COMMENTARY FROM jeffmoskin

[thelivyjr]

Are BLACK people born in the United States the same type of American citizen as people with white skin, with the same citizenship responsibilities, including obedience to the law, or are they permanent wards of the state needing special care from the government from cradle to grave because they are incapable of acting as citizens in the same way that white people have to?

[thelivyjr]

THE HILL

"Georgia law makes it a crime to give food, water to people waiting to vote"

BY CAMERON JENKINS

03/26/21

One of the most notable parts of the new Georgia voting law signed by Gov. Brian Kemp (R) on Thursday is that it would make it illegal for people to provide food or water to voters as they wait in lines to cast their ballots.

President Biden in a statement issued by the White House on Friday called the law "Jim Crow in the 21st century."

"If you want any indication that it has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with decency, they passed a law saying you can't provide water to people standing in line while they're waiting to vote?” Biden told reporters later, singling out that provision.

“You don't need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive, designed to keep people from voting."

"You can't provide water for people about to vote."

"Give me a break,” he said.

The law, SB 202, states that "[n]o person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector ... on any day in which ballots are being cast."

The law has been criticized by voting rights groups as potentially suppressing the vote of Black voters.

These groups have noted that Black voters in the state often can be waiting in long lines for a chance to vote, and they see the water and food provision as targeting such voters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... -vote?rl=1

Section 3501.35 | No loitering or congregating near polling places.

Ohio Revised Code/Title 35 Elections/Chapter 3501 Election Procedure; Election Officials

Effective: June 26, 2013

(A) During an election and the counting of the ballots, no person shall do any of the following:

(1) Loiter, congregate, or engage in any kind of election campaigning within the area between the polling place and the small flags of the United States placed on the thoroughfares and walkways leading to the polling place, and if the line of electors waiting to vote extends beyond those small flags, within ten feet of any elector in that line;

(2) In any manner hinder or delay an elector in reaching or leaving the place fixed for casting the elector's ballot;

(3) Give, tender, or exhibit any ballot or ticket to any person other than the elector's own ballot to the precinct election officials within the area between the polling place and the small flags of the United States placed on the thoroughfares and walkways leading to the polling place, and if the line of electors waiting to vote extends beyond those small flags, within ten feet of any elector in that line;

(4) Exhibit any ticket or ballot which the elector intends to cast;

(5) Solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any elector in casting the elector's vote.

(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2) of this section and division (C) of section 3503.23 of the Revised Code, no person who is not an election official, employee, observer, or police officer shall be allowed to enter the polling place during the election, except for the purpose of voting or assisting another person to vote as provided in section 3505.24 of the Revised Code.

(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, a journalist shall be allowed reasonable access to a polling place during an election. As used in this division, "journalist" has the same meaning as in division (B)(2) of section 2923.129 of the Revised Code.

(C) No more electors shall be allowed to approach the voting shelves at any time than there are voting shelves provided.

(D) The precinct election officials and the police officer shall strictly enforce the observance of this section.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-cod ... on-3501.35

May 4, 2018

County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum # 18106

TO: All County Clerks/Registrars of Voters

FROM: /s/ Jana M. Lean
Chief, Elections Division

RE: Primary Election: Electioneering

“Electioneering” is defined in California Elections Code section 319.5 as “the visible display or audible dissemination of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure on the ballot within 100 feet of a polling place, a vote center, an elections official’s office, or a satellite location under Section 3018.”

This effectively means electioneering cannot be conducted within 100 feet of the entrance to the polling place.

Prohibited materials and information include, but are not limited to:

• A display of a candidate’s name, likeness, or logo

• A display of a ballot measure’s number, title, subject, or logo

• Buttons, hats, pencils, pens, shirts, signs, or stickers containing information about candidates or issues on the ballot

• Any audible broadcasting of information about candidates or measures on the ballot

• Loitering near or disseminating visible or audible electioneering information near a vote-by-mail drop box

The Elections Code provides penal provisions for anyone who engages in electioneering.

Elections Code section 18370 states:

No person, on Election Day, or at any time that a voter may be casting a ballot, shall, within 100 feet of a polling place or an elections official's office:

(a) Circulate an initiative, referendum, recall, or nomination petition or any other petition.

(b) Solicit a vote or speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot.

(c) Place a sign relating to voters’ qualifications or speak to a voter on the subject of his or her qualifications except as provided in Section 14240.

(d) Do any electioneering.

As used in this section, “100 feet of a polling place or an elections official's office" means a distance 100 feet from the room or rooms in which voters are signing the roster and casting ballots.

Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Elections Code section 18541 states:

(a) No person shall, with the intent of dissuading another person from voting, within 100 feet of a polling place, do any of the following:

(1) Solicit a vote or speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot.

(2) Place a sign relating to voters' qualifications or speak to a voter on the subject of his or
her qualifications except as provided in Section 14240.

(3) Photograph, videotape, or otherwise record a voter entering or exiting a polling place.

(b) Any violation of this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 12 months, or in the state prison.

Any person who conspires to violate this section is guilty of a felony.

(c) For purposes of this section, 100 feet means a distance of 100 feet from the room or rooms in which voters are signing the roster and casting ballots.

The Secretary of State’s 2018 Poll Worker Training Standards, located at http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/poll-wo ... ndards.pdf, encourages county elections officials to ensure poll workers are trained on the issue of electioneering.

Poll workers must understand how to measure a 100-foot perimeter from a polling place (or request assistance from roving inspectors), what activities are prohibited within that perimeter, and what to do if they either see or hear about electioneering in or near their polling place.

Poll workers also need to be aware what types of materials are not allowed in the polling place and what to do, if, for example, a voter enters a polling place wearing a t-shirt or button promoting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure.

With regard to exit polling:

The Secretary of State’s office recommends advising news organizations and other pollsters to refrain from exit polling activities within at least 25 feet of a polling place.

The California Secretary of State’s Voting Law Compliance Handbook is available at http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/voting- ... liance.pdf and it provides information on this topic.

Written in a “question-and-answer” format, the handbook contains the following recommendations to voters and others interested in the electoral process:

When I went into my polling booth, I noticed a little pencil with a candidate’s name on it urging voters to be sure and mark the box for him. Can they do that?

No, it is illegal to have items with a candidate’s name on them in the polling place.

This constitutes electioneering and any electioneering must be conducted a minimum of 100 feet from the place where people are voting.

Sometimes, a voter inadvertently leaves such materials in the voting booth. (EC §18370)

A lady working at my polling place last Election Day was wearing a T-shirt that said “Down with Liberals” on it. Can she wear that?

Because such a t-shirt doesn’t actually advocate voting for or against a particular candidate or measure, it’s not considered electioneering.

If the shirt had a statement for or against something or someone on the ballot, it would not be allowed within 100 feet of the polls.

If the elections official is aware of the situation, he or she will likely request that the woman cover it up or change into something that does not cause the slightest appearance of partisanship. (EC §§18370, 18541, 18546)

This issue came before the Mendocino County Superior Court in 1998 in the case of SPEAK UP!, et al. v. Marsha A. Young.

The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction after Registrar of Voters Young deemed their attempt to wear buttons advocating for a particular candidate in the polling places constituted “electioneering” and was precluded by Elections Code section 18370.

Elections Code section 319.5, which now defines “electioneering,” was not added until 2009, so it was not available to the court in 1998.

However, the 1998 court did a good job of framing the issues involved, denying the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, writing in part:

“This ‘thoughtful/quiet zone’ where no further political bombardment can occur actually protects and safeguards even petitioners’ own political free speech."

"Exercising one’s right to vote to elect one’s leaders and enact laws is the ultimate unrestricted political free speech."

"The temporary (five to ten minute) covering or removal of political buttons in the limited polling areas while voting is a very slight inconvenience necessary to safeguard a free and untainted electoral process."

"This protected right and process underlies and is interwoven with all other rights."

“While a political button without fighting words on its face may seem harmless or inconsequential to a strong or opinionated person, not every voter is difficult to influence and intimidate – even to leave a polling place without voting."

"Even the simplest button is a political statement which invites a response."

