(07-15-2021 12:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='17500237' dateline='1626360288']


"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.
[/quote


Yeah, it is only suppression in a technical sense. If you are open for voting 23 hours a day, and in that one hour, one voter is turned away, technically his vote is suppressed, at least until he decides to come back, as most will. What the Democrats are alleging is that voters turned away during the hours of closure and who do not come back at another time to cast their vote are disproportionately black, and what’s more, the Republicans know it, and what’s more, the only reason they have to restrict voting hours is because they know it disproportionately discourages black voters from voting. Seems like a lot of accusation based on no evidence.

I don’t see what would be wrong with returning to the hours available in 2016 or 2008, when NO outcry of targeted suppression was raised. My understanding is that the proposed hours and days of voting access in the proposed legislation are greater than those of 2008 or 2016. I could be wrong - it has happened before. Just ask my ex.

Why no outcry before? Likely because the increase in using the 24-hr system weren't realized.

When we identify a practice that produces a good outcome (like increasing voter turnout) making a decision to allow said practice in the future is going to rankle feathers and a really good explanation is needed. The best explanation so far relies on the idea that more registered, legal votes in Area A are bad for Area B. IMO - eeehhhhhhhh.

Imagine if a politician argued for removing seat belt requirements because there wasn't an outcry for them before seatbelts were required. What about not advocating for marijuana legalization because our country had historically outlawed it, and only the dirty hippies had advocated for it. I don't think a lack of support for a practice during a specific period of time is a strong argument for not enacting the practice in the future.

So it’s as if they have never tried mint ice cream before, but now they demand it?

I really think you are reaching here. The examples I used were 2008 and 2016, hardly ancient history. 2008 in particular had record levels of black participation. Hardly suppressive. People who want to vote will find a way to vote. If they are not very motivated, I doubt polls open at 3AM will do the trick.

And as a former dirty hippie, (sorta, for a while) I resent the slur.

Cat is out of the bag. Imagine having not tried mint ice cream, then you're given in, and then told that you can no longer have that ice cream.

This, to be fair, is the exact reason many conservatives are wary of expanding government services. Once the public has a taste for them, it is much harder to claw them back.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you're struggling this mightily with the concept.

Actually, paying for those expanded services is why conservatives are leery of the everything for everybody Democratic attitude.

I am finding it hard to believe you don’t consider cost.

I'm not considering the cost? What I have I said to even come close to suggesting that?

I've literally done the opposite, and said that if counties can afford to appropriately run these 24 hr voting locations, they should be able to. I've not argued that every one should be required to, or even that 24 hr voting is necessary - I've argued that if counties find it valuable and have the funds, they should be able to do so.

What a really odd takeaway from these back and forths.

(07-15-2021 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why no outcry before? Likely because the increase in using the 24-hr system weren't realized.

When we identify a practice that produces a good outcome (like increasing voter turnout) making a decision to allow said practice in the future is going to rankle feathers and a really good explanation is needed. The best explanation so far relies on the idea that more registered, legal votes in Area A are bad for Area B. IMO - eeehhhhhhhh.

Imagine if a politician argued for removing seat belt requirements because there wasn't an outcry for them before seatbelts were required. What about not advocating for marijuana legalization because our country had historically outlawed it, and only the dirty hippies had advocated for it. I don't think a lack of support for a practice during a specific period of time is a strong argument for not enacting the practice in the future.

So it’s as if they have never tried mint ice cream before, but now they demand it?

I really think you are reaching here. The examples I used were 2008 and 2016, hardly ancient history. 2008 in particular had record levels of black participation. Hardly suppressive. People who want to vote will find a way to vote. If they are not very motivated, I doubt polls open at 3AM will do the trick.

And as a former dirty hippie, (sorta, for a while) I resent the slur.

Cat is out of the bag. Imagine having not tried mint ice cream, then you're given in, and then told that you can no longer have that ice cream.

This, to be fair, is the exact reason many conservatives are wary of expanding government services. Once the public has a taste for them, it is much harder to claw them back.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you're struggling this mightily with the concept.

Actually, paying for those expanded services is why conservatives are leery of the everything for everybody Democratic attitude.

I am finding it hard to believe you don’t consider cost.

I'm not considering the cost? What I have I said to even come close to suggesting that?

I've literally done the opposite, and said that if counties can afford to appropriately run these 24 hr voting locations, they should be able to. I've not argued that every one should be required to, or even that 24 hr voting is necessary - I've argued that if counties find it valuable and have the funds, they should be able to do so.

What a really odd takeaway from these back and forths.

The bolded is why I said you didn’t consider cost - talk of expanding services, no talk of paying for them.

Nothing at all like what is going on in Congress as we speak.

To be fair, you have always predicated your call for expanded hours on ability to pay, but also to,be fair, you also ,you also mentioned raising taxes.

Now, I need to pull a 93 and plead busyness. Catch ya later.

(07-15-2021 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

Were’n’t those emergency actions due to the pandemic? What is the rationale for keeping emergency procedures in place permanently? We don’t maintain the emergency traffic procedures used in a hurricane evacuation.

Anything that that limits voting 7/24/365 will technically suppress voting, hopefully the voting that is suppressed would be the illegal voting. But I don’t see how not having 24 hour voting suppresses black voting specifically. Is there some large group of black voters who can only vote between midnight and dawn, and who will not vote at all if they cannot vote then?

Having limit3d hours just means the same as any other establishment that has opening and closing hours - come back when we are open. That’s what I do. But



Any enterprise with limited hours is telling their clientele to come back during office hours. What do you tell your clients?

If the effect in those highly populated counties is proportional, then it is not racist. What evidence is there that more black voters than white, especially white conservative, will just walk away without voting if they cannot vote in the wee hours?

No, 24 hour and drive-through voting were not pandemic emergency actions. They were steps taken by Harris County to improve poll access, much like the move to "voting centers" instead of precinct polls a couple of years ago. They did other things like having a website that showed real time wait times at all early voting locations.

Do you really think failure to open polls further than Harris did is "voter suppression"? At worst, that's a sin of omission. What the Lege is trying to do, reduce poll access, is a sin of commission and suppresses votes. What objection do you have to making it as convenient as possible for a qualified citizen to vote?

Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

(07-15-2021 01:49 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

What in the bill specifically suppresses Harris County votes as opposed to say, Denton County? Collin County? Deaf Smith County? Presidio County? El Paso County? I would assume that any reduction in votes would be similar in most counties, regardless of demographics. Including the ones with little minority population. Why is Harris special?

As for cost, I am looking at cost/benefit, not just cost. If County X decides to spend $100K to keep polls open 24 hours instead of say, 16 hours/day, and garners 500 votes in that extra time, is it worth the cost? Especially since nearly all of the 500 would have voted anyway at a different time if the polls were closed those extra 8? A vote not cast at 3 AM is not a vote lost forever. Of course, nobody here has brought up the possibility that 24 voting at some polls might reduce the need for extra polling places, thus reducing cost overall. I expected that. But apparently cost is not a consideration.

I see no logical reason that people, black or white, who want to vote would be unable to unless it was in the wee hours of the day. Maybe you do. If so, share it.

93 brings up that sometimes it is inconvenient to vote. Well, duh. During the 2020 election I checked out the early voting place (my county has only one) several times before I actually went in and voted. The fact that we had so many days of early voting made that possible. I must have skipped it 4-5 times. But if it was open just one day, then I would have got in line that day, but I am a committed voter.

You remember how it was when we were young. ONE day for voting, and restrictions on absentee voting. Lots of time now, lots of days, including Sundays - there should be no need for post-midnight voting.

Do you have any numbers on how many ballots were cast between midnight and dawn in the last election, and how those ballots skewed racially? Those stats would go a long way to settling this. If you can show me that a disproportionate number of black votes were cast in the wee hours that would not be cast otherwise, and that is why this bill is offered, that would go a long way toward supporting the need for Texas lawmakers to abandon their elected offices.

(07-15-2021 01:49 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

Were’n’t those emergency actions due to the pandemic? What is the rationale for keeping emergency procedures in place permanently? We don’t maintain the emergency traffic procedures used in a hurricane evacuation.

Anything that that limits voting 7/24/365 will technically suppress voting, hopefully the voting that is suppressed would be the illegal voting. But I don’t see how not having 24 hour voting suppresses black voting specifically. Is there some large group of black voters who can only vote between midnight and dawn, and who will not vote at all if they cannot vote then?

Having limit3d hours just means the same as any other establishment that has opening and closing hours - come back when we are open. That’s what I do. But



Any enterprise with limited hours is telling their clientele to come back during office hours. What do you tell your clients?

If the effect in those highly populated counties is proportional, then it is not racist. What evidence is there that more black voters than white, especially white conservative, will just walk away without voting if they cannot vote in the wee hours?

No, 24 hour and drive-through voting were not pandemic emergency actions. They were steps taken by Harris County to improve poll access, much like the move to "voting centers" instead of precinct polls a couple of years ago. They did other things like having a website that showed real time wait times at all early voting locations.

Do you really think failure to open polls further than Harris did is "voter suppression"? At worst, that's a sin of omission. What the Lege is trying to do, reduce poll access, is a sin of commission and suppresses votes. What objection do you have to making it as convenient as possible for a qualified citizen to vote?

Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

More honestly, what the Harris County clerk did, via multiple avenues, was to try and gin up as much Democratic vote in a manner that violated state law and the Texas Constitution. That is the inherent problem with partisan politics in the County Clerk offices.

There were three actions put into place by Hudspeth with the specific goal of pure partisan turnout.

1. Instituting drive through voting -- the one aspect that ws absolutely legal mind you.

2. Mailing ballots to voters --- a direct, specific, and explicit violation of the Texas Election Code. The Code spells out specifically what must occur to have a ballot mailed to a person. Notwithstanding, Hudspeth simply flouted that law directly in this proposal.

3. 24 hour polling --- State law at the time (and currently) states that early voting takes place in the hours between the open and close of the clerk's office. It is now amended to between set hours.

Hudspeth deemed the office would be 'always open'. Dodgy at best. But the veneer isnt deep since even though the office was 'open', no county business could be transacted during those 'open hours'. On its face and practice it was a sham.

In addition to the very obvious problem in the facts with the Texas Election Code, it was probably violative of several provisions of the Texas Constitution dealing with the rights of voters across the state.

So please, stop with the 'the clerk was just doing what an elected official was elected to do.'

No state official is elected to violate voting laws, or the equal protection aspects of the Texas Constitution. Not even in a ham handed effort to gin up one side's vote.

But, at least call it what it is and what the actions stood for.

Hudspeth has now learned the perils of trying to short circuit both the explicit law and the intent of the law. I heard that Harris County shelled out close to million to defend their actions in the district and appellate courts.

And, they invoked the legislature to fully remove much of the discretion afforded to local clerks, since it is now obvious that the more political ones will absolutely abuse it. The clerks will not longer be treated as apolitical officers of the state simply carrying out non-discretionary duties by the lege. Hope you are happy with that outcome.

But, at least tell the full story behind it, and the intentional violation of state law as well as the Texas Constitution instead of 'awww, you have a gripe against a county official doing her job' schtick that you promulgate above.

(07-15-2021 05:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 01:49 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

Were’n’t those emergency actions due to the pandemic? What is the rationale for keeping emergency procedures in place permanently? We don’t maintain the emergency traffic procedures used in a hurricane evacuation.

Anything that that limits voting 7/24/365 will technically suppress voting, hopefully the voting that is suppressed would be the illegal voting. But I don’t see how not having 24 hour voting suppresses black voting specifically. Is there some large group of black voters who can only vote between midnight and dawn, and who will not vote at all if they cannot vote then?

Having limit3d hours just means the same as any other establishment that has opening and closing hours - come back when we are open. That’s what I do. But



Any enterprise with limited hours is telling their clientele to come back during office hours. What do you tell your clients?

If the effect in those highly populated counties is proportional, then it is not racist. What evidence is there that more black voters than white, especially white conservative, will just walk away without voting if they cannot vote in the wee hours?

No, 24 hour and drive-through voting were not pandemic emergency actions. They were steps taken by Harris County to improve poll access, much like the move to "voting centers" instead of precinct polls a couple of years ago. They did other things like having a website that showed real time wait times at all early voting locations.

Do you really think failure to open polls further than Harris did is "voter suppression"? At worst, that's a sin of omission. What the Lege is trying to do, reduce poll access, is a sin of commission and suppresses votes. What objection do you have to making it as convenient as possible for a qualified citizen to vote?

Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

More honestly, what the Harris County clerk did, via multiple avenues, was to try and gin up as much Democratic vote in a manner that violated state law and the Texas Constitution. That is the inherent problem with partisan politics in the County Clerk offices.

There were three actions put into place by Hudspeth with the specific goal of pure partisan turnout.

1. Instituting drive through voting -- the one aspect that ws absolutely legal mind you.

2. Mailing ballots to voters --- a direct, specific, and explicit violation of the Texas Election Code. The Code spells out specifically what must occur to have a ballot mailed to a person. Notwithstanding, Hudspeth simply flouted that law directly in this proposal.

3. 24 hour polling --- State law at the time (and currently) states that early voting takes place in the hours between the open and close of the clerk's office. It is now amended to between set hours.

Hudspeth deemed the office would be 'always open'. Dodgy at best. But the veneer isnt deep since even though the office was 'open', no county business could be transacted during those 'open hours'. On its face and practice it was a sham.

In addition to the very obvious problem in the facts with the Texas Election Code, it was probably violative of several provisions of the Texas Constitution dealing with the rights of voters across the state.

So please, stop with the 'the clerk was just doing what an elected official was elected to do.'

No state official is elected to violate voting laws, or the equal protection aspects of the Texas Constitution. Not even in a ham handed effort to gin up one side's vote.

But, at least call it what it is and what the actions stood for.

Hudspeth has now learned the perils of trying to short circuit both the explicit law and the intent of the law. I heard that Harris County shelled out close to million to defend their actions in the district and appellate courts.

And, they invoked the legislature to fully remove much of the discretion afforded to local clerks, since it is now obvious that the more political ones will absolutely abuse it. The clerks will not longer be treated as apolitical officers of the state simply carrying out non-discretionary duties by the lege. Hope you are happy with that outcome.

But, at least tell the full story behind it, and the intentional violation of state law as well as the Texas Constitution instead of 'awww, you have a gripe against a county official doing her job' schtick that you promulgate above.

What actions did the clerk take in Harris county that were not extended to Republican voters of the county or discouraged said voters to vote?

What if - hear me out - they felt their job was to try and make voting as easy and efficient as possible for their constituents? No way someone whose job it was to administer elections would do that, right?

(07-15-2021 07:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 05:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 01:49 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

Were’n’t those emergency actions due to the pandemic? What is the rationale for keeping emergency procedures in place permanently? We don’t maintain the emergency traffic procedures used in a hurricane evacuation.

Anything that that limits voting 7/24/365 will technically suppress voting, hopefully the voting that is suppressed would be the illegal voting. But I don’t see how not having 24 hour voting suppresses black voting specifically. Is there some large group of black voters who can only vote between midnight and dawn, and who will not vote at all if they cannot vote then?

Having limit3d hours just means the same as any other establishment that has opening and closing hours - come back when we are open. That’s what I do. But



Any enterprise with limited hours is telling their clientele to come back during office hours. What do you tell your clients?

If the effect in those highly populated counties is proportional, then it is not racist. What evidence is there that more black voters than white, especially white conservative, will just walk away without voting if they cannot vote in the wee hours?

No, 24 hour and drive-through voting were not pandemic emergency actions. They were steps taken by Harris County to improve poll access, much like the move to "voting centers" instead of precinct polls a couple of years ago. They did other things like having a website that showed real time wait times at all early voting locations.

Do you really think failure to open polls further than Harris did is "voter suppression"? At worst, that's a sin of omission. What the Lege is trying to do, reduce poll access, is a sin of commission and suppresses votes. What objection do you have to making it as convenient as possible for a qualified citizen to vote?

Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

More honestly, what the Harris County clerk did, via multiple avenues, was to try and gin up as much Democratic vote in a manner that violated state law and the Texas Constitution. That is the inherent problem with partisan politics in the County Clerk offices.

There were three actions put into place by Hudspeth with the specific goal of pure partisan turnout.

1. Instituting drive through voting -- the one aspect that ws absolutely legal mind you.

2. Mailing ballots to voters --- a direct, specific, and explicit violation of the Texas Election Code. The Code spells out specifically what must occur to have a ballot mailed to a person. Notwithstanding, Hudspeth simply flouted that law directly in this proposal.

3. 24 hour polling --- State law at the time (and currently) states that early voting takes place in the hours between the open and close of the clerk's office. It is now amended to between set hours.

Hudspeth deemed the office would be 'always open'. Dodgy at best. But the veneer isnt deep since even though the office was 'open', no county business could be transacted during those 'open hours'. On its face and practice it was a sham.

In addition to the very obvious problem in the facts with the Texas Election Code, it was probably violative of several provisions of the Texas Constitution dealing with the rights of voters across the state.

So please, stop with the 'the clerk was just doing what an elected official was elected to do.'

No state official is elected to violate voting laws, or the equal protection aspects of the Texas Constitution. Not even in a ham handed effort to gin up one side's vote.

But, at least call it what it is and what the actions stood for.

Hudspeth has now learned the perils of trying to short circuit both the explicit law and the intent of the law. I heard that Harris County shelled out close to million to defend their actions in the district and appellate courts.

And, they invoked the legislature to fully remove much of the discretion afforded to local clerks, since it is now obvious that the more political ones will absolutely abuse it. The clerks will not longer be treated as apolitical officers of the state simply carrying out non-discretionary duties by the lege. Hope you are happy with that outcome.

But, at least tell the full story behind it, and the intentional violation of state law as well as the Texas Constitution instead of 'awww, you have a gripe against a county official doing her job' schtick that you promulgate above.

What actions did the clerk take in Harris county that were not extended to Republican voters of the county or discouraged said voters to vote?

You misconstrue what I said. Ginning up high numbers of votes in Harris means ginning up large number of D votes.

If you want to do that on the up and up -- more power to them.

But the actions of the Harris County clerk were partisan actions to gin up the vote in a very high D county. So get off your misperception of my comment re: Republicans.

Quote:What if - hear me out - they felt their job was to try and make voting as easy and efficient as possible for their constituents? No way someone whose job it was to administer elections would do that, right?

What if Charles Manson felt he was doing the right thing.

Put your real world cap on, lad. Collins had a long history of partisan politics. I misidentified the clerk as Hudspeth, as I had some business in that office just recently. His resume, save for the interim post which he embarked on the above, is "Democratic Party Official" and "Personal Injury Attorney".

Even the Houston Chronicle reported on his ascension as "Texas Democratic Party official appointed interim Harris County clerk".

His tenure was such a shitfest that the county moved the operation of elections to the Harris County Election Administrator’s Office.

But, wish all you want to about fairy tale dragonflies and ginger snap unicorns.

The dude was a political appointment through and through. Not even elected. And he bolted right after the 2020 Nov elections. Doesnt sound like the self-torturing and selfless soul on the brave 'elected official' that seems to be the perception.

(07-15-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 07:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 05:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 01:49 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Were’n’t those emergency actions due to the pandemic? What is the rationale for keeping emergency procedures in place permanently? We don’t maintain the emergency traffic procedures used in a hurricane evacuation.

Anything that that limits voting 7/24/365 will technically suppress voting, hopefully the voting that is suppressed would be the illegal voting. But I don’t see how not having 24 hour voting suppresses black voting specifically. Is there some large group of black voters who can only vote between midnight and dawn, and who will not vote at all if they cannot vote then?

Having limit3d hours just means the same as any other establishment that has opening and closing hours - come back when we are open. That’s what I do. But



Any enterprise with limited hours is telling their clientele to come back during office hours. What do you tell your clients?

If the effect in those highly populated counties is proportional, then it is not racist. What evidence is there that more black voters than white, especially white conservative, will just walk away without voting if they cannot vote in the wee hours?

No, 24 hour and drive-through voting were not pandemic emergency actions. They were steps taken by Harris County to improve poll access, much like the move to "voting centers" instead of precinct polls a couple of years ago. They did other things like having a website that showed real time wait times at all early voting locations.

Do you really think failure to open polls further than Harris did is "voter suppression"? At worst, that's a sin of omission. What the Lege is trying to do, reduce poll access, is a sin of commission and suppresses votes. What objection do you have to making it as convenient as possible for a qualified citizen to vote?

Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

More honestly, what the Harris County clerk did, via multiple avenues, was to try and gin up as much Democratic vote in a manner that violated state law and the Texas Constitution. That is the inherent problem with partisan politics in the County Clerk offices.

There were three actions put into place by Hudspeth with the specific goal of pure partisan turnout.

1. Instituting drive through voting -- the one aspect that ws absolutely legal mind you.

2. Mailing ballots to voters --- a direct, specific, and explicit violation of the Texas Election Code. The Code spells out specifically what must occur to have a ballot mailed to a person. Notwithstanding, Hudspeth simply flouted that law directly in this proposal.

3. 24 hour polling --- State law at the time (and currently) states that early voting takes place in the hours between the open and close of the clerk's office. It is now amended to between set hours.

Hudspeth deemed the office would be 'always open'. Dodgy at best. But the veneer isnt deep since even though the office was 'open', no county business could be transacted during those 'open hours'. On its face and practice it was a sham.

In addition to the very obvious problem in the facts with the Texas Election Code, it was probably violative of several provisions of the Texas Constitution dealing with the rights of voters across the state.

So please, stop with the 'the clerk was just doing what an elected official was elected to do.'

No state official is elected to violate voting laws, or the equal protection aspects of the Texas Constitution. Not even in a ham handed effort to gin up one side's vote.

But, at least call it what it is and what the actions stood for.

Hudspeth has now learned the perils of trying to short circuit both the explicit law and the intent of the law. I heard that Harris County shelled out close to million to defend their actions in the district and appellate courts.

And, they invoked the legislature to fully remove much of the discretion afforded to local clerks, since it is now obvious that the more political ones will absolutely abuse it. The clerks will not longer be treated as apolitical officers of the state simply carrying out non-discretionary duties by the lege. Hope you are happy with that outcome.

But, at least tell the full story behind it, and the intentional violation of state law as well as the Texas Constitution instead of 'awww, you have a gripe against a county official doing her job' schtick that you promulgate above.

What actions did the clerk take in Harris county that were not extended to Republican voters of the county or discouraged said voters to vote?

You misconstrue what I said. Ginning up high numbers of votes in Harris means ginning up large number of D votes.

If you want to do that on the up and up -- more power to them.

But the actions of the Harris County clerk were partisan actions to gin up the vote in a very high D county. So get off your misperception of my comment re: Republicans.

Quote:What if - hear me out - they felt their job was to try and make voting as easy and efficient as possible for their constituents? No way someone whose job it was to administer elections would do that, right?

What if Charles Manson felt he was doing the right thing.

Put your real world cap on, lad. Collins had a long history of partisan politics. I misidentified the clerk as Hudspeth, as I had some business in that office just recently. His resume, save for the interim post which he embarked on the above, is "Democratic Party Official" and "Personal Injury Attorney".

Even the Houston Chronicle reported on his ascension as "Texas Democratic Party official appointed interim Harris County clerk".

His tenure was such a shitfest that the county moved the operation of elections to the Harris County Election Administrator’s Office.

But, wish all you want to about fairy tale dragonflies and ginger snap unicorns.

The dude was a political appointment through and through. Not even elected. And he bolted right after the 2020 Nov elections. Doesnt sound like the self-torturing and selfless soul on the brave 'elected official' that seems to be the perception.

I feel like this is typically where you come in yelling about being all knowing or whatever your tag line is when I make similar arguments about potential motives. Lol.

Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

(07-16-2021 12:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

Actually, I have met GoodOwl - at halftime of the Liberty Bowl. I think he considers me somewhat of a liberal, and hoo-boy, do we ever have different opinions on Bailiff. But I think he is a good man and a good parent, and like you and me, is entitled to his opinions, some of which I share and some of which I don't, and some of which I think the jury is still out on. I have had more discussion with him than with you. And even though we disagree - mightily - on many things, he has never been disrespectful of me as you have been.

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Mental gymnastics right here. Yowza!

(07-16-2021 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Mental gymnastics right here. Yowza!

Are they wrong? I think I stuck the landing. Ta-da!!!

(07-16-2021 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

Actually, I have met GoodOwl - at halftime of the Liberty Bowl. I think he considers me somewhat of a liberal, and hoo-boy, do we ever have different opinions on Bailiff. But I think he is a good man and a good parent, and like you and me, is entitled to his opinions, some of which I share and some of which I don't, and some of which I think the jury is still out on. I have had more discussion with him than with you. And even though we disagree - mightily - on many things, he has never been disrespectful of me as you have been.

Respect is a two-way street, homie.

(07-15-2021 09:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 07:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 05:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 01:49 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  No, 24 hour and drive-through voting were not pandemic emergency actions. They were steps taken by Harris County to improve poll access, much like the move to "voting centers" instead of precinct polls a couple of years ago. They did other things like having a website that showed real time wait times at all early voting locations.

Do you really think failure to open polls further than Harris did is "voter suppression"? At worst, that's a sin of omission. What the Lege is trying to do, reduce poll access, is a sin of commission and suppresses votes. What objection do you have to making it as convenient as possible for a qualified citizen to vote?

Nothing in the Lege's bill suppresses black votes specifically. They're not that stupid. But anything that specifically suppresses Harris County votes removes votes from a Democratic majority county, which is what the real point is. That Harris County has a higher percentage of blacks vs the rest of the state (20% vs 11.5%) is just a feature.

The comments about cost are silly. Harris County, through its elected representatives, decided to spend tax money on voter access. What's the gripe with that?

More honestly, what the Harris County clerk did, via multiple avenues, was to try and gin up as much Democratic vote in a manner that violated state law and the Texas Constitution. That is the inherent problem with partisan politics in the County Clerk offices.

There were three actions put into place by Hudspeth with the specific goal of pure partisan turnout.

1. Instituting drive through voting -- the one aspect that ws absolutely legal mind you.

2. Mailing ballots to voters --- a direct, specific, and explicit violation of the Texas Election Code. The Code spells out specifically what must occur to have a ballot mailed to a person. Notwithstanding, Hudspeth simply flouted that law directly in this proposal.

3. 24 hour polling --- State law at the time (and currently) states that early voting takes place in the hours between the open and close of the clerk's office. It is now amended to between set hours.

Hudspeth deemed the office would be 'always open'. Dodgy at best. But the veneer isnt deep since even though the office was 'open', no county business could be transacted during those 'open hours'. On its face and practice it was a sham.

In addition to the very obvious problem in the facts with the Texas Election Code, it was probably violative of several provisions of the Texas Constitution dealing with the rights of voters across the state.

So please, stop with the 'the clerk was just doing what an elected official was elected to do.'

No state official is elected to violate voting laws, or the equal protection aspects of the Texas Constitution. Not even in a ham handed effort to gin up one side's vote.

But, at least call it what it is and what the actions stood for.

Hudspeth has now learned the perils of trying to short circuit both the explicit law and the intent of the law. I heard that Harris County shelled out close to million to defend their actions in the district and appellate courts.

And, they invoked the legislature to fully remove much of the discretion afforded to local clerks, since it is now obvious that the more political ones will absolutely abuse it. The clerks will not longer be treated as apolitical officers of the state simply carrying out non-discretionary duties by the lege. Hope you are happy with that outcome.

But, at least tell the full story behind it, and the intentional violation of state law as well as the Texas Constitution instead of 'awww, you have a gripe against a county official doing her job' schtick that you promulgate above.

What actions did the clerk take in Harris county that were not extended to Republican voters of the county or discouraged said voters to vote?

You misconstrue what I said. Ginning up high numbers of votes in Harris means ginning up large number of D votes.

If you want to do that on the up and up -- more power to them.

But the actions of the Harris County clerk were partisan actions to gin up the vote in a very high D county. So get off your misperception of my comment re: Republicans.

Quote:What if - hear me out - they felt their job was to try and make voting as easy and efficient as possible for their constituents? No way someone whose job it was to administer elections would do that, right?

What if Charles Manson felt he was doing the right thing.

Put your real world cap on, lad. Collins had a long history of partisan politics. I misidentified the clerk as Hudspeth, as I had some business in that office just recently. His resume, save for the interim post which he embarked on the above, is "Democratic Party Official" and "Personal Injury Attorney".

Even the Houston Chronicle reported on his ascension as "Texas Democratic Party official appointed interim Harris County clerk".

His tenure was such a shitfest that the county moved the operation of elections to the Harris County Election Administrator’s Office.

But, wish all you want to about fairy tale dragonflies and ginger snap unicorns.

The dude was a political appointment through and through. Not even elected. And he bolted right after the 2020 Nov elections. Doesnt sound like the self-torturing and selfless soul on the brave 'elected official' that seems to be the perception.

I feel like this is typically where you come in yelling about being all knowing or whatever your tag line is when I make similar arguments about potential motives. Lol.

You are correct that the interim clerk, with zero experience in the function of the clerk’s office, could have motives as pure as the driven snow.

The facts surrounding his appointment, the fact that an adjutant to the previous clerk (I.e a professional in the role) was not selected, and Collins sole experience being a ‘Democratic Party official’ all seem to tilt to the other side.

When one looks at that tableaux, and the events that came from it, and the responses to those events, a quite rational and convincing case that Collins was installed solely to gin up Democratic votes in a place that has a lot of them. Considering 2 of the 3 methods to do so were and are either illegal under the Texas Election Code and/or the Texas Constitution also adds to that perception and rationale.

On the other hand we have one person opining that an elected official was simply doing the best to serve their constituency (an objectively false statement) and another saying ‘maybe, just maybe, the upper level highly partisan Democratic Party official whom was appointed over actual professionals in the office, the appointment which was done in divisive partisan split vote amongst the Commissioners, and in a time when the stated goal of the Texas Democrat Party was to leverage massive turnout in Harris to flip Texas’. Oh, not to mention the single minded methods employed by that interim clerk / Democratic official to do the same, even if it meant violating the Texas Election Code.

According to quantum mechanics, a perfect copy of the Eiffel Tower could assemble in my hayfield. So your view, even with all the items above actually is possible.

But I would suggest you stop and look over the above points before defending it Iwo Jima like. But again, as stated before, you are free not to as well.

(07-16-2021 08:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

Actually, I have met GoodOwl - at halftime of the Liberty Bowl. I think he considers me somewhat of a liberal, and hoo-boy, do we ever have different opinions on Bailiff. But I think he is a good man and a good parent, and like you and me, is entitled to his opinions, some of which I share and some of which I don't, and some of which I think the jury is still out on. I have had more discussion with him than with you. And even though we disagree - mightily - on many things, he has never been disrespectful of me as you have been.

Respect is a two-way street, homie.

I think I have given you a lot of respect. What specifically makes you feel disrespected? That I ask you questions about Democrat policies and actions? I try to remain respectful. I would never tell you to sod off, although I appreciate the genteel Brit-speak. I ask again, who should I ask those questions of? GoodOwl? I want the views of those who support the Democrat policies and actions, and nobody here comes closer than you and Lad. If I am asking about BLM, or cancel culture, or current news such as the Democratic hide and seek, who should I be asking?

If you feel you need extensive research to answer, that is on you. I don't ask for it. I don't need a map of the city to ask somebody how to get to Hermann Park. I respect that you may be up to your ass in alligators at work, since I did the same thing for over three decades, juggling three businesses with parenting three boys and social and civic responsibilities, a lot of the time as a single parent. Just tell me you are busy. No need to tell me to sod off. I would settle for the same respect I give you.

Homie?

(07-16-2021 08:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

I
Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

Actually, I have met GoodOwl - at halftime of the Liberty Bowl. I think he considers me somewhat of a liberal, and hoo-boy, do we ever have different opinions on Bailiff. But I think he is a good man and a good parent, and like you and me, is entitled to his opinions, some of which I share and some of which I don't, and some of which I think the jury is still out on. I have had more discussion with him than with you. And even though we disagree - mightily - on many things, he has never been disrespectful of me as you have been.

Respect is a two-way street, homie.

So the guy who rails on manners decides to respond to a comment lacking in direct ad Homs and on the subject of respect.

That comment could have been limited to “Respect is a two way street”.

Instead, Mr Manners decides to respond with “Respect is a two way street, HOMIE”.

Rich. Absolutely rich. <slow clap>

unhinged Texas Democrats

"They (Texas Republican officials) normally put poll watchers in minority areas, and they are normally people of different nationalities than the areas where they place them. And they are there to intimidate the workers. Not the workers, but the voters," Texas state House Democratic Dean Senfronia Thompson claimed without evidence on MSNBC.

"Can the poll watchers be armed?" host Joy Reid later asked.

"Well, that's a good question," Thompson replied in answering what was actually a horrible question. "I would predict that they probably could."

Different NATIONALITIES?????? So now the problem is that Texas Republicans want to put armed Greeks or Latvians to work as poll watchers, to intimidate hard working Democrats? New one to me. As is the news that that poll watchers may be armed.

(07-16-2021 08:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 08:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

Actually, I have met GoodOwl - at halftime of the Liberty Bowl. I think he considers me somewhat of a liberal, and hoo-boy, do we ever have different opinions on Bailiff. But I think he is a good man and a good parent, and like you and me, is entitled to his opinions, some of which I share and some of which I don't, and some of which I think the jury is still out on. I have had more discussion with him than with you. And even though we disagree - mightily - on many things, he has never been disrespectful of me as you have been.

Respect is a two-way street, homie.

I think I have given you a lot of respect. What specifically makes you feel disrespected?

Probably your constant inferences that I am lying about being busy/just spending time on non-Quad activities so that I can avoid answering your tough questions.

Quote:That I ask you questions about Democrat policies and actions? I try to remain respectful. I would never tell you to sod off, although I appreciate the genteel Brit-speak. I ask again, who should I ask those questions of?

How about when I tell you "I don't know... I'm not familiar enough with the details of this issue" to leave it at that. I don't know who else you should ask. It's not my responsibility.

Quote: GoodOwl? I want the views of those who support the Democrat policies and actions, and nobody here comes closer than you and Lad. If I am asking about BLM, or cancel culture, or current news such as the Democratic hide and seek, who should I be asking?

If you feel you need extensive research to answer, that is on you. I don't ask for it.

Again... not everything is intuitive. I can't explain every POV on every issue out there off the top of my head.

Quote: I don't need a map of the city to ask somebody how to get to Hermann Park. I respect that you may be up to your ass in alligators at work, since I did the same thing for over three decades, juggling three businesses with parenting three boys and social and civic responsibilities, a lot of the time as a single parent. Just tell me you are busy. No need to tell me to sod off. I would settle for the same respect I give you.

Homie?

Again... your constant inferences that I am lying about how I choose to spend my free time doesn't feel especially respectful. Just yesterday you said something like "I think I'll pull a 93 and claim busyness".

(07-16-2021 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 08:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the Dems are accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Dems did in the last election - manipulating the vote to help their party.

So pot, meet kettle.

I
Hahaha... have you met GoodOwl? You guys have a lot to discuss.

Actually, I have met GoodOwl - at halftime of the Liberty Bowl. I think he considers me somewhat of a liberal, and hoo-boy, do we ever have different opinions on Bailiff. But I think he is a good man and a good parent, and like you and me, is entitled to his opinions, some of which I share and some of which I don't, and some of which I think the jury is still out on. I have had more discussion with him than with you. And even though we disagree - mightily - on many things, he has never been disrespectful of me as you have been.

Respect is a two-way street, homie.

So the guy who rails on manners decides to respond to a comment lacking in direct ad Homs and on the subject of respect.

That comment could have been limited to “Respect is a two way street”.

Instead, Mr Manners decides to respond with “Respect is a two way street, HOMIE”.

Rich. Absolutely rich. <slow clap>

Would you be so offended if I had said "Respect is a two-way street, my friend?"

Because it means the same thing.