121–130 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not intending to shame anybody. I sent them a letter encouraging them. Many people thanked me. Some said I changed their minds about sitting out the election.
Why even encourage them? Assuming that most of them will vote Democrat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Klan still exists, and I don't blame someone who lived through Jim Crow for retaining the fear, just as Depression-era folks often tend to scrimp and save despite nearly a century of relative economic stability.
Sure, fine, but most black people alive today did not live through the Jim Crow era. If the klan wants to terrorize black people, they don't need the voter rolls to do it. Go attack any random black family and the odds are good that you just attacked a family with at least one voter in it.
Jim Crow only formally ended a little over 50 years ago, and let's not pretend the folks enforcing it took that SCOTUS ruling and went "ooops, my bad, we'll be good now!" Racial disparities in things like policing, voter suppression, etc. all still exist. Many Southern jurisdictions were still under DOJ supervision until 2013, and probably still should be.
As with Depression-era folks, some of the fears and practices get passed down. There are folks with Scottish ancestors from the 1600s who do their weddings in kilts hundreds of years later; the idea that fear of Jim Crow can't be passed down is absurd.
> If the klan wants to terrorize black people, they don't need the voter rolls to do it.
It should be fairly obvious that it makes it significantly easier to suppress voting if you have a list of voters to specifically target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, fine, but most black people alive today did not live through the Jim Crow era. If the klan wants to terrorize black people, they don't need the voter rolls to do it. Go attack any random black family and the odds are good that you just attacked a family with at least one voter in it.
> Sure, fine, but most black people alive today did not live through the Jim Crow era. Jim Crow only formally ended a little over 50 years ago, and let's not pretend the folks enforcing it took that SCOTUS ruling and went "ooops, my bad, we'll be good now!" Racial disparities in things like policing, voter suppression, etc. all still exist. Many Southern jurisdictions were still under DOJ supervision until 2013, and…
And how many instances are there of that happening in the past, say, 20 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, fine, but most black people alive today did not live through the Jim Crow era. Jim Crow only formally ended a little over 50 years ago, and let's not pretend the folks enforcing it took that SCOTUS ruling and went "ooops, my bad, we'll be good now!" Racial disparities in things like policing, voter suppression, etc. all still exist. Many Southern jurisdictions were still under DOJ supervision until 2013, and…
> It should be fairly obvious that it makes it significantly easier to suppress voting if you have a list of voters to specifically target. And how many instances are there of that happening in the past, say, 20 years?
https://campaignlegal.org/update/rattling-vote-cage-part-ii
> Just prior to the 1990 general election, postcards were sent to over 100,000 black voters in the state. The sending of these postcards was financed directly by the North Carolina Republican Party and indirectly by Senator Helms’ reelection campaign. As I recall several thousand white voters were sent postcards as well. Information gathered by DOJ during its investigation showed that the voting precincts targeted to receive the postcard mailing were 94% black, overall.
> The postcard contained inaccurate information telling voters that they could not vote on Election Day if they did not reside at the address at which they were registered for the 30 days prior to the election. The postcard also suggested that any voter who did attempt to vote would be subject to federal prosecution.
This case wound up with a consent decree being put into place.
As for number of instances, I'm not sure how you'd possibly begin to quantify that. Most instances would result in no reporting whatsoever, those reported would be hard to prosecute (anonymous threatening calls, for example), etc. What's clear is intimidation/suppression attempts do still occur - it's trivial to find examples of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all states track a party affiliation (mine doesn't), but most of those that do do it to track voting in primaries.
I wish I understood why the state runs a primary election. That seems like it should be the responsibility of the party to decide who their nominee is. Should be their own rules, and cost
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The serious answer to this is a sort of echo of the root comment in this thread. Our legal system incorporates the understanding that laws can only be partially enforced. Imagine if robots in the sky automatically cited you for every single infraction . How often do you cross the street outside of a crosswalk? Exceed the speed limit by 1mph? Fail to signal a turn? Drive a block or two without fastening your seatbelt?…
An officer probably wouldn't have bothered to make the stop If I had a dollar for every DUI story I've heard that involved getting pulled over "a block from home" after rolling through a stop sign.. I don't necessarily disagree with your point but I've seen and been on the receiving end of what could only described as "bored cop"
If a cop suspects DUI, I want that driver pulled over even if they're entering their own driveway. "But I wasn't going to put any more people's lives in mortal danger by my recklessness tonight" is not a good argument. And keeping people from recklessly endangering others, whether by penalties that make them think twice or by taking their license, is one of the most basic reasons we have police at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An officer probably wouldn't have bothered to make the stop If I had a dollar for every DUI story I've heard that involved getting pulled over "a block from home" after rolling through a stop sign.. I don't necessarily disagree with your point but I've seen and been on the receiving end of what could only described as "bored cop"
> If I had a dollar for every DUI story I've heard that involved getting pulled over "a block from home" after rolling through a stop sign.. If a cop suspects DUI, I want that driver pulled over even if they're entering their own driveway. "But I wasn't going to put any more people's lives in mortal danger by my recklessness tonight " is not a good argument. And keeping people from recklessly endangering others, whet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of partisan bickering is exactly why I decided to get more involved.
I don’t follow.