New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

"We don't want no stinkin' voter ID"!

Barbella

Barbella

Senator
Of course you don't.... it would make it a bit harder to vote 19 times, wouldn't it?

Democrats and the dominant media assure us that vote fraud doesn’t exist, so we certainly don’t need voter ID, and in fact it would be racist to demand as much proof of identity as is necessary to board an airplane or buy a drink. Nevertheless, a Democrat state representative in Connecticut was arrested for allegedly voting 19 times.

The New Haven Register (hat tip: Weasel Zippers) reports:

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport, was arrested Friday on 19 voting fraud charges.

Ayala, 31, is accused of voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live, the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

According to the Connecticut Post, Ayala’s mother, Santa, was also investigated by the Elections Enforcement Commission. The commission also recommended criminal charges be filed against Santa Ayala, the Democratic registrar of voters in Bridgeport, but none have been filed as of Friday.
Click to expand...

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/09/29/dem-conn-state-rep-arrested-allegedly-voting-19-times
 
Colorforms said:
We have people here in Wisconsin who have gone on the news and admitted they had voted 4 or 5 times and we still hear about how vote fraud doesn't exist, except, of course, when republicans are supposedly "suppressing the minority vote".
Click to expand...

"Suppressing the minority vote" is such obvious b.s. They have no problem producing ID when they're applying for welfare or foodstamps...
 
Colorforms said:
We have people here in Wisconsin who have gone on the news and admitted they had voted 4 or 5 times and we still hear about how vote fraud doesn't exist, except, of course, when republicans are supposedly "suppressing the minority vote".
Click to expand...

Democrats: "THE SYSTEM WORKS!"

Democratic State Representative Christina Ayala has been arrested and charged with 19 felony charges of voter fraud. Eight of the counts are for fraudulent voting. Other Ayala family members are under investigation, and criminal charges have been recommended but not made against one of them.

The press is letting Connecticut's Secretary of State claim that the Ayala prosecution proves that the Nutmeg State's elections system works, even though the charges go back to elections held as far back as five years. Why are we supposed to be impressed?
Click to expand...

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/09/29/ap-blindly-relays-claim-conn-vote-fraud-arrest-shows-systems-strength-—#sthash.GHUH7O4F.dpuf
 
10647127_708445179248539_1231145140612038861_n.jpg

Speaks volumes re voter suppression.
 
Colorforms said:
I am not aware of this. Do you have any details?
Click to expand...

HOW it supposedly affects ONLY minorities and low-income people is a mystery to me... it seems like it affects EVERYONE EQUALLY.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court granted a last-minute stay of a lower court's ruling expanding early voting days and times in Ohio. Early voting in the state will now begin on Oct. 7, instead of Sept. 30.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) and Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) had asked the court, in an emergency appeal, to reverse or delay a federal appeals court ruling last week that restored the so-called "Golden Week," when voters could register and cast a ballot at the same time.

The court's four more liberal members -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer -- dissented from the majority ruling.

That federal appeals court ruling would have forced Husted to add more early voting hours statewide and would have allowed for county elections boards to set their own additional hours.

The American Civil Liberties Union attorneys, representing Ohio's chapter of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Ohio and several African-American churches, had argued that eliminating voting on weekday evenings and on Sundays disproportionately harms low-income and minority voters.

Similar legal battles over early voting are also being fought in Wisconsin and North Carolina.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/ohio-early-voting-_n_5902616.html
 
Addy said:
The Supreme Court’s First Decision In Its New Term Is A Decision Making It Harder To Vote
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...w-term-is-a-decision-making-it-harder-to-vote
Click to expand...
Think Progress? Really? Why don't you try something that may actually be informative?
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/09/supreme_court_blocks_early_vot.html
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said Monday evening he will implement the schedule he set in June, which eliminates one Sunday and extra weeknight evening hours from the statewide schedule he set on Sept. 12.

"Today's ruling validates what I have long said, elections in Ohio should be run by the same rules in every county and Ohioans should have the right to make those rules through their elected representatives," Husted said in a statement. "Ohioans can have confidence that it remains easy to vote and hard to cheat in our state."

Husted and Attorney General Mike DeWine asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse or delay the district court order restoring Golden Week, a week-long window when people could both register to vote and cast a ballot in Ohio, forcing Husted to add more early voting hours to the statewide schedule and allowing county boards of election to set additional hours.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals where the case was appealed, referred the case to the full court, which voted 5-4 to grant the stay.
Click to expand...
 
From my link :

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African
American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.
This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.
 
Addy said:
From my link :

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African
American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.
This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.
Click to expand...

There is no "denial or abridgment". The new standard eliminates "Golden Week" which is EXTRA time minority voters got to vote, and allowed them to do so by registering and voting on the same day.
 
Addy said:
From my link :

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African
American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.
This impact on African American voters matters because the Voting Rights Act provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Although the Supreme Court did not explain why it was reinstating the cuts to early voting in its order on Monday, the Court’s Republican members struck down another provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so they do not have a record which suggests particular sympathy to this law’s goals.
Click to expand...

You're explaining (not very well) how and when African Americans PREFER to vote...

You're NOT explaining how ANYONE is STOPPING them from voting.
 
Barbella said:
You're explaining (not very well) how and when African Americans PREFER to vote...

You're NOT explaining how ANYONE is STOPPING them from voting.
Click to expand...

You can figure it out...no need to play dumb on how this will affect those used to voting after church.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.
 
Addy said:
You can figure it out...no need to play dumb on how this will affect those used to voting after church.

As Judge Peter Economus, the judge who initially suspended the voting changes, explained in his opinion, the reduction in early voting days were likely to disproportionately impact African American voters. Many black churches conduct “Souls to the Polls” events that encouraging churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday services, and removing an early voting day on a Sunday reduces the opportunities to conduct these events. Additionally Judge Economus discussed empirical evidence demonstrating that “a greater proportion of blacks not only cast [early] ballots than whites but do so on early voting days that have been eliminated by” the new voting schedule.
Click to expand...

Nope. You still haven't explained how it "disenfranchises" them. It doesn't. All they have to do is change their little routine...
 
Barbella said:
Nope. You still haven't explained how it "disenfranchises" them. It doesn't. All they have to do is change their little routine...
Click to expand...

Which in turn affects the voting results.. kinda odd how that plays out and all -- favoring the opposition in this ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top