Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Just saying...that there's voter fraud and then there's collusion:
Why hasn't husted been charged with violations of voters rights,
which just in Ohio could have eliminated more voters than all the
"illegal" voters anyone could find in the whole US

Because the courts have long recognized that voting is, in the main, a
POLITICAL matter, not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. The court tries, sometimes
without success, to avoid meddling in political disputes.

For example, the Indiana case before the Supreme Court on the state
requiring a photo ID, ignored any "undue burden" argument, which would have
made the case a constitutional one. In essence, the court said a state may
impose almost any requirement on voters that it deems proper (i.e.,
requiring voters to wear some sort of red-colored clothing, approach the
polling place on unicycles, or whatever).

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Just saying...that there's voter fraud and then there's collusion:
Why hasn't husted been charged with violations of voters rights,
which just in Ohio could have eliminated more voters than all the
"illegal" voters anyone could find in the whole US

Because the courts have long recognized that voting is, in the main, a
POLITICAL matter, not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. The court tries, sometimes
without success, to avoid meddling in political disputes.

For example, the Indiana case before the Supreme Court on the state
requiring a photo ID, ignored any "undue burden" argument, which would have
made the case a constitutional one. In essence, the court said a state may
impose almost any requirement on voters that it deems proper (i.e.,
requiring voters to wear some sort of red-colored clothing, approach the
polling place on unicycles, or whatever).

so it's your theory that shutting down early voting in democratic counties while
leaving them open in republican counties in no way infringes on a voters rights?

of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering with that act
is surely constitutional

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Because the courts have long recognized that voting is, in the main,
a POLITICAL matter, not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. The court tries,
sometimes without success, to avoid meddling in political disputes.

For example, the Indiana case before the Supreme Court on the state
requiring a photo ID, ignored any "undue burden" argument, which
would have made the case a constitutional one. In essence, the court
said a state may impose almost any requirement on voters that it
deems proper (i.e., requiring voters to wear some sort of
red-colored clothing, approach the polling place on unicycles, or
whatever).

so it's your theory that shutting down early voting in democratic
counties while leaving them open in republican counties in no way
infringes on a voters rights?

No, I didn't say or mean that. The courts have held that a state may impose
just about any condition on voting it chooses so long as the condition is
uniform. In your example, shutting down the polls early happens every four
years in a little town in Maine where every registered voter in the ENTIRE
town votes shortly after midnight on election day. I think there are
something like eleven people in the whole burg!


of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering
with that act is surely constitutional

Exactly.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Because the courts have long recognized that voting is, in the main,
a POLITICAL matter, not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. The court tries,
sometimes without success, to avoid meddling in political disputes.

For example, the Indiana case before the Supreme Court on the state
requiring a photo ID, ignored any "undue burden" argument, which
would have made the case a constitutional one. In essence, the court
said a state may impose almost any requirement on voters that it
deems proper (i.e., requiring voters to wear some sort of
red-colored clothing, approach the polling place on unicycles, or
whatever).

so it's your theory that shutting down early voting in democratic
counties while leaving them open in republican counties in no way
infringes on a voters rights?

No, I didn't say or mean that. The courts have held that a state may impose
just about any condition on voting it chooses so long as the condition is
uniform. In your example, shutting down the polls early happens every four
years in a little town in Maine where every registered voter in the ENTIRE
town votes shortly after midnight on election day. I think there are
something like eleven people in the whole burg!

In the case I cited, the conditions were not uniform, so I wondered why a repub
sec of state in a state with a repub legislature didn't find the SoS to be in
violation of his duties and immediately remove him from office or at least cite
him for violating the civil rights of those fine citizens in the democratic
counties





of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering
with that act is surely constitutional

Exactly.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering with that
act
is surely constitutional

I wonder if there is a constitutional protection for something that
really isn't required by the constitution. That is voting on 11-6 this
year is the only required part.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering with that
act
is surely constitutional

I wonder if there is a constitutional protection for something that
really isn't required by the constitution. That is voting on 11-6 this
year is the only required part.

If I understand something I heard on network news the other day, even that is up
to the state, but seldom changed

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering with
that
act
is surely constitutional

I wonder if there is a constitutional protection for something that
really isn't required by the constitution. That is voting on 11-6 this
year is the only required part.

If I understand something I heard on network news the other day, even that is
up
to the state, but seldom changed
They were wrong. 2 US Code is the general area that we are discussing
in terms of the Presidential election. It says real clearly that the
election has to be Tue after the first monday. They could probably mess
with state races, but the Pres has to go off on schedule and the only
thing that can change it is an Act of Congress.

2 USC § 7 - Time of election
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe