Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 109
  1. #51
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    The above OP exemplify the importance of the upcoming election. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has heroically hung on , as not to give trump another Supreme court nomination that would change the make up of the supreme court for the next decade or more. I urge all of you to put your money where your mouth is and contribute to Biden's campaign , it is that important to you personally!! It does not have to be much, $15 0r $30
    This is probably the most important election in your lifetime.
    Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
    I'll leave the illegal foreign campaign donations to baldy orange cunto.

  2. #52
    Thailand Expat
    Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    03-08-2023 @ 01:50 PM
    Location
    My couch
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    I'll leave the illegal foreign campaign donations to baldy orange cunto.
    I believe it is legal for all american citizens to contribute, do you know differently?

  3. #53
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    I believe it is legal for all american citizens to contribute, do you know differently?
    Yes, it is legal for all american citizens to contribute.

    So perhaps you should have said "I urge all of you American citizens to put your money where your mouth is and contribute to Biden's campaign".

    Because as much as I'd like to, it would be illegal.

  4. #54
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Because as much as I'd like to, it would be illegal.
    Yeah, sure that’s all that’s stopping you.
    Anyway I am sure you know a couple of US citizens, make your donation via them.
    Sorted!

  5. #55
    Thailand Expat Storekeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Jomtien
    Posts
    11,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    The above OP exemplify the importance of the upcoming election. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has heroically hung on , as not to give trump another Supreme court nomination that would change the make up of the supreme court for the next decade or more. I urge all of you to put your money where your mouth is and contribute to Biden's campaign , it is that important to you personally!! It does not have to be much, $15 0r $30
    This is probably the most important election in your lifetime.
    Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
    Gotta admit in past years I’ve never donated. And now in the last couple months I’ve donated several times already. How in the heck did the DNC goobers get my email? ...

  6. #56
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    26-09-2021 @ 10:28 PM
    Posts
    10,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    I urge all of you to put your money where your mouth is and contribute to Biden's campaign , it is that important to you personally
    It's not the money what wins the election, it's the quality of the contender, isn't it?

  7. #57
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    95
    It doesn't matter how much money they raise. Sleepy Quid Pro Joe can't exactly spend it in his basement can he?

  8. #58
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman123 View Post
    Yeah, sure that’s all that’s stopping you.
    That's exactly what's stopping me.


    Anyway I am sure you know a couple of US citizens, make your donation via them.
    Sorted!
    Which bit of "illegal" are you struggling with?

  9. #59
    Thailand Expat Storekeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Jomtien
    Posts
    11,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Klondyke View Post
    It's not the money what wins the election, it's the quality of the contender, isn't it?
    You sarcastic bastud you!

  10. #60
    knows
    hallelujah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:56 AM
    Posts
    13,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Storekeeper View Post
    You sarcastic bastud you!
    The word you're looking for begins with w and ends in er although there a number of other sobriquets which would also be applicable for our resident Putin bot.

  11. #61
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429

    Gerrymandering could take power from booming communities of color

    Communities of color are driving population growth in states like Texas, North Carolina and Florida, but gerrymandering could limit their representation in Congress as district lines are redrawn this year based on a complicated 2020 census and just plain politics.

    Why it matters: When census counts are accurate and political boundaries fairly drawn, voters havemore control over how their community is represented in government.
    Between the lines: Historically, two main tactics have been used to draw districts that dilute the voices of communities of color, experts say.


    1. Cracking: By drawing lines through a large community of color, their votes are swallowed by the largely white surrounding areas and their representation is limited.
    2. Consolidating: By packing as many people of color as possible into one district, their voices and power are centralized, rather than present in multiple districts. The result is better representation but less political power statewide.


    What to watch:
    In 2013, the Supreme Court knocked out a section of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of racial discrimination — largely in the South — to get pre-clearance from the Justice Department before adopting their redistricting maps.


    • The requirement shed light on gerrymandered local districts, which doesn't get the same news coverage as congressional districts. Now "there may not be anybody there to notice, bring a lawsuit," Paul Smith, VP of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, told Axios.
    • In addition, the Supreme Court recently blocked political gerrymandering cases from federal courts, ending legal recourse beyond state courts, except for racial gerrymandering cases.


    There's no straightforward solution.
    Different communities of color have different preferences for how they think lines should be drawn to ensure that their political voice is heard — and different groups will disagree about whether their neighborhoods should be contained in one district or split among multiple districts.

    What they're saying: The question is "whether those communities will actually receive that additional representation or whether districts will be drawn in a way to manipulate boundaries" to further empower white communities, Yurij Rudensky, redistricting counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program.


    • The coronavirus and the Trump administration's handling of the census during the pandemic have raised concerns about data accuracy on top of conventional undercounts of hard-to-reach groups such as immigrants. Data delays will also make the map-drawing process even more chaotic.
    • New maps can help growing Black and brown neighborhoods elect politicians who can better represent them and address issues that affect them at the local, state and federal level.
    • Census undercounts and partisan gerrymandering instead dilute the power of voters of color in their own communities.


    What you can do:
    "It can be incredibly powerful just to say, 'I live here. My neighbors also live here.... We want to have a representative that represents us together,'" Justin Levitt, a national redistricting expert, told Axios.

    The bottom line: Advocates are hopeful that this year's process will garner more public attention, forcing better accountability than in past years.

    Gerrymandering could take power from booming communities of color - Axios

  12. #62
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    20,590
    A little help coming (but not enough),……..

    Biden to sign executive order aimed at increasing voting access

    President Biden on Sunday will sign an executive order leveraging federal resources to protect and strengthen access to the ballot as Republican legislatures around the country seek to restrict voting rights in the wake of the 2020 election.

    Biden will sign an order that will direct agencies to increase access to voter registration materials and reduce barriers to voting for certain groups, including military and overseas voters, Native Americans, people with disabilities and Native Americans.

    The president on Sunday will also speak at the Martin and Coretta King Unity Breakfast to outline focus on voting rights. The order and speech come on the 56th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma, Ala. The violent clash between 600 civil rights marchers and white police officers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965 served as a catalyst for the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  13. #63
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429

    The GOP Cheat Code to Winning Back the House

    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    A little help coming (but not enough),……..
    The damage has been done...

    Democrats face a daunting future of severe Republican gerrymandering that could flip control of the House in 2022 and suppress diverse younger generations’ political influence for years to come, according to a new study released today. Those findings underscore the stakes in Democrats’ efforts to pass national legislation combatting such electoral manipulation.

    The four big states to watch are Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, where the GOP enjoys complete control over the redistricting process, says Michael Li, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice and the author of the new report on how congressional redistricting could unfold following the 2020 census. “Those four states, which are seat-rich and where Republicans control the process, could decide who controls the next Congress,” he told me.

    Over the longer term, Republican states could impose gerrymanders that prevent the nation’s growing nonwhite population from building political power commensurate with its numbers—even though voters of color accounted for about four in five newly eligible voters in the past decade, the study found.

    The report, which was provided exclusively to The Atlantic, comes as Democrats prepare to advance two bills to guarantee voting rights and reshape the rules regarding federal elections: a new Voting Rights Act and the omnibus legislation called H.R. 1. Both bills, which the Democratic-controlled House approved in the previous session, are likely to pass the chamber again this year—with H.R. 1 potentially winning approval as soon as early next month, House aides say. But both are virtually certain to be blocked in the Senate by a Republican filibuster—unless Democrats change the upper chamber’s rules to allow them to pass with a simple-majority vote.

    The gerrymandering report bookends other analyses, by the Brennan Center and others, documenting how state-level Republicans have introduced some 165 proposals in 33 states this year that would make voting more difficult. These include imposing new voter-identification laws, rolling back access to mail balloting and early-voting periods, and adding new hurdles to the voter-registration process. H.R. 1 and a new VRA, if they become law and survive legal challenges, would preempt almost all of those moves as well.

    Given the likelihood that, absent federal intervention, red states will enact severe gerrymanders and new obstacles to voting, the decision about whether to end the Senate filibuster to pass these two bills could shape the future of American politics more than anything else Democrats do in the next two years. “If the filibuster remains in place, [H.R. 1] dies in the Senate,” Dan Pfeiffer, the former White House communications director for Barack Obama, wrote this week. If that happens, “the Republicans—who represent a shrinking minority of Americans—will likely return to power and control politics for the next decade or more."

    “When Senate Democrats like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and [Dianne] Feinstein oppose getting rid of the filibuster,” Pfeiffer added, “they are deciding to make it more likely that their time in the majority is ever so brief.”
    Li told me that, in some respects, partisans may have less opportunity now for aggressive redistricting than they had after the 2010 census, though that may not be true in key states. States draw new lines for congressional districts after each decennial census, and that process is shaped by a complex convergence of legal and political factors.

    Republicans’ leverage over the process seems slightly reduced since the 2010 redistricting. Parties have the greatest freedom to manipulate the lines in states where they control redistricting without input from the other side—almost always because they hold both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship. (Some states deny the governor any role.) After the 2010 census, Republicans enjoyed this level of control over the drawing of 213 congressional districts. They used their authority to impose extremely one-sided gerrymanders in states including Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Texas.

    This time, Republicans hold complete control in states that will draw up to 188 districts. (Democrats, by contrast, completely control the maps in states with up to 74 seats.) The number of seats Republicans will oversee has diminished because they lost unified control of government in some states—including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—and because Michigan transferred control of redistricting from the state legislature to an independent commission. Additionally, in GOP-controlled Ohio, voters approved an initiative that created redistricting standards that could impede, though not eliminate, gerrymandering.

    Taken together, Li said, these shifts have produced “a tale of two countries.” While midwestern states seem more likely to avoid severe partisan gerrymanders, “the South is at high risk for worse outcomes than [it saw] last decade,” Li told me.

    The reason is that Republicans in the South will face far fewer legal constraints than they did in the post-2010 redistricting. In the landmark Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority voted to invalidate the cornerstone provision of the original VRA: its requirement that states with a history of racial discrimination receive “preclearance” from the Justice Department for changes in their election laws, including their congressional and state legislative-district maps. Then, in the Rucho v. Common Cause decision in 2019, five Republican-appointed justices again outvoted the Democratic appointees to rule that federal courts could not overturn partisan gerrymanders.

    The loss of the VRA’s preclearance provision—Section 5 of the law—is an especially profound change. After the 2010 redistricting, 16 states, mostly in the South, were required to submit their maps to the Obama administration’s Justice Department under the preclearance process, as Li notes in his report. Now this will mark the first time since the law’s passage in 1965 that “communities of color will … lack the protection of Section 5” during redistricting.

    Even if the Justice Department did not reject a state’s map, the preclearance requirement at least somewhat constrained partisan excesses, “because everyone knew there was going to be a review,” says Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in redistricting. He worries that the lawmakers’ incentives have now flipped: Since legislatures no longer need prior approval to proceed, they will feel emboldened to pursue aggressive racial and partisan gerrymanders because even a successful legal challenge against those maps could take years.

    “There is very little incentive for a state legislature to refrain from discrimination at this point, because they are playing with house money, essentially,” he told me. “The taxpayers pick up the legal defense, that legal defense takes time and is burdensome, and all the while elections are happening” under the disputed maps.

    To election reformers, one positive trend over the past decade was the willingness of some state courts to strike down severe partisan gerrymanders as a violation of state law. The 2019 Supreme Court ruling closing off federal judicial review of gerrymanders might encourage more state courts to intervene, Levitt believes. “Federal courts may be out of the picture but … now that it is abundantly clear that no superhero is arriving on the doorstep, state courts are starting to step in,” he said.

    Still, in many of the Southern states where Republicans are likely to push for the most gratuitous lines—such as Texas, Georgia, and Florida—conservative-leaning state courts are unlikely to put up much resistance, most legal analysts I spoke with agree. That deference could have enormous racial, as well as partisan, consequences. Li notes in his report that voters of color accounted for fully 78 percent of the total increase in the nation’s eligible voting population since 2010. They also accounted for 70 to 80 percent of the total in almost all of the southern states at greatest risk for severe gerrymanders, including Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas.


    With the Shelby County decision eliminating preclearance protection, Li says those diverse communities face elevated risk that GOP legislatures will attempt to maximize seats for white Republicans. They could do this either by concentrating minority voters into a few districts or dispersing them too widely to have much influence—what’s known as “packing and cracking.” “To win back the House,” he told me, “Republicans have to target communities of color.” The Biden Justice Department and civil-rights groups can challenge such maps under another surviving provision of the original VRA. But those cases are difficult to win and can take years.

