The best (worst) description i have heard is that the coronavirus is the Reichstag fire for American democracy.
I am mourning SCOTUS' decision. It's been a pretty relentless death march of dark days for voting rights since 2010. I don't see a way out of the spiral.
The best (worst) description i have heard is that the coronavirus is the Reichstag fire for American democracy.
I am mourning SCOTUS' decision. It's been a pretty relentless death march of dark days for voting rights since 2010. I don't see a way out of the spiral.
The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't held an oral argument since February, has closed the building to the public, is turning away hand-filings, and is giving people extra time to file. Because of COVID-19. But public in person voting with insufficient poll volunteers? Full steam ahead.
the cynicism is just painful. The basis for the decision is paper thin. RBG takes it apart handily. But this is the fucking playbook for every single power grab going forward. At this point I wonder if voting rights advocates should just stop filing lawsuits in federal court. Only bad law is laid here now.
That's the thing about this situation to me. It doesn't feel like it's any different from what any of these Republican hacks would normally do. The situation just throws it into more stark relief.
Yeah we’ve basically been relying on the fact that sheer brute force can overcome gerrymandering for decades. But if a virus that kills more of your constituency is somehow a good thing for your political party, and doing nothing, and in fact making things worse, will benefit you at the polls, maybe something is very fucking wrong with america
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah we’ve basically been relying on the fact that sheer brute force can overcome gerrymandering for decades. But if a virus that kills more of your constituency is somehow a good thing for your political party, and doing nothing, and in fact making things worse, will benefit you at the polls, maybe something is very fucking wrong with america
The reason they gerrymander is because sheer numbers can win.
Yeah we’ve basically been relying on the fact that sheer brute force can overcome gerrymandering for decades. But if a virus that kills more of your constituency is somehow a good thing for your political party, and doing nothing, and in fact making things worse, will benefit you at the polls, maybe something is very fucking wrong with america
The reason they gerrymander is because sheer numbers can win.
Or, to put it another way, to maintain the power of an increasingly small minority over the majority.
If that sounds like the opposite of democracy, guess what?
For those of you (like me) who are wondering which fucked up SCOTUS decision they're referring to, its this one.
This pretty much sums it up:
...the majority stressed that it was not weighing in on the “wisdom” of Wisconsin’s decision to go ahead with tomorrow’s election despite the pandemic “or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in light of COVID-19 are appropriate.” Instead, the majority emphasized, the “question before the Court is a narrow, technical question about the absentee ballot process.”
We're going to ignore the context of the case purely so we can come to a decision we prefer, regardless of the merits of the case.
Meanwhile a bunch of people who applied for absentee ballots within the allotted time wont receive them because working in close proximity to each other can kill you...so instead Wisconsinites will be forced to go to the polls and work in close proximity to each other...
One thing I really want to know is how willing will various Democrats be will to push for Democratic voters to vote in person when Republicans refuse to allow mail in ballots as the main form of voting in most states regardless of Democratic positions in those states?
Because while while not turning out for primaries might primarily just help incumbents and make saying not to turn out easier for various Democrats in the primaries, that is not going to be the case come November when the virus is still likely to be an issue
It isn't even really the case that it is just primaries right now even if a ton of people only think of it as being about presidential primaries right now. Any Democratic politician telling voters to not show up to the polls if they haven't been able to hand in a ballot already is basically helping the Republicans hold onto a seat on the state Supreme Court that is on the ballot today. You can say the lives clearly outweigh preventing Republicans from holding onto the seat or whatever, but that is still what telling people to not go to the polls if they can't do it by mail in ballot means in practical terms in Wisconsin. Republicans keeping said seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will help them rig future elections, of course.
Given how it has played out so far, it is almost guaranteed that similar stuff will continue to happen. There is no way Republicans aren't going to be emboldened.
The majority opinion, which is unsigned, relies heavily on the Court’s previous decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006). Purcell is by no means a famous decision. It received far fewer headlines that the Court’s decisions striking down much of the Voting Rights Act or permitting partisan gerrymandering. But it’s proved to be one of the greatest thorns in the side of voting rights advocates. And the Court’s decision in Republican cements Purcell’s status as one of the greatest obstacles facing a voting right litigator.
Briefly, Purcell held that courts should be reluctant to hand down orders impacting a state’s election procedures as Election Day draws nigh. “Court orders affecting elections,” the Court warned in Purcell, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”
Similarly, as the Democratic Party unsuccessfully argued in its brief in the Republican case, court orders are not the only thing that can “result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” In Republican, voter confusion and an incentive to remain away from the polls arose from “the COVID-19 pandemic and the ‘voter confusion and electoral chaos’ it is causing.”
Until recently, the Democratic brief explained, “Wisconsin voters reasonably expected they would be able either to vote safely in person on election day or through a reliable, well-functioning absentee ballot system.” Those voters learned very close to the election that this reasonable expectation was wrong. And Judge Conley’s order was an attempt to alleviate the disruption caused by the pandemic.
Nevertheless, Republican treats Purcell’s warning about last-minute election orders as something very close to mandatory. “By changing the election rules so close to the election date,” the Court’s Republican majority claims, “the District Court contravened this Court’s precedents and erred by ordering such relief.”
“This Court,” the majority opinion added, “has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
This conversion of Purcell from guideline to something close to a mandatory decree is likely to have sweeping consequences for future elections. It means that, if voting rights advocates discover in the final days before an election that a new state law is disenfranchising African American voters — or a pandemic keeps away most voters — federal courts most likely may not intervene. It means that many problems that are unlikely to be discovered until Election Day itself will go unaddressed.
This is basically the equivalent of the fake "we can't appoint SCOTUS judges in an election year" rule garbage, isn't it? Make it so that when someone can do something about a problem you don't want them to fix is so narrow that they will have a hard time ever meeting that requirement.
So Wisconsin is basically a banana republic? Awesome.
+22
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
Which is inherently different from not having an election. Because it means still having an election.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
Which is inherently different from not having an election. Because it means still having an election.
And precedent doesn't really matter cause the Republicans aren't governing in good faith.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
As opposed to the positive changes like blatant voter suppression and further spreading of a highly contagious virus?
No one is saying to postpone the election until the end of the epidemic. All WI voters (Democratic ones, at least) want a delay until the mail-in ballots can be properly distributed. There was a 400% increase in absentee ballot requests with no increase in staffing to distribute the ballots. Over one million WI residents do not yet have their ballot -- a ballot that must be postmarked by tonight in order to count.
(Jamelle Bouie is an writer and political analyst for places like Slate, NYT, and CBS News.)
Fortunately, since they did manage to eke in a Democratic governor the maps for 2022 should break that and be more competitive.
The Republican-controlled legislature has been hobbling the governorship and the Republican-controlled judiciary branch has been assisting them every step of the way.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
Not to mention even then that delaying a primary isn't a big deal frankly. Those dates are arbitrary to begin with - it's the general election date that's fixed and needs to be done in time for people taking office.
Frankly, I hope that someone sues to force them to count all the mail-in ballots anyways on the grounds that the deadline can't be held to bind ballots not even sent out on time.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
Not to mention even then that delaying a primary isn't a big deal frankly. Those dates are arbitrary to begin with - it's the general election date that's fixed and needs to be done in time for people taking office.
Frankly, I hope that someone sues to force them to count all the mail-in ballots anyways on the grounds that the deadline can't be held to bind ballots not even sent out on time.
SCOTUS just ruled against this once on the flimsiest grounds imaginable, what makes you think they'll even bother to hear such a case?
The SCOTUS ruling was that even if you lawfully applied for an absentee ballot before the deadline, if you didn't get one before today (because, you know, fucking pandemic), you had to go vote in person. Wisconsin Democrats were trying to get the deadline to hand in your absentee ballot extended because lots of people were trying to vote absentee all of a sudden. And it was the safer thing they were being encouraged to do.
The Wisconsin state supreme court ruled separately that Evers couldn't issue an executive order closing in person polling places for today.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Do you believe that Wisconsin's election today will be free, fair, and everyone who wants to vote will have a chance to do so?
With who knows how many absentee ballots not sent to voters because too many requested them and areas only having 5% of the polling locations they should have?
Because in theory I agree with you, but only if everyone can vote in the election and that's clearly not going to be the case in WI. The only way to do it is with full mail in voting available and an infrastructure in place to provide and support that that isn't thrown together at the last minute.
+3
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
That's splitting hairs. The in person voting is on one day, wanting to do it on a later day is a delay. It just is.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Do you believe that Wisconsin's election today will be free, fair, and everyone who wants to vote will have a chance to do so?
With who knows how many absentee ballots not sent to voters because too many requested them and areas only having 5% of the polling locations they should have?
Because in theory I agree with you, but only if everyone can vote in the election and that's clearly not going to be the case in WI. The only way to do it is with full mail in voting available and an infrastructure in place to provide and support that that isn't thrown together at the last minute.
I don't know. But I am always incredibly suspicious of anyone trying to make any changes to election dates, no matter the reason, person or party. Because a person with less honorable intentions could conceivably do the same thing.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
That's splitting hairs. The in person voting is on one day, wanting to do it on a later day is a delay. It just is.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Do you believe that Wisconsin's election today will be free, fair, and everyone who wants to vote will have a chance to do so?
With who knows how many absentee ballots not sent to voters because too many requested them and areas only having 5% of the polling locations they should have?
Because in theory I agree with you, but only if everyone can vote in the election and that's clearly not going to be the case in WI. The only way to do it is with full mail in voting available and an infrastructure in place to provide and support that that isn't thrown together at the last minute.
I don't know. But I am always incredibly suspicious of anyone trying to make any changes to election dates, no matter the reason, person or party. Because a person with less honorable intentions could conceivably do the same thing.
To be clear the SCOTUS decision was not about in person voting. That was the Wisconsin supreme court ruling. The SCOTUS ruling was just about whether or not absentee ballots post marked after the election should be counted.
Also, it feels like you are missing the forest for the trees. The point of limiting election changes close to an election is to ensure the most people who want to vote can. That is the end goal. And in this particular instance you are sacrificing the end goal, right now today, in favor of maybe preserving the end goal at some later date?
I mean, I guess maybe I could understand the reasoning if you really believed that the amount of disenfranchisement today will be small, compared to large amounts that would happen later if we set a precedent of allowing rules changes leading up to an election. But that is a tough sell for me. I mean for one it seems like it would be very easy to argue this case is an exception not a rule since you've got a massive outside influence, so any reasonable person would consider this not a normal situation. Second, there's just no way you could quantify how much disenfranchisement might happen if we allow this change now, versus the very real thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who will not get to vote today. Seems like a bad trade off.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
That's splitting hairs. The in person voting is on one day, wanting to do it on a later day is a delay. It just is.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Do you believe that Wisconsin's election today will be free, fair, and everyone who wants to vote will have a chance to do so?
With who knows how many absentee ballots not sent to voters because too many requested them and areas only having 5% of the polling locations they should have?
Because in theory I agree with you, but only if everyone can vote in the election and that's clearly not going to be the case in WI. The only way to do it is with full mail in voting available and an infrastructure in place to provide and support that that isn't thrown together at the last minute.
I don't know. But I am always incredibly suspicious of anyone trying to make any changes to election dates, no matter the reason, person or party. Because a person with less honorable intentions could conceivably do the same thing.
But it's ok for a party with less honorable intentions to insist that people go out in the middle of motherfucking pandemic that has already killed thousands so a select few can possibly change jobs?
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Yes but he wanted to delay the primary.
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
That's splitting hairs. The in person voting is on one day, wanting to do it on a later day is a delay. It just is.
...So I uh actually agree with the Wisconsin decision. I know I'm in the minority and maybe my reasoning is flawed.
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Do you believe that Wisconsin's election today will be free, fair, and everyone who wants to vote will have a chance to do so?
With who knows how many absentee ballots not sent to voters because too many requested them and areas only having 5% of the polling locations they should have?
Because in theory I agree with you, but only if everyone can vote in the election and that's clearly not going to be the case in WI. The only way to do it is with full mail in voting available and an infrastructure in place to provide and support that that isn't thrown together at the last minute.
I don't know. But I am always incredibly suspicious of anyone trying to make any changes to election dates, no matter the reason, person or party. Because a person with less honorable intentions could conceivably do the same thing.
But it's ok for a party with less honorable intentions to insist that people go out in the middle of motherfucking pandemic that has already killed thousands so a select few can possibly change jobs?
Coupled with thinking that if the shoe were on the other foot, that the "party with (of?) less honorable intentions" wouldn't be demanding that the late ballots be counted or the moving of the election would be required, and that the courts as currently existing wouldn't back them?
That America has an openly partisan judiciary remains the second most mindboggling thing about the country.
The first is that your election infrastructure is not just openly partisan but nakedly so. Briank Kemp can eat a neverending bag of dicks. As can Katherine Harris. Amongst many.
I think that has to be their sharpest commentary since their interview with God.
It’s barely satire, there will be a significant number of completely avoidable deaths from the events of the day. Maybe dozens, maybe hundreds, Republican and Democrats alike will die as a direct result of today’s vote so that one Wisconsin Supreme Court justice has a slightly higher chance of winning an election he probably would have won anyway.
Jealous Deva on
+3
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
I went and voted at lunch #92 for my ward.
Because of lack of poll workers they had 3 wards voting at the same location, which was not really large enough to accomodate. There was one poll worker who was not elderly.
I think that has to be their sharpest commentary since their interview with God.
It’s barely satire, there will be a significant number of completely avoidable deaths from the events of the day. Maybe dozens, maybe hundreds, Republican and Democrats alike will die as a direct result of today’s vote so that one Wisconsin Supreme Court justice has a slightly higher chance of winning an election he probably would have won anyway.
It boggles my mind how any citizen can respect a supreme court decision that included a person who is being voted on in the election they are ruling on
Breaking: class certification granted in the Florida fines and fees case. What does that mean? Per the Court: the relief after trial will likely be an order that the SOS "put in place a system under which felons are not precluded from voting based only on inability to pay."
& as the Court has said, since the SOS seems unwilling to create that system, he will: "The system may be one put forward by the Sec at trial or, in the absence of input from the Sec, one adopted by the court. .. t will be a system put in place for all subclass members."
In other words -- because CLC's class cert motion was granted, we will not see a repeat of the "but this order only applies to these 17 individuals" after trial.
In other words, (assuming I'm understanding it correctly), this means that the ruling will not be limited to just the 17 people bringing the case against the government.
Posts
Man.
Fuck.
That's the thing about this situation to me. It doesn't feel like it's any different from what any of these Republican hacks would normally do. The situation just throws it into more stark relief.
The reason they gerrymander is because sheer numbers can win.
Or, to put it another way, to maintain the power of an increasingly small minority over the majority.
If that sounds like the opposite of democracy, guess what?
There is zero legitimacy left for any Republican judge
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
This pretty much sums it up:
We're going to ignore the context of the case purely so we can come to a decision we prefer, regardless of the merits of the case.
Meanwhile a bunch of people who applied for absentee ballots within the allotted time wont receive them because working in close proximity to each other can kill you...so instead Wisconsinites will be forced to go to the polls and work in close proximity to each other...
Because while while not turning out for primaries might primarily just help incumbents and make saying not to turn out easier for various Democrats in the primaries, that is not going to be the case come November when the virus is still likely to be an issue
It isn't even really the case that it is just primaries right now even if a ton of people only think of it as being about presidential primaries right now. Any Democratic politician telling voters to not show up to the polls if they haven't been able to hand in a ballot already is basically helping the Republicans hold onto a seat on the state Supreme Court that is on the ballot today. You can say the lives clearly outweigh preventing Republicans from holding onto the seat or whatever, but that is still what telling people to not go to the polls if they can't do it by mail in ballot means in practical terms in Wisconsin. Republicans keeping said seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will help them rig future elections, of course.
Given how it has played out so far, it is almost guaranteed that similar stuff will continue to happen. There is no way Republicans aren't going to be emboldened.
Which requires a president who can can do that. With Wisconsin being a swing state, I don't see anyone but Trump winning the electoral votes there.
It’s going to be a long day in Wisconsin
NNID: Hakkekage
It's going to be a long several years in WI with this Republican bullshit basically ensuring they retain power.
Working as intended.
(Jamelle Bouie is an writer and political analyst for places like Slate, NYT, and CBS News.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But I firmly believe it should be nearly impossible to move election dates and make changes to election rules (even positive ones in the face of a pandemic).
The reason I believe that is I don't want the president (whom I don't trust) to change the election date, make rules changes, etc. At all. This pandemic could be considered a pandemic for 18 months, and I don't want to not have a presidential election for 18 months.
It may be flawed reasoning, but I feel any change could result in terrible negative changes.
Evers did not cancel Wisconsin holding a primary election.
Fortunately, since they did manage to eke in a Democratic governor the maps for 2022 should break that and be more competitive.
Which is inherently different from not having an election. Because it means still having an election.
And precedent doesn't really matter cause the Republicans aren't governing in good faith.
As opposed to the positive changes like blatant voter suppression and further spreading of a highly contagious virus?
