One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
For anyone confused...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 next>>
Mar 14, 2019 01:43:49   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
What always gives me a grin about conservatives is that they are so ashamed of their own history that they will adopt liberal ideals and actions as their own all while denouncing what would be typical conservative behavior of the time. In today's conservatives mind, they are the abolitionists all while not understanding that as conservatives--by definition--they are tasked to maintaining status quo thus would be the Southern plantation owner--or siding with such--who were in a fight for their way of life.

JW and I got in this very debate several weeks ago where he took the position that historically conservatives were the ones who were progressive and were responsible for pushing for change throughout the history of this country. According to JW, conservatives thumbed your noses as status quo--at tradition--and instead stood up for change whether in the creation of this country, the civil war and freeing of the slaves, standing against Jim Crow laws, standing FOR workers rights and child labor laws. Standing for women's rights etc, etc, etc.

Now I understand why JW is taking the position that he is taking--if he didn't then he would have to admit that historically conservatives were the racists and the bigots...and the ones who were trying to maintain racism and bigotry as a tradition in this country then...and today.

And as our countries number one bigot likes to say...that's just sad...



| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:10:16   #
JW (a regular here)
 
The only one confused, Pete, is you... if historical revisionism can be called confusion.

The fact is, Lincoln was a Republican, Booth was a Democrat. It was Republicans who attempted to end slavery. It was Republicans who stopped its spread.

The KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party. I believe is was Strom Thurmond who said that it was not possible for person to be elected to the Democrat caucus in Washington unless he was a member of the KKK. Bill Clinton, in honoring him, stated the same except he said it was also a requirement for dog catcher, that to be elected to anything as a Democrat in those days, one had to be a member in good standing of the KKK. He is noted for making the longest filibuster in Congressional history. In 1957, he spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes, expounding on the dangers of the Communist Civil Rights movement and the damage it was doing to the country. He remained a member of the KKK until he switched parties in 1964. If it is true that his membership in the KKK was nothing more than a pragmatic act, his switching parties would have been the same, an act of political convenience.

All the way up to LBJ, Democrats fought equality legislation for African-Americans.

The Liberal/Conservative fiction the Left has concocted in order to subvert the facts of history is as phony as everything else the Left pretends to believe in. Like Thurmond, Wallace and LBJ, whatever is convenient must be best answer.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:14:53   #
JW (a regular here)
 
If you want to understand the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, in a nutshell, it is this; Conservatives seek to function within the law; Liberals seek to force the law to function as they desire.

Thus, has it always been.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:23:16   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
The only one confused, Pete, is you... if historical revisionism can be called confusion.

The fact is, Lincoln was a Republican, Booth was a Democrat. It was Republicans who attempted to end slavery. It was Republicans who stopped its spread.

The KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party. I believe is was Strom Thurmond who said that it was not possible for person to be elected to the Democrat caucus in Washington unless he was a member of the KKK. Bill Clinton, in honoring him, stated the same except he said it was also a requirement for dog catcher, that to be elected to anything as a Democrat in those days, one had to be a member in good standing of the KKK. He is noted for making the longest filibuster in Congressional history. In 1957, he spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes, expounding on the dangers of the Communist Civil Rights movement and the damage it was doing to the country. He remained a member of the KKK until he switched parties in 1964. If it is true that his membership in the KKK was nothing more than a pragmatic act, his switching parties would have been the same, an act of political convenience.

All the way up to LBJ, Democrats fought equality legislation for African-Americans.

The Liberal/Conservative fiction the Left has concocted in order to subvert the facts of history is as phony as everything else the Left pretends to believe in. Like Thurmond, Wallace and LBJ, whatever is convenient must be best answer.
The only one confused, Pete, is you... if historic... (show quote)


http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

https://www.chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2010/05/20/when-and-to-an-extent-why-did-the-parties-switch-places/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

http://factmyth.com/a-summary-of-how-the-major-parties-switched/

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:29:53   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
If you want to understand the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, in a nutshell, it is this; Conservatives seek to function within the law; Liberals seek to force the law to function as they desire.

Thus, has it always been.


Interesting conclusion, so voter caging is functioning within the law? Why is it that the courts didn't see it that way then?

Wikipedia wrote:
Legality
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) has been interpreted to prohibit voter caging:

"Pursuant to the NVRA, a voter may not be removed from the voters list unless (1) the voter has requested removal; (2) state law requires removal by reason of criminal conviction or mental capacity; (3) the voter has confirmed in writing that he has moved outside the jurisdiction maintaining the specific voter list, or (4) the voter both (a) has failed to respond to a cancellation notice issued pursuant to the NVRA and (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in the two federal general elections following the date of notice."[4]

Voter caging may thus be legal if the primary purpose is to identify those who are not properly registered to vote and to prevent them from voting illegally but not if the primary purpose is to disenfranchise legitimately registered voters on the basis of a technicality.

In January 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Husted v. Randolph Institute, a legal challenge to Ohio voter caging laws. The Court upheld Ohio's list-maintenance practice in a 5–4 decision issued in June 2018.
Legality br Section 8 of the National Voter Regist... (show quote)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:30:06   #
| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:31:41   #
JW (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging


Because the law has certain requirements for voting and some people who shouldn't, try! Answer to part two, because the courts are packed with people who try to make the law function within their dimensions.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:34:46   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/big-switch-big-lie/


Interesting, then how is it that prior to the switch, Democrats held the south and Republicans held the north and around the 60's it did a full 180?

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:37:39   #
JW (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Interesting, then how is it that prior to the switch, Democrats held the south and Republicans held the north and around the 60's it did a full 180?


See the link I provided above if you really care... and it wasn't a switch.

The short answer is that the regional demographics changed. A lot of business moved south and so did their employees.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:46:48   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
Because the law has certain requirements for voting and some people who shouldn't, try! Answer to part two, because the courts are packed with people who try to make the law function within their dimensions.


Read this part a bit closer,

"Legality
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) has been interpreted to prohibit voter caging:".

And this part as well,

""Pursuant to the NVRA, a voter may not be removed from the voters list unless (1) the voter has requested removal; (2) state law requires removal by reason of criminal conviction or mental capacity; (3) the voter has confirmed in writing that he has moved outside the jurisdiction maintaining the specific voter list, or (4) the voter both (a) has failed to respond to a cancellation notice issued pursuant to the NVRA and (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in the two federal general elections following the date of notice."[4]"

Yet the Republican party has several times tried to do this "voter caging" even though they knew full well that it was illegal.


Prior to 1993 (BEFORE the NVRA, when it still was not deemed illegal)

Wikipedia wrote:
1980s
See also: Ballot Security Task Force
In 1981 and 1986, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. The violation of the Voting Rights Act got the RNC taken to court by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). As a result of the case, the RNC entered a consent decree, which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities from conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."[5]

The RNC sent letters to predominantly-black neighborhoods in New Jersey in 1981. When 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC then sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime. The effect was to suppress or intimidate black voters.

In Louisiana in 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, mostly black, removed from the rolls when a party mailer was returned. Again, the action was challenged and dismissed. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or from conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."
1980s br See also: Ballot Security Task Force br I... (show quote)


AFTER 1993 (AFTER NVRA, when it WAS deemed illegal)

Wikipedia wrote:
2004 elections
BBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:

V. Pre Election Day Operations New Registration Mailing
At whatever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive voters. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the voter rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to vote.[6][7]

Shortly before the 2004 election, Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained many blacks and registered Democrats. The list was attached to an email that a Florida Republican Party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin.[7][8][9]

The Republican National Committee also sent letters to minority areas in Cleveland, Ohio. When 35,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the party employed poll watchers to challenge the voters' right to vote. Civil liberties groups challenged the RNC in a case that went to the Supreme Court, but the RNC was not stopped from challenging the voters.[10]

Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters to minority areas in mostly-black Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it hoped to cage voters there in the Democrat stronghold.[5]

Journalists have found evidence that the RNC had also attempted to use voter caging to suppress or intimidate voters in states such as New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. For example, New Jersey RNC officials used caging lists to challenge absentee ballots and absentee ballot requests.[10]
2004 elections br BBC journalist Greg Palast obtai... (show quote)


Wikipedia wrote:
2008 elections
As noted earlier, the Republican Secretary of State in Michigan was found purging voters from voting rolls when voter ID cards were returned as undeliverable. In the court challenge, the federal judge ordered the state to reinstate the voters.[11] The judge ruled that the state's actions were in violation of the NVRA. His decision noted that there was no way to prevent qualified voters from being disfranchised as their cards may be returned as undeliverable by postal error, clerical error, inadvertent routing within a multi-unit dwelling, or even simple misspelling or transposition of numbers in an address.[12] In December 2007, Kansas Republican Chair Kris Kobach sent an email boasting that "to date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!"[13] Republicans sent out fundraising mailers to voters in five Florida counties: Duval, Hillsborough, Collier, Miami-Dade and Escambia, with 'do not forward' on the letters. The mailers included inaccurate voter ID numbers and ostensibly confirmed with voters they were registered as Republican. The RNC declined to discuss the mailer with the St. Petersburg Times. A representative denied that the mailing had anything to do with caging. Two top Florida elections officials, both Republicans, faulted the Republican mailing, calling it "confusing" and "unfortunate" because of a potential to undermine voter confidence by making them question the accuracy of their registrations." Some officials expressed concern that the RNC would try to use a caging list derived from the mailers.[14] In Northern California, reports of voter caging emerged when letters marked 'do not forward' were sent to Democrats with fake voter ID numbers. The description of the letters matches the letters that were sent out in Florida.[15] See the caging letter that was sent out here. Many details on the letters were false; for example, the letters referred to a Voter Identification Division, but RNC personnel said they had no such department. The RNC did not return calls from a news organization regarding the letters. On October 5, 2008 the Republican (but elected on the Democratic ticket) Lieutenant Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties that trend Democratic. The purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers.[16] Terri Lynn Land, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was found to be purging thousands of voters from voting rolls based on Voter ID cards being returned as undeliverable.[11] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took Michigan to court over the purges. Judge Stephen J. Murphy ruled the purge illegal under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and directed Land to reinstate the affected voters. (See full ruling here [17]). The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread voter purges, which could have impacted the 2008 elections. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states in handling voter registrations and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running elections. Neither party was singled out, but because the Democratic Party registered more new voters this year, Democratic voters were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.[18]
2008 elections br As noted earlier, the Republican... (show quote)


Wikipedia wrote:
2013: RNC v. DNC retention of consent decree
In the years since the original 1982 consent decree on voter caging, a series of suits and countersuits between the RNC and the DNC as well as civil rights groups and labor unions ensued. The RNC would attempt to have the consent decree lifted and other parties would attempt to have the decree enforced in specific cases in which the plaintiffs would allege the RNC was in violation of the decree. In November 2008, the RNC sought to have the consent decree lifted in the U.S. District Court in Newark (Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee). Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise rejected the effort, and his ruling was upheld by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals.[19] The Third Circuit ruling found, "It is not in the public interest to vacate the decree." It also stated, "If the RNC does not hope to engage in conduct that would violate the Decree, it is puzzling that the RNC is pursuing vacatur so vigorously notwithstanding the District Court's significant modifications to the Decree." [19] The RNC then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of the Third Circuit ruling; the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Third Circuit ruling to stand as legally binding.[20]
2013: RNC v. DNC retention of consent decree br In... (show quote)


Wikipedia wrote:
2016: No new violation established
"On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election," according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
2016: No new violation established br "On Oct... (show quote)


Note: the case was thrown out due to insufficient evidence, that is not to say there wasn't evidence, just that it was deemed insufficient to fully support the claim.

Wikipedia wrote:
2016: Indiana voter purges

In 2016, Indiana came under lawsuit for using software to purge voters that was described as "99% inaccurate".[21]


Yes, I stand corrected, the Republican party would NEVER do ANYTHING illegal, especially over and over again.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 02:51:27   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
See the link I provided above if you really care... and it wasn't a switch.

The short answer is that the regional demographics changed. A lot of business moved south and so did their employees.


I read what little was on the link you provided, I tend not to watch the videos of the right, I am much more tolerant of hate I read than hate I hear, "conservative" videos tend to be too hate filled for my tastes. Now if you have any sources that I can read and not have to listen to the hate, I would be glad to give them a quick perusal.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:03:16   #
lindajoy (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging


Must respectively disagree with your summation~~if voters want to vote then they should vote or at least send change of address so the new location is updated... It isn’t the governments responsibility to keep up your voting records its yours..

Supreme Court’s conservative justices uphold Ohio’s voter purge system...
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, other states plan to follow Ohio’s lead on voter purges... The real issue was voter suppression...
So what is Ohio’s voter purge system? It’s a means of removing voter registrations that the state feels are outdated from its rolls, forcing someone to have to register once again to vote. Anytime you move you are required to notify the property division relative to your change of address so your new registration card can be sent to you for voting later.~~

Ohio uses a multi-step approach to do this: First, it waits for someone to not vote for two years. Then it mails them a prepaid return card to make sure the would-be voter still lives at the same address. If the state does not get the card back and the person does not vote in any election for four more years, the state assumes the person has moved and removes the person’s voter registration from the rolls, citing a change of residence.

Opponents of the system argue that it violates the federal National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act, which restrict a state from removing someone from the rolls just because the person failed to vote...What if they died or moved out state?? Purging is necessary now more than ever too!!

The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s system for purging voters from the rolls.

The Court split 5-4 along partisan lines, with the five conservative-leaning justices, in a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, upholding the system and the four liberal-leaning justices opposing it. The ruling focused in large part on technical interpretations of federal voting laws, although the argument underlying Ohio’s system is, in fact, a much bigger one about voter suppression.
The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s voter purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of voting as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not voting is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law...

Here, just read this should you wish..

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17448742/ohio-voter-purge-supreme-court-ruling

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:16:54   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
lindajoy wrote:
Must respectively disagree with your summation~~if voters want to vote then they should vote or at least send change of address so the new location is updated... It isn’t the governments responsibility to keep up your voting records its yours..

Supreme Court’s conservative justices uphold Ohio’s voter purge system...
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, other states plan to follow Ohio’s lead on voter purges... The real issue was voter suppression...
So what is Ohio’s voter purge system? It’s a means of removing voter registrations that the state feels are outdated from its rolls, forcing someone to have to register once again to vote. Anytime you move you are required to notify the property division relative to your change of address so your new registration card can be sent to you for voting later.~~

Ohio uses a multi-step approach to do this: First, it waits for someone to not vote for two years. Then it mails them a prepaid return card to make sure the would-be voter still lives at the same address. If the state does not get the card back and the person does not vote in any election for four more years, the state assumes the person has moved and removes the person’s voter registration from the rolls, citing a change of residence.

Opponents of the system argue that it violates the federal National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act, which restrict a state from removing someone from the rolls just because the person failed to vote...What if they died or moved out state?? Purging is necessary now more than ever too!!

The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s system for purging voters from the rolls.

The Court split 5-4 along partisan lines, with the five conservative-leaning justices, in a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, upholding the system and the four liberal-leaning justices opposing it. The ruling focused in large part on technical interpretations of federal voting laws, although the argument underlying Ohio’s system is, in fact, a much bigger one about voter suppression.
The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s voter purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of voting as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not voting is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law...

Here, just read this should you wish..

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17448742/ohio-voter-purge-supreme-court-ruling
Must respectively disagree with your summation~~if... (show quote)


Yes, Ohio did do it the right way and for the right reasons, the Republican party did not, they deliberately targeted those they figured would vote Democratic, it was a deliberate attempt to suppress Democratic votes. That is what made it "voter caging" and therefore was ILLEGAL. Did you read the Quotes I posted, read the details? They weren't trying to clean voter registration rolls, they were trying to invalidate prospective Democratic votes, they did not verify whether the registered voters voted in the last two years, they didn't send to all neighborhoods in the districts, they specifically targeted Democratic voting blocks. You can say what you like but that is dirty pool.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:17:54   #
lindajoy (a regular here)
 
A bit more that may shed more light on the issue~~

Voter purging
Voter registration lists, also called voter rolls, are the gateway to voting because a citizen typically cannot cast a vote that will count unless his or her name appears on the voter registration rolls. State and local officials regularly remove—or purge—citizens from voter rolls. In fact, 39 states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million voters from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006.[8]

Why purges are done
Purges, if done properly, are a means to ensure that voter rolls are dependable, accurate, and up-to-date. Precise and carefully conducted purges can remove duplicate names and people who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible.

Problems with purging
Purging creates a problem when an eligible, registered citizen shows up to vote and discovers that his or her name has been removed from the voter list. Different states exercise very different practices as to how they maintain their voter rolls. Some critics of the process, such as the Brennan Center for Justice, maintain that sometimes the process is "shrouded in secrecy, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation.

Remedies for wrongful purging
In 2002, Congress mandated that all states enact the Help America Vote Act to help fix some of the problems faced in the 2000 elections. HAVA requires persons who claim to be registered to vote in a federal election in a jurisdiction, but are not on the voter registration list or are otherwise alleged to be ineligible to vote, be offered and permitted to cast a provisional, or paper, ballot. This provisional ballot would then be verified and counted after the election. In the 2004 election, 1.6 million provisional ballots were cast, and over 1 million were counted. Seventy percent of provisional ballots cast in states that allow provisional ballots to be cast in the proper jurisdiction were counted as valid. In states requiring that provisional ballots be cast in the proper precinct, 62 percent were counted....

*****Voter purging news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Voter purging caging. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles...

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:18:32   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
lindajoy wrote:
A bit more that may shed more light on the issue~~

Voter purging
Voter registration lists, also called voter rolls, are the gateway to voting because a citizen typically cannot cast a vote that will count unless his or her name appears on the voter registration rolls. State and local officials regularly remove—or purge—citizens from voter rolls. In fact, 39 states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million voters from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006.[8]

Why purges are done
Purges, if done properly, are a means to ensure that voter rolls are dependable, accurate, and up-to-date. Precise and carefully conducted purges can remove duplicate names and people who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible.

Problems with purging
Purging creates a problem when an eligible, registered citizen shows up to vote and discovers that his or her name has been removed from the voter list. Different states exercise very different practices as to how they maintain their voter rolls. Some critics of the process, such as the Brennan Center for Justice, maintain that sometimes the process is "shrouded in secrecy, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation.

Remedies for wrongful purging
In 2002, Congress mandated that all states enact the Help America Vote Act to help fix some of the problems faced in the 2000 elections. HAVA requires persons who claim to be registered to vote in a federal election in a jurisdiction, but are not on the voter registration list or are otherwise alleged to be ineligible to vote, be offered and permitted to cast a provisional, or paper, ballot. This provisional ballot would then be verified and counted after the election. In the 2004 election, 1.6 million provisional ballots were cast, and over 1 million were counted. Seventy percent of provisional ballots cast in states that allow provisional ballots to be cast in the proper jurisdiction were counted as valid. In states requiring that provisional ballots be cast in the proper precinct, 62 percent were counted....

*****Voter purging news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Voter purging caging. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles...
A bit more that may shed more light on the issue~~... (show quote)


Read my above reply.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.