Loading...

"Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue."
link : "Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue."

"Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue."

Reason reports.

Nice of the Republicans to do the suing to help Gary, but it's in their interest to keep a Democrat from winning a Senate race.

In a sudden move with suspicious timing, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, an elected Democrat, announced today that voters in November will once again be able to vote for every candidate of a political party on the ballot by filling in just one blank. The option, known as the "straight-party" device, gives obvious advantage to parties with high voter-registration totals, while erecting roadblocks to otherwise over-performing candidates from third parties.

Like, say, Libertarian Senate candidate Gary Johnson.

We've had this option in Wisconsin, and I'd never thought of it as a special problem. But adopting it so specifically to fight off one candidate seems like such obvious corruption of the office of Secretary of State that it deserves a legal challenge and it should be usable as a neatly packaged political issue for Johnson. The state is "heavily Democratic," so why the temptation to depart from winning fair and square? I can only think that the sense of entitlement is so strong, they forget not to show it.

"Suggesting that New Mexico voters don't want to take the time to actually indicate their preferences for each office is ridiculous," [Gary Johnson] wrote in an email. "Pushing voters toward straight ticket voting is a worn-out staple of major party incumbents, and flies in the face of the reality that the great majority of voters are independent-minded and don't need or appreciate a ballot that provides a short-cut to partisanship."...

States have repealed straight ticket devices in the past fifty years are Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas (effective 2019), and Wisconsin.

I'm surprised to see Wisconsin on that list. I didn't notice the repeal (which, I see elsewhere, happened in 2011).

Michigan repealed its device in 2016, but a U.S. District Court recently struck down the Michigan repeal.

 On what basis? Race discrimination?

Besides Michigan and New Mexico, the only states that still have straight-ticket devices are Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah.

It is hard to read straight-ticket voting as anything but representatives from the two major parties blunting third-party competition and cementing their own incumbency, regardless of voters' growing disaffection with party membership and loyalty over time.

So it's a great issue to have coming to the forefront in this time of creative destruction.

After writing everything you see above, I looked up the Michigan case, and my guess was right. The court found it racially discriminatory! Reuters reported on August 1st:

The ruling permanently blocks what U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain called a politically motivated move by the Republican-controlled state legislature in a state that backed President Donald Trump in 2016 after twice choosing Democratic former President Barack Obama....

Drain cited research finding African-American voters are more likely than voters of other races to cast a straight-ticket ballot and are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. “The goal of ending the Democratic Party’s success with straight-ticket voters, therefore, was achieved at the expense of African-Americans’ access to the ballot,” Drain wrote in a 103-page ruling....

I wonder, did the New Mexico Secretary of State present her action in terms of protecting racial minorities. The quote from her in Reason is:

"The more options people have, the easier it is for more eligible voters to participate—and participation is the key to our democratic process," she said in her statement. "As Secretary of State, I am committed to making it easier—not harder—for New Mexicans to vote….From moms juggling work and kids to elderly veterans who find it hard to stand for long, straight-party voting provides an option for voters that allows their voices to be heard while cutting in half the time it takes them to cast their ballot."

She used juggling "moms" and "elderly veterans." They're the ones she invites you to picture struggling to get through a long ballot. She didn't use the idea in the Michigan case, and I can see why. It's insulting!

Reason reports.

Nice of the Republicans to do the suing to help Gary, but it's in their interest to keep a Democrat from winning a Senate race.

In a sudden move with suspicious timing, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, an elected Democrat, announced today that voters in November will once again be able to vote for every candidate of a political party on the ballot by filling in just one blank. The option, known as the "straight-party" device, gives obvious advantage to parties with high voter-registration totals, while erecting roadblocks to otherwise over-performing candidates from third parties.

Like, say, Libertarian Senate candidate Gary Johnson.

We've had this option in Wisconsin, and I'd never thought of it as a special problem. But adopting it so specifically to fight off one candidate seems like such obvious corruption of the office of Secretary of State that it deserves a legal challenge and it should be usable as a neatly packaged political issue for Johnson. The state is "heavily Democratic," so why the temptation to depart from winning fair and square? I can only think that the sense of entitlement is so strong, they forget not to show it.

"Suggesting that New Mexico voters don't want to take the time to actually indicate their preferences for each office is ridiculous," [Gary Johnson] wrote in an email. "Pushing voters toward straight ticket voting is a worn-out staple of major party incumbents, and flies in the face of the reality that the great majority of voters are independent-minded and don't need or appreciate a ballot that provides a short-cut to partisanship."...

States have repealed straight ticket devices in the past fifty years are Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas (effective 2019), and Wisconsin.

I'm surprised to see Wisconsin on that list. I didn't notice the repeal (which, I see elsewhere, happened in 2011).

Michigan repealed its device in 2016, but a U.S. District Court recently struck down the Michigan repeal.

 On what basis? Race discrimination?

Besides Michigan and New Mexico, the only states that still have straight-ticket devices are Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah.

It is hard

Loading...

to read straight-ticket voting as anything but representatives from the two major parties blunting third-party competition and cementing their own incumbency, regardless of voters' growing disaffection with party membership and loyalty over time. So it's a great issue to have coming to the forefront in this time of creative destruction.

After writing everything you see above, I looked up the Michigan case, and my guess was right. The court found it racially discriminatory! Reuters reported on August 1st:

The ruling permanently blocks what U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain called a politically motivated move by the Republican-controlled state legislature in a state that backed President Donald Trump in 2016 after twice choosing Democratic former President Barack Obama....

Drain cited research finding African-American voters are more likely than voters of other races to cast a straight-ticket ballot and are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. “The goal of ending the Democratic Party’s success with straight-ticket voters, therefore, was achieved at the expense of African-Americans’ access to the ballot,” Drain wrote in a 103-page ruling....

I wonder, did the New Mexico Secretary of State present her action in terms of protecting racial minorities. The quote from her in Reason is:

"The more options people have, the easier it is for more eligible voters to participate—and participation is the key to our democratic process," she said in her statement. "As Secretary of State, I am committed to making it easier—not harder—for New Mexicans to vote….From moms juggling work and kids to elderly veterans who find it hard to stand for long, straight-party voting provides an option for voters that allows their voices to be heard while cutting in half the time it takes them to cast their ballot."

She used juggling "moms" and "elderly veterans." They're the ones she invites you to picture struggling to get through a long ballot. She didn't use the idea in the Michigan case, and I can see why. It's insulting!

Thus articles "Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue."

that is all articles "Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "Democratic secretary of state in heavily Democratic state unilaterally changes voting rule in a way that favors Democrats (and punishes Libertarians). Republicans say they’ll sue." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/08/democratic-secretary-of-state-in.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: