Voting Rights

[MDlaxfan76]

help us out here what does redistricting have to do with voting rights?

Do you actually not know?

Nah, you're not that clueless nor so helpless that you can't google "redistricting voting rights"

[runrussellrun]

I struggle to believe you’ve never heard the term gerrymander before. You’ve never ever heard that term before? No idea what it was or where it came from?

You struggle to believe that, do you? I'll half ignore that you essentially just called me a liar and ask--what do you base your struggle on? You don't know me from Adam. How do you know what I've heard or haven't heard; or what I know or don't know? Presumptuous much?

If that’s the case then the post about where we’ve come to isn’t very meaningful if you aren’t aware of that. It’s one of the biggest issues and problems in politics and has been for two decades (probably a lot more).

If you don't consider my post very meaningful, that's your opinion--which you are entitled to in these here Benighted States of America.

Have you ever heard the term carpetbagger?

Heard the term? Yes. Know what it means? No stinky idea.

My “block” is being pugilistic.

Evidently.

outta, please understand that what you are indicating is near total avoidance of reading or watching/hearing discussions about one of the most important issues in American politics and civics in the past decade. Very hard to avoid. For someone who expresses himself has eruditely as you do in the written word, that's indeed a perplexing statement of ignorance. But okay, welcome to this thread. If you're interested in expanding your knowledge base, this is a pretty good place to start.

To not know the genesis of carpetbagger is to indicate a very low level knowledge of American history, specifically of Reconstruction. That's less surprising as IMO there was a very real avoidance by a big swath of our educational system in covering that period of American history, certainly for older folks like us...unless you had a good HS teacher or took American History in a decent college, and even then not emphasized by some teachers. But it's a hot term that is again hard to imagine not understanding its genesis at all...for someone who uses words well, clearly pays attention to words... But again, these threads provide some excellent discussions and references for further learning on history.

But yes, if you admittedly have such a low knowledge base of American History and current civics, Geneva or any other reader, is free to read your posts about such through the lens that you likely haven't really done your 'homework' on the topic, whether they agree or disagree with any particular opinion expressed.

BTW, I do agree that it's good that the country has made progress in enabling more people to vote and I also agree that should mean everyone, including those who put less effort into educating themselves of history, civics, etc than do others. I don't consider that effort to be elitist, as anyone is capable of doing it.

I'm simply in favor of more progress in voting access and participation and I'm in favor of more people making the effort to educate themselves.

so start your own thread on Jerry mandrin

[runrussellrun]

help us out here what does redistricting have to do with voting rights?

Do you actually not know?

Nah, you're not that clueless nor so helpless that you can't google "redistricting voting rights"

that would be candidate choices, and who you can vote for, but you still have the right to vote no matter what district you're placed in yes

[MDlaxfan76]

help us out here what does redistricting have to do with voting rights?

Do you actually not know?

Nah, you're not that clueless nor so helpless that you can't google "redistricting voting rights"

that would be candidate choices, and who you can vote for, but you still have the right to vote no matter what district you're placed in yes

Google "redistricting voting rights" or "gerrymandering voting rights"...do a little homework if you're actually confused. But if you just want to argue just for drill and to be a pain, keep it up.

[runrussellrun]

help us out here what does redistricting have to do with voting rights?

Do you actually not know?

Nah, you're not that clueless nor so helpless that you can't google "redistricting voting rights"

that would be candidate choices, and who you can vote for, but you still have the right to vote no matter what district you're placed in yes

Google "redistricting voting rights" or "gerrymandering voting rights"...do a little homework if you're actually confused. But if you just want to argue just for drill and to be a pain, keep it up.

well, we are sorry that you aren't informed enough to explain it to others.
interesting, so you're telling suck that if suck types in "the biggest threat to voting rights" the vapid Internet will spew out results saying that Gary mandrin districts is the biggest threat to voting rights ?

we opinion are two separate issues

but certainly districts are directly tied to article one of the US Constitution yes?

you can't be this clueless about the law of the land and why we have a 10 year census

[runrussellrun]

and again suck feels that race or sex should have zero implications in districts. It should be completely irrelevant.

[MDlaxfan76]

Again, discussed to death, I'm not interested in discussing again as nothing's changed from those discussions. Maybe you could find someone else to discuss with a new thread. We get it, pet peeve.

use google.
It's super easy instead of playing dumb.

[runrussellrun]

https://www.vox.com/22798975/democracy- ... ing-rights



this was the first hit that showed up and sucked thought it was a good choice because Vox is such a right wing Maga publication


I've read the article and I can't seem to find Jerry Mandarin as a concern for voter rights

Maybe UNC coaster should contact Vox and tell him to get with it

[runrussellrun]

and again suck feels that race or sex should have zero implications in districts. It should be completely irrelevant.

and suck, forgot to add political affiliation as well. One human equals one human end of story. There is your district 250,000 humans.


Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best solutions

this is ballot access and candidate rights not voting rights

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.vox.com/22798975/democracy- ... ing-rights



this was the first hit that showed up and sucked thought it was a good choice because Vox is such a right wing Maga publication


I've read the article and I can't seem to find Jerry Mandarin as a concern for voter rights

Maybe UNC coaster should contact Vox and tell him to get with it

No, that article is not what you get first when googling "redistricting voter rights" or "gerrymandering voter rights". Not even on the first page of responses.

I'm not sure what terms you used, but looking at that article, I quickly found:

Another is the minority rule threat, in which Republicans could consistently win according to the rules but without getting a majority of votes nationwide, due to advantages in the Senate, Electoral College, and redistricting.

when I added Vox to the search "redistricting voting rights Vox", I got these 3 articles:

https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/8/237 ... ymandering

https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/5/23 ... -kavanaugh

When I added South Carolina to the search: https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/15/ ... ing-rights

[runrussellrun]

ha ha proving what that a bunch of people have opinions?


But got it discussing additional districts is off-topic got it

pretty sure, though that the gerrymandering issue has been discussed and been beaten to death


We discussed this years ago or something to that effect



Hey Marilyn lax what's your solution to redistricting in South Carolina? Do you do it by race sexual preference type of weed you like to smoke how good your golf game is what what is your solution to this racist redistricting situation we're all ears

[MDlaxfan76]

No, merely making it simple and obvious what the connection is between voting rights and redistricting and gerrymandering in specific. The topic is very much current, if you bothered to read those recent articles.

More districts does not impact the fairness of the representation proportion.

The question as to how to redistrict fairly has been addressed as well, with independent committee drawing lines that favor no party and no racial underrepresentation.

If this was universally adopted we wouldn't see redistricting that had 52/48 states with 70% control of the districts by the controlling party.

The rightward SCOTUS now says it's ok to favor a party and no more needing to prove in advance no racial before making a change in the southern states previously restricted by law due to prior bad behavior. We're post bad behavior they said...

Cases can still be brought based on racial gerrymandering but now the burden is on the plaintiffs and it's well after the fact. A defense is that it's party biased not racial, even if that de facto means much the same thing.

[runrussellrun]

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/19/12386460 ... il-ballots

New data shows it's gotten easier to vote in the U.S. since 2000
MARCH 19, 20245:00 AM ET
HEARD ON ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
Miles Parks headshot
Miles Parks


For all the concern in recent years that U.S. democracy is on the brink, in danger or under threat, a report out Tuesday offers a glimmer of good news for American voters worried that casting a ballot will be difficult in 2024.

Put simply, the new data shows that voting in America has gotten easier over the past two decades. More voters have the ability to cast a ballot before Election Day, with the majority of U.S. states now offering some form of early in-person voting and mail voting to all voters.

"Although we often talk in a partisan context about voter fraud and voter suppression and whether voters have access to the ballot, the reality is, over the past 25 years, we've greatly increased the convenience of voting for almost all Americans," said David Becker, the founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which authored the new report.

The research was inspired by an NPR request for historical data around voting access, and NPR is the first news organization to report the findings.

The data shows that, despite real efforts by some Republican-led legislatures to restrict access at the margins, the trend in the U.S. since 2000 has been toward making it easier to vote: Nearly 97% of voting-age American citizens now live in states that offer the option to vote before Election Day.

"The lies about early voting, the lies about voting machines and efforts in some state legislatures to roll back some of the election integrity and convenience measures that have evolved over the last several decades, those efforts almost all failed," Becker said. "In almost every single state, voters can choose to vote when they want to."

Forty-six states and Washington, D.C., offer some form of early in-person voting, the report tallied, and 37 of those jurisdictions also offer mail voting to all voters without requiring an excuse.

