ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS ruling VA

Same-day registration is probably what saved this.

People mismark forms all the time, insurance forms, tax forms, and license forms. It happens, and I bet every one of us has done it. Removing someone's right to vote because they marked a form incorrectly isn't the greatest idea immediately before an election. But with same-day registration in VA, if that happened, there is recourse.
 
Same-day registration is probably what saved this.

People mismark forms all the time, insurance forms, tax forms, and license forms. It happens, and I bet every one of us has done it. Removing someone's right to vote because they marked a form incorrectly isn't the greatest idea immediately before an election. But with same-day registration in VA, if that happened, there is recourse.
It shouldn’t have ever had to go to SCOTUS. Thank our biased DOJ.

SCOTUS should be available the next two weeks to handle directly every election interference the Dems try.
 
It shouldn’t have ever had to go to SCOTUS. Thank our biased DOJ.

SCOTUS should be available the next two weeks to handle directly every election interference the Dems try.
Yet another reason the 2 party system is broken. Both are now going to exploit every opportunity to cancel valid votes. Absolutely disgusting. I would vote for a good valid 3rd party of the platform was powering cars with rodent carcasses at this point
 
It shouldn’t have ever had to go to SCOTUS. Thank our biased DOJ.

SCOTUS should be available the next two weeks to handle directly every election interference the Dems try.

I think that the core issue here is conflict (specifically, a timing conflict) between the state law utilized by Youngkin and a related federal statute that proscribes a different timeline.

I can't say I've taken much time in getting super familiar with the details. But, if that's the case, then I don't think this is a case of the DOJ just brazenly trying to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. And it's being cast that way.

Personally, I think what a state should do in a situation like (although VA's law may not allow for this) is to just accept provisional ballots from anybody in question. That gives the state more time to properly vet them and determine if they are or aren't eligible. If they're eligible, count it and take steps to ensure they aren't back on a list subject to being culled from the registry...if they aren't, toss it and then get them off the rolls.
 
It shouldn’t have ever had to go to SCOTUS. Thank our biased DOJ.

SCOTUS should be available the next two weeks to handle directly every election interference the Dems try.
I'm sure they're on speed dial. I don't think they want this to be 2020 again.
 
Yet another reason the 2 party system is broken. Both are now going to exploit every opportunity to cancel valid votes. Absolutely disgusting. I would vote for a good valid 3rd party of the platform was powering cars with rodent carcasses at this point
There's only one Party that doesn't care if non-citizens vote.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Willdog7
I think that the core issue here is conflict (specifically, a timing conflict) between the state law utilized by Youngkin and a related federal statute that proscribes a different timeline.

I can't say I've taken much time in getting super familiar with the details. But, if that's the case, then I don't think this is a case of the DOJ just brazenly trying to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. And it's being cast that way.

Personally, I think what a state should do in a situation like (although VA's law may not allow for this) is to just accept provisional ballots from anybody in question. That gives the state more time to properly vet them and determine if they are or aren't eligible. If they're eligible, count it and take steps to ensure they aren't back on a list subject to being culled from the registry...if they aren't, toss it and then get them off the rolls.
Why didn't the DoJ care about it from 2009, when the Virginia law was put into effect - and used - until now?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lucy01
It shouldn’t have ever had to go to SCOTUS. Thank our biased DOJ.

SCOTUS should be available the next two weeks to handle directly every election interference the Dems try.
So oversight at the Federal level is cool now? Or is it just cool in this situation? Its tiring keeping up with all this. And this is another area that shouldn't be a GOP/DNC issue. Voting should be accessible, encouraged, fair, and regulated and verifiable. And that should be the case equally in rural Texas as it is in downtown Detroit. The efforts on both sides to change districts, make certain ways to vote easier and/or more difficult, discredit legitimate and verifiable votes...its ridiculous.

Maybe Elon Musk and Bill Gates could put their brilliant minds together and come up with a new system that accomplishes all this...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhyloeBedoe
So oversight at the Federal level is cool now? Or is it just cool in this situation? Its tiring keeping up with all this. And this is another area that shouldn't be a GOP/DNC issue. Voting should be accessible, encouraged, fair, and regulated and verifiable. And that should be the case equally in rural Texas as it is in downtown Detroit. The efforts on both sides to change districts, make certain ways to vote easier and/or more difficult, discredit legitimate and verifiable votes...its ridiculous.