    All of this shows how another round of severe gerrymandering could dilute the political impact of demographic change. One of the next decade’s defining demographic stories will be the steady march of diversity up the age ladder. In the 2020 census, nonwhites for the first time are expected to become a majority of the nation’s under-18 population, notes William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program. By 2030, people of color, also for the first time, will comprise a majority of the population younger than 30, he forecasts.

    But Republican-controlled legislatures in the Sun Belt states that are at the epicenter of that transition can dull its political impact by drawing district lines that favor older white voters, Li notes. “These gerrymanders could delay the American future,” he told me. “Our future is coalitional, our future is multiracial, and these gerrymanders could mean that Congress and state Houses continue to look much whiter than states as a whole—and older. It will be older voters who determine the future.”

    The long odds that Democrats can stop the approaching red-state gerrymanders—either in state legislatures or in the courts—means their only real point of leverage to avoid this fate is through their federal election-reform agenda. While Democrats are in a race against the clock, Li and Levitt both agree that if the party can pass those proposals fast enough, they could influence the current redistricting process (especially because delays in completing the census will delay redistricting as well).

    H.R. 1 “would matter in a big way” to shape the current redistricting through its provisions establishing clear national standards to govern the line-drawing process, Levitt said. House aides told me that those provisions—including prohibitions on any map that discriminates against minorities or “unduly favors or disfavors a political party”—will be written to take effect immediately. That provides Democrats with a fallback if another key provision of H.R. 1—a requirement that states use independent commissions to draw congressional lines—can’t be put into effect quickly enough to affect the current redistricting, as seems likely. “We are going to address partisan gerrymandering and we are going to prevent Republicans from putting forth extreme district lines, but the method and what that looks like is going to be shaped by how quickly we move,” said one House Democratic aide involved in the planning, who spoke with me on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans.

    Likewise, while experts say that it would be difficult to fully restore the federal preclearance process in time, the new VRA could still shape the redistricting outcomes through its provisions that give judges more leeway to issue injunctions blocking racially biased maps.

    The magnitude and speed of the GOP’s efforts since its 2020 losses to impose new state-level voter-suppression laws, even as it gears up for aggressive gerrymanders, have exceeded even the most alarmist predictions from Democrats and voting-rights advocates. If nothing else, the sudden and sweeping Republican efforts to tilt the rules of the game should leave Democrats with no illusions about the fate they can expect if they allow the filibuster to block new federal standards for redistricting, election reform, and voting rights. H.R. 1 and a new VRA represent the Democrats’ best, and perhaps only, chance to preempt the multipronged offensive Republicans are mounting to tilt the balance of national power back in their direction—and potentially keep it there for years.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-party/617987/

  14. #64
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429

    Challenges to Black voting rights hark back to Jim Crow era

    After a turbulent election season, fueled by unfounded allegations of voter fraud, Republican lawmakers are laboring to rewrite voting laws in ways that would restrict access to the polls. Though House Democrats pushed through a voting rights bill Wednesday that would make voting more accessible, critics worry about GOP tactics could suppress the vote in ways that hearken back to Reconstruction.

    "On one side, you have concerns about fraud prompting restrictions on voting, and on the other side, you have concerns about turnout prompting a focus on greater access to the polls," said Rebecca Green, a law professor and co-director of William and Mary Law School's Election Law Program.

    Since the beginning of the year, Republican-controlled legislatures have introduced a cascade of restrictive voting measures:

    •An Arizona Republican legislator introduced a bill Feb. 2 that would mandate everyone vote in person who is physically able and severely reduce the number of voting centers in some counties.

    •A New Hampshire bill introduced Jan. 18 would permit election officials to remove voters from rolls based on data provided by other states, a practice federal courts ruled violates the National Voter Registration Act.

    •A Mississippi bill would purge voters from the rolls if they failed to respond to a notice within 30 days with proof of citizenship.

    •In Georgia, a longtime Republican stronghold that went blue in November's presidential election, House representatives approved a sweeping measure Monday that would restrict the use of ballot drop boxes, make ID requirements for absentee voting more stringent and prohibit the distribution of food and water to people waiting in line to vote.

    The bill, which heads to the state Senate, aims to limit early voting on weekends, which would stifle "Souls to the Polls," a widespread voter mobilization campaign among the state's Black churches.

    State Rep. Barry Fleming, who sponsored the bill, said its purpose is to ensure that someone's vote cannot be stolen. "It is our due diligence in this legislature to constantly update our laws to try to protect the sanctity of the vote," the Republican said during a meeting on election integrity last month.

    To critics, the barrage of legislation harks back to the post-Reconstruction era when white lawmakers, threatened by a shift in political power, tried to stymie the Black vote with new laws designed to restrict access to the polls.

    "When you have a huge turnout, as we had in this last election, the question becomes how do you suppress that turnout," said Marion Orr, a public policy professor at Brown University.

    The language in these new voting laws does not openly target a specific group of people, but the laws' implications disproportionately impact people of color, Orr said.

    Voter suppression after Reconstruction

    After the Civil War, Black men emerged from shackles and slavery with an unprecedented amount of political freedom.

    The passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, which gave Black men the right to vote, ushered in a wave of Black politicians. Over the next two decades, roughly 20 Black men served in the U.S. Congress – all in Southern states.

    This foray into national politics came with a steep price. White supremacy groups responded with violence and intimidation to keep Black people from the polls.

    This newfound political participation and activism sparked a series of laws that stripped away African Americans' ability to vote for decades to come. "They saw all of these Black politicians and moved quickly to suppress this new voting force," Orr said.

    During his opening address at the 1890 Mississippi state convention, where restrictions to Black voting rights were first discussed, President Solomon S. Calhoun did not mince words about the gathering's purpose.

    "We came here to exclude the Negro," he said. "Nothing short of this will answer."

    Mississippi passed laws that required a poll tax and mandated literacy tests. The state's voter suppression strategy became the playbook for other Southern states. Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and others followed its lead.

    Several states instituted a grandfather clause as a loophole for white men who could not afford the poll tax or pass a literacy test. Under this clause, men whose fathers or grandfathers could vote before the Civil War were exempt from the stricter voting requirements. These new voting requirements made it nearly impossible for Black lawmakers to be elected, even in Southern states with dense African American populations.

    George White of North Carolina, the last Black congressman of this era, saw the writing on the wall before he left office in 1901.

    "This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the negroes’ temporary farewell to the American Congress, but let me say, phoenix-like, he will rise up someday and come again," White said in his final months in Congress. "These parting words are in behalf of an outraged, heart-broken, bruised and bleeding, but God-fearing people, faithful, industrious, loyal people – rising people, full of potential force."

    After White's departure, it was nearly 30 years before another Black congressman stepped foot in the U.S. Capitol. And 70 years before a Black congressman from a Southern state was elected.

    These new laws all but eradicated the Black politician, disenfranchised Black citizens and required a federal voting law in 1965 to address the rampant racism and voter suppression.

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed literacy tests and provided federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50% of nonwhite people were registered to vote. The attack on voting rights protesters marching across Selma's Edmund Pettis Bridge in Alabama on March 7, 1965, was a factor in passage of the act.

    Election experts say a Supreme Court decision in 2013, Shelby County v. Holder, gutted the act by freeing states and municipalities with a history of racial discrimination from being required to seek the federal government's approval to change their voting laws.

    The backlash from that Supreme Court decision was immediate and predictable, said Bobby Hoffman, the American Civil Liberties Union democracy division's deputy director.

    States quickly tightened voter identification requirements, curtailed early voting, purged voters from voting rolls and shuttered hundreds of polling locations.

    Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas introduced stricter voter ID requirements. Florida and Virginia attempted to purge thousands of people from their voter rolls.

    Within hours of the Shelby v. Holder decision, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who was the state attorney general at the time, announced stricter voting requirements.

    "With today's decision, the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbott said in a statement. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."

    Abbott's actions and the surge of voting law proposals worry lawmakers such as Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    "I think what we're seeing is the most serious attempt across the country to restrict the rights of certain Americans to vote since the days of Jim Crow," Allred said.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ow/6919352002/

  15. #65
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    48,094

    Jim Crow Lives or Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law

    Georgia Republicans passed restrictive changes to the state election process Thursday after weeks of debate about how to tighten voting laws. The new law adds a host of restrictions, like requiring identification for mail voting and making it illegal to take food or water to voters in line.


    Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed the bill into law immediately, calling it "common sense" legislation while aligning himself with former President Donald Trump in remarks promoting the bill.


    Within hours, Marc Elias, an election lawyer with prominent Democratic clients, announced a lawsuit that argues the new measures violate the Fourteenth Amendment and Voting Rights Act.