Conservatives are warning about noncitizens voting. It's a myth with a long history
ELECTIONS
Conservatives are warning about noncitizens voting. It's a myth with a long history
Biden officials keep states waiting on expanding Medicaid voter registration
ELECTIONS
Biden officials keep states waiting on expanding Medicaid voter registration
The analysis focused on broad categories around how people are able to vote, but did not take into consideration more specific voting policies that have sparked partisan debate in recent years, like mailing ballots to all registered voters, how mail ballots can be returned and ID requirements.

Chris Mann, CEIR's research director, said he thought many people may be surprised at the bigger picture reflecting access, because those other voting policies have taken so much of the political focus in recent years.

There are some political trends that show up in the data. Of the 14 states that don't offer mail voting to all voters, for instance, 12 have Republican-led legislatures.

But maybe the more striking trends are geographic. Every single state in the western U.S. has offered some form of early and mail voting to all voters since 2004, according to the data. And those states span the political spectrum, from conservative Idaho to liberal California.

"It's really hard to talk about partisanship around this issue because historically there just hasn't been much," Mann said. "We've seen voting by mail and early in-person voting supported by Republican legislatures, Democratic legislatures, Republican governors, Democratic governors. We see voters in both parties use both methods."

In other parts of the country, like the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, it took reforms driven by the COVID pandemic to move toward more ballot access.

In 2020, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts all made changes to make voting more easily accessible, which have since partially or fully become permanent. Delaware is currently embroiled in a legal fight over whether it can implement early and mail voting changes this election cycle as well.

The South, with its history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, has long lagged behind when it comes to voting access. The CEIR data shows that, although some states have slowly started expanding options for voters, generally it is still the most difficult region for voters to cast a ballot.



As options nationwide have become more widely available, voters have also responded by taking advantage.

In the 2000 election, 86% of voters voted at a polling place on Election Day, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

In 2020, during the pandemic, that number dropped to less than 31% of voters. It went back up in 2022, to roughly half of the electorate, but was still in line with the two-decade trend toward more ballots being cast early.



In 2024, it's a bit unclear if that trend will continue. Former President Donald Trump and his supporters have worked to demonize mail voting, and at times implored Republican voters to vote on Election Day or as close to it as possible to avoid unproven claims of tampering.

But in reality, Becker says, more voting options actually make elections more secure and less susceptible to malicious activity or even human error.

"If there were a problem, if there were a cyber event, if there were a malfunction, if there were bad weather, if there were traffic, if there were was a power outage, you could think of all kinds of circumstances. ... The more you spread voting out over a series of days and over multiple modes, the less likely it's going to impact voters," he said.

Still, even in states where voters have numerous options on how to vote, in every federal election tens of millions of eligible voters in the U.S. don't cast ballots. Even in 2020, the highest-turnout election in modern history, roughly a third of eligible Americans didn't vote.

Shirley Weber, the secretary of state of California, says more and more that's a reflection of people not feeling empowered or motivated by the system, and not by how hard it is to cast a ballot. Election experts have generally agreed that in 2024, efforts to delegitimize election results are more worrisome than efforts to actually stop people from voting.

"We've done everything, I think, humanly possible to make it possible for people to vote," Weber said. "[In California] you will get a ballot mailed to your home. It does not require a stamp. If you lose it and call us, we'll send you another one. If you go to a vote center, you will be able to get a new ballot and vote right there if you want to."

Still, the state places near the bottom of the U.S. rankings when it comes to turnout rate.

"What we have to do now is help people understand that voting is important, whether their candidate wins or loses," she said. "[You're] voting for yourself basically to have the dignity of having your issues being considered and whether you win or lose, people listen to your voice and they hear you."

[runrussellrun]

Is getting on the ballot, just to RUN for office, racist? Suck thinks so.

Getting on the Ballot Doesn’t Have to Be this Hard
By: Aidan Calvelli ’24 | November 30, 2021

Election law is having a moment. When Democrats took the House in 2018, their top priority was H.R. 1, a sweeping political reform bill. The 2020 election made the law of democracy scholars in–demand commentators. And this summer, the Supreme Court gave the Voting Rights Act its second judicial buzzcut of the decade in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.

This focus is a needed response to proliferating crises of democracy, like draconian voting barriers, unregulated dark money, and challenges to the legitimacy of elections.

Still, in the midst of these crises, we should not lose sight of an election law issue that often flies under the radar: ballot access laws—or the rules that shape how candidates and parties are allowed to appear on voters’ ballots.

