4 ms·

Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?

by gozur88 10y ago

pjc50 10y ago
It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tracker-new-election-laws-suits-challenging-them https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa... "After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "
- gozur88 10y ago
  That's not what I asked. I asked for evidence Republicans were deliberately trying to suppress voters.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Evidence does exist if you care to look. The courts have ruled against redistricting requirements, as a modern example. Historically, I believe the Civil Rights Act should provide all the evidence you need.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      This still isn't addressing the point. There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look"), or to keep legitimate Democratic voters from voting. Where is your evidence for intent? Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look") There is no evidence of any substantial incidence of any kind of fraud voter ID laws might address. If you disagree, please present the evidence. > Where is your evidence for intent? The numerous admissions by Republicans of partisan motivation for and partisan benefits from voter ID over many years, e.g. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ac... http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republican-candor-about-voter-id-laws http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republica...
        gozur88 10y ago
        Neither article shows what you purport it to show. It's no secret Republicans think they'll do better as a result of voter ID laws, but that doesn't address the point. The Maddow article is particularly disingenuous.
      - chillwaves 10y ago
        > what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? You do understand where modern precedent for the DOJ to step in for state and local elections comes from, right? 1950s weren't that long ago and the Republican party as a whole is not all that different when it comes to treatment of minorities. Sure, the rest of the country is here in the 21st century in regards to voter rights -- I can't say the same for Republicans, who again, are attempting to restrict voting rights of D leaning demographics. Now your standard is to prove intent? Sorry, I am not a mind reader. As stated previous, the courts have ruled (recently in VA for example) that Republican legislators have used their positions in government to systematically disenfranchise minority voters. Whether they meant to? I couldn't tell you, but it is a legal fact determined by our court systems. Again, this is a legal fact (pending appeal) as things exist, today, in this year of a Republican legislative body disenfranchising black voters. Argue intent all you like, I prefer stick with the facts. > Diaz's order came in response to allegations that the General Assembly violated the Voting Rights Act by packing too many African-Americans in the 3rd District represented by Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News. http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-redistricting-20160107-story.html http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-redistricting... I'm done here. All I am doing is repeating myself. All you are doing is ignoring evidence and presenting an impossible standard as your defense. And since I am feeling particularly generous today, I will assume you are arguing in good faith and really are not aware that no evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind exists from the last election. > There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/?utm_term=.88634a2e8e26 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-...

Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?

by gozur88 10y ago

Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?

pjc50 10y ago

It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tracker-new-election-laws-suits-challenging-them https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa... "After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "

gozur88 10y ago
That's not what I asked. I asked for evidence Republicans were deliberately trying to suppress voters.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Evidence does exist if you care to look. The courts have ruled against redistricting requirements, as a modern example. Historically, I believe the Civil Rights Act should provide all the evidence you need.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    This still isn't addressing the point. There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look"), or to keep legitimate Democratic voters from voting. Where is your evidence for intent? Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look") There is no evidence of any substantial incidence of any kind of fraud voter ID laws might address. If you disagree, please present the evidence. > Where is your evidence for intent? The numerous admissions by Republicans of partisan motivation for and partisan benefits from voter ID over many years, e.g. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ac... http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republican-candor-about-voter-id-laws http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republica...
      - gozur88 10y ago
        Neither article shows what you purport it to show. It's no secret Republicans think they'll do better as a result of voter ID laws, but that doesn't address the point. The Maddow article is particularly disingenuous.
    - chillwaves 10y ago
      > what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? You do understand where modern precedent for the DOJ to step in for state and local elections comes from, right? 1950s weren't that long ago and the Republican party as a whole is not all that different when it comes to treatment of minorities. Sure, the rest of the country is here in the 21st century in regards to voter rights -- I can't say the same for Republicans, who again, are attempting to restrict voting rights of D leaning demographics. Now your standard is to prove intent? Sorry, I am not a mind reader. As stated previous, the courts have ruled (recently in VA for example) that Republican legislators have used their positions in government to systematically disenfranchise minority voters. Whether they meant to? I couldn't tell you, but it is a legal fact determined by our court systems. Again, this is a legal fact (pending appeal) as things exist, today, in this year of a Republican legislative body disenfranchising black voters. Argue intent all you like, I prefer stick with the facts. > Diaz's order came in response to allegations that the General Assembly violated the Voting Rights Act by packing too many African-Americans in the 3rd District represented by Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News. http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-redistricting-20160107-story.html http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-redistricting... I'm done here. All I am doing is repeating myself. All you are doing is ignoring evidence and presenting an impossible standard as your defense. And since I am feeling particularly generous today, I will assume you are arguing in good faith and really are not aware that no evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind exists from the last election. > There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/?utm_term=.88634a2e8e26 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-...