SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
As residents of Arizona's eighth congressional district cast ballots in a special election to replace former Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) in Congress, roughly 140,000 of them may be unaware they are eligible to vote because they did not receive the ID card the county is required to send them after they register.
According to the Arizona Republic, Maricopa County officials have not sent all voters the cards they can use to cast a ballot under Arizona's voter ID law because of an issue with the company used to print the materials. The paper reports that just 60,000 ID cards have been mailed to people who recently registered or changed their registration, while about 140,000 have not been sent.
[...] Arizona was one of the first states in the country to enact a non-photo voter ID law when a ballot measure was approved by voters[1] in November 2004. Under the law, the state must take steps to ensure that all eligible voters have an acceptable form of ID. According to the secretary of state's office[PDF], "a county recorder must issue a voter ID card to any new registrant or an existing registrant who updates his or her name, address, or political party preference".
But because of an error by the company used to print the ID cards, they have not been mailed out since December.
Although these citizens could provide other forms of ID at the polls, some voters told the Arizona Republic they're concerned that less informed voters may not realize they are registered without the card.
[...] During the presidential primary in March 2016, some Maricopa County voters waited in line for up to five hours to cast a ballot. The chaos led to an investigation by the Department of Justice and numerous lawsuits, including one filed by the Democratic National Committee.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Arizona was required to pre-clear any changes to its voting law with the DOJ.
[1] Requires cookies
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 29 2018, @12:02PM (11 children)
An interesting viewpoint. Unfortunately nothing will ever make it wise to give the executive branch the ability to decide the legality of things. Our founders had a hell of a lot of examples of why doing so would be foolish, which is why we have those powers explicitly separated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @04:03PM (1 child)
If you actually understood the issue, you wouldn't be taking such a position.
The executive branch is generally what decides what is and isn't legal. The judicial branch is what decides what is and isn't constitutional. There is some degree of overlap in terms of _how_ laws are interpreted, not what they are, but for the most part, the executive branch is what determines legality of various things.
The law in question functioned relatively well for decades, the only reason that it's been under attack is that it turns out that the poor and people of color don't vote for the racist and classist policies that the Republican party has been running on over the last few decades. And rather than waiting for the Democrats to complete their conversion to becoming a second right wing party, the GOP keeps looking for ways of preserving their power by disenfranchising voters.
This current situation is a great example of that. These are people who are legally allowed to vote who mostly won't vote because we've been throwing people in prison due to misunderstanding eligibility. Meanwhile the much bigger issue of elections fraud remains and issue and uses those few situations of voter fraud as an excuse to make it harder for entire classes of voters to vote.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30 2018, @11:46AM
Yes, I would and I do. Short of martial law, which I am also not in favor of, there is no possible situation that would make fucking up the separation of powers a good idea though. I know you regressive asshats want a God Emperor who never has to answer to anyone and will just mandate people think, speak, and act like you want them to but those of us who are sane do not.
Eligibility to vote is exceedingly uncomplicated. You must have an insanely low opinion of their intelligence if you believe they can't fully understand it. I suppose it's possible you're correct though, so let's find out. Show me someone legally eligible to vote who let genuine fear keep them from voting for Obama. Just one will do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:06PM (8 children)
So do you advise dissolving the DOJ and the position of Attorney General? Because it would be even less advisable to have prosecutors and judges under the same umbrella in an adversarial system.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30 2018, @11:50AM (7 children)
Prosecution is a perfectly valid Executive branch function. It calls a question to the Judiciary's attention it does not declare guilt.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 01 2018, @08:48AM (6 children)
However, prosecution does have the discretion to prosecute or not.
In the case in question, the DOJ only had supervisory power BECAUSE the judicial branch found that Arizona was apparently unable to comply with the law unsupervised. It was for a limited time, and if Arizona genuinely believed the DOJ was overstepping, they were free to bring the issue back to the judicial. That's not much like the bad old days where it was illegal if the king said it was illegal and there was no recourse.
It's exactly the same situation as a parole or probation officer. He can't find you guilty of a new crime, but he can determine that you haven't lived up to your end of the agreement that granted you provisional freedom from prison.
I am absolutely open to alternative suggestions for dealing with a state that has been found to have knowingly abridged the Constitutional rights of it's citizens, and for that matter, suggestions on curbing the power of parole/probation officers over natural people.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01 2018, @10:28AM (5 children)
You're correct that the fucking up of the separation of powers wasn't as egregious as it could have been. It was there though. What was done was essentially handing the DOJ the power of the judiciary mixed in with the presumption of guilt rather than innocence. That they could appeal any decisions does not change that.
How it should have been done is requiring the states submit any new electoral laws to the DOJ or FBI for review, given them sufficient (but only sufficient) time to review the proposed laws, and then taken the state to court if they believed they were racially motivated and discriminatory. That keeps the powers where the belong and does not presume guilt on the part of the states.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 01 2018, @11:34AM (4 children)
Unfortunately, that leaves the state free to submit one thing but do another. A common problem when it comes to election shenanigans. For example, the case at hand where the state simply disobeyed it's own law.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01 2018, @07:15PM (3 children)
Breaking the law is breaking the law. There's zero difference as far as that goes between submitting something for review then doing another thing and submitting something for approval then doing another thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 01 2018, @08:06PM (2 children)
It's a matter of how closely the process is watched and so how early enforcement might intervene.
In this case, it would have been a win for democracy if the intervention could have happened in time for the election.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)
Good luck with that. Bureaucracy has its benefits but speed has never been one of them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 01 2018, @10:39PM
Step one, someone has to be watching.