These kinds of laws are often so technical that they fly under the radar—voters think more about who to vote for than how the candidates arrived on the electoral slate. But under the surface, America’s current ballot access is a threat to democracy. Candidates—especially those not well-funded or not affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties—frequently have to jump through a string of hoops just to run, including sky-high signature requirements and costly filing fees. This system makes it harder for nontraditional candidates to get involved in politics, limits voters’ opportunity to express their true preferences, and undermines America’s commitment to inclusive democracy.

America’s onerous ballot access restrictions are a product of historical choices, not fate. When the Australian ballot was introduced to the US in 1888, ballot access for parties was often simple: many states listed any party that asked to be on the ballot, and signature-gathering requirements rarely left the triple digits. Since then, the trend has been towards restriction. In 1983, for example, North Carolina raised the number of signatures needed by 738%, from 5,000 to 36,949. Other new requirements de facto prohibit third-party participation: Virginia, for example, requires that a party receive 10% of the statewide vote in one of the past two elections, which no minor party has met since the 1990s.

In most other developed democracies, restrictions like these would be anomalous. In Canada, any party with 250 members can run candidates that gather only a hundred signatures; in the United Kingdom, Parliamentary candidates need only ten signatures. France and the Netherlands only require that parties fill out certain forms. The U.S. system—with its permissive rules for established parties and draconian ones for minor parties—sometimes more closely resembles autocracies like Belarus than our democratic peers.

Courts have played a central role in validating the current regime. Many ballot access cases are governed by the Anderson-Burdick standard, a balancing test in which courts use strict scrutiny on access restrictions when they have a “severe” effect on voters’ ability to select their preferred candidates, but use only rational basis review when there are “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” on access. Dicta in Storer v. Brown aptly captured the effect of this doctrine: “It is very unlikely that all or even a large portion of the state election laws would fail to pass muster under our cases.”

The consequences have been predictable. Along with structural features like single-member districts and winner-take-all elections, strict signature requirements and filing fees have made it difficult for minor parties and independent candidates to gain an electoral foothold. In 2020, only 8 third-party or independent candidates received more votes than the margin of victory in federal elections, and only 69 more did the same in all state and local elections.

Minor parties that struggle to make the ballot face an obvious harm. Less obvious but as important is the harm to voters. Looser ballot access laws won’t catapult the Green Party to the presidency. But when only a narrow set of candidates functionally can run for office, voters are less able to use elections as a vehicle for expressing their political beliefs. Elections should be more than just a formalistic tallying exercise; they can be a time for citizens to say how they want to be represented.

Earlier Supreme Court caselaw, now largely neglected, hinted at this more democratic purpose underlying ballot access laws. Williams v. Rhodes held that an Ohio signature filing requirement violated equal protection by treating minor parties differently than major ones and violated free association by limiting the effectiveness of the franchise as a political association; the restrictions harmed both those running and those voting. In Bullock v. Carter, the Court held that a Texas law mandating filing fees for anyone trying to appear on a primary ballot violated equal protection by preventing poor candidates from winning a party nomination. And in Lubin v. Panish, the Court wrote that “absent reasonable alternative means of ballot access, a State may not … [deny] a person the right to file as a candidate solely because of an inability to pay a fixed fee.”

These cases together suggest that reasonable access to the ballot for all interested candidates is fundamental to the constitutional regime. Reviving this animating idea would be an important step towards making space in our electoral system for the full diversity of preferences in the American electorate. The current ballot access system that makes it easy for the politically powerful to be heard and makes it hard for the voiceless to grow their power is a threat to the ideal of free and fair elections. But we are not fated to the current system. Democracy reform advocates are right to focus first on fighting laws most likely to affect electoral outcomes, like the polling place restrictions enacted in Georgia and Texas. But in this rare moment of intense focus on democracy issues, advocates should take a holistic approach to procedural fairness. Any redesign of the way America votes should make it easier for minor party, independent, and low-income candidates to throw their hat in the electoral ring.

Aidan Calvelli is a JD Candidate at Harvard Law School.

[MDlaxfan76]

yes, across the country, on average it's become "easier" to cast a vote. Early voting, vote by mail, vote by drop box...all increased in some jurisdictions, raising the average "ease", and nearly everywhere during the pandemic...those increases are being rolled back in states which clearly don't want easier voting.

