I agree that's not what they're trying to address. But I am saying that the law inadvertently blocks a form of fraud, and that's a good thing. It also doesn't prevent the non-existent box stuffing it was written to combat either, and I'm good with that. The worst I can say about it is that it inconveniences people and/or requires them to get a stamp, and I agree those are negatives. I've already talked about one way to mitigate that problem; another would be free postage on ballots, if the state legislature is willing to pass that.
"Inconvenience" is not how I'd describe the barriers when we're told the area is nowhere near a post office, doesn't have at-home mail service, and doesn't have cars.
Again, the law would be wildly overbroad for the hypothetical problem you're posing. It's like saying let's address problems with health care by means of mass suicide.
More to the point, it's saying that the benefit of officially suppressing a minority population's vote under color of government authority is that it's less likely that the occasional rando will suppress their votes by means of actions that are probably already unlawful under other laws.
I get where you're trying to go with this but it's a bad premise. You did not start with "laws that prevent real problems of unlawful voter suppression and fraud are not necessarily bad." You expressly pointed to the Arizona law and said "There is a way this sort of law is a good thing."
Assuming that just anybody can put up a ballot drop box because there's no specific law against it seems on par with "ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball." If that's not actually covered by other election laws, sure, make a specific law addressing it. It's not a good reason to defend or keep a law that arbitrarily makes it more difficult to vote in other ways.
All right, so, how would you construct the rule so as to disallow ballot boxes, but allow other people to drop off your ballot for you? I don't see a good way to thread this needle, because they're both cases of delegating ballot-delivery responsibilities to a party with no accountability.
Crying for Ms Fuentes.
Hopefully Ms Fuentes is no relation of Nick Fuentes.
Also anyone want to guess what Don Shooter's view on gun rights is?
I agree that's not what they're trying to address. But I am saying that the law inadvertently blocks a form of fraud, and that's a good thing. It also doesn't prevent the non-existent box stuffing it was written to combat either, and I'm good with that. The worst I can say about it is that it inconveniences people and/or requires them to get a stamp, and I agree those are negatives. I've already talked about one way to mitigate that problem; another would be free postage on ballots, if the state legislature is willing to pass that.
"Inconvenience" is not how I'd describe the barriers when we're told the area is nowhere near a post office, doesn't have at-home mail service, and doesn't have cars.
Again, the law would be wildly overbroad for the hypothetical problem you're posing. It's like saying let's address problems with health care by means of mass suicide.
More to the point, it's saying that the benefit of officially suppressing a minority population's vote under color of government authority is that it's less likely that the occasional rando will suppress their votes by means of actions that are probably already unlawful under other laws.
I get where you're trying to go with this but it's a bad premise. You did not start with "laws that prevent real problems of unlawful voter suppression and fraud are not necessarily bad." You expressly pointed to the Arizona law and said "There is a way this sort of law is a good thing."
Large portions of the tribal nations reservations are that way.
voter intimidation and controlling elections...
Which number on the Fascism Chart is that again?
and the grift goes on.....and the grift goes on.
Sidenote - Don Shooter was ousted from the lege, by a vote of his peers, for being a vile sex pest.
"If she warn't guilty, why wuz she arrested??, hngh?"
this is what happens when you have fascists on the Supreme Court.
Assuming that just anybody can put up a ballot drop box because there's no specific law against it seems on par with "ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball." If that's not actually covered by other election laws, sure, make a specific law addressing it. It's not a good reason to defend or keep a law that arbitrarily makes it more difficult to vote in other ways.
If elections simply cease to exist, I suppose they might lighten up a bit on their efforts to fuck them over--
All right, so, how would you construct the rule so as to disallow ballot boxes, but allow other people to drop off your ballot for you? I don't see a good way to thread this needle, because they're both cases of delegating ballot-delivery responsibilities to a party with no accountability.
can the governor pardon her? should deal with her inability to vote for the next 2 years
oops, shoulda read down.
Dude, no worries. The more the merrier.