Republicans lose when people vote, so they make sure people don't
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Evidence please of these illegals and dead people voting and let's compare that to margin of victory.
Thanks
It's not about what they are doing, it's how they are doing it, read the article.
This NBC article is one of the most absurd twisting of the truth that I had the misfortune to read recently.
Let's take a look at reality:
- There are federal requirements under the National Voting Registration Act for states to purge voters to comply with the law. (I posted the link earlier in this thread.)
- During the period of time that Southern states were under Federal supervision for voting, the Federal government refused to allow Southern states take any action to purge their voting lists. Nor did the federal government approve any funding for the purging of voting lists. This means that neither the Federal government (Justice Department) purged the voting lists for these states (or funded it). Nor were the states allowed to take responsibility for purging their voting lists.
- This means that the voting registration lists in these Southern states went un-purged for decades.
- The Obama administration in 2013, after the Supreme Court struck down the Justice Department administration of voting in Southern states, demanded the Southern states take action to purge their voting lists. Of course Obama did not provide money for doing this, his intent was to inflict financial harm on these mainly Republican Southern states by forcing an unfunded mandate with huge scope on them.
The reality that Southern states are purging voter rolls aligned with the requirements of Federal law. Georgia was cited in the article - but the article fails to mention that all the challenges to Georgia by the ACLU & others regarding their purging of voter registration rolls completely failed in court.
It is absurd that NBC is manufacturing "news" with a lurid headline "Voter purge frenzy" - but the reality is that the Southern states are merely complying with Federal law as demanded by the Obama administration.
Right, because Southern states love to follow Federal laws, they are tripping over each other to comply with this particular statute - and you see nothing suspicious about it given their history, given who are in charge of these states.
You are the one being absurd, not NBC.
NBC pushes news with a lurid headline "Voter purge frenzy" --- yet the only example the article cites about the South is the state of Georgia.
And the example in Georgia has NOTHING to do with purging the voter registration list. It is about the very slow processing of new voter registrations in some counties.
I personally would have a problem with very slow new voter registrations -- but this is very different than purging the existing voter registration lists in Southern states to comply with Federal law.
They cited this report
https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/purges-growing-threat-right-vote
On April 19, 2016, thousands of eligible Brooklyn voters dutifully showed up to cast their ballots in the presidential primary, only to find their names missing from the voter lists. An investigation by the New York state attorney general found that New York City’s Board of Elections had improperly deleted more than 200,000 names from the voter rolls.
In June 2016, the Arkansas secretary of state provided a list to the state’s 75 county clerks suggesting that more than 7,700 names be removed from the rolls because of supposed felony convictions. That roster was highly inaccurate; it included people who had never been convicted of a felony, as well as persons with past convictions whose voting rights had been restored.
And in Virginia in 2013, nearly 39,000 voters were removed from the rolls when the state relied on a faulty database to delete voters who allegedly had moved out of the commonwealth. Error rates in some counties ran as high as 17 percent.
These voters were victims of purges — the sometimes-flawed process by which election officials attempt to remove ineligible names from voter registration lists. When done correctly, purges ensure the voter rolls are accurate and up to-date. When done incorrectly, purges disenfranchise legitimate voters (often when it is too close to an election to rectify the mistake), causing confusion and delay at the polls.
Ahead of upcoming midterm elections, a new Brennan Center investigation has examined data for more than 6,600 jurisdictions that report purge rates to the Election Assistance Commission and calculated purge rates for 49 states.
We found that between 2014 and 2016, states removed almost 16 million voters from the rolls, and every state in the country can and should do more to protect voters from improper purges.
Almost 4 million more names were purged from the rolls between 2014 and 2016 than between 2006 and 2008.3 This growth in the number of removed voters represented an increase of 33 percent — far outstripping growth in both total registered voters (18 percent) and total popula- tion (6 percent).
Most disturbingly, our research suggests great cause for concern that the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (which ended federal “preclearance,” a Voting Rights Act provision that was enacted to apply extra scrutiny to jurisdictions with a history of racial dis- crimination) has had a profound and negative impact:
For the two election cycles between 2012 and 2016, jurisdictions no longer subject to federal preclearance had purge rates significantly higher than jurisdictions that did not have it in 2013. The Brennan Center calculates that 2 million fewer voters would have been purged over those four years if jurisdictions previously subject to federal preclearance had purged at the same rate as those jurisdictions not subject to that provision in 2013.
In Texas, for example, one of the states previously subject to federal preclearance, approximately 363,000 more voters were erased from the rolls in the first election cycle after Shelby County than in the comparable midterm election cycle immediately preceding it.5 And Georgia purged twice as many voters — 1.5 million — between the 2012 and 2016 elections as it did between 2008 and 2012.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has abdicated its as- signed role in preventing overly aggressive purges. In fact, the Justice Department has sent letters to election officials inquiring about their purging practices — a move seen by many as laying the groundwork for claims that some jurisdictions are not sufficiently aggressive in clearing names off the rolls.
This new report follows an extensive analysis of this issue in a 2008 Brennan Center report entitled Voter Purges. In that report, we uncovered evidence that election administrators were purging people based on error-ridden practices, that voters were purged secretly and without notice, and that there were limited protections against purges. In this year’s report, we discovered that little about purge practices has improved and that a number of things have, in fact, gotten worse.
This study also found:
- In the past five years, four states have engaged in illegal purges, and another four states have implemented unlawful purge rules.
Federal standards for purges were set in the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Since 2013, Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia have conducted illegal purges. Moreover, Brennan Center research has uncovered that four states (Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, and Maine) have written policies that by their terms violate the NVRA and provide for illegal purges. Alabama, Indiana, and Maine have policies for using data from a database called the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program (Crosscheck) to immediately purge voters without providing the notice and waiting period required by federal law (Indiana’s practice has been put on hold by a federal court). Arizona regulations permit Crosscheck purges during the 90 days prior to an election, a period during which federal law prohibits large-scale purges. These eight states are home to more than a quarter of registered voters across the nation.
- States use inaccurate information.
Although states have improved the way in which they use data to purge the voter rolls in some respects, several jurisdictions rely on faulty data to flag poten- tially ineligible voters. And some of the new sources of information that have come into widespread use since our 2008 report, such as Crosscheck, are especially problematic.
- A new coterie of activist groups is pressing for aggressive purges.
Most purging litigation brought by private litigants before 2008 contended that voter removal efforts were overly aggressive. Today, a different group of plaintiffs is hauling election officials into court, claiming that purging practices in their jurisdictions are not suffi- ciently zealous.
They cited complete nonsense. I enjoy how it starts with Brooklyn. Yeah... Brooklyn sounds like a real place that voting purges are being carried out by right-wing advocates.
"On April 19, 2016, thousands of eligible Brooklyn voters dutifully showed up to cast their ballots in the presidential primary, only to find their names missing from the voter lists. An investigation by the New York state attorney general found that New York City’s Board of Elections had improperly deleted more than 200,000 names from the voter rolls."
I can say conclusively that North Carolina did not carry out an illegal purge as asserted in the study. All the court cases cleared the state and counties -- and stated they completely operated within the law. This "study" claiming that North Carolina carried out an illegal purge demonstrates it is complete crap.
The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has a long history of pushing assertions and studies that have no basis in fact. This is just another example.
Why can't you research before reaching nonsense conclusions?
This didn't happen?
Can you say conclusively now?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-voter-challenge-process-seems-insane-judge/
North Carolina’s process for challenging voters’ registration seems to harken to a bygone era when fewer safeguards were in place, a federal judge said Wednesday as she presided over a lawsuit that alleges voters are being purged unfairly.
Lawyers for North Carolina countered that state data shows only a sliver of names have been removed from county rolls in the past two years - fewer than 7,000 statewide out of 6.8 million registered voters.
The comments came during an emergency hearing over NAACP allegations that at least three counties purged voter rolls through a process disproportionately targeting blacks.
Early voting is already underway in the critical swing state that the NAACP has previously sued over other voter access issues. So far, North Carolina’s black voter turnout has lagged the 2012 presidential election.
The NAACP says counties are violating federal law by removing voters less than 90 days before the election. However, state officials say the process complements federal law and preserves due-process rights.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs said multiple times the challenge process sounds “insane.”
“This sounds like something that was put together in 1901,” she told lawyers for the state.
The judge also said she was “horrified” by the number of removals in Cumberland County, which accounted for the majority of the statewide total.
“It almost looks like a cattle call, the way people are being purged,” she told county attorney Rick Moorefield.
He replied that board members didn’t like the process, “but they felt compelled to follow the statute.”
The hearing ended without a ruling. Biggs didn’t indicate when she would decide but noted time was dwindling before next week’s election.
The NAACP lawsuit cites Cumberland, Moore and Beaufort counties, where activists have challenged thousands of voters. The challengers include volunteers with the Voter Integrity Project, which says it wants to guard against voter fraud.
In most cases cited by the lawsuit, mail to a voter is returned as undeliverable, which county boards can accept as evidence the voter doesn’t live there.
Under state law, any voter can challenge another county resident’s registration, resulting in a hearing where the challenger presents evidence, according to a state legal filing. If local officials find probable cause, the challenged voter is given notice of a subsequent hearing. A voter who doesn’t rebut the evidence can be removed.
Elections officials and the challengers say few attend the hearings; many have moved and haven’t updated their registration, while others have died.
James Bernier, a lawyer for North Carolina, said a state database shows eight counties removed nearly 6,700 challenged voters statewide in the past two years. A court filing by the state said Cumberland County removed the most - nearly 5,600 - followed by Moore with 790. Beaufort removed 63.
However, there appears to have been a recent uptick. At least 4,500 challenges were filed in the three counties in August and September, the State Board of Elections told the NAACP in a letter. It doesn’t say how many challenges were successful.
The U.S. Justice Department said in a court filing that if the NAACP allegations are true, they represent violations of the National Voter Registration Act.
The Justice Department writes that counties can’t remove voters “using only mail returned as undeliverable and without following specific required procedures,” nor can they carry out “systematic removals within 90 days of a Federal election.”
The NAACP lawsuit comes during a protracted battle over voter access in the state. In July, a federal court struck down much of a 2013 elections law, saying the GOP-controlled General Assembly had disproportionately targeted black voters. The ruling lengthened in-person early voting by a week and eliminated a provision requiring photo ID for in-person voting.
That ruling sparked disagreements among local Democratic and Republican election officials about the number of sites and hours for early voting.
Through Tuesday, blacks’ early voting participation in North Carolina lagged behind the same point in the 2012 election by 13 percent, according to Catawba College political scientist Michael Bitzer. Black voters have regained some ground since more early voting sites opened last week, but he said it’s unclear if they can close the gap before early voting ends Saturday.
Bitzer believes the difference is largely due to less enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton’s race against Donald Trump than for President Obama’s 2012 re-election, but the uneven rollout of early voting sites also contributed. He said he wasn’t familiar enough with the new NAACP allegations to weigh their effect on turnout.
“I have to think at this point it’s the top of the ticket,” Bitzer said. “Without Barack Obama on the ballot, black voters may not have that necessary energy and enthusiasm” to equal their 2012 turnout.
As I noted the NAACP lost their challenge in the legal process even though U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs allowed their "emergency" motion for a few days until it was overturned. The voters were briefly reinstated before being purged again by another judge.
At noted in the article - "state data shows only a sliver of names have been removed from county rolls in the past two years - fewer than 7,000 statewide out of 6.8 million registered voters." This is a tiny percentage of the registered voters.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs was appointed by Obama. She is the first black woman to serve on a federal court in North Carolina.