Voting rights bills and lawsuits megathread (Updated: April 27th 2020) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 13, 2024, 04:21:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Voting rights bills and lawsuits megathread (Updated: April 27th 2020) (search mode)
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Voting rights bills and lawsuits megathread (Updated: April 27th 2020)  (Read 185389 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,823


« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2018, 05:31:08 PM »

At a press conference this morning, a coalition of Democratic activists called out Dem Sec of State White for failing to comply with IL AVR. The current level of implementation means that the opt-out portions of AVR won't be ready for the Chicago and other municipal elections next Feb and Apr.

What a bum! I don't understand, is this just govt incompetence in setting up a new system, or did he not want to do it the way it was intended? Because those statements look like he didn't want to actually do AVR, as he seems to acknowledge that what is implemented right now is AVR to him.

I don't know that it comes solely from the Secretary. My sense is that top staff don't like to do anything with the DMV and DL other than license cars and drivers. It was a fight a few years ago to get DLs to include notation that the holder was a vet and could access state services without bringing their DD-214 (discharge papers). In the case of AVR the DMV is more about the automatic than the tie in to Real ID to get to opt-out.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,823


« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2018, 10:55:15 PM »

One cause of the disparity in polling places was section 5 of the VRA. Any changes to polling places that impacted covered minorities were subject to preclearance or judicial review just like redistricting. Many covered states chose to leave them unchanged, even as voting populations grew, rather than deal with the feds. Now that section 5 is inactive those disparities should be open to challenge under section 2, particularly after the precincts are redrawn due to the 2020 Census.

This may be naive, Muon, but surely plans to expand voting locations and machines in minority-majority districts would likely sail through fed review relatively easily? I mean, it is the feds, but still.

I would think so, too. I suspect that the states in question didn't want to open the whole question of precincts and polling places, so the easy course was to make no changes unless ordered to do so.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.