Members banned from this thread: rgf


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Brnovich v. DNC - ballot collection argument today

  1. #1

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Brnovich v. DNC - ballot collection argument today

    The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in two cases with potentially wide-ranging impact on election law. The consolidated cases, both from Arizona, question the scope of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language.


    SC.jpeg


    At issue is whether Arizona's ballot collection law—which prohibits third parties, with certain exceptions, from delivering someone else's completed ballot—unfairly targets minorities. The justices will also consider a rule that requires ballots cast outside of a voter's precinct to be discarded; a law critics say unfairly burdens Hispanic and Native American residents. However, because the laws are designed as race-neutral, the cases will test what qualifies as a Section 2 violation, an outcome likely to impact election law in all 50 states. A decision is expected by early summer.


    Separately, the House will consider a nearly 800-page overhaul to federal election law. If passed, the package would still need to clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.


    800.jpeg

    https://www.abajournal.com/columns/a...ture-elections


    https://apnews.com/article/arizona-v...10441653aec18chttps://apnews.com/article/democrat-...b3b217c7089afe
    Last edited by DGUtley; 03-02-2021 at 07:26 AM.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. #2
    Points: 4,163, Level: 15
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 387
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    rgf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    101
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    246
    Points
    4,163
    Level
    15
    Thanks Given
    1
    Thanked 91x in 73 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you look at the legislative efforts in Republican held states to make changes to elections laws I get the impression they are all a bunch of sore losers. They didn't like the voter participation in the last election and will do everything in their power to stem the tide of increased voter turnout because they know the tide is against them. Despicable.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to rgf For This Useful Post:

    ron (03-03-2021)

  4. #3
    Points: 12,675, Level: 27
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 875
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Jeb!'s Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2944
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,920
    Points
    12,675
    Level
    27
    Thanks Given
    1,506
    Thanked 2,934x in 1,700 Posts
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rgf View Post
    If you look at the legislative efforts in Republican held states to make changes to elections laws I get the impression they are all a bunch of sore losers. They didn't like the voter participation in the last election and will do everything in their power to stem the tide of increased voter turnout because they know the tide is against them. Despicable.
    This thread is about Democrats trying to get courts to strike down a law a Republican state legislature passed before the election.
    Last edited by Jeb!; 03-02-2021 at 12:03 PM.
    I am the President-Elect of the United States.

  5. #4

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 152,038, Level: 93
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 2,012
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassCreated Album picturesYour first GroupRecommendation First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Adelaide's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    341325
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    N. Pole and VA
    Posts
    30,757
    Points
    152,038
    Level
    93
    Thanks Given
    4,025
    Thanked 18,449x in 11,739 Posts
    Mentioned
    1723 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rgf View Post
    If you look at the legislative efforts in Republican held states to make changes to elections laws I get the impression they are all a bunch of sore losers. They didn't like the voter participation in the last election and will do everything in their power to stem the tide of increased voter turnout because they know the tide is against them. Despicable.

    tPF Thread Ban - Note: Please see this announcement if clarification on tPF is required. Additionally, see Rule 10 for further details.

    Thread banned by OP for trolling.



    FYIWDWYTM

  6. #5
    Points: 264,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307876
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,545
    Points
    264,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,661
    Thanked 39,250x in 27,871 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Separately, the House will consider a nearly 800-page overhaul to federal election law. If passed, the package would still need to clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
    The House Democrat's goal is to subvert elections so they need no longer rely on voters who reject them. The state legislators explicitly kept their authority over voting. What the House is doing is unconstitutional.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    carolina73 (03-02-2021),DGUtley (03-02-2021)

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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