The Help America Vote Act would not "federalize elections"

[Pad_Foot]

A legislature nullifying the People’s vote because of perceived “fraud”
Fuck that !!
No state has that power!!

Period!

You want to debate it!?

Would you let Dems decide on your vote that way ? No?
Done !
It’s undemocratic
Not Christian !!!

Hmm?? Ideas came from Putin?
Prove they didn’t !!!!!
No notes on Trump’s meetings with Putin?
Poor you!
What could they have discussed ?
Money laundering!??
Swaying US voters via social media?

Why do Trumpists love and trust Russia so much!!??

 

[Rightguide]

How is it unconstitutional?

Read the Constitution, it leaves to the states the time place and manner in which elections are held, and who is qualified to vote.

 

[pecksniff]

Read the Constitution, it leaves to the states the time place and manner in which elections are held, and who is qualified to vote.

But the VRA was never ruled unconstitutional (there were challenges), until quite recently and only partially. What in the HAVA presents any novel constitutional objection?

 

[YDB95]

Read the Constitution, it leaves to the states the time place and manner in which elections are held, and who is qualified to vote.

Read the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution (why YES, there are other amendments in there besides the 2nd and 10th! How about that?). States have the right to set their own rules on voting rights in the absence of any contrary federal law or constitutional provision.

 

[Cubantripod]

I note a lot of RWs repeating that as an obvious fact. But, the Voting Rights Act did not federalize elections, which continued to be run by local officials, with some federal oversight, and some access to federal courts provided. How is the HAVA any different?

When the Supremes upheld the Voting Rights Act of '65, they acknowledged they were overstepping their authority but it was necessary because of a few repeat offenders.

You can blame Holder for using 40 year old data to argue against a challenge to the law.

 

[ll74]

When the Supremes upheld the Voting Rights Act of '65, they acknowledged they were overstepping their authority but it was necessary because of a few repeat offenders.

You can blame Holder for using 40 year old data to argue against a challenge to the law.

So their precedence was that it was constitutional for Congress to have regulations on elections.

You can't actually have a supreme court overstep its authority....unless other branches decide it to be so.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Okay, color me confused (LOL a color I wear well), but wasn't HAVA passed by the Senate unanimously back in 2002?

Are they proposing a new bill with the same name?

 

[icanhelp1]

Read the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution (why YES, there are other amendments in there besides the 2nd and 10th! How about that?). States have the right to set their own rules on voting rights in the absence of any contrary federal law or constitutional provision.

The constitutional provision is " the states have the right to set their own rules on voting rights". Right now there isn't any contrary federal law, that's what Pelosi and her merry band of idiots is trying to create. Ain't going to happen!

 

[ll74]

The constitutional provision is " the states have the right to set their own rules on voting rights". Right now there isn't any contrary federal law, that's what Pelosi and her merry band of idiots is trying to create. Ain't going to happen!

So what does the voting rights act currently do then?

 

[pecksniff]

Okay, color me confused (LOL a color I wear well), but wasn't HAVA passed by the Senate unanimously back in 2002?

Are they proposing a new bill with the same name?

Actually, the new one is called the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act -- named after the late Congresscritter who was beaten up on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, back in the day.

 

[WillJ8787]

Actually, the new one is called the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act -- named after the late Congresscritter who was beaten up on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, back in the day.

And why was he beaten? Cause he had the audacity to want access to voting as a citizen of the USA. He fought against the very types of restrictions Republicans are trying to write into law in at least 28 States.

 

[icanhelp1]

So what does the voting rights act currently do then?

Prohibits discrimination or deny anyone’s right to vote. No one is denied their right to vote in the US

 

[ll74]

Prohibits discrimination or deny anyone’s right to vote. No one is denied their right to vote in the US

So the states are prohibited from denying anyone their right to vote.

But I thought the states were the ones who make the rules on election.

But they can't make any rule against that one.

Hmm....confusing

 

[pecksniff]

And why was he beaten? Cause he had the audacity to want access to voting as a citizen of the USA. He fought against the very types of restrictions Republicans are trying to write into law in at least 28 States.

It all seems so long ago now. The day before that demonstration, the county sheriff sent out a summons to all the white men of the county to turn out as a posse -- only the white men.

 

[bellisarius]

Your post is yet another fucking lie.

Pretty much. And he states them, one after the other, with such certitude.

 

[Champakian]

If the title is itself a preemptive rebuttal,
then you know it is partisan propaganda.

The OP thinks he's St. Fauci of Elections.

Of course if the Federal government is
passing laws to regulate local elections,
then they are, indeed Federalizing them.

 

[bellisarius]

If the title is itself a preemptive rebuttal,
then you know it is partisan propaganda.

The OP thinks he's St. Fauci of Elections.

Of course if the Federal government is
passing laws to regulate local elections,
then they are, indeed Federalizing them.

You would think that that would be self-evident to even the most casual of observer's.

The legislation is nothing more than an attempt to do a end run around the SCOTUS ruling of some years ago. Only this time they're thinking big. They want to roll up ALL the states, not just a few.

 

[Champakian]

Our government has devolved into a collection of Faucii who would be Caesar.


We are in serious need of an 1812 moment...

 

[GothTalk]

So the states are prohibited from denying anyone their right to vote.

But I thought the states were the ones who make the rules on election.

But they can't make any rule against that one.

Hmm....confusing

Think of it like 2A rights..... if California can regulate you down to wrist rockets and harsh language, and that's not prohibiting or denying anyone their 2A rights and that's all good.


What makes you think red states can't regulate your golden cows into the dirt????

 

[GothTalk]

And why was he beaten? Cause he had the audacity to want access to voting as a citizen of the USA. He fought against the very types of restrictions Republicans are trying to write into law in at least 28 States.

Tough shit, states rights you whiney little authoritarian bitch.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Actually, the new one is called the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act -- named after the late Congresscritter who was beaten up on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, back in the day.

LOL - that is what I thought and confused me. HAVA was a completely different law, which had bipartisan support.

 

[Paul_Chance]

The part of the voting rights act that was overturned by the Supreme Court was the portion that required certain states to provide affirmative proof that any changes they make were not discriminatory (either pro forma or defacto). In general, the Federal authorities can't do that, craft a law which places a requirement on certain states but not others. For example, under the Voting Rights Act Texas could not change their state law without permission, but Colorado could. The plaintiffs argued, successfully, that the circumstances had changed significantly, rendering that portion of the Voting Rights Act immaterial.

Now, under the law, the DOJ can file to stop changes in law that it thinks are discriminatory, either pro forma (on its face) or defacto (based on disparate impact analysis), but the burden of proof has switched to the federal government (as it is under all other federal laws). The DOJ cannot say "You're guilty, prove you're not", they have to say "we think you're guilty and here's our proof". One provision in the John Lewis JLVRAA would return to placing the burden of proof on the states, allowing the DOJ to pre-emptively strike down changes in voting law. (And I believe the DOJ has already opened a suite against Georgia based on de facto discrimation, but the difference is the burden of proof is now on the DOJ)

 

[phrodeau]

You would think that that would be self-evident to even the most casual of observer's.

The legislation is nothing more than an attempt to do a end run around the SCOTUS ruling of some years ago. Only this time they're thinking big. They want to roll up ALL the states, not just a few.

It’s not an end run, it’s what the SCOTUS said that Congress needs to legislate.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/details-on-shelby-county-v-holder-in-plain-english/

 

[Rightguide]

Pretty much. And he states them, one after the other, with such certitude.

His is a belief-based certitude based on the inviolability of his ignorance. His practice isn't to seek out evidence as he assumes his audience to be as religiously invested in simple belief as he is. Peck is the Reverend Ike of Lit, "You can't lose with the stuff I use!"

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Only 5 more days until Schumer’s big vote on filibuster changes and the elections bill.