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 …
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.
-
-
The “concern” has no empirical basis, and is thus in bad faith! The government should prioritize and address *actual public policy problems*, not contrived ones. This is not one—**as you have written.** Not me, not Scott, not Harold, not “the left”—you.
-
So, you do not acknowledge that it is ever legitimate to require voters to vote where eligible & registered, or you contend that it is literally impossible to do otherwise?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
In the same spirit as your last tweet, what are you personally doing to oppose+call out GOP efforts to outlaw Souls to the Polls and other blatantly strategic efforts to hinder minority voting that involve orders of magnitude more voters than any in-person fraud issue ever has?
-
In fairness to Dan, he does oppose that. He has written that.
- Show replies
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.