Do We Need To Have Washington Dectating Voter Laws?

1. 87

   Sharlee01posted 3 years ago

   
   
   The House will vote on this bill Wed, 3rd, 2021. Would appear the Federal Government wants its fingers in one more pie...
   
   Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement, and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system. --- And Washington DC will become a state.
   
   STATEHOOD FOR Washington DC
   Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia, and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.
   
   Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.
   
   END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS
   
   Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting doll sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.
   
   Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate lawbreakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.
   
   Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.
   
   ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST
   
   Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards, and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.
   
   Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law, and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.
   
   So where does your Party stand...
   
   Republicans have railed against the bill during previous attempts to bring the legislation to a vote, arguing it would give the federal government more power in deciding the people’s representation.
   
   Democrats, the bill would "improve access to the ballot box," by creating automatic voter registration across the country, and by ensuring that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored. The bill will also expand early voting and enhance absentee voting by simplifying voting by mail.
   
   Despite staunch GOP opposition, the bill is all but certain to pass the House when it’s scheduled for a floor vote Wednesday, March 3.    But challenges lay ahead in the Senate, which is split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats.
   
   On some legislation, it takes only 51 votes to pass, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tiebreaker. On a deeply divisive bill like this one, they would need 60 votes under the Senate’s rules to overcome a Republican filibuster — a tally they are unlikely to reach.
   
   So, what do you say, where do you stand?
   
   Read more about what is in the bill.
   https://sarbanes.house.gov/issues/hr-1- … people-act

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I am very much against "automatic voter registration"; it is an almost sure fire method of allowing foreign nationals to vote in our elections.
      
      I also question that the intent is to "ensure that American elections are decided by American voters"; again, I doubt that any real effort is being made to ensure that only American voters can participate.  Some states already allow foreign nationals to vote in state elections, and it seems reasonable to assume that those states will also allow participation in national elections.
      
      The method of payment for those matching contributions is laughable.  Funding "will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate lawbreakers and wealthy tax cheats" will not work - the actual result will be that all taxpayers will be required to fund contributions to parties/candidates that they do not support.  I would also question just why "poor tax cheats" will not be used for funding - this is just another method of hitting the rich for what we want but don't want to pay for.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      After the last election with all the claims of fraud, and nearly having an insurrection, it is about time we began to address our outdated and inefficient voting system. If peasants want to continue to, "have a voice," then they need to be given a system that can continue providing that voice efficiently and accurately. You're choosing from a cherrypicked field anyways, so who cares who gets to vote and how it is manipulated?
      
      Our government is as honest as reality allows them to be, and even if they wanted to tamper with votes (let's pretend Trump won here just for an example) we wouldn't do a damn thing about it other than get civilians killed. The voting system we have is archaic, it is about time we led the world into a new era of democracy where votes really count.
      
      I'd also prefer the federal government decide voting laws than any of my militant extremist peasant-peers.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The one word that stands out in your words --- "decide"... Hope you never come to the day where someone is solely is deciding for you. Your comment seems so familiar.  Maybe because at this point someone is deciding for you, even what you say... Ever consider that?  Not being snarky, just curious.  Such a familiar tune, I will be honest it sends chills up my spine.  We American's are known to be free thinkers, that is how we arrived at where we are.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Peasant peers?
         
         LOL. It's such comments that make me even more suspect of federal interference. The ignorant arrogance of such is incredibly sad. Your 'peasants' haven't sworn fealty to the leftists over lords. They have a right to faith in election integrity. The federal government in power right now has proven a clear disdain for just that.

         replyreport
   3. 81

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I loathe  the Republicans and their agenda, this proposed initiative while not perfect is a good beginning.
      
      To insure that voting is not impeded by sinister right wing forces, I invite Washington to intercede to do what Republican legislatures resist doing.
      
      Republicans know that they can never win when there is a fully engaged electorate.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The bill simply is to take away the control of individual states to dictate our voting laws. Each state is different and having individual rules has worked out pretty well for decades. It only senses Trump that the Democrats feel they need or hope to control America's voting laws, making the Government the full sponsor of how we vote, a big blanket... The Democrats are well known for their blanketing to solve problems. Unfortunately, this kind of governing, as a rule, does not work for all. It steps on individual's rights.
         
         It is clear we have a split country, one half wanting to have blanketed laws, rules that dictate how we vote. The other half wanting the freedom to have the states they live in dictate voting rules. Many trusting their state governments to make the voting laws, due to voting in representatives that live in their state and are aware of their individual needs.
         
         Plus this bill hopes to make Washington DC a state. I object to Washington DC becoming a state, for reasons I am sure you can guess.
         
         In regard to the electorate --- all the people that are eligible to vote by law in a country are entitled to vote in an election, and not sure why you feel anyone that wants to be engaged is being deprived to get out of the vote. ed. Both parties have good histories of canvasing. We need not change voting laws. Those that are of the mind to vote can vote. Voting is a privilege and can be accomplished under our present laws. It has worked for centuries.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            You know, Sharlee, not so terribly long ago the federal government through national legislation had to involve itself with states that through literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses and sheer terror kept large groups people away from the polls. Where do you think that the utter gall involved in keeping people from voting when they pay taxes and have every right to expect to contribute as to who represents them came from? It was about control and power then, and those concepts have not just disappeared today
            
            So, it is not as simple as "states rights", as, as a nation certain guarantees apply to everyone. I see the right to the ballot as the sure fire way that everyone has a voice and I don't take depriving people of this or continuing to make it more difficult as Republican dominated state legislatures are doing as anything that I can support. The ballot remains the solitary tool that can keep the fat cats from taking it all, and so explains their and the Republican party's fear of it.
            
            I am not necessarily keen on DC Statehood, as I see the district as distinct from other states. But their residents and numbers need to be fairly represented as part of any polling process.
            
            When I read stories about polling places being reduced in number in large urban centers or this "sudden" fear of mail-in ballots that have been used successfully and without question for many years, I have to wonder about the motivation.
            
            What is the problem with people registering to vote while they receive drivers licenses and such? Lets face it, Sharlee, the issue is not voter integrity but the GOP not having enough safeguards in place to discourage people who don't for them from voting. This entire affair of a "stolen election" has this as its main theme. What else can explain all the "flurry" at the Republican controlled state houses?
            
            I don't buy it and resist these ideas at a fundamental level, for obvious reasons.
            
            Voting is not a privilege but a RIGHT for every American citizen over the age 18 years, who are not dead or incarcerated. We, as a nation, should be doing everything to encourage participation, not discourage it.
            
            So, I say "full speed ahead" with the proposed legislation.

            replyreport
2. 74

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   One party is looking to help American citizens exercise their rights.  The other party wants to restrict certain subsections of the population from doing so. 
   
   No data exists to back any systemic fraud claims made by the right.  There are random cases in every election, and if non-citizens vote, they should still be prosecuted.  But expanding ways to allow people to exercise their rights is a good thing.

   replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   I wish the federal government did not have to step in and dictate voting laws but since we have some states actively trying to suppress votes, I fear it may be necessary to assure everyone can easily and efficiently vote. As Kyler said, we should be leading the world in this area.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You didn't mention the states that actively ignored and violated their own state laws.  Was that OK, or should the feds put in the laws and then enforce them as states don't?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Since every allegation of states ignoring or breaking laws was dismissed or denied by the courts (to my knowledge), I am operating on the assumption that states did not violate the law.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Wilderness only believes Trump, not the courts.  And he only believes that a few battlegrounds did it and not that 30 of the 50 states made modifications to protect their citizens during a deadly pandemic.  Wilderness thinks it should be life or death to exercise your right to vote, but only in the states where Republicans lost.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, and he's not the only one, unfortunately.
               
               The insurrectionist lied about it again in his speech at CPAC yesterday. He's ready to win the presidency for a third time in 2024! I swear, we're living in a Monty Python movie and can't get out.

               replyreport
         2. 88

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Then your knowledge isn't very complete.  I believe it was Sharlee that posted a link to a court case slapping the hand of (Pennsylvania, I think) that willingly violated their constitution in changing specifics of mail in ballots.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Oooff, sounds massive! 

               replyreport
4. 83

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   I certainly agree that every eligible voter should be able to register and vote. And that access to voting should be made as accommodating as possible. In short, I agree with the premise of Section 1 of this proposed HR1 act.
   
   But I have some worries. The first is that, (I will reverse-channel Cred's perception here), I don't trust Schummer or the Democrats in such an all-powerful act as this one appears to be. The details of "how" is what should be checked out, not just the nobility of the desire.
   
   Secondly, and only addressing that Section 1, this bill will change voter registration, voter lists, voter information, and eligibility and signature verification to an online system. I don't trust our internet security efforts to protect this system from fraud and breaches. One example is the confirmation by voter signature, (remember all that election hub-bub about signature confirmation?), which in the case of online registration simply means checking a box as your signature.
   
   As I read, (current tense), the text of this first section of the bill my gut is grumbling with anxiety. By simple inference and implication, it seems to authorize Congress to mandate State election procedures and puts too much trust in the integrity of internet interactions which the states will be compelled to comply with.
   
   The better place to check this out is the actual text of HR1: For The People Act text
   
   I might recommend that conservatives skip past the opening section where Congress lists its declaration of authority to enact this legislation—it will give you nightmares. :-)
   
   You can just scan the index for a topic that interests you and then scroll to that section. The bill is 791 pages.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "And that access to voting should be made as accommodating as possible."
      
      That would be when someone knocks on every single door in the country until the resident has voted.
      
