If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   SC ruling on Arizona will accomplish the exact opposite of what people think   (azcentral.com) divider line 34
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, National Voter Registration Act, Arizona Secretary of State, University of New Zealand, Election Assistance Commission, Scalia  
•       •       •

3265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2013 at 9:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-18 09:26:22 AM
No it won't. Sure it will mean more of the same useless bills and more taxpayer money wasted, but it will not do the opposite of what people think it will do.

/People think it will not allow AZ to make its own law to govern over federal election
 
2013-06-18 09:30:53 AM
The authority to grant Arizona permission lies with the Election Assistance Commission, which currently has no members. So if the Republicans in Congress want to confirm the President's nominees, they can get right on that.
 
2013-06-18 09:31:34 AM
Arizona is welcome to reapply. If they do, they will go through the same court that rejected their request. I don't really see a different outcome unless the make-up of the court is radically different.
 
2013-06-18 09:32:32 AM
The Senate will have to confirm appointees to the EAC in order for this to happen. GLWT.
 
2013-06-18 09:36:47 AM
May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:32 AM
It's not that Arizona can continue to discriminate and suppress the vote for state elections so much as that part needs to be struck down in a separate lawsuit.
 
2013-06-18 09:43:17 AM

Wellon Dowd: The authority to grant Arizona permission lies with the Election Assistance Commission, which currently has no members. So if the Republicans in Congress want to confirm the President's nominees, they can get right on that.


...and there you have it.
 
2013-06-18 09:47:15 AM

Wellon Dowd: The authority to grant Arizona permission lies with the Election Assistance Commission, which currently has no members. So if the Republicans in Congress want to confirm the President's nominees, they can get right on that.


Republicans are obsessed with empty chairs (and missing members).

www.motherjones.com
 
2013-06-18 09:58:26 AM
So basically, the SCOTUS said "For Federal Elections, you have to stick with Federal Election Law (or get permission from the Federal Government), but for State Elections, you can make your own State Laws?

That seems... rational.
 
2013-06-18 10:03:56 AM
It's certainly better than the alternative. What's amazing is that some time in the next ten or fifteen years the Hispanics will gain an absolute majority in Arizona, the shoe will be on the other foot, and today's vote suppressors will be whining about having to show three forms of ID and their mother's birth certificate. "Ciertamente usted puede votar, si se puede responder a las siguientes preguntas..."
 
2013-06-18 10:18:03 AM
Which means we will have political hackjobs like Hans von Spakovsky appointed to this elections board. (You can read about how he tried to screw up the voting rights division of the Justice Department in the Bush administration... or his later appointment to Virginia's board of elections and ordering the ending of voter registration forms being distributed in languages other than english.)
 
2013-06-18 11:08:20 AM
SC ruling on Arizona will accomplish the exact opposite of what people think

Assuming people think AZ will stop trying to legally discriminate against Hispanics.
 
2013-06-18 11:14:34 AM

hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.


Would it be easier to corrupt one single unified election or 50 elections. Even more if you break it down by voting localities.
 
2013-06-18 11:15:41 AM

Lost Thought 00: It's not that Arizona can continue to discriminate and suppress the vote for state elections so much as that part needs to be struck down in a separate lawsuit.


Can you link one actual story of Arizona supressing the vote of legal citizens? Just one.
 
2013-06-18 11:16:56 AM

rufus-t-firefly: SC ruling on Arizona will accomplish the exact opposite of what people think

Assuming people think AZ will stop trying to legally discriminate against Hispanics.


Is this the liberal retard version of reading where you add "applies only to hispanics"?
 
2013-06-18 11:18:30 AM

Misch: Which means we will have political hackjobs like Hans von Spakovsky appointed to this elections board. (You can read about how he tried to screw up the voting rights division of the Justice Department in the Bush administration... or his later appointment to Virginia's board of elections and ordering the ending of voter registration forms being distributed in languages other than english.)


Sorry, should have said Fairfax County, Virginia.
 
2013-06-18 11:24:21 AM

MyRandomName: hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.

Would it be easier to corrupt one single unified election or 50 elections. Even more if you break it down by voting localities.


So, the reason for our undemocratic, inefficient backwards federal election system is because it is more secure because it is more obscure.
 
2013-06-18 11:28:08 AM

MyRandomName: Can you link one actual story of Arizona supressing the vote of legal citizens? Just one.


Ok.

Arizona

In November of 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which implemented harsh voter identification requirements (as well as proof-of-citizenship requirements-discussed in the next section of this report). The law requires voters who cast a ballot at a polling place on Election Day to present photo identification deemed "acceptable" by Arizona's Secretary of State, such as a driver's license, or two alternate forms of ID that include the name or address of the voter such as a utility bill or a bank statement. Such requirements can disenfranchise voters without photo ID by making it hard for them to cast ballots if they live at a residence where someone else, such as a spouse, parent, or roommate pays the bills, or if they are uninformed about the rules. Students, the poor, and senior citizens are among the groups that are most likely to be adversely affected.

A broad coalition of Arizonans, including the Inter_Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Hopi Tribe, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the League of United Latin American citizens, the Arizona Advocacy Network, and People For the American Way Foundation, joined by State Representative Steve Gallardo, have challenged Proposition 200 in federal court . Plaintiffs are awaiting an August 30, 2006 hearing regarding an injunction.

Here's two.
 
2013-06-18 11:29:01 AM
The Arizona Republic has been pro-illegal alien for quite some time now.
 
2013-06-18 11:29:21 AM

MyRandomName: hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.

Would it be easier to corrupt one single unified election or 50 elections. Even more if you break it down by voting localities.


We've had a history of Presidential elections where 1 out of 50 would have been enough.
 
2013-06-18 11:33:07 AM
Let's be clear: The integrity of elections is of paramount importance. But there was little evidence of voter fraud before Prop. 200. It was part of a backlash against illegal immigration that tapped into raw emotion without stopping to engage analytical thought processes.

How is this different from any other policy drafted by the right as far as immigration is concerned?
 
2013-06-18 11:33:23 AM
Nothing drives the GOP into an anxiety attack like a brown person with a vote.
 
2013-06-18 11:35:46 AM

Mrtraveler01: Let's be clear: The integrity of elections is of paramount importance. But there was little evidence of voter fraud before Prop. 200. It was part of a backlash against illegal immigration that tapped into raw emotion without stopping to engage analytical thought processes.

How is this different from any other policy drafted by the right as far as immigration is concerned?


There we go.
 
2013-06-18 11:49:30 AM

justafarkingchef: Nothing drives the GOP into an anxiety attack like a brown person with a vote.


g-ecx.images-amazon.com

Voter ID? We don't need to stinking voter ID.
 
2013-06-18 12:11:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: So basically, the SCOTUS said "For Federal Elections, you have to stick with Federal Election Law (or get permission from the Federal Government), but for State Elections, you can make your own State Laws?

That seems... rational.


That's how federalism should work; states are allowed to make their own messes, but they can't make rules for the national government.
 
2013-06-18 12:22:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: So basically, the SCOTUS said "For Federal Elections, you have to stick with Federal Election Law (or get permission from the Federal Government), but for State Elections, you can make your own State Laws?

That seems... rational.


Yeah it does in the view that the SCOTUS is ruling on federal statutes. But unless AZ is planning on having two ballots (one Federal and one State), or two polling places with different queues and sign-in rules,  they'll still end up suppressing voters.
 
2013-06-18 12:28:36 PM

hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.


The issue lies in that word, "States." A state is a sovreign entity. We have been battling over this federalism/states rights bullsh*t since we beat the British. If we were the United Provinces of America, we wouldn't have to deal with half this sh*t today.

We deify the founders around here, but they set us up with a huge headache by letting every chunk of this country think it was its own state.
 
2013-06-18 12:41:01 PM

Misch: MyRandomName: Can you link one actual story of Arizona supressing the vote of legal citizens? Just one.

Ok.

Arizona

In November of 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which implemented harsh voter identification requirements (as well as proof-of-citizenship requirements-discussed in the next section of this report). The law requires voters who cast a ballot at a polling place on Election Day to present photo identification deemed "acceptable" by Arizona's Secretary of State, such as a driver's license, or two alternate forms of ID that include the name or address of the voter such as a utility bill or a bank statement. Such requirements can disenfranchise voters without photo ID by making it hard for them to cast ballots if they live at a residence where someone else, such as a spouse, parent, or roommate pays the bills, or if they are uninformed about the rules. Students, the poor, and senior citizens are among the groups that are most likely to be adversely affected.

A broad coalition of Arizonans, including the Inter_Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Hopi Tribe, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the League of United Latin American citizens, the Arizona Advocacy Network, and People For the American Way Foundation, joined by State Representative Steve Gallardo, have challenged Proposition 200 in federal court . Plaintiffs are awaiting an August 30, 2006 hearing regarding an injunction.

Here's two.


I'm assuming he has left.
 
2013-06-18 12:46:16 PM

verbaltoxin: hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.

The issue lies in that word, "States." A state is a sovreign entity. We have been battling over this federalism/states rights bullsh*t since we beat the British. If we were the United Provinces of America, we wouldn't have to deal with half this sh*t today.

We deify the founders around here, but they set us up with a huge headache by letting every chunk of this country think it was its own state.


The right response would be: "I don't give a rats ass about your State and State elections. When it comes to federal elections this is how we are going to do it in your State and there is nothing you can do about it. Oh, and because we recognize that you want some sovereignty when it comes to federal elections you, dear State, get to pay for everything we require you to do for federal elections."
 
2013-06-18 02:04:48 PM

Gig103: Yeah it does in the view that the SCOTUS is ruling on federal statutes. But unless AZ is planning on having two ballots (one Federal and one State), or two polling places with different queues and sign-in rules, they'll still end up suppressing voters.


I think that depends on whether you view strict identification requirements as "suppression" or "ensuring election integrity", but two ballots may not be a huge deal. I vaguely recall that has some precedent.
 
2013-06-18 05:41:04 PM

hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.


Whenever I bring up this issue -- "Why can't we have a unified national electoral system where everyone plays by the same rules and 'one man one vote' is actually enforced?" -- I get drowned out, wherever I am, by screams of "STATES' RIGHTS! STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!"
 
2013-06-18 06:12:02 PM

mksmith: Whenever I bring up this issue -- "Why can't we have a unified national electoral system where everyone plays by the same rules and 'one man one vote' is actually enforced?"


Because local municipalities, districts, jurisdictions, counties, cities, commissioners, judges, councils, etc. all have elections requiring specific local residency verification and voting systems. The Federal Elections happen once every two years and are for only a few races. The other 95% of the ballots are entirely state and local. And on the Presidential race, the electoral College makes it entirely a State issue.

So yeah. You keep getting that answer, because, well.. it's the answer. I don't know why  people are yelling at you though.
 
2013-06-18 06:39:01 PM

mksmith: hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.

Whenever I bring up this issue -- "Why can't we have a unified national electoral system where everyone plays by the same rules and 'one man one vote' is actually enforced?" -- I get drowned out, wherever I am, by screams of "STATES' RIGHTS! STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!"


Why would you want to decrease your own voting power like that?

As a New Yorker, it's bad enough that my vote counts as 1 in 17 million. You're proposing that I drop it to 1 in 310 million.

Screw you!
 
2013-06-18 06:44:20 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: mksmith: hinten: May I just say that the real scandal here is that the United States, allegedly the democratiest country in the world, does not have a unified, federal election system and Americans think it is a good idea to allow States to handle any portion of a federal election.
If I were asked to create an election system not knowing anything about representation, statistics, and voting I couldn't come up with a system more broken than the US election system.

Whenever I bring up this issue -- "Why can't we have a unified national electoral system where everyone plays by the same rules and 'one man one vote' is actually enforced?" -- I get drowned out, wherever I am, by screams of "STATES' RIGHTS! STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!  STATES' RIGHTS!"

Why would you want to decrease your own voting power like that?

As a New Yorker, it's bad enough that my vote counts as 1 in 17 million. You're proposing that I drop it to 1 in 310 million.

Screw you!


We could sell off some of the flyover states to bring that ratio up.

/But not Indiana
//Corn, methamphetamine, and basketball are national treasures
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report