Maybe Elon Musk and Bill Gates could put their brilliant minds together and come up with a new system that accomplishes all this...
What? The DoJ is the one who interfered in a state election.

The SC isn't the 'Federal level' - it's the law of the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
I'd like to see the rationale for not following the federal statute.

I'd say that both parties have a legitimate interest here -- VA in ensuring the people who aren't eligible to vote aren't able to vote....the DOJ in ensuring that people who are eligible to vote are able to vote (and have it counted along with all the rest).

Considering that we aren't talking about tens of thousands of voters, it doesn't seem super difficult to me to come up with a solution that satisfies both of those.

Beyond that, I'd say that VA needs to get their own law in harmony with the federal statute.
 
Same-day registration is probably what saved this.

People mismark forms all the time, insurance forms, tax forms, and license forms. It happens, and I bet every one of us has done it. Removing someone's right to vote because they marked a form incorrectly isn't the greatest idea immediately before an election. But with same-day registration in VA, if that happened, there is recourse.
This is a biased BS post!
 
You asking me to prove it wasn't?

It's up to the DoJ to prove it was - and they failed.

I'm not critical of the ruling, I don't know what the definition is for systemic. It might be it impacts the entire body, which would mean one could not review all voting records. But could one review all but those with last names beginning with X, would that be systemic?

Another definition is planned and orderly. I doubt VA argued this was unplanned and disorderly so that probably isn't what is meant.

But many have said this was an easy ruling, if it was so easy they must know how it failed to be systemic. Is there a percentage of records that must have been involved? Maybe @BradStevens or @mcmurtry66 know. CO and I just agreed on something so I don't want to lose this feeling of camaraderie by asking him.
 
I'm not critical of the ruling, I don't know what the definition is for systemic. It might be it impacts the entire body, which would mean one could not review all voting records. But could one review all but those with last names beginning with X, would that be systemic?

Another definition is planned and orderly. I doubt VA argued this was unplanned and disorderly so that probably isn't what is meant.

But many have said this was an easy ruling, if it was so easy they must know how it failed to be systemic. Is there a percentage of records that must have been involved? Maybe @BradStevens or @mcmurtry66 know. CO and I just agreed on something so I don't want to lose this feeling of camaraderie by asking him.
I don’t know anything about the opinion or the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Maybe @Mark Milton would know what made the Virginia removal of voters non-systemic. He is the type to actually read the book club readings. As embarrassing as that fact is, it might mean something here.
We don't even know if it is non-stsyemic. Scotus issued an unsigned order with no explanatory text. Anyone who claims they know why they ruled as they did is speculating.
 
Maybe @Mark Milton would know what made the Virginia removal of voters non-systemic. He is the type to actually read the book club readings. As embarrassing as that fact is, it might mean something here.
Not really sure. The only thing I can think of is that in Georgia they did an audit of 8 million registered voters and found out that only 20 were registered non-citizens. I also think Virginia gives people who are removed from the voter role to register in person. Maybe that turned out to be an example of how it couldn’t be non-systemic?

It’s too bad the Supreme Court didn’t issue even just a baby opinion. Especially after reversing the court of appeals.

Haven’t been paying much attention to the news the last week and a half, I have had my fill until post election day. And yes, I do read all the book club books. Well, I take that back, I tried to read Faulkner, but he was dog shit boring
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Mark M and Goat may have hit on the important part, without a ruling we don't know what they decided. Maybe systemic is the wrong dog.

But it is clear there were errors:

The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found that 43 had voted before. But his office checked and found that all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.​
A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News that he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.​
Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.​

 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I'm not critical of the ruling, I don't know what the definition is for systemic. It might be it impacts the entire body, which would mean one could not review all voting records. But could one review all but those with last names beginning with X, would that be systemic?

Another definition is planned and orderly. I doubt VA argued this was unplanned and disorderly so that probably isn't what is meant.

But many have said this was an easy ruling, if it was so easy they must know how it failed to be systemic. Is there a percentage of records that must have been involved? Maybe @BradStevens or @mcmurtry66 know. CO and I just agreed on something so I don't want to lose this feeling of camaraderie by asking him.

Given that Virginia is very unlikely to be pivotal to the outcome, I honestly don’t know why people are so animated by this…either way.

