Posted on 07/01/2021 2:53:54 PM PDT by Aquamarine
It sure as hell didn’t come from me or any of my surroundings.
Early 60’s Btw.
L.A.’s New Rules On Encampments Limit Role Of Law Enforcement, Seek Voluntary Compliance From Homeless
Notably, the “three liberal justices” dissented from the decision, while the court’s six conservative and moderate judges sided with Arizona’s plan to rein in the state’s expansive early and absentee voting rules.
Reuters noted that the ruling comes at a time when Republican governors are pressing for greater voter restrictions, pushing back against liberalizing early and absentee voting rules in many states that greatly expand the period of time in which ballots may be cast ahead of election day, and that liberalize the conditions under which state residents may vote absentee.
“The case involves a 2016 Arizona law that made it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers. Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. Ballot collection is legal in most states, with varying limitations. Republican critics call the practice ‘ballot harvesting,'” per Reuters. “The other restriction at issue was a longstanding Arizona policy that discards ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the one to which a voter has been assigned. In some places, voters’ precincts are not the closest one to their home.”
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority made clear that, despite these restrictions, voting remained “equally open” to all of Arizona’s eligible and registered voters. “Mere inconvenience,” he said, “cannot be enough to demonstrate” a Constitutional violation.
Alito and the majority declined, however, to create a bright-line rule governing which voter restrictions fell within Constitutional purview.
“[W]e think it prudent to make clear at the beginning that we decline in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules, like those at issue here, that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots,” he wrote.
The case, however, will likely have consequences for the Department of Justice’s lawsuit in Georgia, which, as the Daily Wire reported, “alleges that recent changes to Georgia’s election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
Those laws in Georgia mandate that a voter must be in line to vote by the official poll closing time of 7 pm, and restrict electioneering at the polls. Because those laws do not necessarily abridge the right to vote for eligible and registered Georgia voters, the DOJ’s lawsuit may run afoul of Thursday’s ruling.
I was precocious. Happy 4th FReeper!
There are no Voter “restrictions”.
If you are a Citizen and you have a valid ID you can Vote.
It’s as simple as Pie.
The language of the Left marches on.
That’s why Pelosi wants HR 1 passed. It can supersede all federal elections laws in all 50 states and constitutionally the states couldn’t do anything about it. The states could do elections their own way for state and local elections but for federal offices, the states would have to do it the HR1 way.
I read that clause in the constitution...it points out that states could run their elections but that congress could then pass laws as to how they should be run as they willed. I can find the clause if any one wants but any search engine can bring it up. Now the clause and HR1 can’t interfere with how the state legislatures assign presidential electors...that is in another part of the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.