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)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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)

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 .

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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)

Quote:

---

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!