So, it's NOT really about stopping "election fraud"?

[StarfishSaver]

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Voter fraud myth a Trojan Horse for voter suppression

Seven years after Shelby, in the midst of the most important election of our lifetimes, something interesting has happened. The people who insisted they must impose draconian measures to stop the imaginary voter fraud are revealing their true purpose had nothing to do with any concern about fraudulent voting.

In Alabama, the secretary of state has prohibited local election officials from implementing – even if they want to – curbside or "drive-thru" voting, which allows voters avoid exposing themselves to large crowds by casting their ballots from their cars at polling sites. In North Carolina, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Trump, his campaign and operatives have gone to court to stop the states from accommodating challenges of the pandemic and handcuffing of the U.S. Postal Service by allowing a reasonable amount of time beyond customary deadlines to accept and count absentee ballots where a voter has postmarked and mailed them on time.
...
In Pennsylvania, Texas, and right here in Ohio, the Trump campaign and Republican Party are fighting tooth and nail to prevent boards of elections from placing more than one ballot drop box per county, forcing anyone who wants to vote early, but doesn’t trust mailing their ballot, to travel sometimes for dozens of miles and more and wait in long car lines just to deliver their ballot to the polling place. And Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has gone so far as to issue an executive order prohibiting the state from placing more than one box per county, leading to the untenable situation in which certain populous (and, not surprisingly, largely minority) counties are limited to one drop box for millions of voters.
...
What do all of these actions have in common? Not one of them involves any attempt to prevent ineligible voters from voting. To the contrary, every one of these cases is a head-on attempt to restrict the voting rights of eligible voters by either making it more difficult – and in many cases, impossible – for them to cast their vote, or by throwing out their legally-cast ballot based on meaningless procedural technicalities. None of these measures will reduce the likelihood of the mythical "voter fraud." They will, however, increase the likelihood that legally-cast ballots by registered, eligible citizens won’t be counted. And these actions will have a disproportionate impact on low-income, elderly and minority voters.

But let’s also not be discouraged by any this. Be empowered. There is a reason there is such a massive effort to stop our vote. It is proof that our vote matters. If it didn’t, there would not be such a concerted effort to block it. Remember, they can bluster and sue and block all they want. They will never be a match for a determined voter with the U.S. Constitution on our side.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2020/10/29/opinion-voter-fraud-myth-trojan-horse-voter-suppression/6054409002/

[BComplex]

1. Laws need to be implemented that say there needs to be a certain # of drop boxes

per population in any given area.

[StarfishSaver]

2. True. And they need to do something about this ""received by" deadlines

Someone make a great point yesterday: When you get in line before the polls close, you can still vote after closing time - but when you put your ballot in the mail before the deadline but delays you have no control over keep it from being delivered before election night.

[spanone]

3. It's about stopping Voters.

[Wounded Bear]

4. We need a new Voting Rights Act that covers this shit...

one that isn't constrained to "some" states with a history or something, which is what tripped up the previous one.

Nope, pass legislation that applies to all 50 states requiring equitable locations of voting locales, authorizes mail-in voting, required a paper ballot or other permanent, non-electronic record that can be used in audits, etc.

I'm sure I've missed some things, but y'all get the idea.

[BComplex]

5. That's for sure!

There needs to be a LOT of new laws passed. If trump hasn't taught us anything else, it's how many holes we have in our system that a dictator could slip through.

[StarfishSaver]

6. A Voting Rights Act CAN'T cover all 50 states - that would make it unconstitutional

Yes, it sounds weird. But laws that use race as consideration for remedial action must be "narrowly tailored" to the problem - i.e., they can't apply to everyone and every place or they violate the Equal Protection Clause - the same reason it can't be permanent but has to be reauthorized every few years. That's why the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act had to be specifically targeted to states and jurisdiction with a demonstrated record of discrimination. The problem wasn't that it didn't apply everywhere but that the court said the formula Congress used to determine were it applied was improperly developed.

But you're right - a federal law can require that certain measures be employed uniformly across the country - but that should be done in legislation separate from a Voting Rights Act intended to root out racial discrimination in voting. It could be part of an amended and updated HAVA law or in a separate bill.

It's kind of complicated, but I hope you get the point. If I have time, I can provide you some more information to read to help it make more sense.

[Wounded Bear]

7. What I proposed says nothing about race...

All a new VRA would say is that voting access has to be equal by geography and population distribution, regardless of race. One area cannot have easier access than another.

[StarfishSaver]

8. The 1965 Voting Rights Act is based on race

If you're talking about separate legislation unrelated to the purpose and goals of the original VRA and includes no provisions for remedying racial discrimination in voting, it can be nationwide. But the pre-clearance of the 1965 VRA are necessarily based on proof of intentional discrimination
and disparate racial impact, and, thus, can't be applied nationwide.

[Wounded Bear]

9. You keep harping on that, and it's not what I proposed...

The law I'm proposing would demand equitable distribution of voting access by geography and population density, nothing to do with race. Any situation that requires people waiting for hours in line would be illegal, as it should be. Paper ballots, ability to audit if necessary. Simple basic national standards for every state, everywhere.

A 2020 Voting Rights Act doesn't have to have much to do with the 1965 law.

[StarfishSaver]

11. It has nothing to do with the 1965 voting rights act, it should be called a different name

Calling it a Voting Rights Act would not only cause confusion - since the 1965 Voting.Rights Act is still in place - it would also provoke considerable resentment given historical and cultural significance of the VRA.

The VRA is actually the implementing legislation of the 15th Amendment, which prohibits infringement of voting rights on the basis of race. What you propose is really good, But it's not really voting rights act , since while it would make voting easier and fairer, it doesn't actually protect any right to vote. It's more akin to HAVA.

[Wounded Bear]

12. Fine, call it Fred for all I care...

[StarfishSaver]

13. Works for me...

[Hortensis]

10. Yeah. The last thing THEY want is to stop election fraud.

Tomorrow greater numbers of Republicans get to stand in the long lines they created. Hope they hate it, maybe a few even skip it.