Easier voting (auditable) is a good thing, but not everyone thinks so. And it's not a surprise as who that is, led by many of the states which previously had been restricted by the Voting Rights Act. We're within one generation of deep discrimination and segregation, and those Jim Crow impulses haven't gone away, unfortunately.

Easier voting, however, doesn't mean fair representation given gerrymandering, nor does it mean that there aren't barriers to winning elections if the controlling party chooses the districts or has dark money support.

Note, both parties are in the gerrymandering and dark money game, however it is factual to say that the GOP has exercised these tools more aggressively throughout the states they control than have the Dems who have a mixed bag. And the now MAGA GOP is quite clear about it.

We also have this crazy hangover from our admittedly firmly Constitutional set-up of the Electoral College, repeatedly now producing national victories for candidates with fewer votes than the loser. This rewards the most deeply partisan and divisive behavior rather than competition for the most aggregate support based on the appeal of policies and demonstrated competence in governing.

Changing would require a Constitutional Amendment, which does not appear to be in the offing anytime soon as MAGA clearly has no interest in attaining power through appeal to the majority...their only path to 'majority' rule would be through Authoritarian sham elections and harsh control of ballot access and media.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Georgia Republican Party vice chair & conservative talk show host who whined about stolen election? Just found guilty of voting illegally 9 times.... more info

That special state election in Bama that the D's just flipped? Seat was vacated after the previous Republican rep plead guilty to voter fraud.

So do they just whine about it because they know they're doing it?

[jhu72]

Georgia Republican Party vice chair & conservative talk show host who whined about stolen election? Just found guilty of voting illegally 9 times.... more info

That special state election in Bama that the D's just flipped? Seat was vacated after the previous Republican rep plead guilty to voter fraud.

So do they just whine about it because they know they're doing it?

... its always projection with these cock*uckers.

[a fan]

Georgia Republican Party vice chair & conservative talk show host who whined about stolen election? Just found guilty of voting illegally 9 times.... more info

That special state election in Bama that the D's just flipped? Seat was vacated after the previous Republican rep plead guilty to voter fraud.

So do they just whine about it because they know they're doing it?

... its always projection with these cock*uckers.

There is no bottom. We are DECADES from getting rid of Trumpism. DECADES. You're a fool if you think otherwise. They Republican party of our youth is 1000% gone, bye-bye, never to be seen again. Wake up, Conservative America.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Georgia Republican Party vice chair & conservative talk show host who whined about stolen election? Just found guilty of voting illegally 9 times.... more info

That special state election in Bama that the D's just flipped? Seat was vacated after the previous Republican rep plead guilty to voter fraud.

So do they just whine about it because they know they're doing it?

... its always projection with these cock*uckers.

There is no bottom. We are DECADES from getting rid of Trumpism. DECADES. You're a fool if you think otherwise. They Republican party of our youth is 1000% gone, bye-bye, never to be seen again. Wake up, Conservative America.

I have two mid 20 year old guys in my office. Their brains have been poisoned by this stuff. The look no further than what is in their the site formerly known as twitter and Instagram feeds. They are always shocked when I show them some facts.

[a fan]

Georgia Republican Party vice chair & conservative talk show host who whined about stolen election? Just found guilty of voting illegally 9 times.... more info

That special state election in Bama that the D's just flipped? Seat was vacated after the previous Republican rep plead guilty to voter fraud.

So do they just whine about it because they know they're doing it?

... its always projection with these cock*uckers.

There is no bottom. We are DECADES from getting rid of Trumpism. DECADES. You're a fool if you think otherwise. They Republican party of our youth is 1000% gone, bye-bye, never to be seen again. Wake up, Conservative America.

I have two mid 20 year old guys in my office. Their brains have been poisoned by this stuff. The look no further than what is in their the site formerly known as twitter and Instagram feeds. They are always shocked when I show them some facts.

Of course that's all they see. And these are SUPPOSED to be the group who understands how the internet works.

Yeah.....they DON'T understand how the internet works.

And those who do? Are filling their bags with money from these idiots as fast as they can.

Look how many posters here are walking, talking Republican-talking-points: gays, Trans, Drag queens, fake news, taxes are bad, government is bad, fake elections, socialism-is-evil, and on and on and on.

And the 1%er will do everything in their power to cut funding to Education, to keep the populace clicking.

And the R's will cheer this on. Because government is bad, naturally.

Oh well. Prepping for my fat tax cuts, not much else I can do about it.