SCOTUS ruling VA
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
As a government lawyer, I’ve faced that argument on occasion and won it every time.
The decision to begin an administrative or judicial proceeding by a government body is an unreviewable act. Review violates separation of powers. Of course a court has the authority to review the final result, or maybe enjoin the process if the process is inadequate for due process or violates some other immunity or privilege .
No believes that they will determine if the person is properly eligible or not. Also apparently once the vote is counted it can't be taken back. Unreal.
Once a vote is counted, it is counted. We don't want a system in this country where one can track back votes. Do you really want the government to be able to reverse engineer how you voted? So with no way of knowing his vote, how could it be removed?
This is the reason I strongly support Voter ID. There isn’t much that can be done after the fact. We have to have the safeguards in place ahead of time. And requiring a state-issued Photo ID is a perfectly reasonable safeguard.
So you're fine with illegal votes being counted? Got it.
And they don't have a copy of his ballot to see who he voted for and then take them back? For the love of God please tell me our system isn't this dysfunction. Zimbabwe probably has cleaner elections.
Are you suggesting that a federal court cannot rule on the constitutionality of an executive order issued by a governor?
Of course there have to be exceptions even to that, see Amish.
In Michigan it appears to be they allow an affidavit which he signed. In those cases where one doesn't have an ID, they should be allowed a provisional ballot that isn't tabulated until they provide the proper documentation.
Chinese student to face criminal charges for voting in Michigan. Ballot will apparently count
The 19-year-old was legally present in the United States but not a citizen, which meant he couldn't legally cast a ballot, according to officials.
www.detroitnews.com
Provisional ballot here:
No one from the secretary of state said that the vote will be counted or not counted. There is no one quote. Rather, it is the author who states: "because there is no way for election officials to retrieve it once it's been put through a tabulator, according to two sources familiar with Michigan election laws. The setup is meant to prevent ballots from being tracked back to an individual voter."
Where have you been, there is NO WAY to backtrack votes. If they could do it for him, they could do it for you. That defeats the idea of a secret ballot, doesn't it.
By the way, if they could do it for him, and for you, hackers could almost certainly do it.
I have often worked elections, there is no way to track who voted how. That is by design. And that is a DAMN GOOD thing.
I was just going to link that. Thanks for being the stud.Of course there have to be exceptions even to that, see Amish.
In Michigan it appears to be they allow an affidavit which he signed. In those cases where one doesn't have an ID, they should be allowed a provisional ballot that isn't tabulated until they provide the proper documentation.
Chinese student to face criminal charges for voting in Michigan. Ballot will apparently count
The 19-year-old was legally present in the United States but not a citizen, which meant he couldn't legally cast a ballot, according to officials.www.detroitnews.com
Provisional ballot here:
He wasn't given a provisional ballot. I don't know the Michigan law. I am fairly confident in Indiana that is what he would have received. It appears in Michigan, appears, that a ballot is counted if one signs the affidavit. That is a mistake IMHO.
So its cool in this instance?
There's been quite a lot of "Constitution challenging" in the last 8 years, and it hasn't just been Democrats doing it.
Like most things...from both sides...its cool when it benefits your side.
Indiana has had mandatory Voter ID since the 2008 election. And I don't think it's caused any problems that should be of major concern. I'm sure there are isolated incidents -- and the law has provisions for that (including a provisional ballot). I've just never been presented an argument against Voter ID that I found terribly persuasive.
What's cool in this instance? The Constitution is the Constitution. You can never go wrong by deferring to it (properly understood and applied, of course).
All that I'm saying is that Article I Section 4 cites both -- and that balance has, naturally, been a pretty common source of contention.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
If you're asking me if I'm cool with that, then yes I'm cool with that.
What a weird statement. How that's worded has me thinking you want to be racist.
agree the gop ,they are the big cheaters. they are doing everything they can to steal the election.
36 states require voter ID. The ones that don't, many require a first time voter to show ID (CA and PA).
Personally I have no issues with an ID as long as there are solutions around issues (lost ID, Amish, etc). A provisional ballot and 6 days like Indiana makes sense. We all know somewhere in the US, someone will lose their wallet the day of, or days before, an election.
ballotpedia.org
Personally I have no issues with an ID as long as there are solutions around issues (lost ID, Amish, etc). A provisional ballot and 6 days like Indiana makes sense. We all know somewhere in the US, someone will lose their wallet the day of, or days before, an election.
Voter identification laws by state
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
They should just take a vote from Trump . . .
Were the previous purges done in the 90-day "quiet period" that federal law prohibits? IIUC, that is the only question the DoJ raised.
I'm perfectly qualified. I can drive, know my way around town, and DGAF.
I don’t understand why we can’t make this really simple: your vote and ID must be completed on or by Election Day. End of story. If you wanted to vote so badly, then you go get your ID. This isn’t rocket science.Of course there have to be exceptions even to that, see Amish.
In Michigan it appears to be they allow an affidavit which he signed. In those cases where one doesn't have an ID, they should be allowed a provisional ballot that isn't tabulated until they provide the proper documentation.
Chinese student to face criminal charges for voting in Michigan. Ballot will apparently count
The 19-year-old was legally present in the United States but not a citizen, which meant he couldn't legally cast a ballot, according to officials.www.detroitnews.com
Provisional ballot here:
If you lose your wallet, you don’t get to vote that day. Easy peasy.36 states require voter ID. The ones that don't, many require a first time voter to show ID (CA and PA).
Personally I have no issues with an ID as long as there are solutions around issues (lost ID, Amish, etc). A provisional ballot and 6 days like Indiana makes sense. We all know somewhere in the US, someone will lose their wallet the day of, or days before, an election.
Voter identification laws by state
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
If they show up at a polling station they are already having their photo taken. Security cameras everywhere.
Not sure why you care so much about the Amish. They aren't going to help us in Pennsylvania.
The actual rule is they are not allowed to pose for a photo. So if a camera gets their image without their knowledge or consent, no problem. But they cannot volunteer to be photographed. I am sure Stoll can tell me if I am wrong.
Voter ID isn't an issue, no matter how many times it's trotted out for ridicule.
This reminds me of a discussion I believe with Aloha but one of the traditional conservatives. I suggested on government programs, conservatives would rather there be no fraud or waste even if that meant some entitled were incorrectly blocked. Liberals would put up with some waste and fraud so long as all entitled get what they are entitled to.
Many conservatives seem to be saying they are ok with legal voters being disenfranchised if it means no fraud, liberals will accept some fraud over disenfranchisement.
IU women up 45-14 in their first game. It actually isn't that close
