WARNING: The Next Wave of Republican Voter Suppression

ocean515 · Jul 12, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Three reasons...one no one has shown how one would pull off vote fraud the scope of which could throw a national election... Two, the GOP recently and conservatives historically have a record trying to suppress votes... Look at the immediate action in red states after the Supremes said the Voting Rights Act was outdated... Three, Trump lies so much he is like the boy who cried wolf, it's hard to take many of his claims seriously... 3-5 million fake votes? really? Who could organize/finance/staff that? The only response here has been that hordes of illegals would rush to sign their names on government documents twice. Have worked with immigrants more than a generation... Ain't gonna happen.

No wonder so many states are refusing to cooperate.

First, there is no record of the Republican Party trying to suppress votes. That meme may work for the gullible on the left, but it doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you can help me understand why the left refuses to help clean up voter roles, and any attempt to do so equates to voter suppression in their minds.

ocean515 · Jul 12, 2017

<alt>doxygen said:
There are plenty of links in this thread and others about Republican voter suppression tactics. Review them. I'm not reposting them. I'll look up your claim of masses of dead people voting, I'm sure it will equal, just as an an example, the 80,000 voters purged from by Harris and jeB! in FL back in 2000.

I'm sure Chicago would be red if not for the "dead".:lamo

I will never be swayed by the labels the left uses to describe efforts to insure every vote is honored and clean.

Perhaps you can explain why the left is so adamant to protect voter roles that are inaccurate, contain the names or more people than can vote in the area, etc..

I'd be interested to see an explanation for that.

Nickyjo · Jul 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
First, there is no record of the Republican Party trying to suppress votes. That meme may work for the gullible on the left, but it doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you can help me understand why the left refuses to help clean up voter roles, and any attempt to do so equates to voter suppression in their minds.

GOP operatives have admitted to using voter ID to give them an advantage. One from Pennsylvania, I believe, one from the upper Midwest. Just look at and compare maps of states that initiated voter ID laws and states where denial of the right to vote was an historic a habit. There are scattered states in the north and west, but the south was solid in my memory. Strange... The states that had slaves, lynchings, segregation, and denial of the right to vote to blacks quickly signed up for voter ID once the Supreme Court said the Voting Rights Act had outlived its usefulness. In absence of any showing of fraud. What a coincidence. Also, look up the story of the last election in Arizona, also affected (I think) by the Voting Rights Act.

Don't know that the left has ever tried to clean up voter lists. There is a difference between clearing out dead people and requiring unnecessary ID. This is not a huge problem for the left in my view, as reports I have seen indicate that voter suppression attempts occur and become known, that goads otherwise ambivalent voters to show up.

Nickyjo · Jul 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
First, there is no record of the Republican Party trying to suppress votes. That meme may work for the gullible on the left, but it doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you can help me understand why the left refuses to help clean up voter roles, and any attempt to do so equates to voter suppression in their minds.

Forgive if this message repeats. Arizona, one of the states that had covered by the Voting Rights Act, reduced the number of polling places in Maricopa County (Phoenix) from 200 to 60, from 2012 to 2016, after the Supreme Court decision. Five hour waits in some places. Also, you can Google "GOP admits voter ID intended to suppress votes" and see what you find. One headline caught my gullible eye, "Republicans Keep Admitting that Voter ID Helps them Win." In an article I saw somewhere, one guy working for the GOP in the Midwest resigned in protest when told of the intent of their proposals.

Ultimately, that some in the GOP have been so blatant about this has backfired and spurred democrats to some greater get out the vote efforts. (Don't have this at my fingertips, but I believe some courts have also acknowledged the subversive intent of ID laws, apparently about North Carolina's efforts.)

ocean515 · Jul 12, 2017

Nickyjo said:
GOP operatives have admitted to using voter ID to give them an advantage. One from Pennsylvania, I believe, one from the upper Midwest. Just look at and compare maps of states that initiated voter ID laws and states where denial of the right to vote was an historic a habit. There are scattered states in the north and west, but the south was solid in my memory. Strange... The states that had slaves, lynchings, segregation, and denial of the right to vote to blacks quickly signed up for voter ID once the Supreme Court said the Voting Rights Act had outlived its usefulness. In absence of any showing of fraud. What a coincidence. Also, look up the story of the last election in Arizona, also affected (I think) by the Voting Rights Act.

Don't know that the left has ever tried to clean up voter lists. There is a difference between clearing out dead people and requiring unnecessary ID. This is not a huge problem for the left in my view, as reports I have seen indicate that voter suppression attempts occur and become known, that goads otherwise ambivalent voters to show up.

You're claims need links and support to be considered valid.

I do note you made no attempt to explain why the left is opposed to accurate voter registration lists.

ocean515 · Jul 12, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Forgive if this message repeats. Arizona, one of the states that had covered by the Voting Rights Act, reduced the number of polling places in Maricopa County (Phoenix) from 200 to 60, from 2012 to 2016, after the Supreme Court decision. Five hour waits in some places. Also, you can Google "GOP admits voter ID intended to suppress votes" and see what you find. One headline caught my gullible eye, "Republicans Keep Admitting that Voter ID Helps them Win." In an article I saw somewhere, one guy working for the GOP in the Midwest resigned in protest when told of the intent of their proposals.

Ultimately, that some in the GOP have been so blatant about this has backfired and spurred democrats to some greater get out the vote efforts. (Don't have this at my fingertips, but I believe some courts have also acknowledged the subversive intent of ID laws, apparently about North Carolina's efforts.)

I took your advice and googled "GOP admits voter ID intended to suppress votes"

The first five hits came back from the New York Times, Washington Post, Salon, Huffington Post, and Daily Beast.

None of those sources are credible. Leaks, unnamed sources, etc, etc.. BS from the left's MSM partners.

The GOP would never admit, suggest, or implement a plan, to use voter I.D. as a means of suppressing legal votes.

Not Ever.

It would be political suicide and unconstitutional.

Nickyjo · Jul 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
I took your advice and googled "GOP admits voter ID intended to suppress votes"

The first five hits came back from the New York Times, Washington Post, Salon, Huffington Post, and Daily Beast.

None of those sources are credible. Leaks, unnamed sources, etc, etc.. BS from the left's MSM partners.

The GOP would never admit, suggest, or implement a plan, to use voter I.D. as a means of suppressing legal votes.

Not Ever.

It would be political suicide and unconstitutional.

Don't believe me, believe the courts that have struck down or crippled voter ID laws in NC, Wisconsin and Kansas... Court of Appeals decision on NC easily available, and the Supremes refused to review it. It said the NC legislature was fixing a problem that didn't exist, and at the same time, had gerrymandered districts "with surgical precision" to dilute the black vote. True, these were reported in the NY Times and Washington Post, but I bet you can find evidence of the decisions themselves on line or in your more honest sources, given your reluctance to believe the failing Times and it's fellow pinko propagandist. Of course, everyone knows lower courts and even the Supremes drink the same liberal Kool-Aid. I also saw the GOP Pennsylvania official brag that their law would give the state to Romney. And there is the guy who resigned and blew the whistle inWisconsin. The horse's (elephant's) mouth, as it were, though who knows if he too was force-fed the liberal potion.

Check WAPO 4/7/16 and 7/29/16, and NYTimes 7/30/16, if you dare, as well as Bloomberg 5/15/17, unless that site too has been compromised by by my one-worlder, bleeding heart comrades.

ocean515 · Jul 12, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Don't believe me, believe the courts that have struck down or crippled voter ID laws in NC, Wisconsin and Kansas... Court of Appeals decision on NC easily available, and the Supremes refused to review it. It said the NC legislature was fixing a problem that didn't exist, and at the same time, had gerrymandered districts "with surgical precision" to dilute the black vote. True, these were reported in the NY Times and Washington Post, but I bet you can find evidence of the decisions themselves on line or in your more honest sources, given your reluctance to believe the failing Times and it's fellow pinko propagandist. Of course, everyone knows lower courts and even the Supremes drink the same liberal Kool-Aid. I also saw the GOP Pennsylvania official brag that their law would give the state to Romney. And there is the guy who resigned and blew the whistle inWisconsin. The horse's (elephant's) mouth, as it were, though who knows if he too was force-fed the liberal potion.

Check WAPO 4/7/16 and 7/29/16, and NYTimes 7/30/16, if you dare, as well as Bloomberg 5/15/17, unless that site too has been compromised by by my one-worlder, bleeding heart comrades.

Striking down a method to insure the vote is more secure is not evidence of voter suppression.

It's evidence the structure and method created by the legislation did not meet the criteria needed to remain law.

Gerrymandering is not exclusive to Republicans. The left has used it here in California to insure few, if any, Republicans ever get elected to office.

IMO, gerrymandering should be geographic, period. A pure equal number of people proposition, with no consideration giving to anything other than the number of people living in each resulting district.

Nickyjo · Jul 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
Striking down a method to insure the vote is more secure is not evidence of voter suppression.

It's evidence the structure and method created by the legislation did not meet the criteria needed to remain law.

Gerrymandering is not exclusive to Republicans. The left has used it here in California to insure few, if any, Republicans ever get elected to office.

IMO, gerrymandering should be geographic, period. A pure equal number of people proposition, with no consideration giving to anything other than the number of people living in each resulting district.

Agree with you on the drawing of districts. But still am puzzled: the judges in various states apparently said that the intent was to restrict voting, and a couple of GOP officials have said so as well. One official resigned in protest because of what he was told. The evidence of their intent is both circumstancial and direct. What do you think possessed all these republican legislators to pass these laws in the absence of evidence of voter fraud, especially in those states that have a history of suppression of minority votes? Did they suddenly awaken to a realization of an as then undiscovered, undocumented problem? What kind of evidence would make you consider that there was something fishy in at least one of the states that did this?

The simplest explanation appeals to me, and apparently to the courts: being told by the Supremes that they were off the hook on the Voting Rights Act, within months or years, the states targeted by that act -- and other republican states -- produced laws that suppressed that vote. They were taken to court. Various courts agreed the laws were dirty. A quick search found no evidence that the states reintroduced different legislation, tho that might have happened.

ocean515 · Jul 13, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Agree with you on the drawing of districts. But still am puzzled: the judges in various states apparently said that the intent was to restrict voting, and a couple of GOP officials have said so as well. One official resigned in protest because of what he was told. The evidence of their intent is both circumstancial and direct. What do you think possessed all these republican legislators to pass these laws in the absence of evidence of voter fraud, especially in those states that have a history of suppression of minority votes? Did they suddenly awaken to a realization of an as then undiscovered, undocumented problem? What kind of evidence would make you consider that there was something fishy in at least one of the states that did this?

The simplest explanation appeals to me, and apparently to the courts: being told by the Supremes that they were off the hook on the Voting Rights Act, within months or years, the states targeted by that act -- and other republican states -- produced laws that suppressed that vote. They were taken to court. Various courts agreed the laws were dirty. A quick search found no evidence that the states reintroduced different legislation, tho that might have happened.

It's pretty easy to shop a judge and get a ruling. Consider what the left has attempted to call a Muslim ban, and what the SCOTUS ruled.

Let's not allow people to misrepresent the intent. Voter I.D. is an attempt to restrict voting to those who are legally registered to do so.

Does that mean it is meant to restrict voting in the context the left is trying to sell to the public?

If nobody makes an effort to investigate voter fraud, how does an absence of evidence it exists suggest there is none? It's well documented that dead people have voted. How does that happen?

If you're going to have a rational discussion on this matter, then you need to stop using inflammatory rhetoric. Laws were dirty? Suppressed the vote?

Again, I would like to see a rational explanation for the left's refusal to address voter roles that are inaccurate and/or contain more voters than live in a district.

Waving that off, does not answer the question.

Nickyjo · Jul 13, 2017

ocean515 said:
It's pretty easy to shop a judge and get a ruling. Consider what the left has attempted to call a Muslim ban, and what the SCOTUS ruled.

Let's not allow people to misrepresent the intent. Voter I.D. is an attempt to restrict voting to those who are legally registered to do so.

Does that mean it is meant to restrict voting in the context the left is trying to sell to the public?

If nobody makes an effort to investigate voter fraud, how does an absence of evidence it exists suggest there is none? It's well documented that dead people have voted. How does that happen?

If you're going to have a rational discussion on this matter, then you need to stop using inflammatory rhetoric. Laws were dirty? Suppressed the vote?

Again, I would like to see a rational explanation for the left's refusal to address voter roles that are inaccurate and/or contain more voters than live in a district.

Waving that off, does not answer the question.

Seems that whatever I toss out doesn't click. If I say that a GOP official and an activist said noted that voter ID laws were intended to help them win, you ignore it, and if I say the courts agree that is the case, you say there is judge shopping (in every case?). Then you move on to the impossible request, asking that one prove a negative, that an accusation of something as absurd as 3-5 million illegal votes requires those who are skeptical to prove that it didn't happen. Does one have to prove that thousands of Massachusetts voters didn't, as Trump accused, cross into New Hampshire to vote illegally? Does one have to prove that every weird thing that Trump says isn't true?

The left, such as we are, is not refusing to address voter rolls that are inaccurate -- send a source for that -- we object to laws intending to prevent eligible people from voting. When the GOP, acting in states that historically discriminated, enacts voter ID laws that seem aimed at reducing minority voting, and at the same time bans Sunday voting, a key practice in African American communities, reduce the number of polling places, etc., one gets suspicious. That is evidence, as distinguished from Trump's accusations without evidence. That GOP operatives admit this represents more evidence. Then we go to court and the courts agree. That so many states are refusing to go along with this charade is telling.

If Donald Trump were to shoot democratic voters on 5th Avenue --to mix metaphors -- might that convince you?

ocean515 · Jul 13, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Seems that whatever I toss out doesn't click. If I say that a GOP official and an activist said noted that voter ID laws were intended to help them win, you ignore it, and if I say the courts agree that is the case, you say there is judge shopping (in every case?). Then you move on to the impossible request, asking that one prove a negative, that an accusation of something as absurd as 3-5 million illegal votes requires those who are skeptical to prove that it didn't happen. Does one have to prove that thousands of Massachusetts voters didn't, as Trump accused, cross into New Hampshire to vote illegally? Does one have to prove that every weird thing that Trump says isn't true?

The left, such as we are, is not refusing to address voter rolls that are inaccurate -- send a source for that -- we object to laws intending to prevent eligible people from voting. When the GOP, acting in states that historically discriminated, enacts voter ID laws that seem aimed at reducing minority voting, and at the same time bans Sunday voting, a key practice in African American communities, reduce the number of polling places, etc., one gets suspicious. That is evidence, as distinguished from Trump's accusations without evidence. That GOP operatives admit this represents more evidence. Then we go to court and the courts agree. That so many states are refusing to go along with this charade is telling.

If Donald Trump were to shoot democratic voters on 5th Avenue --to mix metaphors -- might that convince you?

It doesn't click, because I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe in political propaganda. I don't believe in twisted narratives created to push an agenda.

And I also have yet to have one person explain why the left refuses to take measure to clean up voter registration lists, nor address why they have no problem with voter registration lists that contain more than the number of voters eligible to vote in a district. Why is that acceptable to people on the left?

As to your gratuitous last sentence, it did little to convince me that further time spent by either of us on this topic would be time well spent.