Incredibly Safe In-Person Voting in the time of Corona

Instead, republicans care a lot about the number of people (especially Demobcrats) that can and will vote. More precisely, they care about limiting the number of people (Democrats) voting...

 

I don't necessarily disagree - It could have been postponed and should have.


What you have here is conflicting protections between health and the right to vote.

 

If we have a seasonal wave of COVID hit in Oct-Nov of this year, watch how fast these liberals start advocating for the right to vote under any circumstances. They can complain about the Wisconsin primary because it's inconsequential... SCOTUS thankfully sees beyond that and protects the right to vote ALL THE TIME. Shocking to me that this wasn't a unanimous case.

 

Someone should have walked up to him and accidentally pulled his mask down.

 

Is delaying the vote or using mail-in ballots infringing on the right to vote? (I guess I should read the SC opinion?)

I'd argue asking people to risk their health in order to vote infringes on their right to vote.

 

Those are very much align. People want both. The decision was down to a 5-4 vote, straight down their political leaning. The court forcing people to choose between the two is infringing on their right to vote. Instead of a poll tax based on intelligence or on finance or on ability or on race, it’s on your health. Potentially the ultimate and most deadly form of “poll tax”.

 

Not the right to vote, because the Republicans were not defending the right to vote, if they were they would have postponed the election.

Let's say a hurricane had come and it was dangerous to go out to vote, obviously people aren't going to vote. Especially if 90% of the polling stations are closed. Why keep the election on that day? To defend the right to vote? Obviously not, it would be to win the election because turnout works against you.

These are the statements you make that reveal that you are a die-hard Republican pretending to be a moderate.

 

he at the very least should have provided voters the same protective equipment he wore

 

I give my neighbors in WI a lot of credit for making the most of a really bad situation and huge respect for those Wisconsinites who came out and voted even though they knew the risks.

For those who think this is fine though and it went well it wasn't even remotely close to fine. From what I'm hearing turnout in the Milwaukee area was 3% of eligible. For those thinking that we could just pull this election off with poll workers wearing PPE the problem is we don't have enough PPE and if the state is supplying Poll workers with PPE that means that health care professionals, first responders and others have less. Also PPE isn't a guarantee. It's unfortunate but true that most poll workers are elderly retirees. These are the people most at risk for COVID 19 and it's no accident that in many states, not just WI, there is a shortage of poll workers. It should be no surprise then that many of them dropped out rather than risking their lives.

 

I honestly wasn't attacking you personally. But this isn't one of those "let's live life as normal as possible" things. 5 of 108 polling locations in Milwaukee were open. This was a ploy by the WI GOP to drive numbers way down. There was nothing else behind it other than voter suppression. For their Speaker of the House to be standing there on camera saying it's safe while in full PPE is the height of jackassery.

 

Says the ******* who just voted by mail.

 

I was just pointing out the fact that this is conflicting protections.

Lets not forget that the Wisconsin SC came to the same conclusion and that they are elected in a generally Dem state. The SCOTUS simply came to the same conclusion.

I wouldn't have been against delaying it myself .... as we've rescheduled pretty much everything else including the nomination conventions and putting it off a couple months really has no consequences outside the possibility of local seats being vacant or extended in the mean time. Postponing was the common sense thing to do but the law doesn't possess common sense.


The ruling was that the Governor didn't have the authority himself to postpone the election.


Since that's the case - Who would have had the authority ? I cannot find a clear answer to that question from a Google search but did find that other states did postpone their elections and apparently the same argument was made in Ohio ... that the governor didn't have the authority to make the change.


Link

So did Wisconsin's state legislature fail here ? Seem's they could have solved the problem by making the change themselves.

 

WI legislature is majority Rep which prefer voter suppression. Ideally, they and the gov worked together to do the sensible thing. That didn't happen.

This isn't about the gov or anyone else right, it's about a pretty bedrock right - the right to vote. So I think the authority rest on the right to vote. I don't care who initiate the suit to protect that right. A health crisis with massive # of poll places shutdown is certainty infringing on that right.

 

And punched him square in his mouth.

 

Wow... its almost as if someone expected an honest protection of Wisconsin voters right to voting and a fair election process from, checking notes, the republican speaker of the Wisconsin assembly.

 

I'm not sure why I need to feel outraged over this even if it's annoying and confirms everyday political corruption.

WI voters are the ones that should do something, if not now, then committing to next time.

 

I think you are missing the fact that I'm not arguing what should have happened , more clarifying the courts did come to the right conclusion , even if it didn't end with the ideal or desired outcome.

We agree it should have been postponed and that the gov. and legislature should have gotten together to set a new date as well as the fact that many polling places being shut down .... just isn't right.


But .... the ruling was that the governor didn't have the authority to change / postpone on his own. That he had to get legislative branch approval for that. The ruling was about executive over reach by the Governor in Wisconsin.
Both the Wisconsin high court and the US high court agreed on that fact. This is an instance where you have to separate law from common sense - Both courts made the right ruling , that the governor didn't have that authority.

In Ohio the governor had sense enough to get with legislature and push their election back. In Wisconsin .... they didn't , couldn't or wouldn't.

This wasn't about the courts screwing up. They ruled on executive over reach , not if the election should continue or not.