Supreme Court rejects Michigan straight-ticket voting appeal

Absentglare said:

You should educate yourself on the topic.

Voting booths in Michigan's black neighborhoods are noticeably different.

The ban on straight ticket voting was an effort to further obstruct the bandaid on an already obstructed democratic process.

Click to expand...

Then why isn't that the issue?

This seems to be about - I dunno, blacks can only read and spell one letter at a time?

The percentage of polarized sheeple voters is increasing every election cycle, so why wouldn't we want to accommodate them.

However, did federal Michigan judge say that the black voter is a imbecile?

LaylaWindu said:

I agree it is better, but that has nothing to do with this ruling.


Again, nothing to do with the ruling.

Click to expand...

That is why the ruling is so racist.

Since political parties aren't in the Constitution, I find this decision to use tortured logic. How about an option to just vote for candidates under the age of 40?

I wonder how party line voting was viewed in CT when Lieberman went Independent against a D and an R.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

danarhea said:

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Republican passed law was to make it take much longer for African Americans to vote, thus creating longer lines and making it more difficult for blacks to vote. The vote was 6-2 in favor of striking down the law, which included Chief Justice John Roberts.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

I find that funny, but not in a ha, ha sense. Georgia used to have this straight ticket voting, but no more. Down here in the late 1990's the Republicans were gaining strength state wide. But the Democrats were still in charge of the governorship and state legislatures. See this and figuring that the straight ticket check would cause them to lose power sooner than later because of the growing Republican strength, the Democratic state legislature done away with the straight ballot check. No up roar or federal intervention at all.

It worked for an election cycles, but in 2002 Georgia elected its first ever Republican governor and the Republicans took control of the state legislature for the first time, also ever.

My point is that this federal judge probably wouldn't have intervened at all if it was a democratic legislature that done away with it as was the case down here.

RetiredUSN said:

The percentage of polarized sheeple voters is increasing every election cycle, so why wouldn't we want to accommodate them.

However, did federal Michigan judge say that the black voter is a imbecile?

Click to expand...

No, he did not. He pointed out several relevant facts.

The law disproportionately impacts black voters:

"Metzger found fifteen cities in Michigan with a straight-party voting rate of about 65% or higher. Metzger Report, Appendix A. Of those fifteen cities, only two, Hamtramck and Mount Morris, were majority white. Id. The five cities with straight-party voting rates greater than 75%, were all majority African American. Id. In fact, although the average straight-party voting rate in Michigan is about 50%, the straight-party voting rate in African-American majority districts was 67% in 2012, and 73.5% in 2014. Id. From this finding, Metzger concluded that African-American voters were much more likely to use straight-party voting than white voters, and that P.A. 268 would have a larger impact on African-American populations than white ones. Id."

It creates a risk that votes will not be counted:

"Additionally, the new ballots would still include political party vignettes across the top. The Gongwer Report, published on May 23, 2016, concluded that voters that are used to straight-party voting may end up having their votes discounted due to voter confusion. Complaint (Exhibit 15, Pg. ID No. 306–07) (“The concern is that voters accustomed to voting a straight-party ballot will circle or make some type of mark next to the vignette in an attempt to cast their vote . . . if the voter made a mark next to the vignette and voted in any other race, then the machine would accept the ballot with no vote recorded for the partisan races and the voter unaware of the error.”); see also Rozell Declaration, ¶ 18 (Pg. ID No. 284–85) (“The uniform opinion among the county clerks is that this is going to cause great confusion and that voters, used to being able to vote straight-party, will circle the party they want or otherwise seek to mark this new ballot display, thinking that this is the way to vote straight-party as they have done in the past.”). Thus, there is also a risk that votes will simply not be counted due to voter confusion. Obviously, because African-American voters are statistically more likely to use straight-party voting, they face a disproportionate risk of this harm as well."

The State does not have an adequate plan to combat the significant increase in time it creates to cast a ballot:

"Rozell further notes that according to the “MIT line optimization calculator,” the elimination of straight- party voting could increase wait time as much as forty minutes in Oakland County, which is only 13% African-American. Id. at ¶ 14; Metzger Report at 6 (Pg. ID No. 225). At oral argument, the Defendant argued that the State has taken measures to combat long wait times by adding a $5 million appropriation, presumably to be spent on more voting booths and staff. See Dkt. No. 1 (Exhibit 1, Pg. ID No. 31). However, Defendant has not provided the Court any information on how this money will be allocated amongst the different counties. For example, allocating the money evenly will do nothing to mitigate the fact that African-Americans would still be disproportionally harmed by P.A. 268. Moreover, it appears that the $5 million appropriation is woefully insufficient. There is evidence that it would actually take $30 million, six times the amount appropriated, to adequately combat the long lines. Dkt. No. 1 (Exhibit 13 at p. 5, Pg. ID No. 278)."

joG said:

Are you saying you think is would be more difficult for blacks than whites? That is not very polite.

Click to expand...

There are much longer voting lines in Detroit, Flint, and Grand Rapids than there are in Ishpheming and similar places. The big cities hold the largest African American populations. So, you see, it IS more difficult for blacks than whites to vote when you put up barriers to voting. And that is exactly what RepubliKKKans in Michigan did.

Perotista said:

I find that funny, but not in a ha, ha sense. Georgia used to have this straight ticket voting, but no more. Down here in the late 1990's the Republicans were gaining strength state wide. But the Democrats were still in charge of the governorship and state legislatures. See this and figuring that the straight ticket check would cause them to lose power sooner than later because of the growing Republican strength, the Democratic state legislature done away with the straight ballot check. No up roar or federal intervention at all.

It worked for an election cycles, but in 2002 Georgia elected its first ever Republican governor and the Republicans took control of the state legislature for the first time, also ever.

My point is that this federal judge probably wouldn't have intervened at all if it was a democratic legislature that done away with it as was the case down here.

Click to expand...

Nice to see that you believe John Roberts is a Democrat. LOL.

danarhea said:

Nice to see that you believe John Roberts is a Democrat. LOL.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about Roberts being a democrat. Just that I thought it was funny or strange that in a state at the time controlled by Democrats doing away with straight party voting was okay, the right thing to do and when the other party does it, it is totally wrong. That shows politics and political agendas have entered into our judicial system big time. But you know that already.

chuckiechan said:

Straight ticket is perfect for semi sentient voters. They just do what they are told and pick up their $20.00 on the way out the door.

Click to expand...

Of course you have no evidence for that assertion.

Crovax said:

Wait so the Supreme Court ruled that race is a factor in party line voting? Thier might be other reasons to strike this law down, such as the state have no compelling reason for the restriction on the right to vote. But this ruling seems very offensive to blacks.

Click to expand...

No, the evidence was clear that about half the state uses party line voting and blacks use it more than any other demographic. It's not offensive to point out voting patterns and to note that this change in the law hits black voting patterns.

danarhea said:

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Republican passed law was to make it take much longer for African Americans to vote, thus creating longer lines and making it more difficult for blacks to vote. The vote was 6-2 in favor of striking down the law, which included Chief Justice John Roberts.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Maybe republicans should spend less time trying to legislate how people vote, and more time working for the voters...

Perotista said:

I didn't say anything about Roberts being a democrat. Just that I thought it was funny or strange that in a state at the time controlled by Democrats doing away with straight party voting was okay, the right thing to do and when the other party does it, it is totally wrong. That shows politics and political agendas have entered into our judicial system big time. But you know that already.

Click to expand...

But the court obviously didn't JUST rule on whether straight-ticket voting should be allowed or not. The court cited a bunch of facts unique to this case, such as the effect on voting times, how that would disproportionately affect black majority districts, the lack of any plan to mitigate the predictable significant increase in time to vote and lines, the confusing design of the ballot and more. And they ruled that after taking ALL those factors into account that the changes ran afoul of applicable laws.

You're citing GA but we don't have any of the relevant facts necessary to compare the two cases, and then drawing a sweeping conclusion - that the decision was driven by politics - that simply does not follow from "Georgia eliminated straight ticket voting, TOO!"

joG said:

I was responding to the answer I had received. It was not internally consistent and seemed to indicate that the problem was not a method of voting that encourages thinking about candidates vs voting only between parties. To give into "Forcing people to take longer in the voting booth extends wait times in underserved, understaffed areas, which nearly always happen to be in places where minorities vote. Funny how that works" instead of correcting the real problem seems to me to be an attempt to utilize presumed negative attributes of black voters. That is as racist as anything that the law was being accused of.

Click to expand...

Not at all, it's about not micromanaging voting in poor neighborhoods in order to constrict the right to vote.

I wish republicans took the right to vote one tenth as seriously as they take the right to bear arms.

jimbo said:

Then why isn't that the issue?

This seems to be about - I dunno, blacks can only read and spell one letter at a time?

Click to expand...

That is an issue, that's just not this issue which is about restricting the right to vote.

JasperL said:

But the court obviously didn't JUST rule on whether straight-ticket voting should be allowed or not. The court cited a bunch of facts unique to this case, such as the effect on voting times, how that would disproportionately affect black majority districts, the lack of any plan to mitigate the predictable significant increase in time to vote and lines, the confusing design of the ballot and more. And they ruled that after taking ALL those factors into account that the changes ran afoul of applicable laws.

You're citing GA but we don't have any of the relevant facts necessary to compare the two cases, and then drawing a sweeping conclusion - that the decision was driven by politics - that simply does not follow from "Georgia eliminated straight ticket voting, TOO!"

Click to expand...

It did. But was solely done for political reasons.

Perotista said:

It did. But was solely done for political reasons.

Click to expand...

OK, you ignored my entire point....:roll:

JasperL said:

OK, you ignored my entire point....:roll:

Click to expand...

I always look at things in the light of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Most people don't.

danarhea said:

The law itself was offensive to blacks who, according to the court, might not all get a chance to vote before the polls closed.

Click to expand...

Why would that happen?

apdst said:

Why would that happen?

Click to expand...

The decision of the lower court points out that this law would increase the time it takes to cast a ballot by up to 40 minutes. The State has not extended voting hours nor does it have a plan to provide additional voting machines to offset that increase.

Napoleon said:

The decision of the lower court points out that this law would increase the time it takes to cast a ballot by up to 40 minutes. The State has not extended voting hours nor does it have a plan to provide additional voting machines to offset that increase.

Click to expand...

How is that going to effect black folks more than anyone else?

Napoleon said:

The decision of the lower court points out that this law would increase the time it takes to cast a ballot by up to 40 minutes. The State has not extended voting hours nor does it have a plan to provide additional voting machines to offset that increase.

Click to expand...

OK, Fine! So the court is saying that it takes up to 40 minutes to cast the new ballot. The new ballot can't tell the color of the skin of the voter. Why then, does one racial group deserve special consideration. Is the court suggesting that blacks aren't as savvy as whites, or Hispanics, or Asians? Is the court suggesting that blacks aren't as socially adjusted as whites, or Hispanics , or Asians? Or that blacks have been suppressed for so long that they need the next 20 or 30 years to catch up? What is the court telling us?

apdst said:

How is that going to effect black folks more than anyone else?

Click to expand...

The straight-party voting rate is significantly higher in majority black voting districts.

Quazimodo said:

What is the court telling us?

Click to expand...

See post #31. Michigan voters have twice rejected the elimination of straight-party voting - a feature of voting in this state for over 100 years. What do you think the motivations of the Republicans are for slamming it in against the will of the voters during a Presidential election year?

Napoleon said:

The straight-party voting rate is significantly higher in majority black voting districts.



See post #31.

Click to expand...

It's as statewide ban. How can it effect majority black precincts more than any other precinct?

Or, is that the go to excuse? "This will effect black folks, so we can't do it".

apdst said:

It's as statewide ban. How can it effect majority black precincts more than any other precinct? Or, is that the go to excuse? "This will effect black folks, so we can't do it".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the statistics. It affects majority black districts more than other districts because straight-party voting is done more frequently in majority black districts. That means the impact of its elimination would be greater in those districts.