SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PanteraCanes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:55 am

PrimeMinister wrote:
PanteraCanes wrote:

Maybe to lower voter fraud? People voting in places they no longer live? People "voting" who no longer live?


Are those things happening? Are dead people voting? Are people voting in places they no longer live?



From wikapedia:

Voter impersonation (also sometimes called in-person voter fraud)[1] is a form of electoral fraud in which a person who is not eligible to vote in an election does so by voting under the name of another eligible voter or a person who is eligible, to vote a second or more times by otherwise pretending to be another eligible voter.[1] In the United States, voter ID laws have been enacted in a number of states since 2010 with the aim of preventing voter impersonation.[2] Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare. For example, in a Nassau County, New York in 2013 a few hundred people voted who were registered as deceased.[3] In 1997 in Miami eighteen people were arrested for absentee ballot fraud (not voter impersonation) in the mayoral election.[4] Over a recent fourteen-year period, there were only thirty-one documented cases of voter impersonation.[5] There is no evidence that it has changed the result of any election.


In 2012 NPR published figures related to the Pew study claiming that over 1.8 million dead people were registered to vote nationwide and over 3 million voters were registered in multiple states.[25] However, the PEW study to which the article referred had concluded that the "millions of out of date registration records due to people moving or dying" had "found no evidence that voter fraud resulted."[26]

Pew researchers found that military personnel were disproportionately affected by voter registration errors. Most often these involved members of the military and their families who were deployed overseas. For example, in 2008 alone, they reported almost "twice as many registration problems" as the general public.[8]:7

In an October 2016 article published in Business Insider, the author noted these voter registration irregularities left some people concerned that the electoral system was vulnerable to the impersonation of dead voters. However, registration irregularities do not intrinsically constitute fraud: in most cases the states are simply slow to eliminate ineligible voters. By 2016, most states had addressed concerns raised by the Pew 2012 report.[27]


I think it happens for all sides. How much of an issue I guess depends on your tolerance of it happening. I have heard stories of many different ways of people trying to get around their limit of 1 vote. It is all second hand information I can't verify so I don't know how much of it is true or not. Though it certain has the feeling of could happen to it.

Also heard stories of people being offered airfare to come down and protest the recount here in Florida from out of state back in the Bush Gore election. While not the same, certainly feels similar.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:06 am

I think the whole voting system needs to be overhauled. Despite MB's bigotry towards Republicans I'd be in favor in a national database that someone had mentioned. I'd even like to move towards being able to vote online. But if requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises voters I assume the expectation of having internet is super-duper discriminatory along the same misapplied logic.

Shaprio and Rogan touched on online voting in a recent conversation and I would like to see it one day so more people can take part. I just doubt we'll ever get there and I understand the reasons against it.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11459
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 463 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:02 pm

DreadNaught wrote:I think the whole voting system needs to be overhauled. Despite MB's bigotry towards Republicans I'd be in favor in a national database that someone had mentioned. I'd even like to move towards being able to vote online. But if requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises voters I assume the expectation of having internet is super-duper discriminatory along the same misapplied logic.

Shaprio and Rogan touched on online voting in a recent conversation and I would like to see it one day so more people can take part. I just doubt we'll ever get there and I understand the reasons against it.


I'm totally against bringing this under one umbrella...and on-line voting is a horrible idea, IMHO.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:09 pm

I'm not crazy with online voting either.

However, voting tech is waaaay out of date. A new system is long overdue that can tally votes from a polling place and transmit the tally in real time when the polls close.

And then, there needs to be a manual backup for recounts.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:36 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm not crazy with online voting either.

However, voting tech is waaaay out of date. A new system is long overdue that can tally votes from a polling place and transmit the tally in real time when the polls close.

And then, there needs to be a manual backup for recounts.

As someone that works in IT, I kind of don't like the idea of a computer-based voting system. It's just way too easy to rig.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4693
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:46 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm not crazy with online voting either.

However, voting tech is waaaay out of date. A new system is long overdue that can tally votes from a polling place and transmit the tally in real time when the polls close.

And then, there needs to be a manual backup for recounts.

As someone that works in IT, I kind of don't like the idea of a computer-based voting system. It's just way too easy to rig.

it would have to be a closed system right up until the transmission to the state election board.

That's about the extent of my technical know how on making this pure.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:59 pm

We won’t go to online voting anytime soon, not because of security issues but rather it will certainly be argued by some politicians that it disproportionately benefits more affluent voters because not having to take time off work and drive to the polling station and wait in line will increase the likelihood that they will vote while poorer people without access to computers or smartphones will still have to vote the old way with lower turnout %s
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:48 am

Zarniwoop wrote:We won’t go to online voting anytime soon, not because of security issues but rather it will certainly be argued by some politicians that it disproportionately benefits more affluent voters because not having to take time off work and drive to the polling station and wait in line will increase the likelihood that they will vote while poorer people without access to computers or smartphones will still have to vote the old way with lower turnout %s

Election Day needs to be a national holiday.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:57 am

Back to SCOTUS

Some time before June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings on two cases with momentous impacts on who controls power in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. “These cases are likely to be the most important democracy cases in decades,” says Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

The cases test the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. They involve Wisconsin and Maryland, but the court’s decisions will have much broader effects. After the 2020 census, all states will redraw their electoral maps to account for population shifts within their states.

Under current law, redistricting presents a ripe opportunity for extreme political gerrymandering, especially in states where a single party controls the state legislature and the governorship. North Carolina, where Republicans control both houses of the state assembly and have a Republican governor, is a case in point: After the state was ordered to redraw its map in 2016 due to a racial gerrymander, David R. Lewis, Republican chair of the redistricting committee in the North Carolina House of Representatives, defended the committee’s blatant gerrymandering, saying it wasn’t against the law.
According to committee transcripts cited in a lawsuit, Lewis said, “We draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

A poll commissioned by the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center in 2017 found that voters of all major parties overwhelmingly want the Supreme Court to set rules to limit partisan gerrymandering.

Yet the Supreme Court appears to be divided on whether it should step in. Paul Smith, who argued the Wisconsin court case, Gill v. Whitford, before the Supreme Court, said the court is likely to split 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote.

A thorny issue the court is considering is how to measure the level of gerrymandering that is sufficiently extreme to be considered unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in both cases maintain that gerrymandering disenfranchises voters. In Wisconsin, after the 2010 census, Republicans employed experts to redraw the state’s map in a manner that Democrats say was aimed at maximizing the number of districts that would favor Republicans. It apparently worked: In the 2012 election, Democrats collectively won 53 percent of the votes in state assembly races, but only won 39 out of 99 seats.

Corrective actions are already underway in eight states.

After the 2016 elections, an analysis by the Associated Press found that Republicans won 22 more U.S. House seats than expected based on the average vote share across the country. Sam Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, told the AP that if partisan gerrymandering “goes unchecked, it’s going to be worse—no matter who’s in charge.”

Advances in data analytics have made it much easier to predict how people will vote, so the party making the maps can gain a level of political control that will be very hard to break.

The Supreme Court has been loath to step into what some view as the quagmire of partisan politics. Justice Roberts, during arguments in the Wisconsin case in October 2017, said that if the court recognized the Wisconsin claim, it would see a great many cases in which they would have to determine the outcome. Smith responded that if “we’re not going to have a judicial remedy for this problem, in 2020, you’re going to have a festival of copycat gerrymandering, the likes of which this country has never seen. And it may be that you can protect the court from seeming political, but the country is going to lose faith in democracy big time ….”

No matter how the court rules in these two cases, there will be plenty of continued action at the state level through the courts, the legislatures, and the ballot box. Corrective actions are already underway in eight states, four of which (North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio) the Brennan Center considers to be among the most partisan district maps in the country.

