06-05-2012, 06:55 AMGood men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
06-05-2012, 10:47 AM
Sec. 1973e Examination of applicants for registration
(a) Form of application; requisite allegation of nonregistration
The examiners for each political subdivision shall, at such places as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall by regulation designate, examine applicants concerning their qualifications for voting. An application to an examiner shall be in such form as the Director may require and shall contain allegations that the applicant is not otherwise registered to vote.
(b) Placement of eligible voters on official lists; transmittal of lists
Any person whom the examiner finds, in accordance with instructions received under section 1973g(b) of this title, to have the qualifications prescribed by State law not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States shall promptly be placed on a list of eligible voters. A challenge to such listing may be made in accordance with section 1973g(a) of this title and shall not be the basis for a prosecution under section 1973j of this title. The examiner shall certify and transmit such list, and any supplements as appropriate, at least once a month, to the offices of the appropriate election officials, with copies to the Attorney General and the attorney general of the State, and any such lists and supplements thereto transmitted during the month shall be available for public inspection on the last business day of the month and in any event not later than the forty-fifth day prior to any election. The appropriate State or local election official shall place such names on the official voting list. Any person whose name appears on the examiner's list shall be entitled and allowed to vote in the election district of his residence unless and until the appropriate election officials shall have been notified that such person has been removed from such list in accordance with subsection (d) of this section: Provided, That no person shall be entitled to vote in any election by virtue of subchapters I-A to I-C of this chapter unless his name shall have been certified and transmitted on such a list to the offices of the appropriate election officials at least forty-five days prior to such election.
(c) Certificate of eligibility
The examiner shall issue to each person whose name appears on such a list a certificate evidencing his eligibility to vote.
(d) Removal of names from list by examiners
A person whose name appears on such a list shall be removed therefrom by an examiner if (1) such person has been successfully challenged in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 1973g of this title, or (2) he has been determined by an examiner to have lost his eligibility to vote under State law not inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
In other words, the 1965 act authorizes the states to review the voting lists and remove ineligible voters. How about that? Now, once again, I as you to identify what part of the law Florida is violating? And please, try to refrain from invoking the Holocaust in your answer. We Jews find such casual equations offensive.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot...#anchor_1973fv. Please, cite the exact provisions that the Florida investigations is violating. Until you do that, you're just blowing smoke.
"Florida's Division of Elections said it is checking the citizenship of voters by comparing its databases with those of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which keeps track of whether a licensed driver is also a U.S. citizen." In other words, they did what is commonly known as due diligence by comparing databases. Nothing nefarious here, unless you object to them doing their job.
06-05-2012, 12:32 PM
Holy crap, what color is the pudding on your planet?
Don't these things always start with a 'LIST' and next comes the 'Checking of your papers' and lastly..well, you know.
That's pretty pathetic, Mr Spicoli.
06-05-2012, 05:11 PM
You forgot to answer a few questions...
I guess he's ditching the exam portion.
06-06-2012, 05:27 PM
- Join Date
- May 2012
This is not an answer to my question:
Get away with what? Doing their jobs? Complying with the law? You keep screaming about utterly inane drivel, but at the end of the day, you cannot cite a single violation of either Voting Rights Act.
If you're not going to even read the article where the Fed outlines what laws/procedures were not followed, what can I tell ya?
Yes, the state has the duty to update rolls, but they have to follow procedures--the ones you left out of your explanation but are clearly outline in the article posted in the OP in the first post of the bloody thread.
06-06-2012, 05:44 PM
- Join Date
- May 2012
You know who else thinks something is rotten in Florida?
Florida voter purge gets pushback from elections supervisors, U.S. Justice
TALLAHASSEE — Florida elections supervisors said Friday they will discontinue a state-directed effort to remove names from county voter rolls because they believe the state data is flawed and because the U.S. Department of Justice has said the process violates federal voting laws.
When you're own team says the ball was foul, stop arguing with the ump.
06-06-2012, 07:38 PM
Under the Voting Rights Act, Florida needs federal approval before it makes changes to voting because five Florida counties=; Monroe, Hillsborough, Collier, Hardee and Hendry, had minority-voting troubles decades ago.
"Our records do not reflect that these changes affecting voting have been submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for judicial review or to the Attorney General for administrative review as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act," Herren wrote.
Now, are you paying attention? Good, because here's where this argument falls apart. Writing in National Review, Hans von Spakovsky provided this deconstruction of the DOJ's case:
According to the letter sent by Voting Section chief Chris Herren, Florida is checking its voter-registration records against state driver’s-license records to identify noncitizens. This shouldn’t have surprised anyone at Justice — after all, Florida is simply following federal law in making such a database comparison. Section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 specifically directs states to coordinate their voter-registration records “with other agency databases within the State” to ensure they are “accurate.” And this is serious business: Making a false claim of citizenship in order to register to vote is a felony under federal law punishable by up to three years in prison.In other words, Florida did everything that they were supposed to do. The DOJ is lying, and you remain clueless.
But none of this seems to matter to Herren, who asserted, falsely, that Florida is violating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it didn’t get its review procedure “preapproved” by the Justice Department or a federal court. He is referring to the fact that five counties in Florida (not the entire state) are covered by Section 5, which requires that covered jurisdictions get such approval before they make any changes in their voting procedures or rules. The jurisdiction must show that the change is not intended to discriminate on the basis of race, and that it does not have that effect.
DOJ’s claim is wrong for many reasons. First, Florida has always removed the names of registered voters who it has discovered are not U.S. citizens and were therefore registered illegally. The fact that the state is using DMV records in addition to other sources to find citizenship information does not constitute a “change” in voting procedures that must be precleared under the applicable precedent of the Supreme Court case Presley v. Etowah County.
What would have been a change requiring Section 5 approval is if Florida had suddenly announced that, contrary to federal law, it was no longer going to remove noncitizens from its voting rolls.
Second, even if Section 5 applied, it would apply only to the five counties, not the entire state, so DOJ has no authority to stop this procedure statewide.
And last but certainly not least, Section 98.075 of the Florida Election Code, which allows the secretary of state to remove any registrant who is “not a United States citizen,” as well as House bill No. 1355, which in 2011 amended the code section to allow the secretary of state to use “other” sources such as DMV records, were, according to a former Florida election official I talked to, specifically precleared by the Justice Department! There is therefore no basis whatsoever for DOJ’s claim that Florida is violating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Supervisors were supposed to send letters to those on the list notifying them to provide proof of citizenship within 30 days or be removed from the voter rolls. But supervisors say they have found errors, including some on the list who have died, many who have become naturalized citizens since they first got their driver licenses, and others who are U.S.-born citizens -- including a 91-year-old, Brooklyn-born World War II hero who now lives in Broward County.
No one is denying that they list may have errors. That's why it was sent out, for verification. I guarantee that the deceased voters will not respond, even if they are buried in Chicago, and the eligible ones will respond, if they care to vote. And, once again, if DHS had made its citizenship database available to the state, this verification would not have been necessary. But, rather than have the counties check to see if the registered voters on the list are eligible by virtue of being citizens and, well, still breathing, the supervisors are arguing that any investigation is flawed, so they won't do their jobs. That's the kind of logic that we've come to expect from idiots and leftists (but I repeat myself).
Put down the bong, Spicoli. You're embarrassing yourself.
06-06-2012, 10:41 PM
- Join Date
- May 2012
As I pointed out by providing the text of the law, those procedures allow Florida to purge the rolls of ineligible voters, but the DOJ is falsely claiming that they are in violation when they obviously are not.
But, since you appear to be an expert on election law, perhaps you can cite exactly how the DOJ has jurisdiction on a statewide review, when only five counties are addressed under section 5?
It's a FEDERAL election. Duh.
Once again, I ask you to explain how you would do it?
You must be stupid, stupid, stupid.
For the third time I'll say it: Follow the law. Meet the deadlines and file the reasoning ON TIME.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|