Michael: I agree with many of your sentiments here, but I think there are ways to address both voting integrity and voter suppression simultaneously.
For example, I have no problems with ID requirements as long as we make it easy for folks who don't have IDs to get or replace them. And I have no problem with laws that aim to limit voting by mail if we open polls for a longer period of time (say a week before election day), keep them open until late into the night, and offer free transportation options for folks who don't live close to their polling place.
With just a little bit of investment, we should be able to have both more secure elections and increased voter participation. Think this investment would be well worth it in terms of increasing confidence in election results, even if the lack of confidence today is a function of having such a terrible person leading one of the parties versus actual examples of fraud.
At a theoretical level, I think that is true. In practice, those pushing for "increased security" tend to do so in ways that make it more difficult for to vote legally.
If someone truly believed in, say, voter ID, but was not interested in using voter ID as a way to disenfrashcise certain types of voters, their voter ID proposal would not look the same as someone who was actually trying to disenfranchise. (Stacy Abrams, very much known as a voting rights advocate, is on record as supporting voter ID in concept).
IDs don't have a damn thing to do with whites in the GOP diluting black voting districts in the South. Alabama is still resisting the federal court's instruction to remap their representative districts. We're talking about flagrant racism against blacks to erase them from the equation. Let's cut through the bullshit.
Michael: I agree with many of your sentiments here, but I think there are ways to address both voting integrity and voter suppression simultaneously.
For example, I have no problems with ID requirements as long as we make it easy for folks who don't have IDs to get or replace them. And I have no problem with laws that aim to limit voting by mail if we open polls for a longer period of time (say a week before election day), keep them open until late into the night, and offer free transportation options for folks who don't live close to their polling place.
With just a little bit of investment, we should be able to have both more secure elections and increased voter participation. Think this investment would be well worth it in terms of increasing confidence in election results, even if the lack of confidence today is a function of having such a terrible person leading one of the parties versus actual examples of fraud.
At a theoretical level, I think that is true. In practice, those pushing for "increased security" tend to do so in ways that make it more difficult for to vote legally.
If someone truly believed in, say, voter ID, but was not interested in using voter ID as a way to disenfrashcise certain types of voters, their voter ID proposal would not look the same as someone who was actually trying to disenfranchise. (Stacy Abrams, very much known as a voting rights advocate, is on record as supporting voter ID in concept).
IDs don't have a damn thing to do with whites in the GOP diluting black voting districts in the South. Alabama is still resisting the federal court's instruction to remap their representative districts. We're talking about flagrant racism against blacks to erase them from the equation. Let's cut through the bullshit.
While I would love to see all gerrymandering declared unconstitutional, the Alabama cases are being handled by the courts (as they should be).
Regardless, election integrity is something completely different, and there is no reason that efforts can't happen along both dimensions.
An insecure childlike conman inflated election fraud. He's a very dangerous sociopathic narcissist---cult of personality!