Personally, I would like to see federal elections made uniform across the states. I think its embodiment of federalism seems only symbolic and there are too many discrepancies across states. That Florida is still responsible for counting votes is scandalous to me.

 

But the recounts verified the results. Even with the media declaring Gore a winner - while poles in the heavily Republican pan-handle were open and hand long lines waiting to vote into the evening.

 

With the 17th Amendment and NVRA there is now a (flawed) standard for all 'Federal' elections.

But the recounts verified the results. Even with the media declaring Gore a winner - while poles in the heavily Republican pan-handle were open and hand long lines waiting to vote into the evening.

 

With the 17th Amendment and NVRA there is now a (flawed) standard for all 'Federal' elections.

 

My post wasn't commentary on Bush v. Gore. The 2012 election was a debacle there as well. Developing countries oversee elections better than Florida does.

My post wasn't commentary on Bush v. Gore. The 2012 election was a debacle there as well. Developing countries oversee elections better than Florida does.

 

Ah, ok.

 

The 'system' relies on personal integrity for the most part. Florida's vast different methods of voting across the state do look bad. Kentucky's is a lot better. None are any near perfect.

In a ruling that might easily be misunderstood if not read very closely, the Supreme Court on Monday simultaneously strengthened Congress’s hand in expanding the ranks of eligible voters, and yet assured states that they retain the ultimate power to decide who gets to vote. The apparent bottom line: states cannot now require voters to show proof that they are U.S. citizens, but the Court has given them a plan that could gain them that power.

 

Opinion recap: One hand giveth?. : SCOTUSblog

If a reader of the Scalia opinion stopped at the top of page 13, the impression would be very clear that Congress had won hands down in the field of regulating federal elections. But from that point on, there is abundant encouragement for what is essentially a states’ rights argument: that is, that the states have very wide authority to define who gets to vote, in both state and federal elections.

It was the kind of mixed decision that can sometimes baffle lay readers and, in this instance, maybe even lawyers and judges, too, because the two parts of the ruling did not seem to be reconciled easily.

Alito also dissented and wrote an separate dissent from Thomas.

 

“In refusing to give any weight to Arizona’s interest in enforcing its voter qualifications, the Court suggests that the State could return to the Election Assistance Com- mission and renew its request for a change to the federal form. Ante, at 16–17. But that prospect does little to assuage constitutional concerns. The EAC currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future. If that situation persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of its constitutional claim is problematic. The most that the Court is prepared to say is that the State “might” succeed by seeking a writ of mandamus, and failing that, “might” be able to mount a constitutional challenge. Ante, at 17,

n. 10. The Court sends the State to traverse a veritable procedural obstacle course in the hope of obtaining a judicial decision on the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the NVRA. A sensible interpretation of the Act would obviate these difficulties.”

 

So the court found a path to 'happily' avoid making a definitive ruling though it backed the arguments of the state. But the path is closed and overgrown and not scheduled to re-open. So they effectively put the states the mercy of the Federal government since there is no path.

Even Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, recognized this for what it is: another Republican attempt to suppress the minority vote.

And as i said, that is something I never understood. How is having an ID surpressing the minority? Don't they need an ID in the first place? Don't you need an ID to cash checks or to buy certain things etc.? How in the world does having an ID surpress any voters unless they aren't legally eligible to vote.

Voting in Florida will continue to have long lines as long as they place long constitutional amendments on the ballet. Most voters try to read and make up their minds in the voting booth without any prior knowledge of what they are reading. And these amendments are written in legalese. I vote by mail for that reason alone.

Big loss....for the left according to this.

 

Rule of Law » Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

 

"So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.

 

How does it work? The decision today uncorks state power. The Left wanted state power stripped and they lost.

 

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity."

 

The forms from the Federal government only apply to 'Federal offices'. So states can still require full ID and citizenship verification for state and local offices.

 

So a possible solution is to simply have two lines a polling place. One for Federal, state and local offices where the state form and checks are required and one for 'Federal only' offices (i.e. President, Senate and House only) that you can qualify for with the Federal form. It would be interesting to see how many go to the 'Federal only' line.

Big loss....for the left according to this.

 

Rule of Law » Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

 

"So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.

 

How does it work? The decision today uncorks state power. The Left wanted state power stripped and they lost.

 

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity."

 

The forms from the Federal government only apply to 'Federal offices'. So states can still require full ID and citizenship verification for state and local offices.

 

So a possible solution is to simply have two lines a polling place. One for Federal, state and local offices where the state form and checks are required and one for 'Federal only' offices (i.e. President, Senate and House only) that you can qualify for with the Federal form. It would be interesting to see how many go to the 'Federal only' line.

That's a real intelligent piece of analysis. I'm sure the "winners" of today's ruling are sweating this scenario.

 

On a related topic, we should pause and take note of Arizona's rich tradition of disenfranchising voters. Didn't the former Chief Justice of the United States, the late William Rehnquist, get tossed from an Arizona polling place as a young lawyer/GOP hack for harassing minority voters?

No but don't let the facts get in the way of a good accusation. It's how politics is played these days.

Too bad the high court didn't address real "voter fraud," which is the GOP's disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters every presidential election, most notably in Florida.

 

Arizona's GOP-led voter suppression pales in comparison to Florida.

 

One story says 49,000 people were denied the right to vote in Florida in November '12; the other story says 201,000.

 

And the Republicans are worried about a handful of people who try to vote twice. Sheesh.

 

Long Voting Lines Drove Away At Least 201K Florida Voters, Study Finds | ThinkProgress

 

Central Florida discouraged voters: Researcher: Long lines at polls caused 49,000 not to vote - Orlando Sentinel

 

That article is funny. The fact that they had to run down an industrial engineering professor to validate their party demographics, instead of a political science professor speaks volumes. Wonder why Miami-Dade and Broward were not in the study, where the percent of minority population is higher, especially hispanics.

 

They also neglect to report that sample ballots were sent to voters before the election that had everything on it, so the complaint of the length of the ballot is ridiculous.

That article is funny. The fact that they had to run down an industrial engineering professor to validate their party demographics, instead of a political science professor speaks volumes. Wonder why Miami-Dade and Broward were not in the study, where the percent of minority population is higher, especially hispanics.

 

They also neglect to report that sample ballots were sent to voters before the election that had everything on it, so the complaint of the length of the ballot is ridiculous.

Packing a ballot with lengthy initiatives is one tactic to create long lines on Election Day. Far more disturbing is Florida Republicans' attempts to restrict early (Democratic) voting by actually reducing early voting days and hours (HB 1355):

 

Here's a link to another story. I pulled the timeline at the end of the story to spotlight the nefarious (and desperate) GOP tactics:

 

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason... | www.palmbeachpost.com

 

Key dates

-- 2006: Jim Greer becomes chairman of Florida Republican Party.

-- 2007: Republican Charlie Crist takes office as governor of Florida.

-- November 2008 — President Barack Obama wins Florida, in part due to Democratic majority in early voting.

-- 2009 — GOP staffers and consultants begin talking about ways to inhibit early voting, according to Greer. Crist and two GOP consultants confirm.

-- January 2010 — Greer, accused of stealing from GOP, resigns as chairman. Arrested six months later. Greer then sues party, saying it owed him money. Both cases are pending.

-- Fall 2010 — Conversation begins between GOP staffers and consultants and Florida GOP General Counsel Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV about drafting legislation to reduce early-voting days, what would eventually become HB 1355.

-- November 2010 — Republican Rick Scott elected governor.

-- May 2011 — Scott signs HB 1355 passed by GOP-majority legislature. Parts of law later overturned by federal judge, but reduced days of early voting remain.

-- November 2012 – Despite long lines at early voting sites, Obama re-elected president, Democrats pick up seven seats in Florida

Packing a ballot with lengthy initiatives is one tactic to create long lines on Election Day. Far more disturbing is Florida Republicans' attempts to restrict early (Democratic) voting by actually reducing early voting days and hours (HB 1355):

 

Here's a link to another story. I pulled the timeline at the end of the story to spotlight the nefarious (and desperate) GOP tactics:

 

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason... | www.palmbeachpost.com

 

Key dates

-- 2006: Jim Greer becomes chairman of Florida Republican Party.

-- 2007: Republican Charlie Crist takes office as governor of Florida.

-- November 2008 — President Barack Obama wins Florida, in part due to Democratic majority in early voting.

-- 2009 — GOP staffers and consultants begin talking about ways to inhibit early voting, according to Greer. Crist and two GOP consultants confirm.

-- January 2010 — Greer, accused of stealing from GOP, resigns as chairman. Arrested six months later. Greer then sues party, saying it owed him money. Both cases are pending.

-- Fall 2010 — Conversation begins between GOP staffers and consultants and Florida GOP General Counsel Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV about drafting legislation to reduce early-voting days, what would eventually become HB 1355.

-- November 2010 — Republican Rick Scott elected governor.

-- May 2011 — Scott signs HB 1355 passed by GOP-majority legislature. Parts of law later overturned by federal judge, but reduced days of early voting remain.

-- November 2012 – Despite long lines at early voting sites, Obama re-elected president, Democrats pick up seven seats in Florida

 

For the record, I'm not a Republican. I did not vote for Scott or Crist (or Romney for that matter). I'm a registered Libertarian (didn't vote for their candidate in the last Governor's race, either). I differ from my party, too, in that I am in favor of no early voting, 2 national days off for elections, and compulsory voting in state and national elections. Proof of citizenship required.

 

As for last November, I stood in a long line, too. So did my handicapped wife. So did my family and friends of which many are of Hispanic or African decent, some of whom are also naturalized citizens. All voted, most for Obama. Even my kids voted for Obama.

 

Sorry, but it's my nature to be suspicious of the motives of those who hold grudges. Having followed his career for almost 30 years, the last person I would believe on this planet is Charlie Crist. However, I have no desire to continue this game of discrediting your sources, then you quote more. It's not that important to me.

 

You are not going to change my mind, but go ahead and spout newspaper articles until you turn purple. You may change others. You can believe what you want. I don't read newspapers, much less the op-ed sections. I do not watch Fox News or CNN or MSNBC or any politically based shows. I basically make decisions on what I see, experience, and know to be facts, not on propaganda and certainly not someone else's opinion.