Scotus in a 6-3 decision ( Brnovich v. Democratic National Committe), reversing a 9th Circus Court ruling, affirmed Arizona voting laws that say a person has to vote in the district that person is registered in .It also affirmed their law that restricts ballot harvesting .

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion offering guidelines in determining if a law complies with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act .
(1) the overall burden on voters, (2) whether the voting rule has been around for a long time, (3) the size of the impact on minority voters, (4) the state's overall election scheme (5) the state's interest in combating election fraud. He wrote that "Having to identify one's own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the 'usual burdens of voting'" .
19-1257 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (07/01/2021) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf)

To me it is entirely insulting to minorities to suggest that they need special considerations when it comes to voting in the right precinct. When confronted with the facts ,the truth was that in 2016, 99% of Hispanic voters, 99% of African-American voters, and 99% of Native American voters cast their ballots in the right precinct, while roughly 99.5% of white voters did so.

This bodes well for the State of Georgia combatting the Quid challenge to their laws

This bodes well for the State of Georgia combatting the Quid challenge to their laws

Isn't that the state where Trump illegally tried to change the vote count in his favor? You know, where he was recorded doing so.

irrelevant ;all the changes to Georgia law happened this year .

irrelevant ;all the changes to Georgia law happened this year .

It's hardly irrelevant as long as the blonde-wigged bozo is still around spewing his hatred. But I get you're talking about SCOTUS.

It's about more than voting in the right precinct, it's the reduced hours and options for opportunities to vote as well as the ability to overturn the results at the whim of the ruling party.

Just a point of clarity, your laws provide that a person must vote in their locality thus invalidating an absentee vote, It seems they do more to restrict the franchise than they do to enable it. This abrogates a basic human right for representation and comes because you lack centralised organisation

Clete ,no that is not the case . It means that an absentee ballot must be counted in the district that person is registered .That is as it was. The change is someone registered in one district can no longer vote in another .

SCOTUS also affirmed the Arizona provision that it is a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot. That practice is called 'ballot harvesting ' . An activist goes door to door and collects absentee ballots (many times "assisting " in filling out the ballot ).There is tremendous fraud associated with harvesting that the left denies exists .

Tal ,Garland will make his case to the judiciary . SCOTUS has set a realistic standard for determining if a voting law violates Sec 2 of the voting rights act . No doubt Congress will continue to attempt to gut the Constitution state's authorities regarding elections both national and local.

Just a point of clarity, your laws provide that a person must vote in their locality thus invalidating an absentee vote, It seems they do more to restrict the franchise than they do to enable it. This abrogates a basic human right for representation and comes because you lack centralised organisation

To clarify, an absentee vote can be collect almost anywhere so why can't it be counted as valid? LOL, who the heck knows their district? Ever see a district map? It's subject to change anytime the pols can justify it. Nothing but tricks, traps, and shenanigans to gain advantage.

Clete ,no that is not the case . It means that an absentee ballot must be counted in the district that person is registered .That is as it was. The change is someone registered in one district can no longer vote in another .

I guess that's why repubs want some ballot drop offs removed thereby easy to invalidate those votes. Nice try.


SCOTUS also affirmed the Arizona provision that it is a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot. That practice is called 'ballot harvesting ' . An activist goes door to door and collects absentee ballots (many times "assisting " in filling out the ballot ).There is tremendous fraud associated with harvesting that the left denies exists .

Yeah repubs have been caught at it before, but repubs has yet to be prove wrong doing despite the "tremendous fraud" associated with so called "harvesting" that the left denies.


Tal ,Garland will make his case to the judiciary . SCOTUS has set a realistic standard for determining if a voting law violates Sec 2 of the voting rights act . No doubt Congress will continue to attempt to gut the Constitution state's authorities regarding elections both national and local.

As long as I've known you Tom, your goal has been to drown the federal government in a bath tub and let the states do as they please. I get it.

As long as I've known you Tom, your goal has been to drown the federal government in a bath tub and let the states do as they please. I get it.

Somehow I had the silly idea it is the United States of America but there is very little united about your behaviour. States rights were at the centre of the civil war and 150 years later you still haven't learned

There has always been a power struggle between the states and feds Clete and we have learned not to shoot at each other over it...somewhat.

Somehow I had the silly idea it is the United States of America but there is very little united about your behaviour. States rights were at the centre of the civil war and 150 years later you still haven't learnedYou were completely wrong in your observation about absentee ballots, so perhaps you should learn to listen a little more instead of offering up your frequently ill-informed observations. The distribution of governmental responsibilities was a stroke of genius from the founders. We have sadly weakened it, but it allows for decisions to be made closer to the people than does an all-powerful central government.

You were completely wrong in your observation about absentee ballots, so perhaps you should learn to listen a little more instead of offering up your frequently ill-informed observations. The distribution of governmental responsibilities was a stroke of genius from the founders. We have sadly weakened it, but it allows for decisions to be made closer to the people than does an all-powerful central government.

Another states right advocate that wants a weak central government instead of the intended equal branches of government with separation of powers. Checks and balances.

Face facts . This decision correctly says that reasonable requirements to vote in the district a voter is registered in ,and that ballot harvesting restrictions are not racially motivated . Before waiting on this decision Quid had Garland file another law suit against the new Georgia laws based on Quid's lies about the law ('dragging the nation back into the Jim Crow era.') Their challenge again will be rejected if it makes it to SCOTUS .

But in the meantime, the Dems lies about the Georgia law and so called voter suppression will remain talking points going into the midterms .

Face facts! A state having a compelling reason to prevent voter fraud is more important than the right to vote (Mostly affecting minorities)? That's what the case was about a big fat lie about fraud and why you only want to talk about the very small issue of voting within ones district just shows you're trying to dodge the real issue.

I get you guys have to shave a bunch of votes to win, and bend the rules sharply your way. You've been doing it a long time and that's just the history of this country.

Microsoft Word - FGA Georgia SB202 Memo.docx (thefga.org) (https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Georgia_election_integrity_act.pdf)

Changing the language doesn't change the intent.

When confronted with the facts ,the truth was that in 2016, 99% of Hispanic voters, 99% of African-American voters, and 99% of Native American voters cast their ballots in the right precinct, while roughly 99.5% of white voters did so.


So what you are saying is required is not equal protection under the law but special protection .That is typical Democrat condescending attitudes towards minorities .

special protection .That is typical Democrat condescending attitudes towards minorities .Politics. Stinkin politics.

stroke of genius, please preserve us from such intelligence, it is hardly benign

When confronted with the facts ,the truth was that in 2016, 99% of Hispanic voters, 99% of African-American voters, and 99% of Native American voters cast their ballots in the right precinct, while roughly 99.5% of white voters did so.


So what you are saying is required is not equal protection under the law but special protection .That is typical Democrat condescending attitudes towards minorities .

Nice spin but hardly factual. In the face of the largest turnout in history, with no fraud, during a pandemic no less, the repubs act on their decades long suppression efforts to restrict voting rights by not just gutting federal protections but states most oppressive actions to legally restrict voting rights.

Simple truth, and history bears out how minority voting has been a struggle for both minorities and women so it's not a special protection others seek but an equal protection against right wing legalized suppression of voting rights.

Point of evidence, the continuing efforts to undermine the CERTIFIED results of the last election, in Arizona with the hopes of moving to other states. They have already started removing dem election officials in Georgia under this new law, and replacing them with partisan good old boys that will do as they are told.

Republicans In Georgia Are Targeting And Removing Black Election Officials (politicususa.com) (https://www.politicususa.com/2021/06/19/georgia-republicans-black-election-officials.html)


Republicans are disempowering African-Americans in Georgia. These laws are all about hanging a whites-only sign over the ballot box and destroying equal access to the democratic process.

Legalizing lying, cheating, and stealing under the dufus is more condescending against minorities than that tale YOU'RE trying to spin. It always has been whether you admit too "black rules" and Jim Crow or not and that's what has guided politics since this country started. That and rich guys RULE!

Another states right advocate that wants a weak central government instead of the intended equal branches of government with separation of powers. Checks and balances.

A house divided against itself cannot prosper, your founding fathers should have been familiar with this principle and they used it when forming the Constitution

a weak central government instead of the intended equal branches of government with separation of powers.False dichotomy. Conservatives want BOTH a small, efficient fed government AND the appropriate use of separation of powers. One does not rule out the other.

I have to question the premise of a small AND efficient central government with the capacity to deal with complex national issues of a huge nation.

Virtually all of Europe and almost all developed countries require in-person voters to use photo IDs to vote. Indeed, out of Europe’s 47-countries, only the United Kingdom hasn’t required photo IDs to vote in their entire country, but that is about to change. Similar in-person rules exist for most developed countries. The vast majority of countries ban absentee ballots for people living in their country. While some point out that eight of Europe’s 47-countries allow for proxy voting, where you can designate someone to vote on your behalf, the safe-guards used to prevent fraud are generally far more stringent than used for absentee ballots in the US. Other countries have discovered widespread voter fraud when safeguards are not used. They also understand that relying on conviction counts is unlikely to catch the vast majority of fraud that occurs. The question is: why is the US so unique in terms of not guarding against vote fraud?

Why Do Most Countries Require Photo Voter IDs?: They Have Seen Massive Vote Fraud Problems by John R. Lott :: SSRN (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3849068.)

Why Do Most Countries Require Photo Voter IDs?: They Have Seen Massive Vote Fraud Problems by John R. Lott :: SSRN (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3849068.)

You left us out in your remarks, Tom, I have never had to show a voter ID to vote. We identify ourselves on the roll of registered voters and are marked off. We are also able to lodge an absentee ballot at any principal polling place and to lodge an early ballot

I have never had to show a voter ID to vote. We identify ourselves on the roll of registered voters and are marked off.
Why information is there to prove you are you?

they have a law that everyone of age must vote . So they don't give a hoot about the concept of eligible voters .

they have a law that everyone of age must vote . So they don't give a hoot about the concept of eligible voters .
I didn't know you're from Australia, tomder!

they have a law that everyone of age must vote . So they don't give a hoot about the concept of eligible voters .

Sure they do. They have to watch out for those dangerous three-year-olds. You know, the ones that rigged the 2020 election in the US? Trump has ABSOLUTE proof of what they did. Everybody knows he has it.

they have a law that everyone of age must vote . So they don't give a hoot about the concept of eligible voters .

Everyone here is eligible, even, since 1954, the aborigines. No racial discrimination, no stuffing about or stuffing ballot boxes. But to be on the roll you must register and notify a change of address. Really the only thing that might disqualify you is being of no fixed abode, ie, homeless. We have simplified the process to ensure there is due process and universal suffrage and no political interference

You have said before that everyone of legal age is required to vote. Isn’t that the case?

Yes, you must be a citizen, of course, not an unnaturalised migrant, and you will be fined if you fail to vote without good excuse and since absentee voting is available, travel is no excuse. People in hospitals, age homes, etc, may lodge what is called a postal vote.

We don't have an equivalent of your primary selection process and so our election period is short, usually no more than eight weeks

My post said Virtually all of Europe and almost all developed countries .So I guess Australian ;not being in Europe; and the one off isolated developed nation with no common land borders to any other nation is the one off .

Evidently the Aussie system is not as pure as the driven slush as we are led to believe .
In this years Federal Election over 18,000 people allegedly voted multiple times, a steep increase from the 2013 election with only around 8,000 multiple voters.
Australian voter fraud up 125% in the 2016 Federal Election - Australia Business News (https://australiabusinessnews.com.au/news/australian-voter-fraud-125-2016-federal-election/)

Sure they do.And as it turns out...sure they do!!

My post said Virtually all of Europe and almost all developed countries .So I guess Australian ;not being in Europe; and the one off isolated developed nation with no common land borders to any other nation is the one off .

Evidently the Aussie system is not as pure as the driven slush as we are led to believe .
In this years Federal Election over 18,000 people allegedly voted multiple times, a steep increase from the 2013 election with only around 8,000 multiple voters.
Australian voter fraud up 125% in the 2016 Federal Election - Australia Business News (https://australiabusinessnews.com.au/news/australian-voter-fraud-125-2016-federal-election/)

If they do that they are stupid or there is fraud, however few electorates have such a close result that it could tip the balance because ours is not a first past the post electoral system. If you manage more than 50% you are in but otherwise it comes down to distribution of preferences and it is this rather than a few random votes that will determine the result. Everyone of those persons who did that would be fined. Obviously there was great panic in the minor parties and the underdog won. Contrary to the wishes of the leftists