LC 10.4 Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021

[KaiserDave]

AN ACT
To contain and adequately regulate off-site recruitment

Section 1; Title
1. This act may be cited as the Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021
Section 2; Amendment
1. The following section is added to of the Consolidated Lincoln Election Law Act-
"[New section]-Validity requirements
1. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in elections and referendums within Lincoln if their account was established at least six hundred and seventy-two hours (four weeks) prior to the opening of voting, along with the voter having met all other federal validity requirements."
Section 3; Implementation
1. This act shall take effect immediately upon its passage into law.

Sponsor please advocate

[KaiserDave]

I second the words of Councillor Jonathan and urge the Council to pass this speedily, and hopefully with unanimity given the common sense nature of the proposal.

[KaiserDave]

Turns out it's really the left that supports voter suppression.

Brother Jonathan, noted purple haired leftist indeed.

Anyways, order in the chamber. Citizens have the important right to interject but let's keep our wits about us.

[KaiserDave]

This was reached through good faith negotiation, I have also reached out to Councillor IBNU for his view on this topic. Let it be known I completely support the amendment as a positive step forward that listens to the concerns of voters while maintaining the integrity of the proposal.

[KaiserDave]

Not supporting any form of retroactive requirements on final passage of the bill, however I accept the S019 Amendment (still want a vote on mine).

Would still ask for a formal vote on the S019 amendment

There will be votes on all the amendments, not to worry, I'm under the understanding someone would like to post substantial remarks. Then every proposal will get a vote without prejudice.

Edit: Since you introduced your amendment first, your amendment will go first.

[KaiserDave]

Voting on Wulfric's Amendment begins now

[KaiserDave]

Nay

[KaiserDave]

This fails 2-3

Now voting on S019’s Amemdment

[KaiserDave]

Aye

[KaiserDave]

For the record I am not opposed to a hypothetical implementation period or making this more targeted (and I encourage amendments to that point, perhaps reducing the post requirement), but I don't think Wulfric's Amendment was sufficient to stop the disturbing growth of offsite recruits recently in Lincoln.

[KaiserDave]

I will support amendments to reduce the vote threshold from 75, perhaps to 50 or even lower (40, 30?), but something should be done to regulate the flood of offsite recruits.

I will further support amendments that would target this bill further, and open the doors further to legitimate recruits, but offsite recruits who thrive on spam and manipulative activities should be regulated by the proposal. If that can be done in a way more agreeable to all parties, let's do it. But it has to be done.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite who spam one liners to qualify, and onsite recruits who contribute to this site as a whole. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me. It's all bad.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

[KaiserDave]

Section 3; Implementation
1. This act shall take effect immediately upon its passage into law.with respect to votes cast on February 22nd or later.

This is the earliest we can have the effective date without it affecting this current election and retroactively disenfranchising voters, something which is very constitutionally suspect and something which neither the Southern bill nor the Federal Bill (according to anticipated amendments) do. I hope this amendment can win the Council's support. If this is adopted I will vote for the bill and not be part of any lawsuit related to the Article V provision I referenced earlier.

This is functionally no different than your last amendment, nevertheless it will be voted on proceeding the vote of the previous amendment.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

Well there's a fundamental problem in that. There's a difference in regulating these things for future recruitment and taking away the right to vote from people that already had it. I get that you don't like what happened, a lot of people don't, clearly in all parties. But this bill in its current form would strip people of the right to vote who already have that right who have committed no other crime except violating a regulation that didn't exist when they gained their right to vote. I believe that it is wrong to do that. And that it why my proposal to make it more fair is to change the effective date to March 1st.

Well then we disagree on how urgent the need is to regulate offsite recruitment. And that's fine.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

Well there's a fundamental problem in that. There's a difference in regulating these things for future recruitment and taking away the right to vote from people that already had it. I get that you don't like what happened, a lot of people don't, clearly in all parties. But this bill in its current form would strip people of the right to vote who already have that right who have committed no other crime except violating a regulation that didn't exist when they gained their right to vote. I believe that it is wrong to do that. And that it why my proposal to make it more fair is to change the effective date to March 1st.

Well then we disagree on how urgent the need is to regulate offsite recruitment. And that's fine.

Look, if the legal voting age was changed to 21 effective one week before a US election that would be considered a huge violation of rights. Surely you would think that too? If you've read previous comments made by me you would know that I hate the zombie culture. I introduced legislation to increase voting requirements long before any of this started. But acting to remove specific voters from an upcoming election should not be acceptable in anyone's eyes.

This isn't really comparable. Unless these 18-20 year olds had been airdropped from Mars right before the election.

I know from your comments elsewhere that you aren't opposed to offsite recruitment as a strategy, and if that's your position we simply disagree. I will be entirely open to further amendments to improve this proposal and I will continue to manage the business of the Council.

[KaiserDave]

The Amendment will be considered at the same time of the previous one, further Amendments will also be considered at that time.

[KaiserDave]

I second OBD’s words. If Ninja earnestly opposes off-site recruitments he should call them all off. I think that would render this bill unnecessary for this cycle. He and his allies hopefully have the power to do that.

[KaiserDave]

Seconding OBD again!
If you want to stop this, do something about it

Anyhow, this is beginning to interfere with the order of the Council

[KaiserDave]

Paging IBNU....

[KaiserDave]

Moving to a vote on Wulfric's Amendment

1. Moving implementation post election

2. Reducing post threshold to 30

[KaiserDave]

1. Moving implementation post election
Nay

2. Reducing post threshold to 30
Abstain

[KaiserDave]

By a vote of 3-2, post election implementation fails

By a vote of 3-1-1, 30 vote threshold passes

[KaiserDave]

AN ACT
To contain and adequately regulate off-site recruitment

Section 1; Title
1. This act may be cited as the Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021
Section 2; Amendment
1. The following section is added to of the Consolidated Lincoln Election Law Act-
"[New section]-Validity requirements
1. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in elections and referendums within Lincoln if their account was established at least five hundred and eighty-eight hours (3.5 weeks) prior to the opening of voting, along with the voter having met all other federal validity requirements."
2. This regulation shall not apply to posters with 30 posts or more, provided that they meet the federal requirements for voting
Section 3; Implementation
1. This act shall take effect immediately upon its passage into law.

Without objection let's move to a final vote. Unless there are further amendments (which I don't reject, but we should get an up-down vote on this soon)?