Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts) Mon Oct 21, 2024, 12:32 PM Oct 21

Courts foiling GOP's late push for election changes

Source: Axios

9 hours ago

Judges in some of the nation's most important election battlegrounds have rejected a string of last-minute efforts by conservative and Trump-aligned groups to impose new voting rules ahead of Election Day.

Why it matters: Even as courts have shot down several of these challenges, election law experts are warning that the rejections could be used to promote conspiracy theories and misinformation about what polls suggest will be a very close presidential election.

The challenges have come as former President Trump and his allies have built a roster of excuses for claiming fraud and rejecting the results of the 2024 election if he loses — much as he did in 2020.

Driving the news: In Georgia, a Trump-aligned majority of the state's election board passed a flurry of rules last month that would have changed how the election would be run in the state — including a measure to require poll workers to hand-count millions of ballots.

Fulton County judges overturned that rule and others, including one that would have allowed Georgia county election officials to delay certifying election results merely by citing suspicions of fraud.
Republicans have appealed the decisions, which Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley called "the very worst of judicial activism."

In Arizona, a federal judge blocked an effort that would have required Arizona's 15 counties to check the citizenship of every federal election-only voter, which amounts to about 42,000 in the state.

A federal judge ruled this month that the challenge from conservative advocacy group Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona lacked standing and was filed too close to Election Day.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Courts foiling GOP's late push for election changes (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Oct 21 OP

The doj should have made very public statements.... Think. Again. Oct 21 #1

Federal agencies generally have monthly and/or quarterly "All states" or "50-states" meetings BumRushDaShow Oct 21 #2

Oh yes, I assume they know the laws (or they shouldn't have their jobs)... Think. Again. Oct 21 #3

I am sure they were ALL told/reminded about what the election laws are in their conference calls BumRushDaShow Oct 21 #4

Yes, I'm sure they know the laws, and we know they don't care about the laws... Think. Again. Oct 21 #5

What kind of "very public statement" are you fixating on? BumRushDaShow Oct 21 #6

A very public statement would be a widely broadcast, ..er, statement.... Think. Again. Oct 21 #8

The information is for ELECTION OFFICIALS and not relevant for the general public BumRushDaShow Oct 21 #9

Obviously, I am leaning the PUBLIC STATEMENT angle because, as I have explained... Think. Again. Oct 21 #10

"Public Statements" BumRushDaShow Oct 21 #11

(Big sigh) ok, thank you for your input. Think. Again. Oct 21 #12

... BumRushDaShow Oct 21 #13

Time to sue these people Old Crank Oct 21 #7

Think. Again.

(17,955 posts)

1. The doj should have made very public statements....

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 12:39 PM

Oct 21

...before August 6 reminding every election official that there is a 90 day period before the election when no changes can be made to voter rolls, because anyone who is watchng this at all can plainly see that this is part of the rightwing plan to justify illegitimate election challenges in the hope of bringing the election decision to the House through the supreme court.

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts)

2. Federal agencies generally have monthly and/or quarterly "All states" or "50-states" meetings

Reply to Think. Again. (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 01:02 PM

Oct 21

They know what the requirements are.

However as we saw with Alabama literally ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to fix their redistricting, we have states who have an agenda and will ignore advice, and even court orders.

This is why bibles and 10 Commandments are reappearing in schools in some states.

Think. Again.

(17,955 posts)

3. Oh yes, I assume they know the laws (or they shouldn't have their jobs)...

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 01:10 PM

Oct 21

...but apparently they're going to pretend their actions are legitimate (whch they have already started doing). A very public statement by doj just before they started playing their games would have given the courts no choice but to throw out their challenges at the start.

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts)

4. I am sure they were ALL told/reminded about what the election laws are in their conference calls

Reply to Think. Again. (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 01:19 PM

Oct 21

and through other communications channels.

Remember that the RNC had already announced that they planned to fuck around with the elections and file many suits.

This obsession about DOJ is unnatural. Perhaps it's time to apply for a federal civil servant job to see what goes on. Otherwise it's like DU thinks the federal government is nothing more than the same kind of "deep state" that the RW loons insist it is.

Continuing to spread FUD is ridiculous.

Think. Again.

(17,955 posts)

5. Yes, I'm sure they know the laws, and we know they don't care about the laws...

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 01:31 PM

Oct 21

...and I think that a very public statement by the doj (who are just as aware as everyone else about the rightwing plans) would have minimized the damage they are hoping to cause by discrediting their efforts before they even start them.

On a personal note, I also truly wish the doj wasn't giving us reasons to focus so harshly on them, but they do.

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts)

6. What kind of "very public statement" are you fixating on?

Reply to Think. Again. (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 02:16 PM

Oct 21

330,000,000 people don't give a shit about the weeds of the election laws. Have you even gone to their website to look at the news releases they issue daily? Most likely not.

https://www.justice.gov/news

(and you can go through the blogs, videos, etc)

Think. Again.

(17,955 posts)

8. A very public statement would be a widely broadcast, ..er, statement....

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 02:28 PM

Oct 21

" ...reminding every election official that there is a 90 day period before the election when no changes can be made to voter rolls,..." (that's from my first post).

That kind.

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts)

9. The information is for ELECTION OFFICIALS and not relevant for the general public

Reply to Think. Again. (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 02:37 PM

Oct 21

where that broadcast space is reserved for EMERGENCIES - e.g., Emergency Alert System.

The obsession is noted.

Think. Again.

(17,955 posts)

10. Obviously, I am leaning the PUBLIC STATEMENT angle because, as I have explained...

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 02:47 PM

Oct 21

...makng this a public statement would weaken their attempts at convincing the public (and the courts) that they are doing something legitimate.

(Your obsession with accusing me of being obsessed is noted, it is known "gaslighting".)

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts)

11. "Public Statements"

Reply to Think. Again. (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 05:05 PM

Oct 21

need ONLY go to those who are responsible for carrying out that law and those notifications most likely HAVE gone out to ALL states from the Civil Rights Division, and/or from whoever and in whatever manner the various laws have specified. They even posted this on August 6 - https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/enduring-work-protecting-voting-rights-59-years-and-counting

But be aware, and this is something people refuse to accept, the U.S. Constitution says this -

Article I

(snip)

Section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

STATES RUN THEIR OWN ELECTIONS. The federal piece is limited to what has been passed in federal law (and the 4 Constitutional Amendments that deal with the franchise).

The only "gaslighting" is the continual spread of misinformation.

Think. Again.

(17,955 posts)

12. (Big sigh) ok, thank you for your input.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 05:20 PM

Oct 21

BumRushDaShow

(142,276 posts)

13. ...

Reply to Think. Again. (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 05:44 PM

Oct 21

The Enduring Work of Protecting Voting Rights: 59 Years and Counting

Tuesday, August 6, 2024

The Justice Department once described the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted. President Lyndon B. Johnson, when he signed the bill on Aug. 6, 1965, called it “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.”

The act has opened the door for more Americans to have voice in our democratic process. Sadly, though, opponents continue to undermine and obstruct access to the ballot. The Voting Rights Act is, as yet, a promise unfulfilled.

Just last week, for example, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals contradicted its own precedent that has stood for 35 years when it overturned a lower court’s ruling that a redistricting plan in Galveston County, Texas, violated Section 2 of the Act. The Court overruled its previous standard allowing politically cohesive Black and Latino voters to join together in claiming that an election system or districting plan denied them an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

When signed into law, the VRA was the first legislation to forbid outright rules that denied voting rights on account of race or color. It also outlawed literacy tests, and it required jurisdictions to provide bilingual ballots if enough of their voters had limited English proficiency.

Importantly, in Section 4(b), the act identified localities whose history of discrimination was egregious enough to warrant special oversight. Section 5 contained the consequential idea of preclearance: those identified localities would now have to submit potential voting rule changes for federal approval. They could no longer suppress votes at whim.

For almost half a century, this vital piece of legislation empowered the Justice Department to stop localities from obstructing voters of color from participating fully in the electoral process. Section 5 thwarted such barriers nearly 1,200 times.

But in 2013 the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, found Section 4(b) of the VRA unconstitutional. Without it, Section 5’s protective shield vanished. Shelby flung wide the floodgates to voter suppression, and opponents of representative democracy wasted no time in barreling through them.

States introduced restrictive voting measures the day of and in the days after Shelby, and they have continued to erode voting rights. Last year, the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy institute, declared that since 2013, nearly a hundred new laws have restricted voting rights, many in states previously identified by Section 4(b)’s formula.

As a small sample, according to the Brennan Center, in 2021, at least 19 states passed 34 laws meant to abridge voting rights. In 2022, eight states passed 11 such laws and in 2023 at least 14 states passed 17.

In 2024, the barriers continue to mount.

Some courts, seemingly unconstrained by either precedent or the language of the statute, have spurred on this destructive process with decisions that further curtail the protection of voting rights, fueling a surge of litigation assaults by state governments and others that even attack the constitutionality of Section 2, despite the Supreme Court decision upholding it in 2023.

(snip)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/enduring-work-protecting-voting-rights-59-years-and-counting

The below bills were drafted to FIX the problems caused by THE COURTS. Manchin and Sinema blocked changing the cloture rule in the Senate to get them passed after they had passed the House back in 2021 -

The For the People Act (closes many loopholes and protects voting rights for federal elections)

John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (which would restore Sections 4 & 5 of the VRA that John Roberts tossed that mandated FEDERAL oversight over designated states when they try to make any changes in their voting rules)

Old Crank

(4,645 posts)

7. Time to sue these people

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Oct 21, 2024, 02:26 PM

Oct 21

For contempt of court and frivolous lawsuits.
They are wasting everyone's time and money.

Reply to this discussion