Yes, eligible voters should be able to vote. No, ineligible voters should not be able to vote. And I genuinely want to see both of those things happen.

But let’s not approach Virginia like it’s going to be Florida 2000. This issue isn’t going to have any impact on the outcome of the election.
 
Given that Virginia is very unlikely to be pivotal to the outcome, I honestly don’t know why people are so animated by this…either way.

Yes, eligible voters should be able to vote. No, ineligible voters should not be able to vote. And I genuinely want to see both of those things happen.

But let’s not approach Virginia like it’s going to be Florida 2000. This issue isn’t going to have any impact on the outcome of the election.

I think that is what makes it a good case to discuss, there is no need to slap on the team jersey. But, fearfully, I suspect there is a lot of interest in both sides to use any case for the future where it does matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I think that the core issue here is conflict (specifically, a timing conflict) between the state law utilized by Youngkin and a related federal statute that proscribes a different timeline.

I can't say I've taken much time in getting super familiar with the details. But, if that's the case, then I don't think this is a case of the DOJ just brazenly trying to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. And it's being cast that way.

Personally, I think what a state should do in a situation like (although VA's law may not allow for this) is to just accept provisional ballots from anybody in question. That gives the state more time to properly vet them and subject to being culled from the registry...if they aren't, toss it and then get them off the rolls.
Virginia's statute has been in force for 18 years and has been enforced by multiple Governor's including Tim Kain. It has easily and unanimously survived all challenges to it. It is settled law.
 
Given that Virginia is very unlikely to be pivotal to the outcome, I honestly don’t know why people are so animated by this…either way.

Yes, eligible voters should be able to vote. No, ineligible voters should not be able to vote. And I genuinely want to see both of those things happen.

But let’s not approach Virginia like it’s going to be Florida 2000. This issue isn’t going to have any impact on the outcome of the election.
No, Virginia is not going to change the national outcome for president. I think the issue is that Virginia has the ability to remove from the voter roll those who are suspected of not being citizens. Of course non-citizens cannot vote. The term "suspected" is certainly subject to potential abuse. I do not know if they notify the voters they have been removed, and if they do, would it be timely enough to register/provide proof prior to the election being over.

This is an example:
 
Same-day registration is probably what saved this.

People mismark forms all the time, insurance forms, tax forms, and license forms. It happens, and I bet every one of us has done it. Removing someone's right to vote because they marked a form incorrectly isn't the greatest idea immediately before an election. But with same-day registration in VA, if that happened, there is recourse.
MtM, here is an explanation concerning same-day registration in Virginia. Sounds as if the emphasis is to assist voters to both register and vote. Does require filling out a form with the help of a Registration Clerk.
 
Virginia's statute has been in force for 18 years and has been enforced by multiple Governor's including Tim Kain. It has easily and unanimously survived all challenges to it. It is settled law.
The statute has been on the books since 2006. The executive order is new and adds the words "suspected".
 
I think that is what makes it a good case to discuss, there is no need to slap on the team jersey. But, fearfully, I suspect there is a lot of interest in both sides to use any case for the future where it does matter.

I don’t disagree. But it’s also worth remembering here that ultimately the conflict between the laws is just timing. At least, that’s my understanding.

Every state culls its voter rolls, and should. But there’s a good argument to be made it should be done with plenty of time before an election to minimize the possibility that eligible voters will lose franchise because of it.
 
Same-day registration is probably what saved this.

People mismark forms all the time, insurance forms, tax forms, and license forms. It happens, and I bet every one of us has done it. Removing someone's right to vote because they marked a form incorrectly isn't the greatest idea immediately before an election. But with same-day registration in VA, if that happened, there is recourse.
That is one. Va also had two more failsafe provisions.

Starting the law suit was a discretionary act, not a mandated one. It’s doubtful whether the statute even applies. But if it does, Va afforded appropriate protections. I think Garland’s DOJ was blatantly and obviously political with this case.
 
That is one. Va also had two more failsafe provisions.

Starting the law suit was a discretionary act, not a mandated one. It’s doubtful whether the statute even applies. But if it does, Va afforded appropriate protections. I think Garland’s DOJ was blatantly and obviously political with this case.
they didn't challenge the statute. They challenged the executive order that now included the term "suspected" of being non-citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT