[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's one good way to get Sanders nominated, I guess.

Pretty sure the stuff was put into motion before the candidates on either side were clear.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

E.J.Dionne? Really? He's a flaming liberal hack. Its an opinion piece. Look at the MAP of voting locations and get back to me. further, Your article didn't say squat about suppression. YOU don't seem to be intellectually precise enough to notice what was stated, and what was inferred.

Here's the thing. With early voting being close to 80%, almost 100% of those standing in line would have had to vote for Sanders and Cruz to make it even close.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

E.J.Dionne? Really? He's a flaming liberal hack. Its an opinion piece. Look at the MAP of voting locations and get back to me. further, Your article didn't say squat about suppression. YOU don't seem to be intellectually precise enough to notice what was stated, and what was inferred.

So IOW you aren't going to address the fundamental issue which is the blatant disparity between the # of polling stations per voter? And instead make the pedantic observation that the article didn't explicitly use the word "suppression"? I suppose for you the mayor of Phoenix's observations don't really exist since they were mentioned in an "opinion piece" as well huh?

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, whose government does not control election management, is furious about what was visited upon his city’s residents. The day after the primary, he wrote U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch asking her to open a Justice Department investigation into the fiasco. It was not just that there weren’t enough polling places, Stanton charged. Their allocation also was “far more favorable in predominantly Anglo communities.” There were fewer voting locations in “parts of the county with higher minority populations.”

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So IOW you aren't going to address the fundamental issue which is the blatant disparity between the # of polling stations per voter? And instead make the pedantic observation that the article didn't explicitly use the word "suppression"? I suppose for you the mayor of Phoenix's observations don't really exist since they were mentioned in an "opinion piece" as well huh?



OAW

Do you think 100% of those voters were "feeling the Bern"? That's the only way Sanders could possibly win.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Do you think 100% of those voters were "feeling the Bern"? That's the only way Sanders could possibly win.

Honestly I think that's beside the point. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. It doesn't matter if the people waiting in those ridiculously long lines votes would have altered the outcome or not. The right to vote unencumbered simply shouldn't be toyed with for partisan purposes. Regardless of who one supports in a primary or general election.

OAW

[OAW]

At least there are some in the GOP who can acknowledge the obvious. Too bad he seems to be pissing in the wind when it comes to his fellow Republicans.

A leading GOP voice on election law is warning that voter discrimination is all but inevitable in November unless Congress acts first to strengthen poll protections.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said a 2013 Supreme Court decision gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) threatens to disenfranchise minority voters if lawmakers don't move quickly to update the law.

Writing in The New York Times, Sensenbrenner pointed to the recent primary debacle in Arizona — where sharp cutbacks in the number of polling stations led to hours-long waits in some districts — as an example of the type of barrier voters might face without congressional action.

"If Congress doesn’t act soon, 2016 will be the first time since 1964 that the United States will elect a president without the full protections of the law," Sensenbrenner wrote. "Modernizing the act to address the Supreme Court’s concerns should be one of Congress’s highest priorities."

The message is aimed more at Sensenbrenner's fellow Republicans than it is at the Democrats, who almost universally support the stronger protections.

While Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has said recently that he backs Sensenbrenner's bill to update the VRA, he's also vowing not to bring it to the floor unless it moves first through the Judiciary Committee.

Ryan's bottom-up approach means the proposal faces a bleak future. The Judiciary panel is headed by an opponent of the legislation, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who says no update to the law is needed due to the "substantial" protections the court left intact. He's singled out the retained power of voters to sue if they feel they've suffered discrimination.

But Sensenbrenner, who championed the last update of the voting rights law in 2006, is taking that argument to task, saying "the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless." He noted that by the time the courts act the election would have been long passed.

"There is no adequate remedy for voter discrimination after an election because there is no way to know who would have won absent discrimination," he wrote.

In its 5-4 ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a central part of the VRA requiring regions with a documented history of racial discrimination at the polls to get approval from Washington before changing their voting rules. Before the decision, the pre-clearance mandate applied to nine states, mostly in the South, and certain districts within six others.

The court's conservative majority found that, while the federal government has the power to require pre-clearance of voting changes, the formula dictating which states are subject is outdated and therefore unconstitutional. That formula was last updated in the 1970s.

Chief Justice John Roberts invited Congress to "draft another formula based on current conditions."

Written along with Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a senior Democrat on the Judiciary panel and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Sensenbrenner's proposal is designed to answer that challenge.

Top Republican warns of discrimination at the polls in November | TheHill

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Can't post from my phone but check out the provisional ballot fail rate in AZ

[Chongo]

"Uninstructed delegation?"

[The Final Dakar]

I've resisted posting stories in this thread because, well, they're anecdotes. The trend I am seeing, though, is the voter ID laws are impacting the elderly and foreigners. Those born outside the US, outside a hospital, or are just so old the records are lost have to jump through some serious hoops requiring multiple trips and usually multiple locations.

[The Final Dakar]

Whoops
GOP congressman: Voter ID law will help Republicans - CNNPolitics.com

[subego]

Even though I'm on the same side as Eric Holder in this case, gawd I wish he would just go away.

[The Final Dakar]

I keep forgetting to mention, articles mention that Maricopa county cut is polling places from 200 in 2012 to 60 in 2016, but what's even better is in 2008 they 400. I guess 200 didn't create long enough lines. Seriously, that's 15% as many polling places compared to 2008.

[The Final Dakar]

Ex-Staffer: Wisconsin GOPers Cheered Voter ID Bill For What It 'Could Do For Us’

[The Final Dakar]

GOP: Require cash for longer vote hours

I honestly don't know what to make of this. Does extending poll hours somehow undermine democracy? Does it aid fraud?

[andi*pandi]

So paying to vote makes sense to this guy.

Also, poll workers in ohio make $22/hr? sign me up!

[subego]

The guy has half an argument. We already pay to vote, it's just spread out via taxes.

[The Final Dakar]

New Yorks primary rules and NYCs electoral commission def need an update

[The Final Dakar]

New York Had the Second Lowest Voter Turnout So Far This Election Season | The Nation

Moreover, Brooklyn’s voter purge could have been stopped if the Supreme Court had not gutted the Voting Rights Act, since Kings County was one of the jurisdictions that had to approve its voting changes with the federal government based on a history of voting discrimination. Brooklyn, the Bronx and Manhattan were covered under Section 5 of the VRA in 1970 because they had English-only literacy tests dating back to 1921 and very low turnout among minority voters.

[OAW]

^^^^

Shenanigans plain and simple.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

NC voter ID and other changes upheld.

[OAW]

This is a prime example of how real people are negatively impacted by these silly Voter ID laws ....

The elderly Washington, D.C., woman who went viral after being captured on video in February dancing gleefully with the Obamas is unable to get a government-issued photo ID, the Washington Post reports.

According to columnist Courtland Milloy, in order for Virginia McLaurin to get her D.C. nondriver’s license photo ID, she needs a copy of her birth certificate from South Carolina, where she was born. However, in order to get that birth certificate, she needs a photo ID. McLaurin is basically caught in a never-ending bureaucratic cycle.

“I don’t think I’ll ever get that face card,” McLaurin told Milloy. “I was birthed by a midwife and the birthday put in a Bible somewhere. I don’t know if they even had birth certificates back then.”

Luckily for McLaurin, the district doesn’t require a photo ID to vote, so she can still exercise her right to vote in the D.C. primary come June. The same can’t be said of other elderly citizens who live in states that have adopted restrictive voter-ID laws.

“I’d pray long and hard to my God if they ever tried to do something like that to me,” McLaurin said.

She does not remember exactly when her identification was lost after her purse was snatched from her, but she does remember exactly what happened when it was taken.

“I was standing on 16th Street, waiting for a bus, and these three fellows passed me in a car and went one block, then I saw two of them walking back together, like they were playing,” she said. “Before I knew anything, one of them had walked up to me and said, ‘I’ll take this.’ ”

"I didn’t get any of my things back,” she added. “Then I started putting off replacing them because I didn’t want to think about carrying around stuff that people would steal.”

McLaurin, who recently turned 107, actually got a temporary ID from the district to use when she leased an apartment last month. However, as her son Felipe Cardoso understands it, that identification cannot be used to obtain her birth certificate.

“It’s sad to see my mother having to stand in lines, getting tired,” Cardoso said. “She can’t understand how her picture could be in all those newspapers and all over the Internet, how so many people could recognize her on the street and want to take selfies with her, and she can’t even get a photo ID.”

107-Year-Old Woman Who Danced With Obama Unable to Get Government-Issued ID - The Root

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I addressed this earlier, but anecdotal examples of outlier people don't strike me as a good representation of the laws effect.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I addressed this earlier, but anecdotal examples of outlier people don't strike me as a good representation of the laws effect.

I don't think this will be the primary impact of such laws. The shenanigans we saw in Arizona is will be more widespread than this.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

That said, I wonder if black people are statistically more likely not have a birth certificate (born at home)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That said, I wonder if black people are statistically more likely not have a birth certificate (born at home)

Older generations absolutely. That was one of my fundamental points way back in the early days of the thread. This is from an exchange I was having with ebuddy (RIP) back in Jan. 2014.

Originally Posted by OAW

There should be a grandfathers clause for those above a certain age for birth certificate and marriage license requirements. I've mentioned before that there are many elderly people in the African-American community ... especially those born in the South ... who simply have no such documentation. Not due to any fault of their own. But because during Jim Crow there were many states that didn't see fit to keep such records about minorities. You also have many elderly people of various ethnicities who were born at home in rural areas where such record keeping wasn't a priority.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Ok, you were way ahead of us on that one.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/us...-law.html?_r=0

The opinion, by Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of Federal District Court in Winston-Salem, upheld the repeal of a provision that allowed people to register and vote on the same day. It also upheld a seven-day reduction in the early-voting period; the end of preregistration, which allowed some people to sign up before their 18th birthdays; and the repeal of a provision that allowed for the counting of ballots cast outside voters’ home precinct.

In his ruling, the judge suggested that past discrimination had abated. “There is significant, shameful past discrimination,” he wrote. “In North Carolina’s recent history, however, certainly for the last quarter century, there is little official discrimination to consider.”

i.e., Judge Roberts' "racism is over" claim.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

He's not been paying attention to BLM, a good many of them are racist as ****.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He's not been paying attention to BLM, a good many of them are racist as ****.

Does BLM control the state government of North Carolina? Does BLM in any way, shape, form, or fashion enact voting legislation? Anywhere in the USA? Of course not. So why would you even respond to Dakar's post with this nonsense?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Older generations absolutely. That was one of my fundamental points way back in the early days of the thread. This is from an exchange I was having with ebuddy (RIP) back in Jan. 2014.

Originally Posted by OAW

There should be a grandfathers clause for those above a certain age for birth certificate and marriage license requirements. I've mentioned before that there are many elderly people in the African-American community ... especially those born in the South ... who simply have no such documentation. Not due to any fault of their own. But because during Jim Crow there were many states that didn't see fit to keep such records about minorities. You also have many elderly people of various ethnicities who were born at home in rural areas where such record keeping wasn't a priority.

OAW

Well it would appear that DC gets it. Anyone want to bet to see if any GOP controlled states implement a similar common-sense grandfather clause?

Longtime Washington, D.C., native Virginia McLaurin, famous for her gleeful dancing as she met with the President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, saw little hope in ever obtaining a government-issued photo ID.

Speaking to the Washington Post over the weekend, the 107-year-old detailed how she had lost her ID when her purse was stolen several years ago and the vicious bureaucratic cycle she was stuck in trying to acquire a new one now. In order to do so, she would need a copy of her birth certificate from South Carolina, where she was born, but in order to get that birth certificate, she’d need a photo ID.

Luckily for McLaurin, who just celebrated her birthday, D.C. doesn’t require photo ID to vote, but the lack of documentation was still frustrating when she had to take care of official business, or even when she was trying to do something as simple as book a plane ticket.

On Tuesday, however, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser announced a new regulation, effective immediately, that will allow McLaurin an easy path to obtaining a District photo ID, the Washington Post reports.

The new rule, according to the Post, is aimed at helping those 70 and older, who may not have the usually required documents for obtaining a District-issued “Real ID,” which is required for air travel and other identification purposes. The regulation allows the District’s Department of Motor Vehicles director to broaden the list of documents accepted from residents 70 and older, who may have problems digging up birth certificates or other identifying information.

According to the Post, Bowser herself, along with Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue and DMV Director Lucinda M. Barbers, met up with McLaurin to finish her paperwork. McLaurin now has a brand-new temporary ID, which will be valid until she gets her permanent one in the mail. D.C. had been working on the exception since June, along with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Bowser said that it was a “commonsense” fix for older people, who might have trouble providing documentation that might not even have existed when they were born.

“Our seniors deserve easy access to a government photo ID so they can take advantage of the many benefits, activities and services that other residents enjoy,” Bowser said.

McLaurin said that she was grateful for the efforts that are now in place for all those who may be in her situation in the District.

“I thank the Lord, Mayor Bowser and everyone who helped me get my photo ID renewed,” she said. “I am especially happy to know that now all seniors in D.C. will be able to get an ID more easily.”

DC Mayor Announces New Regulation That Will Allow 107-Year-Old Who Danced With Obama to Obtain Photo ID - The Root

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Such an issue is so specific, with so few people being affected, it can be (and is) handled on a case-by-case basis.

[OAW]

African-Americans 70+ years of age and born in the South constitutes "so few people being affected" in your estimation. Yeah. Ok.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

A handful of people in that category, yeah, that's a comparative few. Don't act like it's "all blacks >70 born in the South", because it isn't. My small engine specialist is an elderly black man, born in Macon Ga. When I asked how hard it was for him to get a photo ID he looked at me like I was crazy.

"This another one of those idiots on the internet claimin' we can't do for ourselves?"
"Yeah, something like that."
"Assholes..."

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

A handful of people in that category, yeah, that's a comparative few. Don't act like it's "all blacks >70 born in the South", because it isn't. My small engine specialist is an elderly black man, born in Macon Ga. When I asked how hard it was for him to get a photo ID he looked at me like I was crazy.

"This another one of those idiots on the internet claimin' we can't do for ourselves?"
"Yeah, something like that."
"Assholes..."

I never said anything anything about "all". What I'm saying is that this demographic is by no means an insignicant number of people. How many in that group would have difficulty getting a photo ID because they don't have the requisite documentation? Especially since state governments in the south very often didn't expend much effort to issue birth certificates to black citizens during the Jim Crow era? Especially those born at home in rural areas? Well you reallly don't know now do you? What I know is that there are "more than a few" in my extended family alone. Arkansas and Mississippi were particularly bad in this area. You are simply portraying your typically dismissive opinion as fact. So carry on.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I never said anything anything about "all".

Yeah you did.

African-Americans 70+ years of age and born in the South constitutes "so few people being affected" in your estimation. Yeah. Ok.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yeah you did.

Allow me to put this in terms that you might actually be able to grasp. I mentioned a particular demographic. Not the even wider demographic specified in the DC regulation. A much narrower one actually targeting the ethnic group and region more likely to be impacted. Think of that as a potential "pool". Every single individual in the pool isn't going to lack the requisite documentation to obtain a photo ID. But when instituting a "grandfather clause" you don't want to make the pool so large as to contain every one on the planet. Just as you wouldn't make it so small that it doesn't cover enough of the targeted people. You set the pool to cover those who are "likely" to be impacted. My point here is that you don't have an inkling of a clue whether 1%, 10%, 35%, or 80% of that demographic is impacted. You are just following your typical MO of downplaying anything that disproportionately impacts minorities in a negative manner. Because the even narrower demographic I mentioned is certainly "more than a few" considering the very obvious historical record of southern state policies during the Jim Crow era.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Allow me to put this in terms that you might actually be able to grasp.

Get over yourself. Your ego is getting worse every single day, to the point it's embarrassing to witness. If you can't curb your hostility, maybe you should just stick to reddit and tumblr.

I mentioned a particular demographic.

So what you meant to say is: "A few African-Americans 70+ years of age and born in the South", I guess. Right? When/if those situations arise, as with that lady's case, they can specifically be addressed.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Get over yourself. Your ego is getting worse every single day, to the point it's embarrassing to witness. If you can't curb your hostility, maybe you should just stick to reddit and tumblr.

Or perhaps your willful blindness has just become exhausting ...

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

So what you meant to say is: "A few African-Americans 70+ years of age and born in the South", I guess. Right? When/if those situations arise, as with that lady's case, they can specifically be addressed.

Actually no. Now that might be what YOU meant. It certainly isn't what I said. I made it quite clear that while it certainly isn't "all" there are "more than a few" within that demographic who are impacted by this. The historical record of state policy in the South during the Jim Crow era renders this notion of a "few" to be laughable at best. But again you are more interested in downplaying how widespread the issue is than recognizing basic historical facts.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Or perhaps your willful blindness has just become exhausting ...

No, you're simply becoming insufferable with your trite, adolescent insults.

Actually no. Now that might be what YOU meant. It certainly isn't what I said. I made it quite clear that while it certainly isn't "all" there are "more than a few" within that demographic who are impacted by this. The historical record of state policy in the South during the Jim Crow era renders this notion of a "few" to be laughable at best. But again you are more interested in downplaying how widespread the issue is than recognizing basic historical facts.

Find more, citations needed. I'm sure groups are out shaking the bushes to find any and all examples they can to prop up your argument. Show me these "less than all but more than a few" people who can't be handled case-by-case because they can't get a photo ID for some reason that I'm sure you think is due to "RACISM!"

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n "Always in Denial" Tightpants

Find more, citations needed.

Certainly ....

Gloria Cuttino knows she was born. She just can't prove it.

In a frustrating circumstance that's surprisingly common among poor African Americans born in the South in the mid-20th century, Cuttino has no birth certificate.

That wasn't a great hindrance for much of her life, but it's a bigger problem these days, when the post-9/11 world insists on identification cards with photographs, even for non-drivers.

For decades, many low-income African American women in the South gave birth in family homes instead of hospitals, aided by midwives, said Nicole Austin-Hillery, director of the Washington office of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. The births often went unrecorded.

Tens of thousands of babies were born off the grid, real people with the status of ghosts.

Quite often, the white establishment running records offices in the Jim Crow South weren't all that eager to record the births anyway, Austin-Hillery said.

And, in some cases, pregnant black women were denied entrance to hospitals, historians have written.

As many as 7 percent of U.S. citizens - 13 million people - do not have access to the documents that prove their birth and citizenship, according to research by the Brennan Center.

And people with low incomes are more than twice as likely to lack documentation such as a birth certificate that proves their citizenship, according to the center.

That's partly because of the Southern midwife problem. But even for people who can access their birth certificates, it costs money to secure documents, and poor people preoccupied with food, rent, and heat rarely have the cash to get their papers in order, Austin-Hillery said.

For many Americans, obtaining a birth certificate proves challenging - Philadelphia Inquirer

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

So, that's 2 now?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

So, that's 2 now?

If that is what you gleaned from the part of the article that I highlighted above then you have truly taken being deliberately obtuse to a whole new level.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Virginia voter ID upheld. I find the judge's comments naive at best but that's the way it is.

[BadKosh]

Hmmmmmmm.........

CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year « CBS Los Angeles

[subego]

The one example they provided where they were aware of how the vote was cast was one cast by mail.

[andi*pandi]

It remains unclear how the dead voters voted but 86 were registered Republicans, 146 were Democrats, including Cenkner.

Interesting to see how they voted, and who would have known they had passed and been able to do the voting... family members?

[The Final Dakar]

Ohio's Golden Week early voting reinstated by a federal judge. Found to have disparate impact on AA (poor) voters. Imagine it will get appealed.

Also Virginias redrawn map stands as is.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ohio's Golden Week early voting reinstated by a federal judge. Found to have disparate impact on AA (poor) voters. Imagine it will get appealed.

Ohio Judge Blocks GOP Efforts to Curtail Early Voting | Mother Jones

OAW

[OAW]

Well this is welcome news ....

Wednesday's ruling by a federal appeals court against Texas's voter ID law looks likely to lower a massive barrier to voting that had threatened to disenfranchise large numbers of the state's minority voters. The ruling also offers a stinging rebuke to state lawmakers and officials who enacted and defended the law. And its cogent dismantling of many of the key claims advanced by backers of strict ID laws — all the more remarkable coming from a conservative-leaning court — could have implications beyond the Lone Star State.

Still, exactly what happens next — and what it all means for voters this November — remains somewhat up in the air.

The 9-6 opinion from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't give the plaintiffs everything they wanted. It did uphold a district court's 2014 finding that the law had a discriminatory effect in violation of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder for Texas's blacks and Hispanics to vote than it is for whites. But it told the district court to reconsider the question of whether Texas intended to racially discriminate, and it overturned the district court's finding that the law was an unconstitutional poll tax. Most importantly, rather than striking down the law, the appeals court left it to the district court to fashion a remedy, saying it should be narrowly tailored to solving the problem, while respecting the intent of the legislature.

Texas Voter ID Ruling Offers Stinging Rebuke to Law's Backers - NBC News

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah thanks, I think there have been three big wins this week in Texas, Wisconsin and Michigan. It's worth noting that the 5th CCoA is the most conservative in the country and unanimously struck down Texas' law.