Seems like despite efforts to suppress the vote and disenfranchise people in North Dakota, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Nevada, etc. Americans are still finding a way to use their right to vote in some areas. Republicans have done their best to fuck over so many citizens, though.
Sharing some links and sources, highlighting how bad it's gotten.
Other urls found in this thread:
thenation.com
salon.com
washingtonpost.com
publicintegrity.org
reuters.com
cnn.com
ajc.com
politico.com
brennancenter.org
prri.org
abc15.com
today.law.harvard.edu
salon.com
wsav.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
motherjones.com
thenation.com
twitter.com
>The ACLU of Iowa reports that 11 percent of eligible Iowa voters—260,000 people—don’t have a driver’s license or non-operator ID, according to the US Census and the Iowa Department of Transportation, and could be disenfranchised by the bill. My grandmother, if she were still alive today, would have been one of them.
>There’s no evidence the new law is necessary. Iowa has some of the best-run elections in the country. There were only 10 alleged cases of fraud out of 1.6 million votes cast in 2016 and no cases of voter impersonation that a voter-ID law might’ve stopped. The only conviction was a Trump supporter who voted twice because she thought the election was rigged and her first vote wouldn’t count. “We’ve not experienced widespread voter fraud in Iowa,” admits Secretary of State Paul Pate, the architect of the bill. (However, Pate still pushed misleading fraud stats over the objections of his own staff.)
>Yet Iowa Republicans, who now control state government for the first time in two decades, say the law is necessary to combat the “perception” of fraud—a perception created by Republicans who alleged for a decade without evidence that such fraud was widespread. “It is true that there isn’t widespread voter fraud,” State Representative Ken Rizer told The New York Times. “But there is a perception that the system can be cheated. That’s one of the reasons for doing this.” The fact that Republicans are pointing to the mere “perception” of fraud as a reason to disenfranchise thousands of voters shows why Trump’s baseless assertions that millions are voting illegally is so damaging.
thenation.com
>Brian Kemp, who until this week was Georgia’s secretary of state, is stealing the gubernatorial election from Stacey Abrams. Here’s how.
>We can begin with 92-year-old Christine Jordan, who blocked from voting. Watch this 59-second video of Jordan, who is Martin Luther King Jr.’s cousin, booted from the polls with her granddaughter in tears.
>Jordan was just one victim of Kemp’s mass cancellation of voter registrations -— more than half a million Georgians purged in the night, stealthily, hidden from the public eye.
>I’m not guessing. I had to sue Kemp in federal court to pry out of him the names and addresses of each voter whose rights he cancelled.
>Until Thursday, Kemp was Georgia’s secretary of state, running the election and running for governor. If you don’t like gross conflicts of interest, stay out of Georgia.
>When those half million voters showed up to vote, they were denied regular ballots –- and most were given something called a “provisional ballot.”
>When some GOP voting chieftain takes away your vote, they don’t want you to raise hell. So they give you this “provisional” ballot. That way, you feel like you voted, but you haven’t. Not in Georgia.
>Guess who set the rules on whether to count your ballot? Answer: Candidate Kemp.
>Voting rights activist Stacey Hopkins’ son was purged – despite a court order Stacey obtained, with the help of the ACLU, to put him back on the rolls -- along with 159,000 other Georgians Kemp wrongfully purged. Kemp apparently decided to ignore the courts. Again.
>The result, says Hopkins: “They were handing out provisional ballots like Chiclets. In our precinct, which normally hands out 11 in an election, they handed out over 60.”
salon.com
>Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.
>A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”
>“These results suggest that by instituting strict photo ID laws, states could minimize the influence of voters on the left and could dramatically alter the political leaning of the electorate,” the study concluded.
>The question of whether photo IDs are difficult to obtain has become central to cases across the country, where government and civil rights lawyers are challenging new state laws.
>Three courts have in fact struck down the voter-ID law in Texas, but the state’s governor has not backed down and has promised to keep it in effect in November.
>In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip.
>muh boter subbression
Literally a bigger conspiracy/boogeyman than voter fraud
>A federal judge in North Dakota on Wednesday declined to grant emergency relief to a Native American tribe and voters who said they are being disenfranchised by North Dakota’s voter identification law.
>U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland ruled that granting an injunction days before the election “will create as much confusion as it will alleviate.”
>But Hovland said the allegations contained in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday, “give this Court great cause for concern. The allegations will require a detailed response from the Secretary of State as this case proceeds.”
>The judge’s decision comes less than a week before the 2018 midterm election, and North Dakota is home to a heated U.S. Senate race between U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, a Republican.
>A federal judge on Friday blocked the state of Indiana from enforcing a 2017 law allowing election officials to remove voters from the rolls if they were flagged by a controversial tracking system.
>U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Common Cause Indiana and other groups that the legislation violates the National Voter Registration Act and threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters.
>“The court agrees with Common Cause that the greater public interest is in allowing eligible voters to exercise their right to vote without being disenfranchised without notice,” Pratt wrote in her 28-page ruling.
>“While the defendants have a strong public interest in protecting the integrity of voter registration rolls and the electoral process, they have other procedures in place that can protect that public interest that do not violate the NVRA,” Pratt wrote in granting a preliminary injunction.
>That injunction bars the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit is fought in court.
>So-called Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 442, which was approved by lawmakers in 2017, amends the state’s voter registration laws to allow elections officials to remove from the rolls any voters found registered in another state by a system called Crosscheck that is administered by the Kansas Secretary of State.
>Voters endured long waits to use one of Maricopa County's 60 polling stations Tuesday. There were at least 200 polling stations in 2012, but Republican officials said they decreased the number to save money.
>"If people want to take the time to vote they should be able to, and their vote should be counted," he tweeted Wednesday, and asked election officials to figure out what went wrong.
>"Our election officials must evaluate what went wrong. And how they (can) make sure it doesn't happen again," Ducey wrote.
Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego said Thursday at a Phoenix press conference he thinks that changes pushed by Republican state lawmakers led to the voting problems.
>"Let's be clear -- voter suppression happened on March 22. We don't know at this point if it was by chance or by planning, but no matter what, there's nothing we can do to deny that voter suppression happened," he said. "Sitting and standing in line four to five hours to vote, even if you end up voting, is still voter suppression. And the fact that people are not questioning whether their vote is counted at all is also suppression."
>Historically, the Department of Justice had to approve any changes in voting procedure in Arizona because of the state's history of discrimination against minorities in voting. But a Supreme Court decision in 2013 allowed Arizona to begin making changes without federal oversight. Leaders said if federal scrutiny had been required before making changes, Tuesday's situation would have never happened.
cnn.com
>A federal judge has declined to pause an injunction she ordered that changes how Georgia elections officials evaluate certain absentee ballots.
>Secretary of State Brian Kemp had requested that U.S. District Court Judge Leigh Martin May stay the injunction she issued last week while Kemp’s legal team appeals the decision regarding signature mismatches to a higher court.
>In an order filed late Tuesday — a week before Election Day — May said she would not do so. She wrote that granting a stay “would only cause confusion, as Secretary Kemp has already issued guidance in accordance with the injunction to county elections officials.”
>“The Court finds that the public interest is best served by allowing qualified absentee voters to vote and have their votes counted,” May wrote.
>Kemp’s appeal of the injunction has been docketed in the United States Appeals Court’s Eleventh Circuit. He has also asked that court to stay May’s injunction until the appeal is heard.
>The injunction specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice” via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an opportunity to resolve the discrepancy.
>Absentee ballot applications with potential signature issues are to be treated similarly, according to the court. The judge’s order is retroactive, meaning it affects mail-in voters that were already rejected.
>Unfortunately, these free IDs are not equally accessible to all voters. This report is the first comprehensive assessment of the difficulties that eligible voters face in obtaining free photo ID.
>The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:
>Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
>More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
>Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.
>More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.
brennancenter.org
>do fraud
>get caught
>Reeeeeer
I can't for all the DNC and its lawyers to be brought down for fraud. Three days later and you're suddenly winning. Somehow you can't get these counted in a timely manner. And for some reason all these lost leftover voters didn't bother to vote for senators. What a joke. Whoever's in charge at the DNC is clearly a stealth republican.
Why should I care if people dont get IDs and vote? They are free! its not a question of Cant its that they won't.
You’ll never convince us voter is can’t work
India is one of the poorest countries on earth and highest population with well over a BILLION people and they somehow figured it out
But the richest most powerful nation on earth just can’t figure it out
Gee
Wonder why they’re so against it?????
Probably cause it makes investigating fraud a cakewalk
You have a record of every name and face and address and phone and if anything goes strange it’s easy to figure out
It's hard to get an ID when you're recently deceased. They don't accept a death certificate as proof of identification and you obviously haven't been paying bills. Why are you so keen on disenfranchising democrats???
bump for calling out republican shitheads
>I can't wait in line to pay for a $25 ID
>The government should comply with my being a lazy nigger status
GTFO
You'd think Democrats would be all about voter ID after 2 years of muh Russia. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having to prove that you are who you say you are when you go to the polls, and if you care about the validity of the vote you would agree that it ought to be mandatory.
(1/2)
>A majority of Democrats (83%), independents (61%), and Republicans (52%) believe citizens should be automatically registered to vote when they do business with certain state agencies, although levels of support for automatic voter registration varies substantially by party. Close to half (45%) of Republicans oppose automatic voter registration.
>Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to believe their own party would benefit from full electoral participation. Roughly seven in ten (68%) Democrats say if all eligible voters participated in national elections, the Democratic Party would benefit, while 20% say it would serve the interests of both parties equally, and eight percent say it would not advantage either party. Only two percent of Democrats say this situation would be beneficial to the GOP. In contrast, less than half (41%) of Republicans say full voter participation would benefit their party. More than one-third (35%) believe it would benefit both parties equally, while nine percent say it would benefit neither party. Fourteen percent say this scenario would benefit the Democrats.
prri.org
(2/2)
>Although there were few differences in the reported voting problems experienced by people across these five states, the racial gap in problematic voting experiences is more pronounced in some states than others. In both Michigan and Illinois, nonwhite residents are more likely than white residents to report having issues when attempting to vote.17 One in ten nonwhite Americans in Illinois (10%) and Michigan (10%) report that they or someone in their household missed the registration deadline the last time they tried to vote, compared to about one in twenty white residents of those states (6% and 4%, respectively). Similarly, about one in ten nonwhite residents of Illinois (11%) and Michigan (9%) report that the last time they or a member of their household tried to vote, their name did not appear on the registration list even though they believed they were registered to vote. Only about one in twenty white residents of Illinois (5%) and Michigan (4%) report that they or a household member had a similar experience. Additionally, while about one in ten nonwhite residents of Michigan (9%) and Illinois (9%) report that they were harassed or bothered the last time they or a member of their household tried to vote, few white residents of Illinois (4%) and Michigan (4%) report this experience. Finally, nonwhite residents of Michigan (8%) are more likely than white residents (2%) to report that they or a member of their household were told they did not have the correct identification the last time they tried to vote. White and nonwhite residents of Illinois are about as likely to report having had this experience. In Ohio, white and nonwhite residents are about equally likely to report these types of issues when trying to vote.
It's crazy how many things require an ID in most states, and how most of them don't require an ID to vote. Driving, hunting for specific things, dumping trash, hauling tools in a truck, so much shit. We make fun of the Brits for it, but we need almost as many licenses over here.
But nooo, not for voting. That would be bad. What a crock of shit. It's obvious the democrats don't want voter IDs because they only ever win by fraud.
see
>There is no evidence of anything unusual going on in the Arizona vote-counting - and no elected Republican officials in the state have cried foul. It's plausible Sinema's opponent, Republican Rep. Martha McSally, could jump back into the lead in coming days. That wouldn't be suspicious, either. Here's why:
>Blame the fact that Arizonans like to vote early, by mail. That sounds like a contradiction, but a mailed-in ballot requires more work for Arizona elections officials.
>That's because state law requires the envelope to be sealed and signed, and for elections officials to match each signature to the one on file with the voter's registration before even opening the envelope. In this election, that's about 1.7 million individual signatures that had to be confirmed, one-by-one. A total of about 2.3 million votes were cast in Arizona.
>The state's Republican secretary of state, Michelle Reagan, added another reason: election security. To ensure against voter fraud, mail ballots dropped off Election Day - which totaled 320,000 - are double-checked with votes cast at the polls to confirm no one voted twice.
>It normally takes more than a week to count all the ballots in Arizona. The recorder in the state's biggest county - Maricopa, where 60 percent of votes are cast - Adrian Fontes, expects the counting to be done by Nov. 15.
>Fontes added that another bottleneck in his office is the computer system. It dates from the 1980s and is designed for a less populated county that rarely voted by mail. So it can only process up to 75,000 ballots a day. Maricopa has about 350,000 ballots that have yet to be tallied.
abc15.com
>They were handing out provisional ballots like Chiclets.
Holy shit. This has to be the first time I've even heard the word "Chiclets" since like the 1990s.
>they are free
No, they aren't.
>What exactly is meant by a “free” ID in this context, and is a “free” voter ID really free? Drawing on published articles obtained through the Internet, media, and legal testimony, this report calculates the costs incurred by three different individuals who had to obtain “free” voter identification cards in each of three states — Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Each state has enacted controversial, and legally contested, voter identification laws in the past three years. Since data on costs are not readily obtainable, this report develops a method for estimating the costs of a “free” state-issued photo ID for voting based on the factors of time, travel and out-of-pocket expenses:
>1. Time costs involved in learning about photo voter ID requirements and how to meet them.
>2. Costs of purchasing required birth, marriage, naturalization and other certificates. In some instances, the calculations include legal fees needed to secure these documents.
>3. Costs of travel expenses to the departments of vital records and motor vehicles, and the potential cost of hiring a driver and/or vehicle.
>4. Costs of travel time and waiting time at the agencies.
>For many people, paying the cost needed to meet voter ID requirements means spending the equivalent of more than a week’s worth of groceries. In fact, some citizens simply cannot afford the costs required to obtain these IDs. Still others can never get the documents they need to qualify for a voter ID. In short, under these laws, those citizens who cannot get IDs will pay the ultimate price in a democracy: they will lose their right to vote.
today.law.harvard.edu
>You have a record of every name and face and address and phone and if anything goes strange it’s easy to figure out
That already exists when you register. Are you one of those idiots who think voter fraud is low because we don't have enough data? We have plenty of data, and the handful of people who do try it get caught.
How's it feel to bleed blue?
Voter ID laws would do nothing to prevent election tampering from a state actor. Or were you under the premise that thousands of Russian agents were going to show up and pretend to be other people on the off-chance that they didn't get flagged for voting twice?
Voter ID laws claim to prevent in-person voter fraud. The problem is that no one fucking thinks that would be an efficient way to swing an election. You'd not only need people to vote at least twice, but you'd need all of those people to do it enough without getting caught. That's at a minimum 2,000 - 3,000 people (i.e. the slimmest of elections) stealing the identities of other people without raising a single red flag.
Your conspiracy of massive illegal voting just couldn't happen practically. One corrupted election official could do far more damage than anything voter ID laws would help prevent.
I was under the impression that people were using multiple social security numbers and not having to present any photo identification that matches up with those numbers.
>Things that don't require a valid ID
>Buying a gun from a private seller
>Voting
You know, your silly constitutional rights not the privileges.
>republicans never planned on suppressing votes
>"republicans will suppress votes"
>goes to vote
>allowed to vote
>"ha! take that republicans!"
OP is a faggot
I voted for several Republicans this year (i.e. governor, state ag, and a comptroller). But I'm an American first and anyone trying to suppress a voter's right can get fucked.
You're doing God's work, OP!
>fight tooth and nail against voter id laws
>get caught committing election fraud
>better whine about the other side maybe no one will notice
This shit won’t work in this day and age, you stupid fucks will die for making a mockery of our elections.
Actually my state does require ID to vote, because we care about the security and integrity of our elections.
>not being a christian, a conservative, and a republican in that order
>"oh shit look at all these votes with no ID verification, better throw them out"
Russia BTFO
If you're too irresponsible to have valid identification, you are too irresponsible to have a say in the leadership of the country. Enough is enough after these mid-term election shenanigans -- it's time for nationwide voter ID requirements.
>social security
Not in my state.
When you show up to vote, you're asked some personally identifying information to prove you are who you say you are (name, address, birth date, etc.). Each instance of voter fraud would require the criminal to know very personal information of the person they're impersonating. They would also need to ensure the person they're claiming to be is either registered or register that person themselves. They would also need to travel to that individuals polling location and vote (while also casting their own vote as they normally would do). They also would need to make sure the person they're impersonating has no plans to vote and will not vote on election day. And again, to sway an election you'd need to do this thousands of times.
Or you could just have a single, partisan SOS like Georgia's Kemp throw out 53,000 absentee ballots because they don't match what somebody scribbled on a stylus....
>Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is also the Republican nominee for governor this year, is blocking 53,000 voter registrations ahead of his election.
>According to records obtained by the Associated Press, 70 percent of the applications blocked were from African-Americans, even though the state's population is only 32 percent black.
>The registration purge was the result of the controversial “exact match” program, which requires the voter registration application to have identical information as the person's information in the state's Department of Driver Services database or the Social Security Administration’s records. This means that any minor discrepancy, such as a missing hyphen or middle initial, could result in a rejection. The program has a long history of disproportionately affecting minority voters.
Which is more effective and likely?
>conservative
>not traditionalist paleoconservative
How was Ben Shapiro’s show today pal
Right. It's about election security.
I'm curious as to how your state has also made it easier for people to get proper IDs? What is your state?
epic
>20 posts by this shill
They're not sending their best
>allowed to vote
If only every situation was like yours. It's ironic that most of the people complaining about "fraud" because ballots are still being counted don't realize many states still have outstanding provisional ballots. You know, the thing that those who weren't lucky enough to be allowed to vote like you had to use...
>A provisional ballot is a special kind of paper ballot that a voter is given at the polls in case there is a question about the voter's eligibility or identification. The voter has until Friday afternoon to clear up any issues so that vote is counted.
Well, people are clearing up those outstanding ballots and their votes are being tallied. Unfortunately for Republicans, it seems like most of them are Democrats...
>get caught committing election fraud
Source?
my butt
Step one: go to the DMV
History has it that it's the donkeys blocking voting, so why the elephant in the image?
>not even addressing any of the evidence OP cited
brainlet detected
>implying I'm not a baptist
en.wikipedia.org
>too irresponsible
That's an opinion, not a legal argument. And if you want national voter ID, then issue everyone a voter ID. No loopholes, obstacles, or shenanigans. Spend the millions of dollars and make an effort to supply every single American citizen with a national ID by the age of 12. I'm all for it.
Thought it's ironic that the far-right fringe would've lost their shit about the "gub'mint" trying to identify and ID everyone 10 years ago...
I've already beaten RDR2.
Fair enough.
As much as conservatives would like to portray Democrats from 1899 as the same Democrats from 2018, unfortunately those Democrats wouldn't have nominated a half-black President in 2008. The Dixiecrats are dead, mostly thanks to the 1948 US election and Nixon's Southern Strategy.
>The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election, as Truman, the Democratic National Committee, and the New Deal Southern Democrats acted to ensure that the Dixiecrat movement would not return in the 1952 presidential election. Some Southern diehards, such as Leander Perez of Louisiana, attempted to keep it in existence in their districts.[16] Former Dixiecrats received some backlash at the 1952 Democratic National Convention, but all Southern delegations were seated after agreeing to a party loyalty pledge.[17] Moderate Alabama Senator John Sparkman was selected as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1952, helping to boost party loyalty in the South.[17] Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections, but increasingly not in presidential elections.
(1/2)
>A federal judge on Monday struck down a 2013 Kansas law that required people to provide proof of citizenship such as a passport or birth certificate in order to register to vote. The decision deals a major blow to efforts by conservative activists to erect barriers to voting under the pretense that voter fraud is rampant. The law, Judge Julie Robinson determined, violated the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
>“The Court determines that the magnitude of potentially disenfranchised voters impacted by the DPOC law and its enforcement scheme cannot be justified by the scant evidence of noncitizen voter fraud,” Robinson ruled. Rather than combat fraud, the judge found, the law had disenfranchised many eligible voters. By 2016, the legislation had caused more than 16,000 voter registrations to be canceled and it had blocked more than 31,000 Kansans from registering to vote.
>Republican Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and force behind the law, defended it himself in court. Currently a candidate for governor, Kobach became a national figure as the architect of Arizona’s harsh anti-immigrant law in 2010. Today, he is the country’s top advocate for laws that suppress access to the ballot, such as voter ID laws and proof of citizenship requirements. He claims his efforts are based on the idea that voter fraud is a pervasive problem, though studies show it is exceedingly rare.
>Kobach also led President Donald Trump’s election integrity commission last year, which the president created after alleging that as many as 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election—an assertion Kobach refused to dispute despite no evidence for it. The panel became mired in lawsuits for failing to follow numerous federal laws and was disbanded in January.
(2/2)
>Kobach’s defense of his local proof of citizenship law was likewise a legal debacle. [Kobach] and his team repeatedly failed to follow basic rules of evidence, requiring the judge to lecture him on what she called “Evidence 101.” (As it turns out, Robinson really did think Kobach needed to study up. In her opinion Monday, she ordered Kobach, a Yale-educated attorney, to take six hours of continuing legal education on the subject of how to introduce evidence at trial.)
>To provide proof of voter fraud, Kobach brought in experts, who were actually part of a small cadre of activists and scholars who promote the canard of widespread voter fraud. But these experts withered under cross examination. The case was a test of their credibility as experts, and Robinson’s harsh opinion found them wanting.
>One of these witnesses was Hans von Spakovsky, one of the first prominent conservatives to push voter ID laws, back when he was an attorney in the Bush Justice Department. Von Spakovsky was also a member of Trump’s ill-fated election commission. “The Court gives little weight to Mr. von Spakovsky’s opinion and report because they are premised on several misleading and unsupported examples of noncitizen voter registration, mostly outside the State of Kansas,” Robinson wrote in her opinion. “His myriad misleading statements, coupled with his publicly stated preordained opinions about this subject matter, convinces the Court that Mr. von Spakovsky testified as an advocate and not as an objective expert witness.”
>In addiction to lecturing Kobach for his failure to follow basic rules of evidence, Robinson, a George W. Bush appointee, took the extraordinary step in April of holding Kobach in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order...
motherjones.com
>Prior to the 2016 election, Eddie Lee Holloway Jr., a 58-year-old African-American man, moved from Illinois to Wisconsin, which implemented a strict voter-ID law for the first time in 2016. He brought his expired Illinois photo ID, birth certificate, and Social Security card to get a photo ID for voting in Wisconsin, but the DMV in Milwaukee rejected his application because the name on his birth certificate read “Eddie Junior Holloway,” the result of a clerical error when it was issued. Holloway ended up making seven trips to different public agencies in two states and spent over $200 in an attempt to correct his birth certificate, but he was never able to obtain a voter ID in Wisconsin. Before the election, his lawyer for the ACLU told me Holloway was so disgusted he left Wisconsin for Illinois.
>Holloway’s story was sadly familiar in 2016. According to federal court records, 300,000 registered voters, 9 percent of the electorate, lacked strict forms of voter ID in Wisconsin. A new study by Priorities USA, shared exclusively with The Nation, shows that strict voter-ID laws, in Wisconsin and other states, led to a significant reduction in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate impact on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters. Wisconsin’s voter-ID law reduced turnout by 200,000 votes, according to the new analysis. Donald Trump won the state by only 22,748 votes.
>The study compared turnout in states that adopted strict voter-ID laws between 2012 and 2016, like Wisconsin, to states that did not.
thenation.com
>its another "Voter ID is racist" slide thread
Nah, this slide thread also talks about reducing/moving polling locations, rejecting ballots, purging voter registrations and other fun-filled voter suppression activities.
