American Vet

agatemaggot Loc: waterloo iowa

This all happened 4 years BEFORE he volunteered to work for Trump ? Thousands of people jump on the band wagon each and every election year and I for one can not understand how they missed this detail on the background check I am sure they run on each one of them !
I have a bad back from the hard labor I performed during the 77 years I have spent on this Earth so do me a favor and climb up on that TDS soap box your carrying around and I won't have to bend over to kiss your sorry little ________________ fill in the blank somebody !

Auntie Dee

I agree that probably the last thing a person thinks about when moving is to change their voting registration, at least until that person wants to vote in a particular election and re-registers in his new location! That is an easy one!

As to deaths not being removed from voter rolls, that should NEVER happen. Believe you me when someone dies a bank knows about that within days and it's not because they read obits! There are data bases out their in probably every municipality that records deaths, also Social Security. Voter rolls should be automatically updated probably at least monthly via a data base to remove deceased persons from the rollls. WHY is that not happening?? Why do you hear of cases of someone who passed 8, 10, 12 years ago still voting?? Not hard to figure that one out!!

Auntie Dee

This is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of a mis-leading headline and FAKE NEWS regarding President Trump!! This man was NOT A TRUMP STAFFER, (written so as to make you believe he was on Trumps White House Staff)!

He was a local Michigan campaign staffer. The campaign did NOT even involve any election that had anything at all to do with Donald Trump, it was a Judicial election!! He had previously been involved in some other mis-doing in a local election and should have NEVER EVEN been hired by any political campaign!!

DIRTY YELLOW JOURNALISM at it's worse! Did you even read the article or just rely on the headline?? Your own insinuation about his being on Trump's staff is equally bad!!

Navigator

I thought you had half a brain, maybe I'm wrong. If you fail to see how several million Gerry Palooka's still registered where they used to live are not a set-up for many corrupt party operatives who know Gerry is registered but not present to go or send someone else to the polls in that district where voter ID is not required and vote as Gerry, then you have no right to comment on anything as you have no ability to reason or use logic.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Gee, sounds like a real plot..

In my neck of the woods. after we are registered, ID needed bty.. a large book, literally, is used with each voter name in it.. while we are known to the workers on sight.. but action is to come in tell the person with book you are john smith or whoever you are, address etc.. they find you in the book mark it off as having voted. If some else comes along claiming to be john smith.. he would not get to vote, what else may happen I have no idea.. it has never happened.

Need to add for you, that both parties and at least one independent have observers at the polls and I can not picture an extra vote being made via the situation you describe..

Never been found to be any sort of effect on any election..

Now, picture if you will the law that makes it difficult or impossible for 15,000 voters of a particular social group to reach the poll or to register or to vote..

which do you think is a more realistic concern?? Try to see the fact as you debate this in your mind..

WEBCO

He couldn't file a report, because many cities and states wouldn't give their voting records to the commission.
If you can't get the data you can't tell if it's a problem or not.

WEBCO

Then why do democrats always say that purging voter records is "Voter Suppression?"
How hard is it to vote, really? I say make it over a 2 or 3 day period. Show ID and vote. Allow people to request absentee ballots for valid reasons. Check and purge voting records every year.

bggamers Loc: georgia

Very good ideas

American Vet

I certainly agree with your suggestion; but would add make on of the 3 days a week end day.

agatemaggot Loc: waterloo iowa

YUP !

Navigator

Voting where I am is quite different. First of all, several thousand people vote at my polling place and in 40 years of voting there I have never once recognized a single one of the poll workers, or as a matter of fact, anyone voting at the same time I was voting when there have always been dozens of people voting. ID is not only not required, if you try to produce it as I tried several years ago you are asked to please put the ID away as it is not required. As long as I had not already shown up to vote, ANYONE could have come in, said they were me, verified that the name and address listed in the book is who I am, and voted. If I then showed up later to vote, there would have been a kerfuffle. If however I had moved out of state or died, no problem, another fraudulent vote. Other than requiring voting on the Sabbath, I would like you to name me ONE existent law that can be considered by any honest, logical person that would prevent one social, ethnic, religious or any other kind of group from voting more than any other social, ethnic or religious group.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The NC law is easy to find and had a lot of publicity... find others if you wish.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again declined to reinstate North Carolina's strict voter ID law, which was struck down last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to stop African-Americans from voting.

The nation's highest court refused to consider an appeal by North Carolina Republicans, NPR's Pam Fessler reports.

Block The Vote: A Journalist Discusses Voting Rights And Restrictions
POLITICS
Block The Vote: A Journalist Discusses Voting Rights And Restrictions
"Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the court's refusal to consider an appeal did not signify an opinion on the merits of the case," Fessler says.

It's not the first time the Supreme Court has considered an appeal over the voter ID law, which was one of the country's strictest. It was put in place after the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, clearing the way for states with a history of discrimination to craft new voting laws without federal oversight.

Navigator

The federal district court found this law to be just fine. The fact that the left wing appellate court disagreed does not make it true. The supreme court declined to rule on the case but made it clear its disinclination was not a comment on the merits of the case. This is what the law was written to end: "... in 2000, state lawmakers opened up an early voting period. In 2005, they said voters could cast ballots outside their assigned precinct. And in 2007, they enabled same-day registration...". The law also mandated voter ID. The appellate court came to the absurd conclusion that b/c studies showed black voters took advantage of the
things that the law would eliminate at a higher rate, their elimination would be an impediment to blacks voting. I agree wholeheartedly with the district judge. Nothing in the law would prevent a black person more than a white person from voting in his own district, on election day or some time after registering to vote. This logic is like saying blacks aren't going to be able to pay their electric bill b/c they used online bill paying 15% more than whites if the electric company eliminates on-line bill pay and mandates mail-in credit card or check payments or in-person cash payments.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The law was undone and the appeal was lost.. that is a fact..

try and understand what a fact is.. not a wish not a dream.. you right wing yo-yos must learn that..