[tomder55]

I know some of the RINOs and some of the Dems that pretend to be moderate . But I haven't seen a complete list of members . Nor have I seen an agenda that doesn't support the most "progressive " agenda of the Dems . I can propose my own 'make the Senate great again ' agenda later .

[paraclete]

Tom do you really think anyone cares?

[tomder55]

You would think they would since they are making big deals about filibusters and that idiotic HR1 ;a bill the House Dems felt was so important for their future one party rule ,that they passed it before Covid relief. All they need is the Senate to pass it now and they will control the electoral process in the country for a generation . If the Dems can get it passed with the pretense of bi-partisanship ,all the better for their propaganda .

This so called 'Make the Senate Great Again Caucus ' is their attempt to recruit 10 squishy Republicans to break a Republican "obstruction" . This gives RINOs and 'Blue Dog' Democrats the illusion that they are the power brokers .

They have done this stuff before . When Repubs were talking about using the nuclear option in 2005 to thwart a filibuster by the Dems to stop Bush court appointees , a 'Gang of 14' Senators from both parties formed . They used their influence to get the Dems to end the filibuster in exchange for the Repubs taking the nuclear option off the table. The group members were hailed as "moderates who put aside partisanship to do what was best for the Senate." That is the fantasy that this coalition will try to foster .

[Athos]

You would think they would since they are making big deals about filibusters and that idiotic HR1 ;a bill the House Dems felt was so important for their future one party rule ,that they passed it before Covid relief.

Please list your specific objections to HR-1.

[tomder55]

Please list your specific objections to HR-1.

Many things are wrong .
Generally I am opposed to the centralization that it represents .It would take the worse ideas from state elections (both ones passed Constitutionally by legislatures ,and one enacted by executive or judicial fiat ) and nationalize them .

Specifically.....
It would force states with voter id laws to scrap them.
It has bypasses to the Court Citizen's United decision .It is an incumbent protection bill and would muzzle citizen groups , civic groups,, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. It reintroduces disclosure rules designed to intimidate and harass non-profit political special interests .
It would unconstitutionally seize registration powers from the states. It would impose same day registration ,mandatory early voting ,impose on line registration ,on states that don't have those provisions .
It would force states to register all individuals of an eligible age from Federal and state data bases instead of all ELLIGIBLE CITIZENS .
It requires states to count ballots of people voting outside their election district . It would mandate the counting of no fault absentee ballots ,It would ban notarizing of absentee ballots or even witness signatures . It would force states to receive and count absentee ballots up to 10 days after election day . States would be required to accept harvested ballots .
It would transfer state powers to draw election districts to a Federal "independent " commission . It would codify into law the IRS abuses targeting conservative organizations under the emperor's reign .

I'm sure I can think of more . But that is a good start .

[talaniman]

I don't know Tom, seems to me it takes best practices and makes every citizen realize the exercise of their voting rights without the shenanigans of voter suppression to justify the BIG LIES of fraud and theft repubs have been hollering about for decades now as court after court, left and right leaning judges keep striking down those attempts. I'm checking but the bill doesn't do any of those things you ascribe.

I can see where repubs would be against a transparent national standard with some guidelines for states which would curb some of the most egregious state practices though, and may even reign in those bad practices for dem controlled states as well.

[tomder55]

look harder . Ie voter id . They don't outright make them illegal . They instead give work arounds like sworn affidavits that a voter can use to bypass the voter id laws the states have . This in effect does the same thing as scrapping the law.

Nullifying Citizens United .... uh yes it does,

H.R. 1: The Path to Democracy in America - The American Prospect

I'll go further ;it nullifies NAACP v Alabama 1958 ....that nixed the Democrat's shameful practice of Jim Crow states forcing special interest civil rights groups to disclose their donor base . The reason those tactics were effective was because they could then intimidate the donors . The NAACP won the lawsuit in a unanimous decision by SCOTUS . BUT they made a narrow decision that only applied to the NAACP case .That gave the Dems the opening they want.

Now HR1 reintroduces the requirement that donor information is disclosed . Blue states have been putting the heat on for a long time . In my former state of NY ,former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman began demanding the names of donors to nonprofits operating within the state in 2013 . California’s Democratic Attorney General ,and now VP of the US ,Kamala Harris made a similar demand 2014 . Now HR1 makes disclosure a requirement nationwide .

Time is short . But as you see . I can back up all my charges .

[Wondergirl]

Tom, please post an orderly list of what you consider valid and necessary voter ID.

[talaniman]

@Tom

Wouldn't everybody disclosing their donor base put EVERYBODY under the same scrutiny? Why would that hurt the repubs more than the dems?

[tomder55]

Wouldn't everybody disclosing their donor base put EVERYBODY under the same scrutiny? Why would that hurt the repubs more than the dems?

I don't care who it hurts or helps . Disclosure harms the donors period .

For the reasons I mentioned ,and especially the past abuses associated with intimidation of donors by the Dems of the 1950s ,the donor list should remain anonymous .

Justice John Marshall Harlan led a unanimous court in deciding that the right of association and assembly is protected not only by the 1st amendment ;but also the 14th .Although the NAACP complied with state law to hand over business records ,it refused to hand over donor lists and membership lists as membership lists and donor lists had to remain confidential to protect its members from unlawful attacks.

[tomder55]

Tom, please post an orderly list of what you consider valid and necessary voter ID.

I've done this before here many times . ANY state approved voter id is acceptable . Ideally it should have picture ID . I will not engage in this nonsense argument that they are hard to get . I just got licensed in SC and here voter id is just a matter of showing up and getting a picture taken .It is as simple as that . Or are you saying most voters are incapable of that basic civic obligation ?

Mandatory ID is used for many functions in this country. Why should voting be different ;and what possible reason can there be to opposed id short of the wink and nod approval of abuse and fraud ?

[paraclete]

Why do you guys make everything so difficult?

[Wondergirl]

I've done this before here many times . ANY state approved voter id is acceptable . Ideally it should have picture ID .

I totally agree with you.
1. Current state ID/driver's license with photo and signature.
2. Signature taken while in line to vote.
3. No ballots mailed out willy nilly, but must be applied for via county election commission's application that may also ask for additional verification.

[Athos]

I totally agree with you.
1. Current state ID/driver's license with photo and signature.
2. Signature taken while in line to vote.
3. No ballots mailed out willy nilly, but must be applied for via county election commission's application that may also ask for additional verification.

#2 has problems - signatures change over time, the logistics of signing standing up OR signing inside the polling station where an untrained clerk must quickly decide on the authenticity of the signature (I can foresee chaos when signatures are challenged), slowing the process. As far as I can tell, checking signatures at the voting place has never been done since the beginning of voting.

[tomder55]

As far as I can tell, checking signatures at the voting place has never been done since the beginning of voting.

NY allegedly does it every ballot although I always thought it was perfunctory (sec 804). New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN §8-304 | NY State Senate (nysenate.gov)

[Athos]

NY allegedly does it every ballot although I always thought it was perfunctory (sec 804). New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN §8-304 | NY State Senate (nysenate.gov)

Then I guess it's done in other states, too. Perfunctory, yeah.

[jlisenbe]

It's my understanding that it's done practically everywhere. Even the mail in ballots were supposed to be signed on the envelope, or at least so I thought. I know it's done here.

[tomder55]

Yes 30 states and it is a very weak form of proof of eligibility . It becomes critical only in close down ballot elections in NY where 14% of mail in ballots get rejected for signature issues.

You are correct about them. It is subjective evaluation by poll watchers .The Atlantic called it 'witchcraft' . Photo id is by far the most valid method of eligibility .

[talaniman]

I've never had a problem with voter ID's, just the shenanigans surrounding them. In some places you could be tied up most of the day and that's if it's accessible and staffed. Seems pretty dumb to expect a lay person or volunteer to verify a signature though, and even dumber to ignore the logistical challenges many have who don't drive, or depend on public transportation, or move often for whatever reason.

Moving DMV's, and cutting hours is a famous repub shenanigan as well as purging voters, especially non responsive ones from those silly verification letters they send out. Sometimes I think you righties take for granted the ease in which you navigate a system designed by YOU, and ignore the logistical challenges as you make excuses for the most obvious shenanigans and obstacles.

In my book that blows credibility of fairness and understanding out of the water as rules are made and implemented with the notions inspired by your own fears of the intentions of others. The courts have mostly agreed when these rules are challenged and still you persist despite the history of NO WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD.

I get it though, because a FAIR system doesn't favor your dwindling numbers and threatens the viability of domination and influence that fuels your security and wealth. Maybe a more objective look at what's FAIR and JUST would render a better view of yourselves and ideas, because you seem lacking in both.

Just saying while you rig the system and accuse everybody else of CHEATING, and invent more hoops to jump through.

[Wondergirl]

Then I guess it's done in other states, too. Perfunctory, yeah.

Illinois asks for each in-person and by-mail voter's signature and compares it to what's on file. Last October, when I called the election office to ask for a ballot application to be sent to me, I was questioned as to my birthdate and last four digits of my SS number.