2020 Election
Quote: Mission146It’d have saved you some work just to say, “Bill of Attainder,” rather than assume I don’t know what it is. Even if I didn’t know, I’m not so lazy that I wouldn’t Google it.
Okay, here we go:
1. The Bill of Attainder, as you correctly point out, prevents a law from singling out an individual for PUNISHMENT. Not appearing on the California Presidential ballot absent the satisfaction of a particular condition is NOT a punishment. It doesn’t deprive Trump of life, person or property.
Yes, it is a punishment. Denying him the ability to seek an office where he meets the Constitutional requirements.
Quote:2. It creates a new condition for appearing on the Presidential ballot; there are already conditions, in several states, for a person or party to appear on the ballot. There are conditions for other political offices, as well. To be on a state Supreme Court, for example, one must first be an attorney in most if not all states.
It is not the right of the state to create legal conditions to be POTUS. These qualifications are in the Constitution. Signature requirements are not the same thing as they are just showing support levels to justify the ballot space.
Quote:3. Any individual who wishes to appear on the California ballot can simply release the tax returns. I’m not going to lie, I’m actually a little surprised that being able to prove you’re good on your taxes isn’t already a requirement for elected office. Should one really be employed by the same government to whom it owes money? That said, it’s not a common requirement and it clearly targets Trump, but I think saying it punishes him is a stretch.
And before the SCOTUS ruled, any gay who wanted to get married just had to marry someone of the opposite sex. I seem to remember this board getting upset when I pointed that one out, not sure if you were among the angry. As to "proving you are good" there is no need, the IRS has audited Trump many times, probably every year. To demand personal details is a punishment. If he wants the details kept personal, like Clinton did for his medical records, let the public decide at the ballot box.
(Redundant deleted)
Quote:Finally, Federal law should already spell out election practices pertaining to Federal level positions, which would include the Presidency. The fact that it does not is in itself kind of dumb, in my opinion.
It DOES. Read the Constitution. Natural born citizen. 35 years of age. 14 year resident. That is all you have to be to be POTUS. Worked for what, 230 years now?
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, it is a punishment. Denying him the ability to seek an office where he meets the Constitutional requirements.
He’s not being denied that ability, he’s being denied the ability to be on the ballot unless he satisfies a particular condition. He could choose to satisfy that condition.
He can also be a write-in candidate. It does exactly nothing to deny him seeking the Presidency, it denies that his name will appear on the ballot absent the condition being met.
There’s no Constitutional requirement that a party has a petition signed by 1% of the state’s voters in the previous Gubernatorial election and polls at 2% in the state to appear on the ballot, yet states are permitted to do that if they choose. They can have even stricter requirements if they want to.
With barely any exceptions, the states get to set their rules for ballot access.
Quote:
It is not the right of the state to create legal conditions to be POTUS. These qualifications are in the Constitution. Signature requirements are not the same thing as they are just showing support levels to justify the ballot space.
Does the Constitution suggest that ballot space needs to be justified?
Again, if Trump were to win re-election, he would become the President regardless of ballot access in California. California has no jurisdiction to set requirements to be President, and indeed, are setting no such requirements. They’re setting requirements to appear on the ballot.
Quote:
And before the SCOTUS ruled, any gay who wanted to get married just had to marry someone of the opposite sex. I seem to remember this board getting upset when I pointed that one out, not sure if you were among the angry. As to "proving you are good" there is no need, the IRS has audited Trump many times, probably every year. To demand personal details is a punishment. If he wants the details kept personal, like Clinton did for his medical records, let the public decide at the ballot box.
(Redundant deleted)
It DOES. Read the Constitution. Natural born citizen. 35 years of age. 14 year resident. That is all you have to be to be POTUS. Worked for what, 230 years now?
I don’t recall being angry about that or why it is relevant here. I’m sure I debated about it, but I don’t get angry about most of these discussions. It’s tough to engage in rational and logical discourse if one is angry.
The only reason marriage needs to be a legally recognized institution is financial and pertains to various financial things. If marriage were strictly a religious ceremony, none of it would matter and the churches could marry (or not) whomever they want to. It was those very churches who also made marriage a legal institution, but as a result, the inability to get married denied equal rights to homosexuals who wanted to enjoy the same financial benefits provided to married couples.
If the Government had nothing to do with marriage to begin with, which then shouldn’t, it would have been a non-issue.
Also, I wasn’t opposed to a civil union that would confer those same rights and benefits. A rose by any other name, as it were.
I’m aware of what the Constitutional requirements are to be President. The California law is not only not trying to change those requirements, it has nothing whatsoever to do with them. California is not saying, “We refuse to recognize Donald Trump as President unless and until...” they’re just refusing to put him on the ballot.
I’d love to see your argument if this were West Virginia or Montana and a Democrat who didn’t want to release his returns. I think we’d all be getting a lesson on the Tenth Amendment and states rights from you.
Meanwhile, my position would be exactly the same and we’d be in full agreement.
Quote: Mission146He’s not being denied that ability, he’s being denied the ability to be on the ballot unless he satisfies a particular condition. He could choose to satisfy that condition.
A condition that is unconstitutional. It would be like adding a BMI requirement because CA does not want an overweight POTUS as he could die in office. He could just lose the weight if he wanted to, right?
Quote:There’s no Constitutional requirement that a party has a petition signed by 1% of the state’s voters in the previous Gubernatorial election and polls at 2% in the state to appear on the ballot, yet states are permitted to do that if they choose. They can have even stricter requirements if they want to.
The 10th Amendment would cover this. Nobody would expect that anyone can get on the ballot just by demanding it, the ballot would be a phone book. It is not the same thing at all.
Quote: AZDuffmanA condition that is unconstitutional. It would be like adding a BMI requirement because CA does not want an overweight POTUS as he could die in office. He could just lose the weight if he wanted to, right?
You should join SanchoPanza in providing potentially valid supporting argument as to why it might be Unconstitutional rather than just repeatedly calling it so.
A BMI requirement to be on the ballot? Interesting. As I’m sure you’re aware, there are any number of Government-Level jobs that require a person to pass a physical in order to obtain the position in question. Are there Constitutional requirements stipulating such a thing?
Over and over again you’re also conflating ballot requirements with requirements to become President and ignoring any argument to the contrary because you have absolutely nothing. For your convenience, I’ll summarize:
1. One need not be on California’s ballot for a Californian to vote for that person.
2. Because people could still vote for Trump, Trump could theoretically win California.
3. Trump does not need to win California to be President and would not be if he did need to, because he failed to do so in 2016.
4. California would, presumably, recognize Trump as President in the event he wins re-election.
What this all adds up to is California is not creating a new requirement to be President. The California law speaks in no way whatsoever to actually being the President. It’s, at most, tangentially related.
Quote:The 10th Amendment would cover this. Nobody would expect that anyone can get on the ballot just by demanding it, the ballot would be a phone book. It is not the same thing at all.
It is the same thing. It’s creating conditions for ballot access, which is left to the states. What if a state did create a BMI condition? I imagine a superseding Federal law could be created, just as it can be now, but that wouldn’t make a BMI condition Unconstitutional prior to such law being created.
Answer: Create a Federal law stating that a prospective candidate for Federal office need not release his tax returns, the tax returns of any other company in which he has an interest, or any other personal financial information that’s not already a matter of public record.
Easier Answer: F it. This is a stupid thing for California and Democrats to do, makes them look like crybabies AND Trump will absolutely not win California anyway. Let the babies throw their toys around the playpen.
Quote: Mission146You should join SanchoPanza in providing potentially valid supporting argument as to why it might be Unconstitutional rather than just repeatedly calling it so.
How many times do we have to do so? Show me where the Constitution requires tax records be released. There is no such requirement. To add more requirements is thus unconstitutional.
Quote:A BMI requirement to be on the ballot? Interesting. As I’m sure you’re aware, there are any number of Government-Level jobs that require a person to pass a physical in order to obtain the position in question. Are there Constitutional requirements stipulating such a thing?
Most of these are armed forces jobs or other law enforcement jobs. The Constitution allows these departments to be run by the feds. As no limits are placed there is nothing unconstitutional about such requirements.
Quote:Over and over again you’re also conflating ballot requirements with requirements to become President and ignoring any argument to the contrary because you have absolutely nothing. For your convenience, I’ll summarize:
1. One need not be on California’s ballot for a Californian to vote for that person.
2. Because people could still vote for Trump, Trump could theoretically win California.
3. Trump does not need to win California to be President and would not be if he did need to, because he failed to do so in 2016.
4. California would, presumably, recognize Trump as President in the event he wins re-election.
What this all adds up to is California is not creating a new requirement to be President. The California law speaks in no way whatsoever to actually being the President. It’s, at most, tangentially related.
No, the CA government is creating a De Facto requirement as anybody knows that to deny ballot access and require a candidate to go the write-in route is imposing a severe handicap, effectively eliminating their chances.
Quote:Answer: Create a Federal law stating that a prospective candidate for Federal office need not release his tax returns, the tax returns of any other company in which he has an interest, or any other personal financial information that’s not already a matter of public record.
Bad idea. This is the kind of law used in dictatorships or other unfree countries. In the USA if something is not required it is understood that it is not required. To make such a law is dangerous because it opens the door to saying, "well, you are not specifically allowed to do that so you must be braking the law!"
Quote:Easier Answer: F it. This is a stupid thing for California and Democrats to do, makes them look like crybabies AND Trump will absolutely not win California anyway. Let the babies throw their toys around the playpen.
And let them shred the Constitution?
Quote: AZDuffmanHow many times do we have to do so? Show me where the Constitution requires tax records be released. There is no such requirement. To add more requirements is thus unconstitutional.
I don’t believe so because the Constitution doesn’t speak to ballot access in the first place. I think every state could technically just be write-in if it wanted to be.
The Constitution, again, doesn’t require x number of signatures, polling, etc. A state can either enact ballot access requirements or it cannot: Pick one. The actual answer is it can enact ballot access requirements provided those requirements do not conflict with Federal law. Answer: Create a Federal Law that would supersede the California law. Problem solved.
It’s no different than anything else that has a Federal law. States can enact stricter laws if they wish provided those laws do not conflict with federal laws. Same with counties and cities being superseded by State laws, though they have the right to create a stricter law if they wish.
The Constitution lays out no stipulation for ballot access. A state makes certain laws regarding liquor, but a county can choose just to be a dry county, if it wishes.
The states can’t do anything that a Federal Law or the Constitution says they can’t do. From what I can tell, there’s no present law that says they can’t...but potentially valid case precedent that was mentioned a page or two ago.
Quote:Most of these are armed forces jobs or other law enforcement jobs. The Constitution allows these departments to be run by the feds. As no limits are placed there is nothing unconstitutional about such requirements.
The Constitution allows state ballots to be run by the states absent a Federal law to the contrary.
There are no limits places by the Constitution for ballot access, as such, there is nothing Unconstitutional about ballot access requirements. Now, if you couldn’t VOTE for Donald Trump, or if somehow the votes wouldn’t count, that would be a whole new ballgame.
Quote:No, the CA government is creating a De Facto requirement as anybody knows that to deny ballot access and require a candidate to go the write-in route is imposing a severe handicap, effectively eliminating their chances.
The fact that it’s California already eliminates Trump’s chances to win California.
Also, why is denying ballot access a problem only now? Why is it not a problem when Third-party candidates get denied? Why are they not even recognized as bona fide political parties, and sometimes not even political organizations, in certain states?
The only thing they are eliminating is their taxpayers’ money. It’ll be the most expensive election in the history of the state because every single ballot is going to need to be hand counted. Serves them right.
Quote:Bad idea. This is the kind of law used in dictatorships or other unfree countries. In the USA if something is not required it is understood that it is not required. To make such a law is dangerous because it opens the door to saying, "well, you are not specifically allowed to do that so you must be braking the law!"
And let them shred the Constitution?
What are you talking about? You create a superseding Federal law that regulates Federal level elections and the conditions for ballot access. The hell does that have to do with a dictatorship? In my opinion, the Federal Government should be regulating and standardizing Federal level elections processes in the first place.
The law would simply state that the conditions for ballot access for the Presidency are to be the same as the Constitutional requirements to be President, no more, no less. Or, you could add additional requirements related to polling or signatures, whatever.
Shred? I could only wish. The point is, in my opinion, the California law does not run afoul of the Constitution.
I think Bill of Attainder is the best argument to the contrary so far, but Trump is not being deprived of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It’s not a punishment.
If ballot access were a right, I could call up the County Board of Elections:
“Hey, I was thinking being the coroner could be fun, you mind tossing me on the ballot this year?”
“Under what political party, sir? We can only have one from each party. If you’re opposed, you have to win the primary.”
“Wow. Losing in the Primary would suck, amirite? Do you have any Libertarians on there yet?”
“Um...Coroner...let me see...no, not yet.”
“Cool! Libertarian it is, then! Have a great day!”
Quote: Mission146I don’t believe so because the Constitution doesn’t speak to ballot access in the first place. I think every state could technically just be write-in if it wanted to be.
The Constitution, again, doesn’t require x number of signatures, polling, etc. A state can either enact ballot access requirements or it cannot: Pick one. The actual answer is it can enact ballot access requirements provided those requirements do not conflict with Federal law. Answer: Create a Federal Law that would supersede the California law. Problem solved.
It’s no different than anything else that has a Federal law. States can enact stricter laws if they wish provided those laws do not conflict with federal laws. Same with counties and cities being superseded by State laws, though they have the right to create a stricter law if they wish.
The Constitution lays out no stipulation for ballot access. A state makes certain laws regarding liquor, but a county can choose just to be a dry county, if it wishes.
The states can’t do anything that a Federal Law or the Constitution says they can’t do. From what I can tell, there’s no present law that says they can’t...but potentially valid case precedent that was mentioned a page or two ago.
The Constitution allows state ballots to be run by the states absent a Federal law to the contrary.
There are no limits places by the Constitution for ballot access, as such, there is nothing Unconstitutional about ballot access requirements. Now, if you couldn’t VOTE for Donald Trump, or if somehow the votes wouldn’t count, that would be a whole new ballgame.Quote:No, the CA government is creating a De Facto requirement as anybody knows that to deny ballot access and require a candidate to go the write-in route is imposing a severe handicap, effectively eliminating their chances.
The fact that it’s California already eliminates Trump’s chances to win California.
Also, why is denying ballot access a problem only now? Why is it not a problem when Third-party candidates get denied? Why are they not even recognized as bona fide political parties, and sometimes not even political organizations, in certain states?
The only thing they are eliminating is their taxpayers’ money. It’ll be the most expensive election in the history of the state because every single ballot is going to need to be hand counted. Serves them right.
What are you talking about? You create a superseding Federal law that regulates Federal level elections and the conditions for ballot access. The hell does that have to do with a dictatorship? In my opinion, the Federal Government should be regulating and standardizing Federal level elections processes in the first place.
The law would simply state that the conditions for ballot access for the Presidency are to be the same as the Constitutional requirements to be President, no more, no less. Or, you could add additional requirements related to polling or signatures, whatever.
Shred? I could only wish. The point is, in my opinion, the California law does not run afoul of the Constitution.
I think Bill of Attainder is the best argument to the contrary so far, but Trump is not being deprived of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It’s not a punishment.
If ballot access were a right, I could call up the County Board of Elections:
“Hey, I was thinking being the coroner could be fun, you mind tossing me on the ballot this year?”
“Under what political party, sir? We can only have one from each party. If you’re opposed, you have to win the primary.”
“Wow. Losing in the Primary would suck, amirite? Do you have any Libertarians on there yet?”
“Um...Coroner...let me see...no, not yet.”
“Cool! Libertarian it is, then! Have a great day!”
Ugh, it's like I'm playing cards with my brother's kids here. If you want to meet at Meadows/Wheeling Island and hash this out over your choice of coffee or a few beers, PM me. Actually Meadows food court is closed until fall, so keep that in mind. Time to move on.
Quote: aceofspadesAll of these proposed requirements to keep POTUS Trump's name off the ballot yet nobody needs ID to vote
I support voter ID laws.
Quote: Mission146I support voter ID laws.
Do you support that the signature has to match exactly?
I am not sure my vote was counted because my signature is all over the place and they kept asking me to sign exactly like my l\drivers lisc.
Its absurd
The sig I have on file is not a real signature, its my finger on a tablet trying to imitating my signature because that's the DMV equipment
Quote: terapinedDo you support that the signature has to match exactly?
I am not sure my vote was counted because my signature is all over the place and they kept asking me to sign exactly like my l\drivers lisc.
Its absurd
The sig I have on file is not a real signature, its my finger on a tablet trying to imitating my signature because that's the DMV equipment
Not with my penmanship. I could sign something right now and not produce a perfectly matching signature five minutes from right now. Besides, people are idiots or might deliberately not want you to vote for one reason or another, they can find differences in the signatures if they like.
I support registering to vote using the identification number associated with your photographic driver’s license, or non-operators license, and then having to produce same when the time comes to vote.
Quote: Mission146I support registering to vote using the identification number associated with your photographic driver’s license, or non-operators license, and then having to produce same when the time comes to vote.
I'm curious...are you worried about somebody showing up with that identification number, or even somebody just showing up without that number, giving them your address and your name, to vote?
I just don't see voter impersonation as a problem. I think the number I remember sticking out to me was 35 cases over 15 years and 800 million national ballots with millions more at the local level. Don't quote me on that, it's just what I recall. I think that study was conducted over the 15 year period that included the Bush administration which spent years cracking down on voter fraud and produced next to no results.
Quote: Mission146
I support registering to vote using the identification number associated with your photographic driver’s license, or non-operators license, and then having to produce same when the time comes to vote.
That would be the simplest way. Everyone has one other, without them you cannot survive a normal life. College students need to be forced to vote absentee at home, not their temporary college residence.
Quote: SteverinosI'm curious...are you worried about somebody showing up with that identification number, or even somebody just showing up without that number, giving them your address and your name, to vote?
I don’t know if you’re a tobacco user, I am occasionally. I go to the store to buy mini-cigars and the clerk asks me for ID. I smile and say, “I’m obviously well-over 18.”
The clerk flatly says, “We’re told to card anybody who looks under sixty.”
Here’s my question: Is the security of my vote less important than a minor who looks well into his thirties scoring a pack of mini-cigars?
Besides that, to the latter part of your question, potentially. If people want to steal your vote, then all they need do is to look at a piece of your mail without ID laws.
The truth is I’m extremely lax on immigration and what should happen to undocumented people, but people who aren’t citizens shouldn’t have the right to vote. People shouldn’t be able to steal the votes of others AND dead people should not be voting. People are asked for ID for any number of things. Asking a players club representative what dates I have free play is supposed to be a more secure process than my vote? Any number of examples.
Quote:I just don't see voter impersonation as a problem. I think the number I remember sticking out to me was 35 cases over 15 years and 800 million national ballots with millions more at the local level. Don't quote me on that, it's just what I recall. I think that study was conducted over the 15 year period that included the Bush administration which spent years cracking down on voter fraud and had little to show for its efforts.
If it happens more than zero times, then we should be trying harder to prevent it. Especially if all it requires is presenting the picture ID that one should already have anyway.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat would be the simplest way. Everyone has one other, without them you cannot survive a normal life. College students need to be forced to vote absentee at home, not their temporary college residence.
I disagree with the second sentence. If you spend a greater percentage of the year in one place as opposed to the other, then you should be allowed to vote in the place where you spend the most time, if you wish. Of course, you should also switch your ID to that place and register appropriately in that jurisdiction.
Quote: Mission146If it happens more than zero times, then we should be trying harder to prevent it.
Not if it disenfranchises just one American citizen. I think people underestimate just how many people do not have government IDs and don't need them for their everyday routines. They don't fly, they don't smoke, they don't drive, could be disabled, etc.
"Isn't it easy to get an ID that isn't expired?" Ask millions of people that live 100 miles or farther from their nearest DMV. Or ask folks who may not have immediate access to the documents needed to obtain the ID.
People have been told to be paranoid about this. The truth is that people are not stealing your votes by means of voter impersonation, which is the type of fraud voter ID laws are designed to prevent.
An interesting test of the new California law on releasing tax returns would be to see how a favored presidential contender hereabouts is treated.Quote: AZDuffmanUgh, it's like I'm playing cards with my brother's kids here. If you want to meet at Meadows/Wheeling Island and hash this out over your choice of coffee or a few beers, PM me. Actually Meadows food court is closed until fall, so keep that in mind. Time to move on.
"Michael Avenatti has been charged with 36 counts of fraud, perjury, embezzlement, tax evasion, and other financial crimes, two weeks after he was arrested for allegedly attempting to blackmail Nike for $25 million.
Federal prosecutors announced the criminal charges after a grand jury in Southern California late Wednesday indicted the celebrity lawyer, who represented porn star Stormy Daniels and once considered running for president in 2020. Avenatti, 48, was charged with stealing millions of dollars from his clients and using that money to pay for things, including a $5 million jet he co-owns.
"Avenatti responded to the charges Thursday morning. “For 20 years, I have represented Davids vs. Goliaths and relied on due process and our system of justice. Along the way, I have made many powerful enemies. I am entitled to a FULL presumption of innocence and am confident that justice will be done once ALL of the facts are known,” Avenatti said on Twitter." wash examiner
My favorite case from the tens of thousands in California:Quote: SteverinosI just don't see voter impersonation as a problem.
“Randall Marquis has lived in California for 31 years, but he knew it was a mistake when he received a notice last month that said he was newly registered to vote. He may have a state driver’s license, but he’s a citizen of Canada.
“When I saw that card, I just threw it out,” Marquis said. “I know I’m not going to vote. I’m not allowed to vote, it’s stupid that I should be registered to vote.”
“The Newport Beach resident, who has a green card and is married to a U.S. citizen, was one of some 1,500 people who the California Department of Motor Vehicles said on Monday were wrongly registered to vote between late April and late September. These errors, which included other non-citizens, are in addition to the roughly 23,000 registration mistakes disclosed by the DMV last month.
“Marquis contacted The Times on Sept. 30 to say that his attempt to get a replacement driver’s license at a DMV field office in late August ended with him being sent a registered voter notice by elections officials. DMV officials, in responding to a request for comment from The Times, then discovered additional errors that were blamed on employees making data entries.” latimes
Quote: Mission146
If it happens more than zero times, then we should be trying harder to prevent it. Especially if all it requires is presenting the picture ID that one should already have anyway.
Pretty sure zero is impossible goal with so many people.
Quote: SteverinosBuying cigars and gambling are not rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
You’re absolutely right, and if someone steals my vote, I could be deprived of my right to it by virtue of someone having already used it.
Quote:Not if it disenfranchises just one American citizen. I think people underestimate just how many people do not have government IDs and don't need them for their everyday routines. They don't fly, they don't smoke, they don't drive, could be disabled, etc.
"Isn't it easy to get an ID that isn't expired?" Ask millions of people that live 100 miles or farther from their nearest DMV. Or ask folks who may not have immediate access to the documents needed to obtain the ID.
People have been told to be paranoid about this. The truth is that people are not stealing your votes by means of voter impersonation, which is the type of fraud voter ID laws are designed to prevent.
My vote being stolen would disenfranchise me. I don’t want to hear any excuses about inability or lack of need to get ID because if I’m some party activist, then I’ll find a way to help them gather the needed documents, get transportation and pay for the ID. If that’s the real problem, and you’re REALLY concerned, then damn we’ll help them do it and quit spouting off about it.
You could also make non-operator ID free of charge. I wouldn’t be opposed to that. Then there’s just the matter of getting the required documents together and getting to the DMV.
Anyway, I’m not paranoid. My suggestion is that if the right to vote is as sacred as everyone CLAIMS to believe that it is, then it should be protected to the fullest extent, by any means necessary and at whatever cost.
Quote: Mission146I disagree with the second sentence. If you spend a greater percentage of the year in one place as opposed to the other, then you should be allowed to vote in the place where you spend the most time, if you wish. Of course, you should also switch your ID to that place and register appropriately in that jurisdiction.
It needs to be about your permanent place, not "where you spend the time." Take my industry. People travel for work, quite a bit. Long-term assignments. But they have zero intention of staying there. From courthouses to drill platforms, the work may last 6 months. But your address is a hotel or rooming house.
College is the same way. 99% of students are not going to remain after graduation. They are transients. No intention of staying, even if they are there for 183 days in the year. Absentee ballot.
Quote: SanchoPanzaMy favorite case from the tens of thousands in California:
“Randall Marquis has lived in California for 31 years, but he knew it was a mistake when he received a notice last month that said he was newly registered to vote. He may have a state driver’s license, but he’s a citizen of Canada.
“When I saw that card, I just threw it out,” Marquis said. “I know I’m not going to vote. I’m not allowed to vote, it’s stupid that I should be registered to vote.”
“The Newport Beach resident, who has a green card and is married to a U.S. citizen, was one of some 1,500 people who the California Department of Motor Vehicles said on Monday were wrongly registered to vote between late April and late September. These errors, which included other non-citizens, are in addition to the roughly 23,000 registration mistakes disclosed by the DMV last month.
“Marquis contacted The Times on Sept. 30 to say that his attempt to get a replacement driver’s license at a DMV field office in late August ended with him being sent a registered voter notice by elections officials. DMV officials, in responding to a request for comment from The Times, then discovered additional errors that were blamed on employees making data entries.” latimes
This is a voter impersonation problem?
Quote: Mission146
Anyway, I’m not paranoid. My suggestion is that if the right to vote is as sacred as everyone CLAIMS to believe that it is, then it should be protected to the fullest extent, by any means necessary and at whatever cost.
Then palm and eye scans are appropriate.
Quote: SanchoPanzaMy favorite case from the tens of thousands in California:
“Randall Marquis has lived in California for 31 years, but he knew it was a mistake when he received a notice last month that said he was newly registered to vote. He may have a state driver’s license, but he’s a citizen of Canada.
“When I saw that card, I just threw it out,” Marquis said. “I know I’m not going to vote. I’m not allowed to vote, it’s stupid that I should be registered to vote.”
“The Newport Beach resident, who has a green card and is married to a U.S. citizen, was one of some 1,500 people who the California Department of Motor Vehicles said on Monday were wrongly registered to vote between late April and late September. These errors, which included other non-citizens, are in addition to the roughly 23,000 registration mistakes disclosed by the DMV last month.
“Marquis contacted The Times on Sept. 30 to say that his attempt to get a replacement driver’s license at a DMV field office in late August ended with him being sent a registered voter notice by elections officials. DMV officials, in responding to a request for comment from The Times, then discovered additional errors that were blamed on employees making data entries.” latimes
What is the state that is just registering everyone to vote? This is the kind of fraud and problems that will happen. Just set it up so you can get a form at any USPS. If you want to vote that is minimal effort. If you are a lazy lump that misses the 30 day before deadline, the world will not come to an end.
As to ID, you need it to do so many things the argument "people do not have one" fails the smell test. Again, if you want to vote you will put in that small effort to renew every 4 years (at most.)
Quote: AZDuffmanIt needs to be about your permanent place, not "where you spend the time." Take my industry. People travel for work, quite a bit. Long-term assignments. But they have zero intention of staying there. From courthouses to drill platforms, the work may last 6 months. But your address is a hotel or rooming house.
College is the same way. 99% of students are not going to remain after graduation. They are transients. No intention of staying, even if they are there for 183 days in the year. Absentee ballot.
How does a college student know where he or she is going to live permanently? They might graduate college and get a job in neither of the two places. To me, it’s pretty simple that if you spend more nights in one place than another in a year, then you should be permitted to call the first place the place that you live and register to vote there.
Seems to me that’s some of that common sense stuff that Conservatives claim to like so much.
Finally, I would suggest that if I’m going to live in one place nine months of the year and a different place three months of the year, the local politics of the nine months place has a more direct affect on me at that time.
Honestly, I’m going to flatly accuse you of wanting to make it more difficult for a college student to vote because they tend to lean liberal.
The gas drillers are different because they could get laid off tomorrow. However, if they want to switch ID, declare themselves residents of the state in which they are working, reside in said state for the amount of time demanded by the registration laws, then they should be permitted to do that. A college student voting in November, in most cases, at least intends to be in that jurisdiction until the following May.
Quote: rxwineThen palm and eye scans are appropriate.
I’d have to read more about it but declare myself preliminarily not opposed.
Quote: rxwineThere should be a amendment that you can’ t pass a law to correct anything until the problem is statistically significant. Now, someone explain if that would work.
Prove that you are the person you are claiming to be in order to vote, thereby proving that you have the right to do so. I honestly don’t see why that’s such a big deal. Again, if one is worried about the people who cannot do so, then help them become able to do so.
Quote: Mission146How does a college student know where he or she is going to live permanently? They might graduate college and get a job in neither of the two places. To me, it’s pretty simple that if you spend more nights in one place than another in a year, then you should be permitted to call the first place the place that you live and register to vote there.
Simple, the residence they lived at before they went to school, almost always their parent's house. College is not like having a second home, one in Wheeling and one in Florida, where you likely choose based on taxes and fees. Everything about college is "temporary."
Quote:Finally, I would suggest that if I’m going to live in one place nine months of the year and a different place three months of the year, the local politics of the nine months place has a more direct affect on me at that time.
Honestly, I’m going to flatly accuse you of wanting to make it more difficult for a college student to vote because they tend to lean liberal.
If you had a winter place in Florida you would be smart to choose Florida no matter how long in each place. No car tax for one. Other taxes lower. I had family who domiciled Florida to protect their rights over and adopted child. Boy was he happy in 2000, but I digress. As to the "they lean liberal" that does not matter as they will still vote at home. OTOH, students can be > 50% of a college town. It is not fair to the locals to have so many outsiders sway elections.
Quote:The gas drillers are different because they could get laid off tomorrow. However, if they want to switch ID, declare themselves residents of the state in which they are working, reside in said state for the amount of time demanded by the registration laws, then they should be permitted to do that. A college student voting in November, in most cases, at least intends to be in that jurisdiction until the following May.
Until May. IOW, a transient. Pretend WVU was in Wheeling. Do you want a bunch of students who will be gone in May swaying your local politics?
Quote: rxwineThere should be a amendment that you can’ t pass a law to correct anything until the problem is statistically significant. Now, someone explain if that would work.
So, you are against the CA must show taxes to gain ballot access law?
Quote: Mission146Prove that you are the person you are claiming to be in order to vote, thereby proving that you have the right to do so. I honestly don’t see why that’s such a big deal. Again, if one is worried about the people who cannot do so, then help them become able to do so.
Have you ever looked at contested voting rights cases which were won in court? There might be a consolidated list somewhere.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, you are against the CA must show taxes to gain ballot access law?
You mean does this sword cut both ways? That’s likely. The right and the left would find reasons to hate it.
You couldn’t just pass something because it’s a favorite idea of your parties platform.
Quote: AZDuffmanSimple, the residence they lived at before they went to school, almost always their parent's house. College is not like having a second home, one in Wheeling and one in Florida, where you likely choose based on taxes and fees. Everything about college is "temporary."
That they, "Lived at before they went to school?" Okay, by your language, it seems that you're stipulating that they don't actually live at their parents' residence anymore.
Also, are you suggesting that tax implications are a more valid reason for picking one place rather than choosing the place in which you spend the most physical time?
Quote:If you had a winter place in Florida you would be smart to choose Florida no matter how long in each place. No car tax for one. Other taxes lower. I had family who domiciled Florida to protect their rights over and adopted child. Boy was he happy in 2000, but I digress. As to the "they lean liberal" that does not matter as they will still vote at home. OTOH, students can be > 50% of a college town. It is not fair to the locals to have so many outsiders sway elections.
Oh, you are actually suggesting that the place in which you spend the most time is unimportant. Well, thanks for clearing that up, I suppose.
I fail to see how one is an, "Outsider," if one effectively physically spends a cumulative three out of four years in a given place.
Quote:Until May. IOW, a transient. Pretend WVU was in Wheeling. Do you want a bunch of students who will be gone in May swaying your local politics?
I don't live in Wheeling.
If I did, then sure, I would maintain that the college students could choose the place in which they spend the most time. Don't like it? Then, don't live in a college town or work to get the law changed. They also won't, "Be gone in May," or if they are, they will either return or be replaced in August.
When I went to the University, if you were to ask me, "What state do you live in?," I would have said Missouri. I didn't change my registration or anything like that simply because I didn't really care whether I voted or not and, in fact, did not vote during those years. I guess if it had been at all important to me at the time, then I would have got a Missouri driver's license and registered to vote in Missouri. More than anything, I just didn't want to pay to switch my license. If they did absentee ballots (don't know, not looking it up) I wasn't aware of it at the time and also didn't care. I certainly wasn't driving 800 miles just to vote, or flying and I wasn't paying to have my license changed, either.
Quote: Mission146That they, "Lived at before they went to school?" Okay, by your language, it seems that you're stipulating that they don't actually live at their parents' residence anymore.
Also, are you suggesting that tax implications are a more valid reason for picking one place rather than choosing the place in which you spend the most physical time?
Oh, you are actually suggesting that the place in which you spend the most time is unimportant. Well, thanks for clearing that up, I suppose.
You need to learn the difference between "live" and "domiciled." The later is your permanent place, regardless of it you are away at school or some other interim situation, like the oil drillers. The former is where you are just spending your time. I know of people who's jobs have them on the road for the better part of a year often, but that has nothing to do with their residence.
Tax implications would be more important to me than amount of time spent if I get to choose. They are for most people I have met that split time places. Or other practical reasons. None first based it on days spent in one place or another.
Quote:I fail to see how one is an, "Outsider," if one effectively physically spends a cumulative three out of four years in a given place.
Because they are a transient, just passing thru. They do not spend 3-4 years, they spend part of 3-4 years living in short-term rentals or other transient situations.
Quote:I don't live in Wheeling.
If I did, then sure, I would maintain that the college students could choose the place in which they spend the most time. Don't like it? Then, don't live in a college town or work to get the law changed. They also won't, "Be gone in May," or if they are, they will either return or be replaced in August.
When I went to the University, if you were to ask me, "What state do you live in?," I would have said Missouri. I didn't change my registration or anything like that simply because I didn't really care whether I voted or not and, in fact, did not vote during those years. I guess if it had been at all important to me at the time, then I would have got a Missouri driver's license and registered to vote in Missouri. More than anything, I just didn't want to pay to switch my license. If they did absentee ballots (don't know, not looking it up) I wasn't aware of it at the time and also didn't care. I certainly wasn't driving 800 miles just to vote, or flying and I wasn't paying to have my license changed, either.
AFIK, absentee ballots are available everywhere and have been for decades. You are supposed to have a "reason" but that is easy, almost anything will be approved. Smart jurisdictions want you to show up at least once each 5 years or so and no absentee on your first vote to prevent fraud, but that is it. So this is a non-issue.
But why should anyone have to move to keep transients from affecting their local elections? I do not get the reasoning that students should not have to make a simple phone call or go online to get an absentee ballot. Is this so hard? I call it just being an adult.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou need to learn the difference between "live" and "domiciled." The later is your permanent place, regardless of it you are away at school or some other interim situation, like the oil drillers. The former is where you are just spending your time. I know of people who's jobs have them on the road for the better part of a year often, but that has nothing to do with their residence.
Tax implications would be more important to me than amount of time spent if I get to choose. They are for most people I have met that split time places. Or other practical reasons. None first based it on days spent in one place or another.
My position is not that your residence is wherever you want it to be, my point is the fact that you spend more of a year in one place as opposed to another should be sufficient to allow you to call yourself a resident of the place where you spend the bulk of your time. I'm not disputing that if you own or rent a place somewhere you should be allowed to call yourself a resident of that jurisdiction.
I just fail to see how one is a valid reason and the other isn't.
Quote:Because they are a transient, just passing thru. They do not spend 3-4 years, they spend part of 3-4 years living in short-term rentals or other transient situations.
They spend the majority of 3-4 years living in the town in which they attend college. My argument is (tax considerations aside) you're arguably more affected by the laws and office-holders in the place where you live the majority of the time.
Quote:AFIK, absentee ballots are available everywhere and have been for decades. You are supposed to have a "reason" but that is easy, almost anything will be approved. Smart jurisdictions want you to show up at least once each 5 years or so and no absentee on your first vote to prevent fraud, but that is it. So this is a non-issue.
Maybe, like I said, I don't recall. Whatever the case was, I apparently did not find voting (at the time) important enough for it to be worth my looking into it too deeply. I was too busy with a full-time course load and two jobs to care.
Is it not, 'Better,' to show up in person every time? That's easier to do in the place that you just so happen to live (generally) during both of the annual elections.
Quote:But why should anyone have to move to keep transients from affecting their local elections? I do not get the reasoning that students should not have to make a simple phone call or go online to get an absentee ballot. Is this so hard? I call it just being an adult.
If you don't want to live in a town where tons of college students are potentially voting, then don't live in a college town. If you are unconcerned or prefer it that way, then do live in a college town. Certainly if they work locally, and there is a local income tax, then a refusal to allow them to vote there if they choose is taxation without representation. This is also true of local/state sales taxes if the college students are paying those, which they almost certainly are if such taxes exist in that jurisdiction.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat would be the simplest way. Everyone has one other, without them you cannot survive a normal life. College students need to be forced to vote absentee at home, not their temporary college residence.
Why? They spend more time away than at their parents houses? Most of their spending is near the schools, and they create a tax base.
When I was up there in the early 1980s, the town of Brockport had about two dozen bars, numerous restaurants and pizza joints and a thriving downtown- record shops, multiple head shops, comic stores etc. Hundreds of students spending money.
Spencerport, ten miles down the Canal had a bigger population but none of that. They had one bar/ restaurant and a diner. The college provides jobs and the students use services. Why should they not have a say in how their money is spent?
Quote: Mission146My position is not that your residence is wherever you want it to be, my point is the fact that you spend more of a year in one place as opposed to another should be sufficient to allow you to call yourself a resident of the place where you spend the bulk of your time. I'm not disputing that if you own or rent a place somewhere you should be allowed to call yourself a resident of that jurisdiction.
I just fail to see how one is a valid reason and the other isn't.
I will again direct you to learn about "domicile." Domicile is your fixed place of residence that you have the most substantial connection to. A college residence fails both tests. Even when you live there most of the year, it is essentially a "domestic expat" relationship.
You are hung up on "time." I will make it even more obvious. How many college students change their taxes to their school address? How many go to the DMV and change their license? How many abandon their parent's address totally and make school fixed and permanent? It is going to be almost none.
Quote: AZDuffmanI will again direct you to learn about "domicile." Domicile is your fixed place of residence that you have the most substantial connection to. A college residence fails both tests. Even when you live there most of the year, it is essentially a "domestic expat" relationship.
You are hung up on "time." I will make it even more obvious. How many college students change their taxes to their school address? How many go to the DMV and change their license? How many abandon their parent's address totally and make school fixed and permanent? It is going to be almost none.
There is an old legal axiom that a domicile is "where you hang your hat and leave your heart"
It is the place you intend to return to after a temporary absence
Quote: AZDuffmanI will again direct you to learn about "domicile." Domicile is your fixed place of residence that you have the most substantial connection to. A college residence fails both tests. Even when you live there most of the year, it is essentially a "domestic expat" relationship.
You are hung up on "time." I will make it even more obvious. How many college students change their taxes to their school address? How many go to the DMV and change their license? How many abandon their parent's address totally and make school fixed and permanent? It is going to be almost none.
Your argument is that you don’t have the most substantial connection to the locale in which you spend the majority of your time in a given year. I find that argument invalid, there’s really no middle ground for us to find on this one. I don’t see how a person can be more affected by the laws where they are not as opposed to where they are.
I think it would be reasonable to require that an individual present identification to prove address in order to register to vote, so I would not be opposed to a requirement that states they must change their identification to the jurisdiction in question. Thus, they would need to make the school’s address their legal address if they live on campus and file their taxes accordingly if they have income.
Quote: aceofspadesThere is an old legal axiom that a domicile is "where you hang your hat and leave your heart"
It is the place you intend to return to after a temporary absence
Why assume they are returning to their parents homes? Who says they even have a home to go to? In my case, and every other Cadet, we went home for three weeks before leaving for the Military. As far as I'm concerned, I left home the day I left for college and returned there temporarily over the years.
I don't know what the law is now, but NYS law in the 1980s allowed students to register and vote locally. Some students, who had gone the emancipation route even qualified for local food stamps. The Counties and towns tried to have it both ways. They wanted the students to count for the census as they showed up as thousands of below poverty line residents which meant more Federal money but they didn't want us to have a voice in their government.
Quote: rxwineJust curious what happens when you have one house in one state and one in another, and spend exactly 6 months at each, no more no less. You work equally in both.
You are allowed to determine which is your primary residence for tax, voting, and other purposes.
If you are temporary domicile, you must return to your primary at least once per calendar year, not to exceed 1 actual year in absentia.
Some specific regulations which depend on residence have additional restrictions. For example, in Florida, there is a homeowner's exemption of the 1st $25k of value for property taxes, but only if it's your primary residence. However, you must be physically in residence on Jan 1 of each year to claim it legally, if you have more than 1 residence. They don't check everybody, but they do check. (Doesn't mean you necessarily have to BE there...it's complicated). You also can't claim primary residence elsewhere for some other purpose, like voting.
Quote: billryanWhy assume they are returning to their parents homes? Who says they even have a home to go to?
I agree
When a college student leaves home for college, the majority have left home to live on campus, their new home
After college, they get a job and move on to their newest home
Quote: billryanWhy assume they are returning to their parents homes? Who says they even have a home to go to? In my case, and every other Cadet, we went home for three weeks before leaving for the Military. As far as I'm concerned, I left home the day I left for college and returned there temporarily over the years.
I don't know what the law is now, but NYS law in the 1980s allowed students to register and vote locally. Some students, who had gone the emancipation route even qualified for local food stamps. The Counties and towns tried to have it both ways. They wanted the students to count for the census as they showed up as thousands of below poverty line residents which meant more Federal money but they didn't want us to have a voice in their government.
How about they vote where they are claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns?
Quote: aceofspadesHow about they vote where they are claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns?
I personally have no objection to that if they are claimed as dependents. If they are so claimed, then that would seem to me that they are acknowledging that they are residents of their parents’ house, as opposed to being residents of the campus or wherever they lay their head in the college town.
My understanding is they could not be claimed as dependents if that is not their legal address, but my understanding of that could be wrong. I don’t know if my mom and stepdad claimed me as a dependent when I lived in Missouri or not, though I assume they may have because I did not change my legal address and was also on my mom’s health insurance. That aside, I did not receive any other financial support from them during that time.
Quote: Mission146I personally have no objection to that if they are claimed as dependents. If they are so claimed, then that would seem to me that they are acknowledging that they are residents of their parents’ house, as opposed to being residents of the campus or wherever they lay their head in the college town.
My understanding is they could not be claimed as dependents if that is not their legal address, but my understanding of that could be wrong. I don’t know if my mom and stepdad claimed me as a dependent when I lived in Missouri or not, though I assume they may have because I did not change my legal address and was also on my mom’s health insurance. That aside, I did not receive any other financial support from them during that time.
When I did taxes, dependency did not depend on address. It was about support. Lots of minors spend more time with one parent but the other gets to claim them.
Quote: Mission146Your argument is that you don’t have the most substantial connection to the locale in which you spend the majority of your time in a given year. I find that argument invalid, there’s really no middle ground for us to find on this one. I don’t see how a person can be more affected by the laws where they are not as opposed to where they are.
I think it would be reasonable to require that an individual present identification to prove address in order to register to vote, so I would not be opposed to a requirement that states they must change their identification to the jurisdiction in question. Thus, they would need to make the school’s address their legal address if they live on campus and file their taxes accordingly if they have income.
Again it does not matter if "they are affected." It is about permanent residence. Where I went to school, most leases were for school-year only. On-campus was always for just short term.
Quote: AZDuffmanAgain it does not matter if "they are affected." It is about permanent residence. Where I went to school, most leases were for school-year only. On-campus was always for just short term.
Not sure I've ever heard you suggest one thing that doesn't make it harder for Democrats or likely Democratic bases to access voting.
Quote: AZDuffmanAgain it does not matter if "they are affected." It is about permanent residence. Where I went to school, most leases were for school-year only. On-campus was always for just short term.
I would argue that there is no such thing as a, "Permanent residence," in the sense that one is never absolutely guaranteed to live in one select place permanently. That said, in the twelve month cycle that is a school year, an individual will spend more time than not in the place where that individual attends school. As such, I see no reason why that location cannot be the person's legal address if the person wishes it to be.
Again, I'm not opposed to additional criteria for same, such as switching one's driver's license.