North Carolina: Gerrymandered map is under litigation.

In January, a federal court ordered the state to redraw its congressional district map because of its partisan gerrymander. Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court to stay the order until the court had ruled on the Wisconsin and Maryland cases. Once those rulings are handed down, the court will then have several options, Smith says: It may hear the North Carolina case, send it back to the federal court for reconsideration, or simply affirm the federal court’s decision, in which case North Carolina will have to redraw its map.

Pennsylvania: A new map is in place.

In January, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled the state’s electoral map was unconstitutional under the state constitution. Republicans appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overrule the decision. FiveThirtyEight predicts that Democrats will win one or two additional seats in Congress based on the new map.

Michigan: November ballot measure approved.

The non-partisan group Voters Not Politicians collected about 400,000 signatures for a ballot measure that would create a 13-member citizens’ redistricting commission to draw the state’s political boundaries. The Board of State Canvassers delayed certifying the measure after a lawsuit was filed in the state Court of Appeals to prevent the measure from being placed on the ballot. But on June 7, the court tossed the suit and ordered the board to put the initiative on the ballot. The measure has drawn support from both Democrats and Republicans, but the Michigan Republican Party has criticized it.

Ohio: A fairer map will be drawn in 2021.

On May 8, Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that will require the legislature to attempt to create district maps with bipartisan support. Republicans currently reliably win 12 of the state’s 16 congressional seats with only around 50 percent of the statewide popular vote. Both state parties supported the measure.

Colorado: Legislature approved measure for the November ballot.

In May, the Colorado state legislature voted unanimously to send two anti-gerrymandering measures for a November vote. The measures would amend the state’s constitution to prohibit gerrymandering and subject the electoral map to a review by an independent commission. The Associated Press’ analysis shows that the current Colorado map favors Democrats.

Utah: Measure will be on the November ballot.

Voters will have the chance in November to approve a measure proposed by the bipartisan group Utahns for Responsible Government that would create a nonpartisan commission to draw the states electoral map in 2021.

Missouri: Ballot initiative is awaiting certification.

The CLEAN Missouri campaign has garnered almost double the number of signatures needed to put an initiative on the ballot in November. The measure would require the state electoral map to be drawn by an independent demographer and approved by a citizen commission. The initiative would also lower campaign contribution limits, eliminate lobbyist gifts, require politicians to wait two years before becoming lobbyists, and subject the Missouri General Assembly to open records laws.

Arkansas: Ballot initiative signatures being gathered.

A proposed measure would amend the state constitution to create an independent citizens’ redistricting commission. If proponents gather sufficient valid signatures by July 6, the measure will appear on the state’s November ballot.

State-level action can redress gerrymandering in individual states, but the forthcoming decision from the Supreme Court will affect the whole country. The Brennan Center’s Li says that the nation’s founders wanted state legislatures and Congress to reflect the composition of the people.

“Gerrymandering undermines that principle and renders elections irrelevant,” Li says. “If the Supreme Court sets a standard for partisan gerrymandering, this will be a rare affirmative win for the advocates of democracy.”


50 state solution coming right up.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:05 am

A thorny issue the court is considering is how to measure the level of gerrymandering that is sufficiently extreme to be considered unconstitutional.


This will always be the issue.

Now I think we can all agree on extreme forms of gerrymandering when maps look chaotic (like the North Carolina one does)...but how we can set up a testable, quantifiable definition of gerrymandering?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:11 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
A thorny issue the court is considering is how to measure the level of gerrymandering that is sufficiently extreme to be considered unconstitutional.


This will always be the issue.

Now I think we can all agree on extreme forms of gerrymandering when maps look chaotic (like the North Carolina one does)...but how we can set up a testable, quantifiable definition of gerrymandering?

It'll be like pornography. You know it when you see it.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Deuce » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:53 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
This will always be the issue.

Now I think we can all agree on extreme forms of gerrymandering when maps look chaotic (like the North Carolina one does)...but how we can set up a testable, quantifiable definition of gerrymandering?

It'll be like pornography. You know it when you see it.


This always sounds like a good solution at the time but it just causes a lot of complications down the line. Grey areas in the law are a bad thing.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:57 am

Yep, until you can define something it’s stupid to try to legislate it .... a system of anti-gerrymandering with a strict definition of gerrymandering can and will be just as corrupt as the current system
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:04 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
This will always be the issue.

Now I think we can all agree on extreme forms of gerrymandering when maps look chaotic (like the North Carolina one does)...but how we can set up a testable, quantifiable definition of gerrymandering?

It'll be like pornography. You know it when you see it.

So it's subjective.

Some people think playboy type photos are pornography. Others think penetration is required for it to be porn. What about two nekkid people kissing? It's subjective....

Making laws based on subjectivity is a bad practice imo.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11459
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 463 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:09 am

Jesus Christ. I don't need to define gerrymandering for you people. If you want to know, go read about it.

OR

Let the Supreme Court tackle it and we'll discuss what they come up with!

EITHER WAY

I'm not going to get into a goddamned 3 page debate over what the key terms are and what they mean!

****
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:17 am

well that escalated quickly.

people were asking your opinion on a subject that you posted about.

LOL
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:20 am

Zarniwoop wrote:well that escalated quickly.

people were asking your opinion on a subject that you posted about.

LOL

I'm more that happy to talk about gerrymandering and alternatives to it, but I'm not going to get in the weeds if we're going to debate the definitions of words.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:26 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Jesus Christ. I don't need to define gerrymandering for you people. If you want to know, go read about it.

OR

Let the Supreme Court tackle it and we'll discuss what they come up with!

EITHER WAY

I'm not going to get into a goddamned 3 page debate over what the key terms are and what they mean!

****

****, dude. Take a deep breath. It might serve you well to take a little time off from this forum and politics in general. I'm honestly not trying to come off condescending. This **** isn't good for your health.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4693
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:38 am

I love you MB.

I wasn't trying to nitpick, just responding to the porn analogy you provided making that point that it's still subjective thus not a clearly defined definition.

I don't want there to be unfair gerrymandering or other unfair voter suppression tactics either. But it's obviously a difficult issue to address and one I feel will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction unfortunately.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11459
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 463 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:50 am

DreadNaught wrote:I love you MB.

I wasn't trying to nitpick, just responding to the porn analogy you provided making that point that it's still subjective thus not a clearly defined definition.

I don't want there to be unfair gerrymandering or other unfair voter suppression tactics either. But it's obviously a difficult issue to address and one I feel will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction unfortunately.



Honestly, I just don't see how it can be done through legislation.....I think the more fruitful approach rather than focusing on outcomes (which is pretty much impossible) is to focus on process....some states listed in MB's original post talked about requiring a bi-partisan process, but I can't even see that working. I can see surface level attempts at bipartisanship but in the end districts must change and if the two sides can't reach agreement then the majority party wins. I guess maybe they could try to go an arbitration route or something but I'm sure that has legal limitations as well.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:19 pm

Another good ruling for liberty and freedom, 7 - 2

Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a sweeping Minnesota law that banned voters from wearing "political" badges, button, insignia, or attire inside polling places on election day. The ban applied to all apparel "designed to influence and impact voting" or "promoting a group with recognizable political views." According to the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, "the First Amendment prohibits laws 'abridging the freedom of speech.' Minnesota's ban on wearing any 'political badge, political button, or other political insignia' plainly restricts a form of expression within the protection of the First Amendment."



Shame on Minnesota for ever trying to restrict things like this. They had tried to restrict one guy from voting because he wore a "Don't Tread on Me" t-shirt.





Keep on keepin' on SC!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron