Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SpiceGIrl

Supreme Court, in 5–4 Decision, Allows States to Purge Voters for Their Failure to Vote

151 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, hst2 said:

Understand the need for restricting by age. Restricting felons is a Jim Crow policy that should be eliminated in states that have it. Residency is a requirement, but not what I would call a restriction. Method, to is more of a process than a restriction.

Its funny you should mention trial by jury. The vast majority of people going to prison don't have one.

I'm not sure what your point is?

Rights are restricted, or not absolute (yelling fire in a theater etc). 

Even trial by jury is restricted as you note.

My point is Constitutional remedy is not indicated re voting. It's especially gnarly given voting is not federal, but state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Who’s fault is that? There’s no restriction to a jury trial for anyone in this country. 

Not legally but de facto lots of indigent defendants are pressured to accept pleas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

I'm not sure what your point is?

Rights are restricted, or not absolute (yelling fire in a theater etc). 

Even trial by jury is restricted as you note.

My point is Constitutional remedy is not indicated re voting. It's especially gnarly given voting is not federal, but state.

My point is that there needs to be a constitutional amendment making voting an affirmed right.

A trial by jury is only restricted by the government manipulating the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ms maggie said:

Not legally but de facto lots of indigent defendants are pressured to accept pleas.

There’s no de facto. If you allow pressure to force you to accept a plea, that’s on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogstarman said:

This kind of flagrant voter disenfranchisement is happening because the USA is unwilling or too stupid to institute a modern verifiable ID system that is free and mandatory for every citizen.

Instead, we rely on flimsy techniques using drivers licenses and whatever else. Of course cynical goons are going to take advantage of the situation using voter fraud as a pretext for systematic disenfranchisement.

 

They always have. This is just like the grandfather clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

There’s no de facto. If you allow pressure to force you to accept a plea, that’s on you. 

Nonsense. You have no resources so you get a court appointed lawyer who didn't exactly star in law school and who has a ridiculous case load. You can take a plea for 5 years, eligible for parole in 2.5, or go to trial facing 20. Your lawyer tells you to take the plea cuz he doubts he can win the court case.

You're young. You're inexperienced. You're up against the whole legal system.

Pressure? Ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, hst2 said:

My point is that there needs to be a constitutional amendment making voting an affirmed right.

A trial by jury is only restricted by the government manipulating the system.

And you think states will cede any power to the federal govt on this?

You know the answer.

Think voting by mail and a free, easy verification system is the way to go. Think Oregon has this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

Nonsense. You have no resources so you get a court appointed lawyer who didn't exactly star in law school and who has a ridiculous case load. You can take a plea for 5 years, eligible for parole in 2.5, or go to trial facing 20. Your lawyer tells you to take the plea cuz he doubts he can win the court case.

You're young. You're inexperienced. You're up against the whole legal system.

Pressure? Ya think?

No one could convince me to plead to something I didn’t do. If you know you committed a crime that’s different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

No one could convince me to plead to something I didn’t do. If you know you committed a crime that’s different. 

So you'd take the higher sentence in most cases. 

Good for you, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ms maggie said:

And you think states will cede any power to the federal govt on this?

You know the answer.

Think voting by mail and a free, easy verification system is the way to go. Think Oregon has this?

Let the states argue that citizens shouldn't have the affirmed right to vote. That's a fight worth having.

I support any method of voting that encourages the most number of people to vote and is protected from fraud. We should at least begin by making it illegal to force people to wait more than an hour to vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

So you'd take the higher sentence in most cases. 

Good for you, I guess.

If I knew I was  innocent then I would take a trial to determine my guilt or innocence. If I willingly committed a crime then I might take a plea because I’m guilty. 

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Let the states argue that citizens shouldn't have the affirmed right to vote. That's a fight worth having.

I support any method of voting that encourages the most number of people to vote and is protected from fraud. We should at least begin by making it illegal to force people to wait more than an hour to vote.

 

Agree with second paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

If I knew I was  innocent then I would take a trial to determine my guilt or innocence. If I willingly committed a crime then I might take a plea because I’m guilty. 

Yes I got that. I'm talking about the likely consequences under the circumstances I put forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

If I knew I was  innocent then I would take a trial to determine my guilt or innocence. If I willingly committed a crime then I might take a plea because I’m guilty. 

Have you ever served on a jury in Baltimore city for a criminal trial? I have, twice, and it was an eye opening albeit awful experience.

The fact of the matter is that guilt or innocence is a disturbingly fungible concept. There’s a reason why well-resourced defendants end up “not guilty” far more than publically defended indigents, and it has little to do with “innocence”.

