The handful of votes affected is not what matters. This litigation is a watershed event in state authority to do elections.
Does that authority trump Federal law?
The handful of votes affected is not what matters. This litigation is a watershed event in state authority to do elections.
The Constitution does.Does that authority trump Federal law?
LOL! You're so dumb you could be a fence post. The other fence posts would laugh at your stupidity.
So the federal law in question is unconstitutional? Is VA making that claim?The Constitution does.
Mel Gibson was quoted as saying Harris has a miserable record and is as dumb as a fence postWho?
Now there's a guy who's really got his shit together.Mel Gibson was quoted as saying Harris has a miserable record and is as dumb as a fence post
Total legend. But I don’t care about the opinion of celebs. He’s right tho. FwiwNow there's a guy who's really got his shit together.
She said paid canvassers in the video. Not sure how she knows they were paid.It's illegal and wrong, but not the first time paid canvassers have done it (if that's what they were). They should be prosecuted. What some don't seem to understand is that registrations don't count as votes. It's also a good thing this was caught. Shows that officials are always on the lookout for fraud of any kind related to voting.
Shouldn't take a long investigation to figure this one out. I know I've seen this same thing several times before. You pay people by the registration to get registrations, and most people would probably do it the right way, but many will open the phone book (or whatever we have these days) and commence to registering people.She said paid canvassers in the video. Not sure how she knows they were paid.
I'm sure they will be easy to find. I'm looking forward to the fun we get to have when it turns out they were paid by Musk.Shouldn't take a long investigation to figure this one out. I know I've seen this same thing several times before. You pay people by the registration to get registrations, and most people would probably do it the right way, but many will open the phone book (or whatever we have these days) and commence to registering people.
You're right. They could be looking for a chance at the million bucks he's giving away per day. He doesn't have a condition that they be Republicans or Democrats. By the way, that seems like a barely legal if not illegal scheme he's doing.I'm sure they will be easy to find. I'm looking forward to the fun we get to have when it turns out they were paid by Musk.
States have plenary authority. The Feds only have authority granted by the constitution. Regardless of that high altitude point, the ground level issue is that the state activity does not fit the prohibition of federal law.Does that authority trump Federal law?
The state law provides clear and effective ways to correct errors. The meat ax federal approach is improperly applied.IANAL, but one problem is that 3 came forward proving their rights are being denied, also proving that the logic for creating the list of over 1600 was faulty, and further suggesting that many others besides those 3 are being denied their constitutional rights.
What is your interpretation of the "quiet period" and its purpose?
What are you taking about? It plainly violated the federal law. It's not even questionable.the ground level issue is that the state activity does not fit the prohibition of federal law
Man I’d love to rent a bar, invite all Coolerites, I’d pay the drink bill and you and Co would debate until one tapped out.What are you taking about? It plainly violated the federal law. It's not even questionable.
goat doesn’t win when a Judge is involved!Man I’d love to rent a bar, invite all Coolerites, I’d pay the drink bill and you and Co would debate until one tapped out.
You have a long knife Lucy! I sure hope you’re not that racist Willdog. 😂goat doesn’t win when a Judge is involved!
I saw that there was a big bust where a bunch a fentanyl was kept from coming into the US. I guess the system is working & we don’t have a fentanyl problem then, right?If anything, this shows that instead of there being huge problems, the system is working.
Comparing CoH to Goat is like comparing you to a teenager balancing their checkbook…Man I’d love to rent a bar, invite all Coolerites, I’d pay the drink bill and you and Co would debate until one tapped out.
Nope.What are you taking about? It plainly violated the federal law. It's not even questionable.
I being my new kind self.Comparing CoH to Goat is like comparing you to a teenager balancing their checkbook…
Good for you Stoll. I save my kindness for those who deserve it - limited supply.😉I being my new kind self.
It's absolutely systematic. The law provides specific exemptions to the 90-day deadline, and this doesn't fall within them.Nope.
The Virginia action is not “systematic”. It is individualized. A systematic purge is different.
I think that statute is unconstitutional anyway. That is a different point.
If the action isn’t systematic exemptions won’t matter.It's absolutely systematic. The law provides specific exemptions to the 90-day deadline, and this doesn't fall within them.
You may be right that the law is unconstitutional.
Regardless, the issuance of the injunction was proper in this case because of the potential irreparable harm to the movants.
The plan was systematic. It wasn't just a series of individual investigations into single voters. It was a new administrative policy to compare voters to BMV records and remove everyone who had marked non-citizen in a BMV record (or, scarily, whom the BMV had other reason to think might have been a non-citizen). You're trying to deny the systematic nature of the policy by claiming that it is applied to individuals. But that's a meaningless distinction, because all systematic policies are applied to individuals.If the action isn’t systematic exemptions won’t matter.
If Virginia had legitimate reasons to say The Original Happy Goat is not eligible to vote, are you saying federal law must allow such a person to vote? What about 2 voters, a dozen or a few hundred?
If the voter is singled out on an individual bases, that would not be systematic.
A systematic purge would be to purge all who haven’t voted in 2 elections, or all who no longer reside at their address shown on their registration, without regard to individual considerations. That is not what Virginia is doing.The plan was systematic. It wasn't just a series of individual investigations into single voters. It was a new administrative policy to compare voters to BMV records and remove everyone who had marked non-citizen in a BMV record (or, scarily, whom the BMV had other reason to think might have been a non-citizen). You're trying to deny the systematic nature of the policy by claiming that it is applied to individuals. But that's a meaningless distinction, because all systematic policies are applied to individuals.
Sure it is, they tried to purge all who had marked non-citizen on BMV form, regardless of individual considerations.A systematic purge would be to purge all who haven’t voted in 2 elections, or all who no longer reside at their address shown on their registration, without regard to individual considerations. That is not what Virginia is doing.
Huh. Who would have guessed?
The only time Trump wasn’t completely full of shit is when he said he loves the poorly educated.Do you really believe your own bullshit? I mean really? Do you go to bed at night truly believing all this no sense you spew???
Why wasn't it challenged in previous elections. You know, when Democrats were governors?What are you taking about? It plainly violated the federal law. It's not even questionable.
I love how it's *thousands* of fake registrations. It's roughly 1500. There's some COH math at work here methinks.I'm sure they will be easy to find. I'm looking forward to the fun we get to have when it turns out they were paid by Musk.
Because the Democrat governors followed federal law and didn't do the purging in the 90 day quiet period.Why wasn't it challenged in previous elections. You know, when Democrats were governors?
Where in the law does it say you can't do it in a 90 day quiet period?Because the Democrat governors followed federal law and didn't do the purging in the 90 day quiet period.
Because no one implemented this policy in previous elections. This was a new thing Youngkin put in place.Why wasn't it challenged in previous elections. You know, when Democrats were governors?
Yes, I understand and it was used in previous administrations.Because no one implemented this policy in previous elections. This was a new thing Youngkin put in place.
Do you even understand what we are talking about?
Do I really need to cite the statute? That was the entire basis for the injunction.Where in the law does it say you can't do it in a 90 day quiet period?