Current GOP efforts to make it harder to vote: list from 538

[essentialsaltes]

538 has a long rundown of efforts in various states and localities that GOP politicians are spearheading to make voting more difficult. Some highlights:

In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state is blocking any county from having more than one ballot drop-off location — even though it would obviously make sense for counties with larger populations to have more than one.

Missouri, another GOP-dominated state, is barring the use of any drop boxes.

In Arizona, the Trump campaign is opposing a push to count any ballot that is postmarked by Election Day (as opposed to received by Election Day).

NBA players successfully pushed the league to authorize using its arenas as voting centers. But despite owners offering the space to local governments, election officials in Miami (Florida) and Memphis(Tennessee) have opted against using those arenas.

In Michigan, Republican lawmakers so far aren’t pushing forward proposed legislation to allow elections officials to start processing mail-in ballots (basically removing the outer envelope that they are contained in and verifying voters’ signatures) before Election Day. Even under this proposed legislation, election officials would not start reading the ballots and counting votes until Nov 3. [this is why the 'red mirage' is a real effect, though its significance is unknown at this point.]

In Pennsylvania, Republicans are suing to prevent the use of drop boxes, as well as advancing legislation that would limit drop boxes to a few types of official sites, which would mean some existing boxes could no longer be used.

 

[Paulos23]

The GOP wants to make it harder to vote based on the idea that the few people vote, the larger share of the votes will be for them.

This is wrong and may even backfire on them. If they wanted to know the will of the people, they would support ways to let people vote easier and quicker.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The GOP wants to make it harder to vote based on the idea that the few people vote, the larger share of the votes will be for them.

This is wrong and may even backfire on them. If they wanted to know the will of the people, they would support ways to let people vote easier and quicker.

The problem is that the people don’t know what is good for them. Only Trump with the help of his loyal supporters and of course Jesus should make the decisions that rule our land. Democracy is overrated Trump and the Party are the way.

 

[FenderTL5]

Missouri, another GOP-dominated state, is barring the use of any drop boxes.

Tennessee, also a GOP dominated state, bars the use of any dropboxes.

 

[cow451]

Tennessee, also a GOP dominated state, bars the use of any dropboxes.

Oh.... I thought the Dropboxes were in bars. Thanks for saving me the awkward exchange with the bartender.

 

[wing2000]

Why would any party in a Democratic Republic make it harder to vote?

 

[FenderTL5]

Why would any party in a Democratic Republic make it harder to vote?

It's dependent on who's vote is being suppressed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why would any party in a Democratic Republic make it harder to vote?

Courts have ruled that there was a clear racial motivation in at least some of the cases. Make of that what you will.

 

[Desk trauma]

Courts have ruled that there was a clear racial motivation in at least some of the cases. Make of that what you will.

Hey all they have to do is stop voting Democratic and they will be out of the crosshairs.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hey all they have to do is stop voting Democratic and they will be out of the crosshairs.

Plus stop getting in the way of those cops' bullets. I mean, how irresponsible can one be?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court told election officials across the state on Thursday -- a week before the deadline to mail ballots -- that they can't mail out absentee ballots until the court decides whether to add the Green Party's presidential ticket to the ballot.

The September 17 deadline for when the 1,850 municipal clerks need to mail out absentee ballots to Wisconsin voters who asked for one is set in state law.

The 4-3 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court was split among partisan lines, with all four conservative justices agreeing that the process of mailing out ballots must be paused, while the three liberal justices dissented.

Hawkins [Green Party candidate] was one of two candidates that was denied a position on the general election ballot by the Wisconsin Election Commission. The other is rapper Kanye West, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn that decision. The lawsuit is still pending and could also impact the ballot-printing process.

When asked what would happen if the justices order another candidate to be added to the ballots after they have already been printed, Wolfe said that "it would be incredibly complicated and difficult." Clerks in smaller jurisdictions across the state are likely to have already sent some ballots to voters, Wolfe added, though she was unable to say exactly how many were sent.

Attorney Jeffrey Mandell, who is representing one of the people who sued to keep Hawkins off the ballot, said that changing the ballots at this point would inject uncertainty into an already fragile 2020 election process.

"This could lead to unprecedented chaos," Mandell said.

 

[Nithavela]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court told election officials across the state on Thursday -- a week before the deadline to mail ballots -- that they can't mail out absentee ballots until the court decides whether to add the Green Party's presidential ticket to the ballot.

The September 17 deadline for when the 1,850 municipal clerks need to mail out absentee ballots to Wisconsin voters who asked for one is set in state law.

The 4-3 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court was split among partisan lines, with all four conservative justices agreeing that the process of mailing out ballots must be paused, while the three liberal justices dissented.

Hawkins [Green Party candidate] was one of two candidates that was denied a position on the general election ballot by the Wisconsin Election Commission. The other is rapper Kanye West, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn that decision. The lawsuit is still pending and could also impact the ballot-printing process.

When asked what would happen if the justices order another candidate to be added to the ballots after they have already been printed, Wolfe said that "it would be incredibly complicated and difficult." Clerks in smaller jurisdictions across the state are likely to have already sent some ballots to voters, Wolfe added, though she was unable to say exactly how many were sent.

Attorney Jeffrey Mandell, who is representing one of the people who sued to keep Hawkins off the ballot, said that changing the ballots at this point would inject uncertainty into an already fragile 2020 election process.

"This could lead to unprecedented chaos," Mandell said.

Why would you send out ballots that don't include all candidates?

I fully support the decision of this court.

You can't cry about voter supression and then be mad when a court prevents voter supression against people who want to vote green party or for Kanye West.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why would you send out ballots that don't include all candidates?

I fully support the decision of this court.

You can't cry about voter supression and then be mad when a court prevents voter supression against people who want to vote green party or for Kanye West.

"Hawkins [Green Party candidate] was one of two candidates that was denied a position on the general election ballot by the Wisconsin Election Commission."

I presume the Election Commission has rules, and these parties did not follow them. West, for instance, missed the filing deadline, apparently by seconds. I'm not sure what the deal is with the Green Party:

"
The commission also voted 6-0 to grant ballot access to the Libertarian presidential ticket but tied 3-3 on whether the Green Party should have it, which is now expected to be settled in court.
"

 

[Nithavela]

"Hawkins [Green Party candidate] was one of two candidates that was denied a position on the general election ballot by the Wisconsin Election Commission."

I presume the Election Commission has rules, and these parties did not follow them. West, for instance, missed the filing deadline, apparently by seconds. I'm not sure what the deal is with the Green Party:

"
The commission also voted 6-0 to grant ballot access to the Libertarian presidential ticket but tied 3-3 on whether the Green Party should have it, which is now expected to be settled in court.
"

What's wrong with just putting them on the ballot and be done with it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What's wrong with just putting them on the ballot and be done with it?

In principle, nothing. In reality, the ballots have to be delivered by a certain date, so they must be printed by a certain date before that, so there must be some sort of cutoff date by which people who want their names on the ballot have to file their paperwork. This is not 'Nam, there are rules. Mark it zero.

 

[cow451]

What's wrong with just putting them on the ballot and be done with it?

They didn’t earn it the way other parties did.

 

[JSRG]

What's wrong with just putting them on the ballot and be done with it?

Because the dispute is whether they qualified for the ballot or not.

To get ballot access for the presidential race as an independent, you need to a required number of signatures. The Green Party got the required number... but their signature sheets contradicted as to the address of their vice presidential candidate, which apparently is a problem, and if you were to only count the signatures that correspond to one of the addresses to solve the problem, they then fall short of the required number of signatures.

Kanye West, on the other hand, got denied because his signatures got turned in late... but only a few minutes late.

Both of them are now trying to fight over the issue in court to get on the ballot. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the issues to know how valid their claims are. But I don't think it's really unreasonable for the State Supreme Court to rule that ballots shouldn't be issued until it's decided who will actually be on the ballots.

 

[Kentonio]

Because the dispute is whether they qualified for the ballot or not.

To get ballot access for the presidential race as an independent, you need to a required number of signatures. The Green Party got the required number... but their signature sheets contradicted as to the address of their vice presidential candidate, which apparently is a problem, and if you were to only count the signatures that correspond to one of the addresses to solve the problem, they then fall short of the required number of signatures.

Kanye West, on the other hand, got denied because his signatures got turned in late... but only a few minutes late.

Both of them are now trying to fight over the issue in court to get on the ballot. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the issues to know how valid their claims are. But I don't think it's really unreasonable for the State Supreme Court to rule that ballots shouldn't be issued until it's decided who will actually be on the ballots.

In theory, but in this case what happens if the electoral staff are then not allowed to post ballots out by court order, and the deadline in law for ballots to be sent out is passed? No mail ballots?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court told election officials across the state on Thursday -- a week before the deadline to mail ballots -- that they can't mail out absentee ballots until the court decides whether to add the Green Party's presidential ticket to the ballot.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided on Monday to keep the Green Party candidate off the presidential ballot, ending a legal dispute that briefly threw the state's mail-in voting plans into chaos, and clearing the way for clerks to mail out ballots this week as planned.

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered local clerks to stop sending out ballots -- creating an impasse that threatened to derail the mail-in voting procedures in the key battleground state. Wisconsin state laws require clerks to mail ballots to voters who asked for them by Thursday.

"The most likely state of current affairs is that municipal clerks have already sent out hundreds, and more likely thousands, of those absentee ballots. Ordering new ballots to be printed would be an expensive and time-consuming process that would not allow counties and municipalities to meet the statutory deadlines for delivering and sending ballots," the Supreme Court wrote on Monday.

"We would be unable to provide meaningful relief without completely upsetting the election," the Supreme Court wrote in its 4-3 decision.

A relief they only partially upset the election.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Voting rights cases out of Florida and Texas handed important victories to the GOP.

Florida: On Friday, in a party-line vote on Jones v. Governor of Florida, the Republican-controlled United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit backed the state legislature’s play — effectively disenfranchising most of the people Floridians voted to reinfranchise.

In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment intended to restore felons’ voting rights. But the state’s Republican-controlled legislature almost immediately enacted legislation seeking to prevent most of these individuals from actually being able to vote [by requiring all fees and costs to be paid].

Texas: Court rules Texas didn't make it harder for young people to vote (which would be unconstitutional), they just made it easier for old people to vote!

The upshot of this holding is that Texas’s discriminatory law is constitutional because it did not take anything away from younger voters. Prior to 1975, the state treated older and younger voters the same. In that year, the state enacted a law allowing voters over the age of 65 to vote absentee, while leaving younger voters in the same position they were in before.

Such a move, according to the Fifth Circuit, is fine. The decision in Texas Democratic Party effectively holds that age discrimination is acceptable under the 26th Amendment, just so long as a state doesn’t enact a law that makes younger voters worse off than they were before the law was enacted.