The choice of Plea-deals vs trials vs “nollle prosqui” are more about the practical tactics of lawyers and the very real limitations of resources and time in the comically overloaded court system than it is about actual guilt or innocence.

Your naive view of what YOU would do when facing a criminal charge doesn’t make much of an argument.

Edited by dogstarman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogstarman said:

This kind of flagrant voter disenfranchisement is happening because the USA is unwilling or too stupid to institute a modern verifiable ID system that is free and mandatory for every citizen.

Instead, we rely on flimsy techniques using drivers licenses and whatever else. Of course cynical goons are going to take advantage of the situation using voter fraud as a pretext for systematic disenfranchisement.

 

Hell, I would be happy with just a drivers license being necessary to vote. Heck even a Costco membership card. :D

If the reports and evaluations are to be believed regarding voter fraud. When you come down to it in a NATIONAL election a person voting improperly has minimal affect. 

HOWEVER, an a local level a person(s) voting fraudulently can be a big problem. Look at the margin victories and subsequent re-counts and such we have seen in the media over the past few years? Vote decisions that in some cases are based on a difference of 10 or so votes. And no , don't ask me to provide links..that is not the point....the potential IS THERE. 

I don't think that it is that big a hardship for someone to provide identification of  WHO YOU ARE and WHERE YOU LIVE.

IMHO ...if that is too difficult....than the person should not probably be voting anyway if they are that clueless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

Well if you haven't voted in two or three elections, it's apparently not a priority to you anyway.

The problem is that these purges often catch a lot of people that aren't supposed to be removed and removes them anyway.  Happens all the time and they know it.  Can't you see this is a clear attempt to suppress the vote disguised as something legitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Hell, I would be happy with just a drivers license being necessary to vote. Heck even a Costco membership card. :D

If the reports and evaluations are to be believed regarding voter fraud. When you come down to it in a NATIONAL election a person voting improperly has minimal affect. 

HOWEVER, an a local level a person(s) voting fraudulently can be a big problem. Look at the margin victories and subsequent re-counts and such we have seen in the media over the past few years? Vote decisions that in some cases are based on a difference of 10 or so votes. And no , don't ask me to provide links..that is not the point....the potential IS THERE. 

I don't think that it is that big a hardship for someone to provide identification of  WHO YOU ARE and WHERE YOU LIVE.

IMHO ...if that is too difficult....than the person should not probably be voting anyway if they are that clueless. 

Who you are and where you live can be proved by a utility bill but that's not the law in many states who require a specific state issued ID.

The whole system is archaic.  Vote by mail/email makes sense. And I'm betting it's lots less costly and more accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

The problem is that these purges often catch a lot of people that aren't supposed to be removed and removes them anyway.  Happens all the time and they know it.  Can't you see this is a clear attempt to suppress the vote disguised as something legitimate?

It's obvious unless people are determined not to see it.  What's so amusing it the lack of evidence of voter fraud, classic case of a solution in search of a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dogstarman said:

 

Your naive view of what YOU would do when facing a criminal charge doesn’t make much of an argument.

So you would willingly  take s plea for something you did not do? Better you than me. 

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

It's obvious unless people are determined not to see it.  What's so amusing it the lack of evidence of voter fraud, classic case of a solution in search of a problem. 

To stop 5 fraudulants voter, they're willing to disenfranchise thousands because they know those thousand are most likely voting against them.

Just like with the photo IDs, just like with AL closing the DMVs, just like with the felon voting ban, just like with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act's enforcement provisions. The list goes on and on, back to poll taxes, literacy tests and the grandfather clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bmore_ken said:

So you would willing take s plea for something you did not do? Better you than me. 

And you would be doing this while represented by a public defender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hst2 said:

And you would be doing this while represented by a public defender?

I certainly wouldn’t volunteer to go to jail for something I know I didn’t do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hst2 said:

To stop 5 fraudulants voter, they're willing to disenfranchise thousands because they know those thousand are most likely voting against them.

Just like with the photo IDs, just like with AL closing the DMVs, just like with the felon voting ban, just like with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act's enforcement provisions. The list goes on and on, back to poll taxes, literacy tests and the grandfather clause.

My favorite story about this is how when the PA lD law was challenged in court, the judge asked the state to present evidence of voter fraud that this ID law would address.  The state admitted in open court that they had sought to find some evidence and came up empty.  Very emperor new clothes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

How is it cheating?

Throwing up more obstacles for occasional voters to exercise their franchise. The point of these purges is to have voters discover they can't vote on election day when it's too late to do anything about it.  Democrats aren't the ones throwing hair on fire candidates into the ring. You can guess who gains from that state of affairs. 

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0