"Given the strong feelings surrounding most political votes, the response is not always peaceful."

"Without this 100 foot protective zone, it is a very short slide to walking, flashing, electronic sandwich boards and a return to ‘political gang colors’ and intimidation which hinder free elections."

“The polling booth areas are also not traditional ‘public forums’ . . ."

"Polling areas are immemorially held in trust for the quiet, undisturbed and free exercise of the public’s right to privately vote their political consciences.”

The judge in that case based his ruling in part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Burson v. Freeman, which dealt with the larger question of whether a Tennessee law banning the display and distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place was constitutional.

The Court ruled that the Tennessee statute was indeed constitutional, concluding in part:

“In sum, an examination of the history of election regulation in this country reveals a persistent battle against two evils: voter intimidation and election fraud."

"After an unsuccessful experiment with an unofficial ballot system, all 50 States, together with numerous other Western democracies, settled on the same solution: a secret ballot secured in part by a restricted zone around the voting compartments."

"We find that this widespread and time-tested consensus demonstrates that some restricted zone is necessary in order to serve the States' compelling interests in preventing voter intimidation and election fraud."

“Here, the State, as recognized administrator of elections, has asserted that the exercise of free speech rights conflicts with another fundamental right, the right to cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud."

"A long history, a substantial consensus, and simple common sense show that some restricted zone around polling places is necessary to protect that fundamental right."

"Given the conflict between these two rights, we hold that requiring solicitors to stand 100 feet from the entrances to polling places does not constitute an unconstitutional compromise.”

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at Jana.Lean@sos.ca.gov or (916) 657-2166

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/ ... 8106jl.pdf

Here's a vivid example of just how stupid this whole drama about the poor BLACK folks being denied the right to vote is getting ...

Food and drinks now have to be supplied to BLACK voters, and if they are not provided with food and drink for free, they are being denied the right to vote?

That is such stupid BULL**** it's not even worthy of serious discussion ...

Applying that stupid logic, then Ohio's election law that states that during an election no person shall loiter, congregate, or engage in any kind of election campaigning within the area between the polling place and the small flags of the United States placed on the thoroughfares and walkways leading to the polling place, and if the line of electors waiting to vote extends beyond those small flags, within ten feet of any elector in that line; or solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any elector in casting the elector's vote has to be aimed at keeping BLACK people from voting as well.

And my goodness, look at California with its prohibition against giving BLACK voters buttons, hats, pencils, pens, and shirts containing information about candidates or issues on the ballot ...

That is clearly intended to disenfranchise BLACK voters because everybody knows that unless you give them free food and drinks and buttons, hats, pencils, pens, and shirts, you are depriving them of their right to vote ...

[thelivyjr]

And keeping people from walking up and down the line at the voting places handing out five dollar bills in exchange for a vote for their candidate discriminates against the BLACK folks as well and serves to disenfranchise them, because in addition to free food and free drinks and hats and buttons and shirts, the BLACK folks should be given money, too, and it is unfair to them to deny them that ...

[thelivyjr]

And in the meantime, I am still waiting for evidence that demonstrates that a BLACK person, any BLACK person, was denied the right to vote in the 2020 election because they were BLACK ...

[thelivyjr]

The judge in that case based his ruling in part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Burson v. Freeman, which dealt with the larger question of whether a Tennessee law banning the display and distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place was constitutional.

The Court ruled that the Tennessee statute was indeed constitutional, concluding in part:

“In sum, an examination of the history of election regulation in this country reveals a persistent battle against two evils: voter intimidation and election fraud."

"After an unsuccessful experiment with an unofficial ballot system, all 50 States, together with numerous other Western democracies, settled on the same solution: a secret ballot secured in part by a restricted zone around the voting compartments."

"We find that this widespread and time-tested consensus demonstrates that some restricted zone is necessary in order to serve the States' compelling interests in preventing voter intimidation and election fraud."

“Here, the State, as recognized administrator of elections, has asserted that the exercise of free speech rights conflicts with another fundamental right, the right to cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud."

"A long history, a substantial consensus, and simple common sense show that some restricted zone around polling places is necessary to protect that fundamental right."

"Given the conflict between these two rights, we hold that requiring solicitors to stand 100 feet from the entrances to polling places does not constitute an unconstitutional compromise.”

You would think that if a common American citizen such as myself knows this above, because it is the DUTY of an American citizen to know these things, given how important everybody says a vote is in this country, which is pure horse**** if you are not a Democrat or a Republican, that the man dredged up from the slime on the bottom of the political barrel to be America's next "president," and what a mocking term that has become, would know this same stuff cold ...

But no ...

Because Joe Biden was made president for the simple reason that he promised to HAND OUT more money than tRUMP, not because he had a shred of intelligence ...

And so ends the history of the United States of America ...

It simply became too stupid to be anything other than one more ****hole nation on the face of the earth trying to borrow its way to prosperity and failing miserably at it ...

On another note, it's snowing up this way ...

Poor man's fertilizer, we poor folks call it ...

Because being poor, we know how the poor folks think ...

And no, when we poor white people have to stand in long lines up here to vote, if we are not BLACK, nobody cares whether we have water to drink or food to eat, because that is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide for ourselves which is the downside of being white in America today ...

[thelivyjr]

15 April 2021

The legislation took total stimulus and rescue payments approved in the year since the pandemic began to about $5 trillion, fueled by red ink that fiscal authorities say is necessary to keep the economy running.

And we don't have to worry about that $5 TRILLION in red ink that is necessary to keep the economy running because we can now just keep printing money to pay that off ...

That worked wonders for getting the Weimar Republic out of debt, so it should do the trick for us, as well ...

[thelivyjr]

And I have a good friend up this way, a wise man, who is BLACK, and I asked him if he had any trouble voting because he was BLACK, and he said no ...

He got to do it the same way as the white folks did ...

Including having to provide his own drinking water which I am quite certain would thoroughly incense Joe Biden because of the sheer injustice of it - a BLACK person being forced to have to bring their own drinking water with them when they go to vote as opposed to having teams of people there waiting for them to see to their every need while they stand on line to vote ...

[jeffmoskin]

His experience would have been different in Georgia, or even the black sections of Cleveland Ohio. And why, when we proved that early voting and voting by mail worked just fine in 2020 (unless you are donald j tRUMP) it is being abandoned in some battleground states by Repubs.

I for one think that is un-American.

[thelivyjr]

Early voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early voting, also called advance polling or pre-poll voting, is a convenience voting process by which voters in a public election can vote before a scheduled election day.

In Canada, early voting is known as advance polling.

It is offered to all voters in all federal, provincial, and most municipal elections.

In federal elections, voters do not need to be registered to vote at an advance poll, provided they are either carrying proof of identity and address, or bring a registered voter who will swear an oath of identification at the polling station on their behalf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_voting

Which raises the obvious question of exactly how it would be "American" to have voting on multiple days ...

Where does that logic come from?

What makes that "American?"

Certainly nothing in any of our foundation documents ...

And where is there anything that says it is "un-American" to have only one day to vote?

How does having one day to vote deprive anybody of the right to vote?

The only way you can deprive people of their right to vote is to have no day on which to vote ...

And my goodness, but doesn't Canada sound racist as hell requiring voters at an advance poll to either carry proof of identity and address, or bring a registered voter who will swear an oath of identification at the polling station on their behalf ...

That's JIM CROW if I ever heard of it!

They're trying to keep BLACK people from voting for Democrats up there from the sounds of it ...

[thelivyjr]

And why, when we proved that early voting and voting by mail worked just fine in 2020 (unless you are donald j tRUMP) it is being abandoned in some battleground states by Repubs.

When was it proved that they work just fine?

Just fine for whom, exactly?

With early voting and mail-in up here, I could have voted at least five times, so sloppy was the system, and I believe intentionally so to allow repeat voting, a Democrat specialty since the 1800's ...

And mail-ins are a favorite way for the Democrats to sneak in the illegals who are a part of their base up here ...

As to why the Republicans do anything, who the hell knows ...

I don't hang with the Republicans and they don't hang with me, so I am not at all privy to what their reasons are for doing anything, and if asked, I seriously doubt they could tell you ...