No one is saying to postpone the election until the end of the epidemic. All WI voters (Democratic ones, at least) want a delay until the mail-in ballots can be properly distributed. There was a 400% increase in absentee ballot requests with no increase in staffing to distribute the ballots. Over one million WI residents do not yet have their ballot -- a ballot that must be postmarked by tonight in order to count.
The Republican-controlled legislature has been hobbling the governorship and the Republican-controlled judiciary branch has been assisting them every step of the way.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No, he fucking did not and I hate that this is being spread.
He wanted to give people who were planning to vote in person extra time to receive a mailed ballot, fill it out, and then return it because in person voting is now risking your life. How is that wanting to delay the primary? At worst you can call it extending the period of counting the votes, since a lot of mailed ballots are already received.
Not to mention even then that delaying a primary isn't a big deal frankly. Those dates are arbitrary to begin with - it's the general election date that's fixed and needs to be done in time for people taking office.
Frankly, I hope that someone sues to force them to count all the mail-in ballots anyways on the grounds that the deadline can't be held to bind ballots not even sent out on time.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
SCOTUS just ruled against this once on the flimsiest grounds imaginable, what makes you think they'll even bother to hear such a case?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The Wisconsin state supreme court ruled separately that Evers couldn't issue an executive order closing in person polling places for today.
Do you believe that Wisconsin's election today will be free, fair, and everyone who wants to vote will have a chance to do so?
With who knows how many absentee ballots not sent to voters because too many requested them and areas only having 5% of the polling locations they should have?
Because in theory I agree with you, but only if everyone can vote in the election and that's clearly not going to be the case in WI. The only way to do it is with full mail in voting available and an infrastructure in place to provide and support that that isn't thrown together at the last minute.
I don't know. But I am always incredibly suspicious of anyone trying to make any changes to election dates, no matter the reason, person or party. Because a person with less honorable intentions could conceivably do the same thing.
I think that has to be their sharpest commentary since their interview with God.
To be clear the SCOTUS decision was not about in person voting. That was the Wisconsin supreme court ruling. The SCOTUS ruling was just about whether or not absentee ballots post marked after the election should be counted.
Also, it feels like you are missing the forest for the trees. The point of limiting election changes close to an election is to ensure the most people who want to vote can. That is the end goal. And in this particular instance you are sacrificing the end goal, right now today, in favor of maybe preserving the end goal at some later date?
I mean, I guess maybe I could understand the reasoning if you really believed that the amount of disenfranchisement today will be small, compared to large amounts that would happen later if we set a precedent of allowing rules changes leading up to an election. But that is a tough sell for me. I mean for one it seems like it would be very easy to argue this case is an exception not a rule since you've got a massive outside influence, so any reasonable person would consider this not a normal situation. Second, there's just no way you could quantify how much disenfranchisement might happen if we allow this change now, versus the very real thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who will not get to vote today. Seems like a bad trade off.
But it's ok for a party with less honorable intentions to insist that people go out in the middle of motherfucking pandemic that has already killed thousands so a select few can possibly change jobs?
Coupled with thinking that if the shoe were on the other foot, that the "party with (of?) less honorable intentions" wouldn't be demanding that the late ballots be counted or the moving of the election would be required, and that the courts as currently existing wouldn't back them?
That America has an openly partisan judiciary remains the second most mindboggling thing about the country.
The first is that your election infrastructure is not just openly partisan but nakedly so. Briank Kemp can eat a neverending bag of dicks. As can Katherine Harris. Amongst many.
It’s barely satire, there will be a significant number of completely avoidable deaths from the events of the day. Maybe dozens, maybe hundreds, Republican and Democrats alike will die as a direct result of today’s vote so that one Wisconsin Supreme Court justice has a slightly higher chance of winning an election he probably would have won anyway.
Because of lack of poll workers they had 3 wards voting at the same location, which was not really large enough to accomodate. There was one poll worker who was not elderly.
Anyone who defends this should go fuck gravel.
there's no way the legislature approves any map Evers gives them
Likely, they'll write their own, and the Supreme Court will go "yeah well use that one"
That no-account, rat-soup-eating motherfucker is speaker of the Wisconsin House.
It boggles my mind how any citizen can respect a supreme court decision that included a person who is being voted on in the election they are ruling on
In other words, (assuming I'm understanding it correctly), this means that the ruling will not be limited to just the 17 people bringing the case against the government.