his ruling that "the public interest is not served by Texas’s enforcement ... of a restriction on speech," which is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution

[TexasEd 8248]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:33 AM, pyrohornIII said:

There is no way an objective person can look at the fallout of SB1 and other measures taken along the line and not agree that reducing the voting power of certain blocs was the intent.  

Most people's voter registration is tied to their DL#, and then some to the SSN.  But people age and eventually stop driving.  They surrender their DL, and can be issued a Election Identification Certificate.  Now their DL# was unique to them, but instead of letting them keep that and issue it as an EIC, they issue a whole new EIC, which then makes the DL# invalid.  Why?  Why not just let them keep the same number?  Makes no sense, unless you are hoping to interfere with their ability to vote.  Fortunately the EIC isn't a widely used instrument. 

That's just an example, and their logic behind these moves is shallow.  Same as the logic on making it illegal for County Election Administrators to send out unrequested VBM applications.  Honestly, they should be the only ones sending them, requested or not.  If the state wants to make this ridiculous rule that people have to apply to VBM every single year, then they should make that as painless as possible and at the same time keep things standardized, less confusing and more controlled instead of the parties and every jackleg candidate sending out apps of various look.

But no, they don't.  And they did it to squelch a lot of the votes in the big counties.  And it will work, for the primaries.  

I'm just hoping it pisses enough of those who have been victimized by this shady shit to make sure they get registered to VBM by the general.   

Here's another thing.  When you apply to VBM there's a little area where you choose which elections you want to vote in.  You choose the wrong one, and you're not voting in the general.    Just more smoke and mirrors.  

 

 

Exactly what is happening according to this story.  Video at the link

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/02/16/texas-voting-law-mail-in-ballots-rejected-gallagher-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn

 

 

[Pancho 46070]

 

[wildcat09 29562]

On 2/14/2022 at 8:51 PM, Satchel said:

Judge temporarily halts some provisions in Texas’ Jim Crow voter suppression law:

https://www.kut.org/texas/2022-02-11/federal-judge-raises-concerns-over-chilling-effect-of-new-vote-by-mail-rules-created-by-texas-law

A federal judge issued a temporary injunction Friday against provisions in Texas' new voting law that prohibit public officials from "soliciting" vote-by-mail applications. 

Lawyers representing plaintiffs — including Harris County Election Administrator Isabel Longoria and Cathy Morgan, a deputy voter registrar in the Austin area — say the law, known as Senate Bill 1, violates their clients’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. 

Longoria told the court earlier Friday the provision prevents her from “recommending, advising, urging” voters to cast a ballot by mail, even if those voters are qualified to do so. 

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez said in his ruling that "the public interest is not served by Texas’s enforcement ... of a restriction on speech," which is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution

SCOTUS shadow docket ruling coming in 5,4,3...

[pacman 7494]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

I get it.  There is some voter fraud in Texas.  I testified at the Legislature regarding measures to reasonably combat it, particularly on college campuses where many young adults from out of state could abuse the system in 2015.  

But HALF the ballots from the 23rd largest city in the United States just got thrown out?  If you don't think that's a problem...and a national embarrassment...you don't know maths.  

[tx 3 putt 78477]

learn, get it right for the General election 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

35 minutes ago, Lobo said:

But HALF the ballots from the 23rd largest city in the United States just got thrown out?  If you don't think that's a problem...and a national embarrassment...you don't know maths. Texas.

Fixed.

[Neonmoon 38130]

The new Jim Crow laws are working as designed 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Man, would I like to dot "i's and cross "t"s with every single one of those mofo pols that did this when their offspring visit the DMV for a driver's license. I'd keep them walking for years.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34081]

 

[tx 3 putt 78477]

Quote

 

Dan Patrick, Texas Lieutenant Governor and conservative Republican candidate, released the following statement on Tuesday:

“As the polls close across much of Texas, Harris County, the state’s largest and the nation’s third-largest county, responsible for over 10% of the statewide GOP primary turnout announced they have train-wrecked the counting of votes during today’s election. Lina Hidalgo and the Democrats are responsible for this botched job.

“The Democrats in Harris County made up their own rules last election. This election is proving to be a disaster. The issues at the polls today strike at the heart of exactly why we passed Senate Bill 1, the Election Integrity Bill, and why the Texas Senate will continue to pass even stronger election security reforms that improve the integrity of our elections.

“Lina Hidalgo must answer for this debacle of her own creation and must be held accountable.”

 

 

more ....

https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/elections/harris-county-gop-lawsuit-texas-primary-votes/285-187d9de8-7b81-459e-a01e-4441da56184f

 

Texas GOP laying down the groundwork for taking over elections in Harris County. DFW and Austin are next is my guess. 

[Guest Lobo]

Are there any states in America that run state-controlled elections?  I thought every single state did it at the county/parish level.  

I would think anything that resembles a statewide takeover of elections would be shot down in federal court.  

Which of course means Dan Patrick is gonna try it anyway.