Proposed 29th Amendment [failed passage]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Inks
Slot: 1

[Bacon King]

For everyone's consideration:

16th Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Original text of Article V, Section 2, Clause 6:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

For everyone's consideration:

16th Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Original text of Article V, Section 2, Clause 6:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I maybe can see the benefit to cutting registration rolls earlier, I don't like the bolded part. Anyone--particularly a newer voter--could miss their first Senate election. Especially considering the utter lack of some stickied thread showing exactly when the next elections are.

In fact, I think I inadvertently missed the first Senate election after I registered. Again, no stickied calendar of scheduled elections makes it very easy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The bolded part could go and I'd be fine with that.  The complaint from Fritz (and thus the reason I introduced this) was that 8 months was too long and made it a hassle for him.

I'm not sure if he's supposed to comment in this thread, but I'd love to hear from Fritz on if he'd be ok with keeping all of hte language from the 16th amendment but just changing the word "eight" to "four".

[Associate Justice PiT]

The bolded part could go and I'd be fine with that.  The complaint from Fritz (and thus the reason I introduced this) was that 8 months was too long and made it a hassle for him.

I'm not sure if he's supposed to comment in this thread, but I'd love to hear from Fritz on if he'd be ok with keeping all of hte language from the 16th amendment but just changing the word "eight" to "four".

     That would probably be wise, because the original text of that section did not specify that the voter had to miss four federal elections. It could be interpreted as meaning that voting in regional, special, & runoff elections count towards keeping one's registration valid, which would put a significant burden on the Registrar General to check those threads for votes by that person as well.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Then if I could, I would like to motion to amend my proposed amendment to read as follows:

"That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for four months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing two federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew."

[k-onmmunist]

I don't like the bold part at all... that would means I would have had my registration made invalid. Remove that and I will vote for this.

[Fritz]

I agree with the amendment.

[Badger]

I agree with the amendment.

Ditto. Thanks Inks!

[Fritz]

Nothing on this in, what, five days?

I brought this issue up not because it is a major hassle for me, but because the voter rolls are inflated with non-voters.  I am trying to get the list trimmed down to those people who will actually vote.  For some odd reason, we have a law that prohibits self de-registration, which I would also like to see repealed.  Under current law, the only ways to get removed from the list are to be banned, delete your account, or let 4 federal elections go by without voting.  I have been working on trimming out the banned accounts.

I could perhaps see a happy medium of 6 months/3 elections.  But 8/4 is way too long.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we're all in agreement that 4 months is ok, correct?

[Bacon King]

Then if I could, I would like to motion to amend my proposed amendment to read as follows:

"That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for four months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing two federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew."

This is accepted as friendly, fwiw.

Except a final vote shortly.

[bgwah]

Do we really have to do this again? This back and forth game is most tiresome.

I am opposed to this amendment. We should not take actions that will make it more difficult to vote.

[Bacon King]

Senators, there is now a final vote on this legislation. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[k-onmmunist]

Aye

[Bacon King]

aye

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Nay

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nay

[Fritz]

To all you Senators voting nay, would 6 months/3 elections been more acceptable?  You guys didn't debate this at all.

[bgwah]

Nay.

To all you Senators voting nay, would 6 months/3 elections been more acceptable?  You guys didn't debate this at all.

I will oppose any effort to reduce the time limit. It is undemocratic in my opinion.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

My main beef is that missing one election should not be grounds for removing you from the voting list. Things come up. Sometimes people cannot vote on that given weekend, but we shouldn't punish them for that one time. Maybe 2-3 missed election we can take them off, but I can't support anything less.

[Fritz]

My main beef is that missing one election should not be grounds for removing you from the voting list. Things come up. Sometimes people cannot vote on that given weekend, but we shouldn't punish them for that one time. Maybe 2-3 missed election we can take them off, but I can't support anything less.

I don't disagree with you.  I think 4 is too many.