The Voting Privilege separates have and have-nots!

If I didn't think there were more important economic and health care issues to deal with, I would be out there making access to voting much harder for rural conservatives. Wasn't it Trump Party conservatives hero Brett Kavanaugh who said, "what goes around comes around"?

Wouldn't it be fun to consolidate rural places to vote, institute shorter hours...you know, save money and lower taxes, right?

Why am I bring this up? Here's why...

I heard a report state how Republicans in states purging voter rolls and limiting polling places believe voting is a privilege and not a right. Really? It seems those rights are spelled out a number of times in the Constitution:

Voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) … 1913: Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators. 1920: Women are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Amendment XV - Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870) ...Amendment XVII - Election of Senators (1913) ...Amendment XIX - Women's Right to Vote (1920) ...Amendment XXIII - Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961) ...Amendment XXIV - Poll Tax (1964) ...Amendment XXVI - Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971) ... 

Authoritarian Leaders like Trump call all the shots: Privilege. Every Trumpian drooler is proof:

Conservative Republicans stand out for their opposition to allowing people to register vote at the polls on Election Day and automatically registering all citizens to vote. Fewer than half of conservative Republicans support these steps (35% for Election Day registration, 45% for automatic registration) ... Conservative Republicans are also the only partisan-ideological group in which a majority (60%) favors removing people from registration lists if they have not voted recently or confirmed their registration.

Here's one example we saw in Wisconsin, when Republican Rep. Duey Stroebel proposed this whacko idea:

The measure proposed by Rep. Duey Stroebel, R-Saukville, would prohibit clerks from opening early, late or on weekends to accommodate voters wishing to cast their ballots before Election Day … the bill aims to give residents of smaller communities the same access to absentee voting as those in larger communities that can afford to hold extended balloting ... people in rural areas don't have the opportunity to vote on weekends or evenings. 

Not True. Rural Communities Opposed idea: Exposing Stroebel's completely fabricated scheme were rural town clerks:

The proposal could be even more vexing for clerks in small towns, who often work part-time and at the convenience of local residents, said Richard Stadelman, executive director of the Wisconsin Towns Association … it's not unusual for small-town clerks to open their offices on nights and weekends to accommodate in-person absentee voting. He said his group opposes the bill as written.

Don’t laugh...but Stroebel then reversed his own attempt bringing equality to the system:

Stroebel plans to amend the bill to add flexibility for small communities.

Purging Voters Big Success Too: Defying human nature, the conservative activist Supreme Court allowed postcard address confirmations to stand. So people don't throw stuff like that away or say it's nobodies business where they live?

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s aggressive efforts to purge its voting rolls, siding with Republicans in the latest partisan battle over how far states can go in imposing restrictions on voting.

The court ruled that states may kick people off the rolls if they skip a few elections and fail to respond to a notice from election officials. The vote was 5 to 4, with the more conservative justices in the majority.  

Justice Breyer wrote, In 2012 Ohio sent out 1.5 million notices, to roughly 20 percent of the state’s registered voters. But only 4 percent of Americans move outside their county each year, he wrote.

“Ohio only received back about 60,000 return cards (or 4 percent) which said, in effect: ‘You are right, Ohio. I have, in fact, moved. In addition, Ohio received back about 235,000 return cards which said, in effect, ‘You are wrong, Ohio, I have not moved.’”

And then there's this amazing suppression story:

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Crabtree said forcing Ford County Clerk Debbie Cox to open an additional polling location in Dodge City so close to the Nov. 6 election would not be in the public’s interest. But Crabtree said he is troubled by Cox’s reaction to an American Civil Liberties Union letter, which Cox forwarded last week to a state official with the comment “LOL.”

Cox moved the city’s only polling place from a central location in town, the Civic Center, to the Expo Center half a mile outside the city limits this fall. The new location is not accessible via sidewalk and there is no regular public transportation there, though the city has said it will provide rides to voters.

Or this intimidation and suppression effort in Georgia:

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, the chief elections official in the state, is a pioneer of present-day voter suppression. Mr. Kemp has a record of making it harder for people to register to vote, and more difficult for those voters to remain on the rolls. Since 2012, his office has canceled more than 1.4 million voter registrations. In July 2017, over half a million people — 8 percent of the state’s registered voters — were purged in a single day. As of earlier this month, over 50,000 people’s registrations, filed before the deadline to vote in the coming midterm election, were listed as on hold. Seventy percent had been filed by black applicants.

Since 2012, his office has canceled more than 1.4 million voter registrations. In July 2017, over half a million people — 8 percent of the state’s registered voters — were purged in a single day. As of earlier this month, over 50,000 people’s registrations, filed before the deadline to vote in the coming midterm election, were listed as on hold. Seventy percent had been filed by black applicants.

Olivia Pearson, a grandmother and lifelong resident of Coffee County, Ga., found herself on trial this year oncharges of felony voter fraud. It began six years ago, on the first day of early voting in Georgia, when a black woman named Diewanna Robinson went to cast her ballot. She asked Ms. Pearson, more than 30 years her senior, for help. Ms. Robinson would later testify that Ms. Pearson informed her where the card went in the machine and told her to “just go through and make my own selections on who I wanted to vote for.” Ms. Pearson walked away before Ms. Robinson started voting.

Almost four years later, Ms. Pearson received a letter from District Attorney George Barnhill’s office, informing her that she was facing felony charges for improperly assisting Ms. Robinson. because Ms. Robinson was not illiterate or disabled, she had not been entitled to even minimal verbal assistance.

Over the next two years, Ms. Pearson navigated two trials, two defense counsels, three dropped charges and one hung jury. Finally, in late February, after a 20-minute jury deliberation, she was acquitted of all charges. Six years after her brief interaction with Ms. Robinson, she was finally free.

Reeling from Horrifying GOP Health Care Bills? Just wait till you lose your Voting Rights, just around the corner.

While everyone is still wondering how Republicans could ever seriously fix their health care bills that drop 22 to 23 million Americans with a few more insane amendments, voting rights is about to take a huge hit:

The Republican presidential tactic of crippling agencies you don't like by putting either the incompetent or the actively hostile in charge of them (continues) ... Kris Kobach, the godfather of the national movement to suppress the votes of people the GOP would prefer not to exercise the franchise (was) named as vice-chairman of his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a snipe hunt the only apparent purpose of which is maintaining the fiction that masses of people, many of them brown, are gaming our elections. 

Here's the most damning news that might just alert us to specific Republican governors who take the bait:

Kobach wrote a letter to his fellow secretaries of state that left many jaws on the floor. From The Kansas City Star: In a Wednesday letter, Kobach asked the Connecticut secretary of state's office to provide the commission with all publicly available voter roll data, including the full names of all registered voters along with their addresses, dates of birth, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, voting history and other personal information ... he sent similar letters to election officials in every state. 

Quite simply, any secretary of state who complies with this request is either too stupid to hold the job, or is in sympathy with Kobach's goal of whitewashing the electorate.  Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State for California, said, "California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach. The President's Commission is a waste of taxpayer money and a distraction from the real threats to the integrity of our elections today: aging voting systems and documented Russian interference in our elections."

Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill was a bit more discreet: "The courts have repudiated his methods on multiple occasions but often after the damage has been done to voters. Given Secretary Kobach's history we find it very difficult to have confidence in the work of this commission."

BREAKING: Scott Walker gives up voter information to Trump's big government demands. Hey, we just had a recount too. All is well?

Wisconsin elections officials said Friday that they'll sell some voter information to a presidential commission investigating election fraud. Administrator Mike Haas issued a statement Friday saying data is available for purchase and the commission must release it to buyers, adding that the commission routinely sells the information to political parties, candidates and researchers. The commission would charge the presidential panel $12,500 for the data.

Having done a lot of research on "the right to vote," I found that despite the guarantee in the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments...with help from the Voting Rights Act (now destroyed by activist conservative Justices), voting seems to be the least defended squishy right ever. In fact, I could make the argument that women and African Americans were definitely given the right to vote, but anyone else including white guys...nope.

What if Obama did this? Always the best test against hypocritical Republican policy:

As Vanita Gupta points out in that same K.C. Star report, if someone in the Obama administration had made this request, at the very least, there would be a full week of howler monkeys screaming about federalism from every perch in every conservative think-tank in the jungle. At the most, there would be hearing after hearing about the Obama administration's plan to seed thousands of the president's fellow Kenyans in every crucial precinct in Ohio and Florida. What's more important, though, is that the national campaign to roll back voting rights now has reached the highest levels of government, with the blessing of the president* and the president*-in-waiting. This is the final step backwards across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Inconvenient Voter ID's/Voting times are okay, Inconvenient Background Checks for Guns...Unconstitutional.

While Republicans are having a tantrum over the inconvenience of expanded background checks for gun purchases, they weren't so concerned about the inconvenience of getting voter ID's, the inconvenience of fewer places to vote or the inconvenient times to vote.

With the ever changing maze of irrationally constructed voter regulations, and the confusion that went along with it, we were told inconvenience was the price of freedom. Gun background checks and waiting periods? Not so much. Thank god Scott Walker made sure we restored confidence in our elections. Cap Times:  

Reagan had a hand in mounting voter fraud and lack of confidence in elections....

Remember when Reagan undermined the confidence we all had in our elections?

Reagan worshiper Scott Walker must have forgotten the Gipper's many faults and missteps that prompted so much voter fraud.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner knows Voting Rights Act is toast, but the "phony outrage" show must go on.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner wants to reinstate the Voting Rights Act...kinda, maybe, but probably not.

Here's Ari Melber with a look at Sensenbrenner's latest comments, along with Colin Powell's and a sane sounding Steve Schmidt.



MAL Contends wrote this scathing reveal about Sensenbrenner's phony outrage:

Here's what the phony Sensenbrenner said last week:

Congressman Sensenbrenner: "I regret that the Department of Justice announced its intent to file a lawsuit against Texas’ Voter ID law citing Section 2 to the Voting Rights Act. The Texas legislature passed Voter ID, and Governor Perry signed this legislation into law in 2011. Voter ID laws are an essential element in protecting the integrity of our electoral process and do not have a discriminatory intent or effect. (But he's a Voting Rights champion, just ask him. This line of crap has been peddled since at least 2009 by Diana Marrero of the GOP's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

And this final thought:

As for the crown jewel of the Civil Right Movement, the Voting Right Act, gutted (Section Four) by five GOP members of the Supreme Court, no doubt Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-White People) is hard at work in his Milwaukee suburb drafting a contemporary formula that will pass GOP muster on the Court one week after slamming the U.S. DoJ and Attorney General Holder for using Section Two of the Voting Rights to protect Texas voters against Texas’ Voter ID law. He's not.

Republicans get go ahead by Activist Supreme Court. Unlimited Money in Elections, Guns Everywhere and Voter Suppression. What a record.

Something to remember when everything goes down:

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "In fairness, I doubt that will ever happen." 

"I'm just not aware of any discrimination of that kind," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) …. you don't need a Voting Rights Act if there's not systemic violations. I don't think [pre-clearance by the Justice Department] should exist in Shelby County. Shelby County has never had a history of denying votes to my knowledge, and certainly not now."  

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said "The Supreme Court decision now puts South Carolina on equal footing with every other state in the nation. As a South Carolinian, I’m glad we will no longer be singled out and treated differently than our sister states.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the court "rightly decided that the statutory standards used decades ago to subject democratically elected state legislatures to second-guessing by unelected federal bureaucrats no longer survives constitutional scrutiny."

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), said he had no idea what the Supreme Court ruled on. "What did they do?" Cochran asked.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the judiciary panel, said he’s doubtful a legislative response is needed. He said the court’s ruling reflects that the nation has changed. “It proves that after 45 years that the Voting Rights Act is working,” Grassley said of the court’s ruling. “The situation in those states that were covered by the act, they don’t have discriminatory voting anymore, so the act is not necessary.”

Activist Conservative Supreme Court Takes Wrecking Ball to Voting Rights Act. Big Surprise.

Come on, let’s admit it; there’s a reason all of these conservative wedge issues are making it to the Supreme Court, it’s packed with activist conservative justices. The media refuses to bring this topic up, even while this activist rogue court keeps racking up the victories. It’s so weird to hear those embarrassing brain dead Republican politicians and low information voters say, “I told you so.”

Huffington Post

And these conservative activist Justices struck again, just like they did in Citizens United and the Heller Second Amendment gun rights case, by overruling Congresses decision to guarantee the right to vote and uphold the Fifteenth Amendment. Of course limiting who votes is an odd defense of our “republic,” where we are dependent on that vote to pick our “representatives.” How often do Republicans remind us we are not a democracy?

Here's Eric Holders comment today, offering why this decision is jaw dropping:

The ruling is your typical “state’s rights” decision, saying pre-approval of election changes in area’s known for past discrimination, is congressional overreach, and needs to be updated to reflect current conditions. It sounds like the judicial branch of government is telling the legislative branch what to do.

Either the Justices are completely ignorant of the current political climate, or they’re keenly aware of it and intend to game the system, knowing congress has been taken over by rabid tea partyers who hate government and will agree to nothing. Either way, voter protections are gone.

John Nichols wrote this:

What the United States Supreme Court has done, with its decision to strike down essential elements of the Voting Rights Act, is wrong … the court's conservative majority has taken advantage of a gap in the Constitution that must be addressed.

Nichols is talking about the fact that the constitution does not guarantee our right to vote:

The court's 5-4 ruling lifted the requirement that changes to voting laws, procedures and polling place locations in all or part of 15 targeted states be approved in advance by the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges. The ruling says that Congress went too far in seeking to prevent racial discrimination in voting, when it reauthorized of the historic act in 2006, with votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

Check out Ginsburg’s opinion:

Business Week: It fell to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a scathing dissent, to note that: “After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. In my judgment, the court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’s decision.”

Congress can and should come back at the issue. But that won't be easy … the Voting Rights Act earned the scorn of Republicans who object to its use in legal efforts to strike down restrictive "Voter ID" laws.

Can the act be updated, like the court advises? Are you kidding:

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the judiciary panel, said in an interview that he’s doubtful a legislative response is needed. He said the court’s ruling reflects that the nation has changed. “It proves that after 45 years that the Voting Rights Act is working,” Grassley said of the court’s ruling. “The situation in those states that were covered by the act, they don’t have discriminatory voting anymore, so the act is not necessary."

Nichols like so many liberals thinks we can change things for the better. Get rid of the rose colored glasses guys, we're getting killed out here:

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that … unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution. If approved by the Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would add to the founding document this declaration:

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Uh, guys, I didn't see the phrase “shall not be infringed” tacked onto section 1. Let’s see if Republicans like the unlimited right to vote as much as the unlimited right to bear arms.

Guess Who's Going to Double Down on Voter Suppression....?

Daily Beast:

Justice Scalia redefining Judicial Activism/Legislating from the Bench on Voting Rights Act!!

Regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the Voting Rights Act, the comments made by the conservative majority is so repugnant, so ideologically driven, that despite the Affordable Care Act squeaker, this court has hit new heights of activist legislating from the bench.

This is Republicans call "legislating from the bench," the one thing conservatives dread most. Justice Scalia wants to overturn the legislative branches 25 year extension of the act in 2006, that passed the senate 98-0, and the house 390-33. Why? Because he thinks it's not the kind of question you can leave congress, and that's it's some kind of "racial entitlement." The terminology of right wingers.

This is jaw dropping stuff, or should be, even to conservatives who believe in the constitutional framework that makes the three branches of government independent and equal. Rachel Maddow explains in detail the history and implications:



Here's Ed Schultz with libertarian legal pundit Jonathan Turley, who is almost breathless at the reasoning and direction the court is taking.

Early Voting Students in Milwaukee get verbal Attacked by "fellows" at the MacIver Institute. This voting thing has got to stop.

Thank god we have those crazy “fellows” at the MacIver Institute watch dogging a “bus load” of students voting for the first time in their lives. Who do those kids think they are, citizens?

Early Voting Students Use Class Schedules to Prove Residency, Not Identity, at Milwaukee Polls: Last Friday a busload of students from Pulaski High School pulled up to the Zeidler Municipal Building here and more than two dozen students, accompanied by their teachers, voted during the early in-person absentee balloting period, many only using a printout of their class schedule to prove their identity. A witness reported seeing about 30 students at the polls around 10 am. About 10 or 11 of them used their class schedules to vote.

Ouch. What 18 year old wouldn’t want to commit a felony by fraudulently voting against the likes of Scott Walker? Will those that are educated stop at nothing to steal away some honest Republicans vote?

The MacIver News Service has confirmed that there was no date of birth listed on the class schedules. However, according to the Milwaukee Elections Commission and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, voters do not need to provide proof of age in order to register. All they have to do is check off a box on the registration form.

"The whole system relies on the honesty and integrity of the individual," Sue Edmond, Milwaukee's Election Commission director, told the MacIver News Service. "If we find after the election that they lied, they could be charged with a felony."

Honesty and integrity from...people? Outraged over the act of voting, or what MacIver calls the “incident,” Republicans sprang into action:

When the Republican Party of Wisconsin learned of the incident, it contacted the GAB. After meeting with GAB officials, party representatives contended that this incident still raises eyebrows.

This was the first time Pulaski had bused students to the polls to vote early, but MPS said it is consistent with previous curriculum. Although they admitted two teachers organized the effort, MPS officials did not identify the employees involved in the incident.

Said Roseann St.Aubin, MPS Communications Director, "There are various activities used by our teachers to instruct students about voting in Social Studies, Civics or Citizenship classes. They include registration outreach and letting students view the actual polling activity that may be taking place in their schools (many are used as polling locations). Activities are to be completely non-partisan. Students are not told to vote for specific candidates."

The MacIver Institute cannot be fooled so easily! Were those teachers on the GOP “Black List” data base of recall signatures?

Without knowing the identities of the employees involved it is impossible to determine whether or not they were donors to Republicans or Democrats or if they signed the petition that initiated the current or past rounds of recalls.

And I loved this nonsensical conclusion of what is pretty much a drummed up story of outrage:

Republican Party officials said even though this was the first time Pulaski High School bused students to the polls, that activity is not unusual around the country. However, RPW is not aware of voting field trips taking place anywhere else in Wisconsin for this election.

Keep in mind that a public school teacher in Fond du Lac, Karl McCarty, has taken Republican Party field trips and has had Wisconsin congressmen and Senators as guests. Guess the "Fellowship of the Fringe" outraged enough to comment on that story.

Court finds 2 Parts of the Fitzgerald's Redistricting Maps unconstitutional, must redraw Milwaukee's Latino South Side.

It looks like the Fitzgerald brothers were wrong about the constitutionality of their gerrymandered redistricting maps after all. It’s just a matter of time before they release a statement accusing the courts of liberal interference in the affairs of government.  

jsonline: New election maps that Republican state lawmakers drew last year for Milwaukee's south side violated the voting rights of Latinos and must be redrawn, a panel of three federal judges unanimously ruled Thursday. The court upheld all the other legislative and congressional districts that Republicans drew last year that favor their party, though the judges criticized the highly secretive methods they used. 

In specific, the judges couldn’t have been more reasonable in their sharp criticism of the “process.” "Needlessly moving more than a million Wisconsinites" is no small issue...

thepoliticalenvironment: “As for the other claims, we find that although the drafting of Act 43 was needlessly secret, regrettably excluding input from the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin citizens, and although the final product needlessly moved more than a million Wisconsinites and disrupted their long-standing political relationships, the resulting population deviations are not large enough to permit judicial intervention under the Supreme Court’s precedents. Act 44 has zero population deviation, which is why we find that the intervenor-plaintiffs have no meritorious “one person, one vote” claim. The intervenor-plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claim never made it out of the gate because no workable standard was offered to the court.

Tempers can flare when people are excluded from the political process, whether they are shut out because of their party affiliation, because of their race, because of their economic status, or because of any other trait. Such a contentious atmosphere is neither necessary nor desirable. We know that it is not necessary, because courts hold themselves to a higher standard and have succeeded in drawing successful maps time and again. We should have learned that it is not desirable because of the rancor that it fosters. Some states, like Iowa and California, have adopted nonpartisan systems that seem successfully to have overcome this. New York is seriously thinking right now of taking a similar step, and there has been some talk of it in Wisconsin in the wake of this litigation. But we must deal with the here-and-now, and we therefore must acquiesce…”