    Trump baselessly claimed that the election was stolen from him in Georgia and pressured Republican election officials to investigate. He dismissed their claims that the election was secure and that the results were accurate.

    Republican legislators seized on Trump's false claims and pushed dozens of restrictive voting bills this year. Kemp said he and legislators set out to make it "easy to vote and hard to cheat."


    "The bill I signed into law does just that," he said.

    Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, founder of the voting rights group Fair Fight, said in a statement that the law was "blatantly unconstitutional" and "nothing less than Jim Crow 2.0."


    Democrats opposed the bill's passage, and Kemp's news conference was interrupted for several minutes with Kemp walking way from the podium midway through his remarks asking, "What's the problem?"


    Outside the room, Democratic state Rep. Park Cannon was arrested as she knocked on the door to the news conference and then was dragged through the Capitol in handcuffs.


    The 95-page bill adds a spate of changes to the state election process.


    It will dramatically shorten runoff elections from nine weeks to less than a month and cut the early voting period required for runoff elections from three weeks to one week. In January, runoff elections sent Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to Washington, securing the party's majority in the Senate.

    The law allows the Legislature to appoint the chair of the State Election Board; previously, the board was chaired by the secretary of state. The current secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, sparred with Trump over the accuracy of the state's election. The bill also allows that State Election Board to take over county election administration.


    The law will require mail-in voters to include their driver's license numbers or other documentation to verify their identities, instead of using signature verification. Drop boxes can be located only inside election offices and early voting locations, curbing their usefulness. It also shortens the window to request absentee ballots.


    People will be prohibited from taking food and water to voters waiting in line, which has become common in past Georgia elections, in which voters have waited extremely long hours to cast ballots in the past.


    The bill standardizes early voting across the state, which will likely lead to expanded early voting in many counties. But it standardizes the hours for most early voting to 9 to 5 p.m., which is likely to limit the hours in larger counties like Fulton County, which has previously offered early voting until 7 p.m.


    "Today, democracy was assaulted," Elias, the elections lawyer, said Thursday night on MSNBC, adding that he was filing the lawsuit on behalf of the New Georgia Project, Black Voters Matter, and Rise, a student group.


    "These laws are all aimed at disenfranchising Black voters and also young voters," Elias said on "The Rachel Maddow Show."


    President Joe Biden appeared to refer to some of Georgia's proposals earlier in the day when asked about proposed voting restrictions in his news conference.


    "It's sick," Biden said. "Deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line waiting to vote, deciding that you're going to end voting at 5 when working people are just getting off work."

    Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law. There are even restrictions on snacks.

  16. #66
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429
    These retards have another 260 state level bills that will most likely pass. This is the end of the GOP

  17. #67
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    48,094
    ^^ What a bunch of crap. Making the Election Board Chair and appointed position. Ballot drop boxes can no longer be outside of the polling places. No one is allowed to bring people waiting in line to vote any water. Worst of all, closing voting places at 5 so working people can’t vote.

  18. #68
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    The GOP: The party of fat old white c u n t s.

  19. #69
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429
    Quote Originally Posted by misskit View Post
    No one is allowed to bring people waiting in line to vote any water.
    This is classic Jim Crow bullshit. These white crackers like slick are going to pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by misskit View Post
    Worst of all, closing voting places at 5 so working people can’t vote.
    This is why the voting rights act must pass. Fuck these scum.

  20. #70
    . Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    21,241
    Why would they make it illegal to take food or water to voters in line? What's that about?

  21. #71
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Why would they make it illegal to take food or water to voters in line? What's that about?
    They claim it could be used to influence peoples' votes.

    In reality:

    Voter suppression in the US-03252021-buying-gun-760x600-jpg

  22. #72
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Why would they make it illegal to take food or water to voters in line? What's that about?
    Because in heavily black areas, voters had to queue for hours. 5, 6 hours, up to ten on occasions.

    This is an attempt to intimidate people away.

  23. #73
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    48,094
    ^ Word.

  24. #74
    Elite Mumbler
    pickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Isolation
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Why would they make it illegal to take food or water to voters in line? What's that about?

    They don't want to give incentives to poor people to show up to vote, because the needy don't vote republican.

  25. #75
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429
    Jim Crow laws.

    This shit is going to backfire in a big way.

    They really fucked up this time.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •