Vote!

[MUfan12]

I requested my ballot TWO MONTHS before the election.  I received it on September 18.  It was received by the clerk on September 30. 

People have to have some responsibility to get their vote in on time.

Dis right here.

[shoothoops]

Not really.   Sure the goal is "to have as many people as possible vote and to have every vote counted," but there are REASONBLE regulations around every election.  I think Wisconsin's regulations are reasonable.  Showing up to drop an absentee ballot off in person prior to election day, when you have had WEEKS to return it, is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, really.

Previously, WI was not having the current problem getting mail delivered on time. New problem, new solution.

Previously, people weren't voting during a Pandemic. New Problem, new solution.

Some voters for a wide variety of reasons are unable to vote in person and/or drop off in person. Also, in some areas receiving the ballot took much longer than expected.

Votes postmarked November 3 or earlier not counted just days after November 3rd?  Again, it is reasonable to count those votes, yes. Is everyone supposed to guess how slow thr mail is, one week, two weeks, and so on...

I'm all for encouraging as many people to vote in person as early as possible or to drop off completed ballot early. But it is unreasonable to not count those that arrive later than November 3rd, yes.

[GooooMarquette]

Anything that makes it more difficult to vote/to have your vote counted, is voter suppression.

Anything? I used to vote at an elementary school 2 blocks from my house. Several years back, they moved the polling place to a church about 1 1/2 miles from my house.

Q: Is this voter suppression?

A: Of course not.

"Anything" is way too broad. IMO, changes made with the intent to suppress votes would generally qualify as voter suppression.

[forgetful]

I requested my ballot TWO MONTHS before the election.  I received it on September 18.  It was received by the clerk on September 30. 

People have to have some responsibility to get their vote in on time.

To be fair. A family member (registered democrat) in a historically red state requested their mail in ballot two months ago. It kept on not showing up, and they were told that there was a backlog...this despite friends all receiving theirs. They finally received it a few days ago, but instead of sending a ballot, they sent a "mail in ballot request form...again." They were told it was a clerical error.

[4everwarriors]

Stupid me! I always thought rocket was the dumb one. 

C'mon man, is this the best ya got? Bring it, hey?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

To be fair. A family member (registered democrat) in a historically red state requested their mail in ballot two months ago. It kept on not showing up, and they were told that there was a backlog...this despite friends all receiving theirs. They finally received it a few days ago, but instead of sending a ballot, they sent a "mail in ballot request form...again." They were told it was a clerical error.

I was specifically talking about Wisconsin.

[Jockey]

Not really.   Sure the goal is "to have as many people as possible vote and to have every vote counted," but there are REASONBLE regulations around every election.  I think Wisconsin's regulations are reasonable.  Showing up to drop an absentee ballot off in person prior to election day, when you have had WEEKS to return it, is perfectly reasonable.

In a semi-perfect world, you are correct. In a world where the president is sabotaging mail delivery, things are not so black and white.

Stats are out there and we can plainly see hoe Dem areas are affected.

[GooooMarquette]

To be fair. A family member (registered democrat) in a historically red state requested their mail in ballot two months ago. It kept on not showing up, and they were told that there was a backlog...this despite friends all receiving theirs. They finally received it a few days ago, but instead of sending a ballot, they sent a "mail in ballot request form...again." They were told it was a clerical error.

That totally sucks. Hope they still go to the polls on Tuesday....

[shoothoops]

Anything? I used to vote at an elementary school 2 blocks from my house. Several years back, they moved the polling place to a church about 1 1/2 miles from my house.

Q: Is this voter suppression?

A: Of course not.

"Anything" is way too broad. IMO, changes made with the intent to suppress votes would generally qualify as voter suppression.

Intent is implied. Not counting votes this election that arrive shortly after Nov 3, is in my opinion voter suppression, yes. Slow mail (intentional) Pandemic circumstances. It comes back to why we are here, to maximize voter quantity. That's why we are here.

Bringing unconcealed weapons to a polling place with an intent to intimidate is a form of both voter intimidation and voter suppression.

Your example may help some voters vote more easily, or there may be a good reason for the change. There are of course examples of reduced polling locations or location changes which do suppress some voting. Yours is not an example of that. Again intent is implied.

[MU82]

Anybody who isn't ignorant knows there is significant voter suppression going on right now in several states. Some know it but publicly pretend it isn't happening.

One party is doing everything possible to suppress, and now they have a Supreme Court that will aid and abet them.

[GooooMarquette]

Anybody who isn't ignorant knows there is significant voter suppression going on right now in several states. Some know it but publicly pretend it isn't happening.

One party is doing everything possible to suppress, and now they have a Supreme Court that will aid and abet them.

No question it is rampant, and always has been. I only had trouble with the comment that "anything" that makes it more difficult is suppression.

I also don't think the WI case amounts to voter suppression, because the law has always required ballots to be in by Election Day. And everyone who has specifically commented about Wisconsin (like Fluffy) has said it was easy to get the ballots in early as long as you planned.

[Jockey]

How is being allowed to carry guns to the polls an example of voter suppression?

Michigan militias were involved in the OKC bombing. Michigan militias were involved in plotting to kidnap and murder their governor. Michigan militias shut down the Michigan gov’t in their capital building.

And you can’t figure out why having armed Michigan militias at the polls could intimidate and cause fear for voters?

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Pokemon go to the polls

[jesmu84]

you pay way too much attention to right wing news if you think "The Squad" has any real influence in the Democratic Party. They were all Bernie acolytes, how did Bernie lose if they run things?

The only thing AOC + 3 will accomplish is trying to make fetch happen.

Spot on

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Michigan militias were involved in the OKC bombing. Michigan militias were involved in plotting to kidnap and murder their governor. Michigan militias shut down the Michigan gov’t in their capital building.

And you can’t figure out why having armed Michigan militias at the polls could intimidate and cause fear for voters?

People have been able to open carry firearms to the polls in the past.  This isn't new.

[Jockey]

People have been able to open carry firearms to the polls in the past.  This isn't new.

Head in the sand.

As trump’s hand picked FBI Director says - these militias are the biggest threat to democracy in the USA.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Head in the sand.

As trump’s hand picked FBI Director says - these militias are the biggest threat to democracy in the USA.

Sure.  And if they show up to the polls and prevent people from voting, that's voter suppression.  And there are resources in place to address that if it occurs.

But simply open carrying a gun into the polling place is not voter suppression.

It's pretty easy to figure out if you use logic.  Which excludes you I know - you'd rather just rant.

[Pakuni]

BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Pennsylvania Republicans’ second attempt to block extended ballot deadline.

[Billy Hoyle]

People have been able to open carry firearms to the polls in the past.  This isn't new.

and yet Hannity spent months obsessing over two unarmed members of the Black Panthers, who were designated poll watchers. standing by a polling site in Philly and Propaganda Barbie (in her previous life) made it clear such "intimidation" should not be allowed:

Fox News played up the NBPP incident for ages.

And here was pro-Trump pundit Kayleigh McEnany explaining his "rigged" rhetoric on CNN last Thursday: "I think he's setting up a scenario where he wants supporters to be vigilant. He doesn't want a scenario where there's New Black Panthers outside with guns, essentially, like, intimidating people from coming into the polls."


https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20161024_GOP_poll_watcher_behind_2008_New_Black_Panther_video_is_anti-Trump.html

[Hards Alumni]

The liberal playbook just before a general election is to lie about their positions so they don’t expose themselves as the radicals they are.  Biden’s already lied about not wanting to ban fracking, even though he’s on record proclaiming he wants to do exactly that, and he’s had to walk back his debate pledge to kill the oil industry.  So why he’s not following suit about his position on packing the court is surprising because lying is what he does.  And that’s solely why I brought that point up.

At least you admit the left wants an activist judiciary.  You may not like arguments why liberal ideas you like aren’t constitutional, but that is not our sides version of judicial activism.  The duty of The Supreme Court is to interpret and uphold our Constitution, not blindly follow legal precedent that goes against our Constitution.

Imagine being this stupid, or lost.  Pure fantasy.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Pennsylvania Republicans’ second attempt to block extended ballot deadline.

So they are being logically consistent.

My guess is this won’t stop the “the Court is helping Trump win” type articles however.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

and yet Hannity spent months obsessing over two unarmed members of the Black Panthers, who were designated poll watchers. standing by a polling site in Philly and Propaganda Barbie (in her previous life) made it clear such "intimidation" should not be allowed:

Fox News played up the NBPP incident for ages.

And here was pro-Trump pundit Kayleigh McEnany explaining his "rigged" rhetoric on CNN last Thursday: "I think he's setting up a scenario where he wants supporters to be vigilant. He doesn't want a scenario where there's New Black Panthers outside with guns, essentially, like, intimidating people from coming into the polls."


https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20161024_GOP_poll_watcher_behind_2008_New_Black_Panther_video_is_anti-Trump.html

Ok. Not sure what this has to do with voter suppression. 

[Jockey]

Sure.  And if they show up to the polls and prevent people from voting, that's voter suppression.  And there are resources in place to address that if it occurs.

But simply open carrying a gun into the polling place is not voter suppression.

It's pretty easy to figure out if you use logic.  Which excludes you I know - you'd rather just rant.

Logic?

You are saying that no one would be intimidated and leave the polls when they see an armed presence that they know supports a man who has openly called for violence from his supporters?

Wake up, dude.

BTW, I hope I am entirely wrong, but the president has refused to say he will accept the results of the election. This is not editorializing or ranting. It is fact.

[Pakuni]

So they are being logically consistent.

My guess is this won’t stop the “the Court is helping Trump win” type articles however.

No.
Nor the "massive voter fraud" claims from the other side.


In other news, Brett Kavanaugh is still a dummy. Supreme Court justices ought to be able to get basic facts correct. He got several wrong in his Wisconsin concurrence.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/vermont-kavanaugh-voting/index.html

[MU82]

BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Pennsylvania Republicans’ second attempt to block extended ballot deadline.

From the NYT article:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused a plea from Pennsylvania Republicans to put their request to halt a three-day extension of the deadline for receiving absentee ballots on an extraordinarily fast track.

The move meant that the court would not consider the case, which could have yielded a major ruling on voting procedure, until after Election Day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court on Tuesday and who might have broken an earlier deadlock in the case, did not cast a vote. A court spokeswoman said Justice Barrett “did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.”

It's only a matter of time before she gets involved in these cases. Obviously, it was crazy to hope that Barrett would do the right thing and recuse herself from all election-related cases, especially those involving the person who nominated her just last month.

Anybody who doesn't believe that she promised Trump (who famously insists on total loyalty from all of his minions) that she would rule for him in any case deciding the presidency or Senate ... I've got a new Foxconn project for you.