Election legal battles & fraud claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 334
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
Legally, the principle that non-citizens cannot vote seems fundamental to me.
Politically, for Democrats (whether is it he DOJ or the judges) to advocate the notion that non-citizens can vote strikes me as hurting Democrats at the polls.
Seems like you along with others are okay with non-citizens voting. I am not. I mean, talk about foreign election interference.
And while 1,600 votes in Virginia will not likely change the outcome in that state, if that logic were applied in states it very well could change the outcomes.
Click to expand...
1. It is not fundamental. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits non-citizen voting, as far as I know. It's a choice. Maybe it's the right choice, but it's not a necessary one.

2. These are registrations, not votes. There are a lot of voters registered to vote who can't vote for whatever reason. The non-citizens are very, very unlikely to vote because the risk-reward balance is so skewed. On one hand, you can cast a vote that will almost certainly make no difference at all; on the other hand, you might go to jail or get some other criminal penalties. It is not even remotely worth it, which is why nobody does it.

If you really think that there are non-citizens are voting, then you should read more on the topic.
 
superrific said:
1. It is not fundamental. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits non-citizen voting, as far as I know. It's a choice. Maybe it's the right choice, but it's not a necessary one.

2. These are registrations, not votes. There are a lot of voters registered to vote who can't vote for whatever reason. The non-citizens are very, very unlikely to vote because the risk-reward balance is so skewed. On one hand, you can cast a vote that will almost certainly make no difference at all; on the other hand, you might go to jail or get some other criminal penalties. It is not even remotely worth it, which is why nobody does it.

If you really think that there are non-citizens are voting, then you should read more on the topic.
Click to expand...
1. 18 USC 611 plainly makes it unlawful for non-citizens to vote. That is federal statute so is fundamental enough for me.
2. Are you saying that you are okay with non-citizens having votes counted and then getting penalized? One who is registered is given the ability to vote. Non-citizens should not have that ability.
Super, I have read about the topic. That is why I understand that the number of non-citizens voting is very low. That is because there is a consensus that non-citizens cannot vote. The DOJ and the lower court judges tried to buck that trend in this case and I just think it was a misstep.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
1. 18 USC 611 plainly makes it unlawful for non-citizens to vote. That is federal statute so is fundamental enough for me.
2. Are you saying that you are okay with non-citizens having votes counted and then getting penalized? One who is registered is given the ability to vote. Non-citizens should not have that ability.
Super, I have read about the topic. That is why I understand that the number of non-citizens voting is very low. That is because there is a consensus that non-citizens cannot vote. The DOJ and the lower court judges tried to buck that trend in this case and I just think it was a misstep.
Click to expand...
Take a look at 52 USC 20507. Is it your position Virginia is not required to comply with that federal statute?
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
Legally, the principle that non-citizens cannot vote seems fundamental to me.
Politically, for Democrats (whether is it he DOJ or the judges) to advocate the notion that non-citizens can vote strikes me as hurting Democrats at the polls.
Seems like you along with others are okay with non-citizens voting. I am not. I mean, talk about foreign election interference.
And while 1,600 votes in Virginia will not likely change the outcome in that state, if that logic were applied in states it very well could change the outcomes.
Click to expand...
Listen to what's said and quit composing your next post. No one has suggested that noncitizens should vote. They are saying procedures were already in place to handle this and you did it the wrong way. This was not a thing about party but about following processes that were put into place after due consideration. Same result, essentially, except that they can't take shortcuts this close to the election like they did.
 
Last edited:
IllegalMotion9999 said:
1. 18 USC 611 plainly makes it unlawful for non-citizens to vote. That is federal statute so is fundamental enough for me.
2. Are you saying that you are okay with non-citizens having votes counted and then getting penalized? One who is registered is given the ability to vote. Non-citizens should not have that ability.
Super, I have read about the topic. That is why I understand that the number of non-citizens voting is very low. That is because there is a consensus that non-citizens cannot vote. The DOJ and the lower court judges tried to buck that trend in this case and I just think it was a misstep.
Click to expand...
Fundamental usually means constitutionally provided or something like "essential to the nature of ordered liberty." But anyway, it doesn't matter because, as you said, federal law prohibits it and that's not in dispute.

It's obvious you don't understand what this case is actually about, so you should cut your losses. Neither the DOJ nor the lower courts were "bucking any trend." If they were, why didn't the Supreme Court reverse? Why did it only stay?

I don't care if people are given some abstract right they can't exercise. For instance, suppose federal law provides that if I ask Taylor Swift out on a date, she has to accept. Fabulous. Would that help me in any way? No, because I have no way of communicating with Taylor Swift. I could break into her house and ask her then, and presumably she would have to accept -- but I'm not going to do it because the most I could get is one date and then I'd go to jail for at least 2 to 5 for breaking and entering. Whether or not the right theoretically exists doesn't matter if it's too costly to be exercised.

Getting worked up about the possibilities of non-citizens voting is among the stupidest things to be worried about. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. It's not a thing. As you admit, the numbers are very low -- actually, they are infinitesimal. Something like 0.000001% of votes cast this century were fraudulent or illegal.
 


“… The court won’t hear arguments until early next year and the 2024 elections are proceeding under the challenged map, which could boost Democrats’ chances of retaking the closely-divided House of Representatives.

A lower court had invalidated the map, but the justices allowed it to be used in 2024 after an emergency appeal from the state and civil rights groups.

The issue in front of the justices is whether the state relied too heavily on race in drawing a second majority Black district. …”

——
That seems like a tortured question — you are creating a race-based district but relied too much on race? What does that even mean (probably that Kavanaugh and Roberts want a do-over on that ruling)?
 
nycfan said:


“… The court won’t hear arguments until early next year and the 2024 elections are proceeding under the challenged map, which could boost Democrats’ chances of retaking the closely-divided House of Representatives.

A lower court had invalidated the map, but the justices allowed it to be used in 2024 after an emergency appeal from the state and civil rights groups.

The issue in front of the justices is whether the state relied too heavily on race in drawing a second majority Black district. …”

——
That seems like a tortured question — you are creating a race-based district but relied too much on race? What does that even mean (probably that Kavanaugh and Roberts want a do-over on that ruling)?
Click to expand...

This would be a good discussion for early next year when SCOTUS is taking it on, but our law on the racial implications of redistricting is hopelessly fucked up. We really need to start from scratch, not that any of us trust this SCOTUS to do it.
 

On Telegram, a Violent Preview of What May Unfold on Election Day and After​

Right-wing groups, which use Telegram to organize real-world actions, are urging followers to watch the polls and stand up for their rights, in a harbinger of potential chaos.

www.nytimes.com

Right-Wing Groups Are Organizing on Telegram Ahead of Election Day

Right-wing groups, which use Telegram to organize real-world actions, are urging followers to watch the polls and stand up for their rights, in a harbinger of potential chaos.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

"... “The day is fast approaching when fence sitting will no longer be possible,” read one post from an Ohio chapter of the Proud Boys, the far-right organization that was instrumental in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. “You will either stand with the resistance or take a knee and willingly accept the yoke of tyranny and oppression.” ...

The group’s posts questioned why states might not be able to fully tally election results on election night and repeated misleading claims about voter registration numbers in Michigan. In one video, a truck with a Confederate flag chased after immigrant children, with a caption reading: “1/20/25: Trump is sworn in as President. 1/21/25: Me and the Proud Boys begin the deportation.”

... In recent months, many Telegram channels run by chapters of the Proud Boys have celebrated a return to relevance, including perceived attention from Mr. Trump and his allies. Several accounts pointed to the black-and-yellow ties and hats — which are Proud Boys colors — worn by Mr. Trump in the days before, and the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson during, a recent rally at Madison Square Garden in New York.

... One popular image showed an armed man wearing a balaclava.

“Free men do not obey public servants,” it read.

Another portrayed a tit-for-tat with “leftist Democrats” going back to Mr. Trump’s presidency.

“Enough is enough!” read a part of the post. “Be ready for anything and everything!” "
 


These kinds of claims aren’t about winning the case, they are about creating an “official record” to point to if they need to try to overturn the election results in PA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top