The difference, which @baseballcrank well knows as a capable lawyer, is that the DC government is responding to a harm to indigenous residents. In this case, there is no harm--there is just as @LemieuxLGM shows, a pretextual motive to create a barrier to voting for some citizens.https://twitter.com/LemieuxLGM/status/1370850308172042240 …
-
-
Likewise the conservative lie that a voter problem of statistical significance exists (it doesn’t) and b) that their support of these measures isn’t motivated out of desire to restrict voting. Do I need to remind you of the Buckley interview?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Broader context in which the GOP in many states has tried to outlaw Sunday voting and similar obvious efforts to hinder minority/Democratic voters, misinformation about voter fraud (and support an openly bigoted demagogue who tried to overturn an election) is.... relevant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My personal entry ticket to this dialogue is specific evidence that conservative interlocutors are actively opposing measures such as barring Sunday voting and other blatant efforts to reverse engineer (so as to hinder) minority voting. There is a long+real history here,
-
Right. Voter ID requirements that were part of legislative initiatives to expand access to the ballot would be different than the actually existing ones that are generally part of a suite of vote suppression measures, most of which don't even theoretically reduce fraud
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But Dan—you have stipulated that voter fraud isn’t a significant public harm. So whst is the *public policy purpose* of the aggressive efforts here the GOP has taken since 2011? The burden is on conservatives/R party officials to justify these efforts. Why do this?
-
So, you reject the concern as a matter of principle, or you accept the legitimacy but insist that government may do nothing to advance it? Answer or there is no point in going further.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Again, the universal vote-by-mail systems that Congress is seeking to make national require voters to be registered and to vote where they're registered and have relevant security measures. The disagreement is not about the principle but about specific vote suppression measures.
-
Exactly. Dan opposes voting by mail exceot as an exception. If you have a free article to get behind NRs paywall, it’s worth reading because he writes good polemical briefs. But the overall logic is somehow to take the onus away from the right for undertaking this massive effort.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.