      The point being that it is already extremely easy nearly everywhere, that there are virtually no roadblocks anywhere, but that some still complain.  And won't stop complaining until we have ballots hand carried to everyone and then filed without the voter doing anything but raising a pen (or a sharpie).

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, it is easy to vote—everywhere that I know about. But I don't know about "everywhere," so maybe there are instances or locations where voting isn't as accommodating as it is in my area.
         
         I have never had to stand in line for more than a few minutes, yet I see media broadcasts of lines that stretch around the block. So my "everywhere" is obviously not everyone's everywhere.
         
         I agree with the thrust of your comment; voter registration is already extremely accommodating almost everywhere, as is voting. I am just agreeing with the premise of the bill's first section. It is a goal we should all support, even if we don't think the current process is what the Democrats claim.
         
         However, don't misconstrue that response. I am having trouble with the details of Section 1 that go beyond my lack of trust in internet security. I am a supporter of voter IDs, so you know I can't support clicking a box online as valid proof of identity.
         
         I think our Right to vote is our most important civic responsibility. Making the effort to exercise it no more demanding than a mouse click just doesn't seem right to me. Get off the couch and go vote damn it! If that is too much effort then just skip it, you don't care enough.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            While I DO understand that it isn't quite so easy in some areas, I also think that the pandemic greatly exacerbated the problems everywhere.  This is not something that we can reasonably expect to happen again.
            
            But that doesn't mean that some areas don't need help...I just don't believe that is the intent of that section.  That intent is, I believe, closer to what I suggested - a knock on every door in the country.  Exaggerated, of course, but that's where the end of the line is.
            
            And I agree with you - to make it no more difficult than accepting the sharpie being handed to you is a gross overreaction.  If getting off the couch and going to vote then don't bother - we have vast tracts in this country where there IS no polling place and yet people manage to vote there.  If you are unwilling to put out at least a minimal effort, we don't need your vote.  IMO.  Of course, you can always cast a vote by mail...but that requires a 50 cent stamp (at least to register) and that seems objectionable to some.

            replyreport
5. 84

   RJ Schwartzposted 3 years ago

   Instead of meddling with a broken system, why not move forward with a blockchain-based system that eliminates any chance of fraud, even if accidentally.  Even this discussion shows the partisanship in the comments.  I've read about a system based on using the same technologies as the Lotto or Powerball uses - votes are tallied immediately and if anyone tries to vote twice, the second ballot is rejected.  As a nation, we can do better.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That eliminates the secret ballot....
      
      It also requires a solid form of identification, something liberals are not willing to accept.

      replyreport
6. 74

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   Can anyone really make the claim that allowing partisan legislatures, of either Democrats or Republicans, dictate voting jurisdictions and voter laws to be something trustworthy?
   
   It's clear that both sides are pandering to their bases on this one.  The difference, and I'll say it again for the deaf people in the back, is that one party is trying to restrict the rights of the citizens and lack the evidence to justify doing so.
   
   The lawyer for the Arizona GOP admits as much to the Supreme Court - they need to alter the rules to be competitive.
   https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-gop- … 13978.html

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Should I presume that you find "unlawful interpretations of Section 2" to be OK then?  You didn't mention that as the reason for the GOP to argue against it, but your link does.
      
      (It is rather difficult to be competitive when one plays by the rules but the other uses any rules they find expedient or useful.)

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Care to explain what Section 2 is ... or are you just taking a snippet someone else said and arguing to argue as usual without really having an understanding of what you just said.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Right out of your link.  You mean you posted a link to something you didn't read?
            
            (You didn't say if you think "unlawful interpretations" of the law are OK...or a reason to object to a law?)

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Of course I've read and researched it.  I seriously doubt you have any clue what Section 2 refers to.  Taking a snippet from the article with no idea about what makes the interpretation lawful or unlawful really does not warrant a conversation, knowing your history.  In order to have that debate, I need to know whether you understand what Section 2 refers to. 
               
               Hence why I asked you to explain it - which, of course, you could not because you just want to argue about things you have no clue about.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  And still refusing to acknowledge that there was anything but a desire to limit voting privileges in disliking that law.  Which was the entire point of my post; you failed to give the whole story, and there was considerably more to it than evil Republicans trying to limit Democrat voters in order to gain advantage.
                  
                  Which is why I gave up on discussion or debate with you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually, you made a stupid presumption based on an opinion by someone who supports suppressing the vote. 
                     
                     It'd be like me saying, should I presume you hate Native Americans, Latinos, and Black people because you're siding with a discriminatory law that has been shown to disqualify minority votes at higher rates than white voters?  Which if you understood Section 2, you'd clearly see that is a lawful application.
                     
                     And I wish you'd give up on a discussion or debate with me more often.  It's pretty clear you fail to research any topic before chiming in.

                     replyreport