(07-16-2021 11:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 10:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 10:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Ad hom? Not quite.

Smarmy? Yep.

You might as well get your accusations right.

Is "Mr. Manners" smarmy or an ad hom? It seems smarmy.

It emphasizes the exhibited hypocrisy, sir. Glad to help you refine the point.

I forgot. You don't recognize your own smarm or ad homs. Just other people's. You know... hypocrisy!

This is dumb. I'm sorry I took the bait.

I fully recognize my own smarm *and* ad Homs, good sir. We have this guy who preaches it to us incessantly. But it looks like he took a gainer off that high horse recently.

What's so dumb about this whole thing is that the only times I tend to point out smarm/ad homs is when you are busy accusing us of the same. It's ridiculously hypocritical.

Funny, you state categorically about the only times you point out smarms and homs is in response to me. I guess you have obliquely forgotten this sub thread itself. Lolz. The comedy just progresses unabated......

(07-15-2021 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Why is Harris special? Probably because Harris did 24hr and drive-through. Did any of those other counties do that? Prohibiting that practice hurt only the counties that used it or are likely to.

The rest of your complaints sound like a version of "get off my lawn". So you don't need 24hr and don't see why anyone else would. Fine, don't use it, but that's not a reason to tell Harris not to do it. And whether it's a good use of taxpayer $ is a decision for Harris commissioner's court and ultimately Harris voters. Until the Lege says no, of course.

BTW, apologies if my post started the post-storm that followed. I don't have the time or interest to live here. I visit very rarely and this thread reinforces that approach.

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

No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code. Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters. Ballots were mailed to those who properly filed applications.

Actually drive-thru voting was in violation of the code as initially implemented. Apparently the code (haven't read it) requires polling places to be in a structure. The open air voting was moved to a parking garage.

What constitutes being open so far as the clerk's office is concerned? The physical office was closed for the pandemic. Virtual services continued. If there was a clerk on duty 24/7 to accept civil court electronic filings, would that suffice?

(07-16-2021 12:59 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Why is Harris special? Probably because Harris did 24hr and drive-through. Did any of those other counties do that? Prohibiting that practice hurt only the counties that used it or are likely to.

The rest of your complaints sound like a version of "get off my lawn". So you don't need 24hr and don't see why anyone else would. Fine, don't use it, but that's not a reason to tell Harris not to do it. And whether it's a good use of taxpayer $ is a decision for Harris commissioner's court and ultimately Harris voters. Until the Lege says no, of course.

BTW, apologies if my post started the post-storm that followed. I don't have the time or interest to live here. I visit very rarely and this thread reinforces that approach.

I would surmise it would not be a good reason to do it if a state wished uniform election hours short of all the time in the day.

It wouldn’t be a good reason to have a county clerk directly flout the state law to do it either.

There are good underlying reasons for uniform voting hours. Interestingly enough they are the same ones that progressives turn to time and time again. That is except when those same golden principles conflict with an opportunity to gin up more Democratic votes, as in this instance apparently.

As for the lege saying no, well, they did. And the hours issue was no different considering the sham that the clerk office was ‘open’, yet no county business could be conducted in the office between 6pm and 8am. Given that artifice and deception, the Harris county 24 hour voting was illegal. So please dont give us the implication that that action was legal.

(07-16-2021 01:14 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

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

No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code. Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters. Ballots were mailed to those who properly filed applications.

Actually drive-thru voting was in violation of the code as initially implemented. Apparently the code (haven't read it) requires polling places to be in a structure. The open air voting was moved to a parking garage.

What constitutes being open so far as the clerk's office is concerned? The physical office was closed for the pandemic. Virtual services continued. If there was a clerk on duty 24/7 to accept civil court electronic filings, would that suffice?

Services include far more than virtual actions and manned court filings. Numerous items handled at the office need explicit party signatures or interaction with the office aside from a blind deposit function.

As for the concern, the concern is that a political advocate took the clerk office on a partisan joyride. To the extent of deceitfully declaring the office open for 24 voting when in fact no other business that could be handled by a person or needed a person could be transacted.

So yes, his actions in that respect were illegal. Now the Dems are going ape **** since that deceitful action based on loose language has now been completely un-loopholed.

And as noted, the issues of equal protection of both the US Constitution and the related ones about the Texas Constitution play a role in that as well.

And yes, is truthful that only absentee ballot applications were mailed. You neglect the salient requirements to be able to vote absentee by mail. And you neglect to mention that counties have not been given the authority to mail applications for that on their own en masse. Further you neglect that the power of Counties is not the plenary power of Texas —- counties are only authorized to exercise the powers that are devolved to them via State of Texas action or through the Texas Constitution,

And most important you forget Texas Election Code 84.012 that only allows the clerk to mail the application at the request of the applicant.

Just some few minor issues with the application mailing. Your second sentence of the first paragraph is a stark refutation of your first, mind you.

(07-16-2021 01:14 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

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

No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code. Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters. Ballots were mailed to those who properly filed applications.

Actually drive-thru voting was in violation of the code as initially implemented. Apparently the code (haven't read it) requires polling places to be in a structure. The open air voting was moved to a parking garage.

What constitutes being open so far as the clerk's office is concerned? The physical office was closed for the pandemic. Virtual services continued. If there was a clerk on duty 24/7 to accept civil court electronic filings, would that suffice?

I remember chuckling a bit about the drive through voting issue when it came up. It seemed so odd that the regulation stated that voting needed to occur in a structure - I wonder what led to that inclusion when writing the legislation.

(07-16-2021 01:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 01:14 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

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

No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code. Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters. Ballots were mailed to those who properly filed applications.

Actually drive-thru voting was in violation of the code as initially implemented. Apparently the code (haven't read it) requires polling places to be in a structure. The open air voting was moved to a parking garage.

What constitutes being open so far as the clerk's office is concerned? The physical office was closed for the pandemic. Virtual services continued. If there was a clerk on duty 24/7 to accept civil court electronic filings, would that suffice?

Services include far more than virtual actions and manned court filings. Numerous items handled at the office need explicit party signatures or interaction with the office aside from a blind deposit function.

As for the concern, the concern is that a political advocate took the clerk office on a partisan joyride. To the extent of deceitfully declaring the office open for 24 voting when in fact no other business that could be handled by a person or needed a person could be transacted.

So yes, his actions in that respect were illegal. Now the Dems are going ape **** since that deceitful action based on loose language has now been completely un-loopholed.

And as noted, the issues of equal protection of both the US Constitution and the related ones about the Texas Constitution play a role in that as well.

So what is the argument, from an equal protection stand point, that allows some counties to have polling places open longer than others?

Does the total number of extra hours exceed those of a single, 24 hr event? If so, how is that not a violation of equal protection, but a single day of 24 hr voting is?

Quote:that allows some counties to have polling places open longer than others?

Hunh?

Sec. 41.031. VOTING HOURS. (a) Except as provided by Section 41.033, the polls shall be opened at 7 a.m. for voting and shall be closed at 7 p.m.

(b) Voting may not be conducted after the time for closing the polls except as provided by Section 41.032.

41.033 says if the entity has fewer than 50 qualified voters and they all vote it can close early.

41.032 allows those in line to vote.

I suggest you try again.

(07-16-2021 02:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:that allows some counties to have polling places open longer than others?

Hunh?

Sec. 41.031. VOTING HOURS. (a) Except as provided by Section 41.033, the polls shall be opened at 7 a.m. for voting and shall be closed at 7 p.m.

(b) Voting may not be conducted after the time for closing the polls except as provided by Section 41.032.

41.033 says if the entity has fewer than 50 qualified voters and they all vote it can close early.

41.032 allows those in line to vote.

I suggest you try again.

Why are you quoting current law and not the ones that are trying to be passed?

SB7 clearly allows for differences in early voting times, based explicitly on population:

"In an election to which Subsection (a) does not apply,
early voting by personal appearance at the main early voting
polling place shall be conducted at least eight hours each weekday
of the early voting period that is not a legal state holiday unless
the territory covered by the election has fewer than 1,000
registered voters. In that case, the voting shall be conducted at
least three hours each day."

"In a county with a population of 100,000 or more, the
voting in a primary election or the general election for state and
county officers shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each weekday of the last week of the
early voting period, and the voting in a special election ordered by
the governor shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each of the last two days of the
early voting period."

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/bi...navpanes=0

The House version apparently had a similar stipulation:

"H.B.3 requires all counties to open early voting locations for at least nine hours on weekdays (up from the current minimum of eight) between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Counties with 55,000 or greater population would be required to offer at least 12 hours on Saturdays between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and six hours on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-votin...1626297555

(07-16-2021 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 02:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:that allows some counties to have polling places open longer than others?

Hunh?

Sec. 41.031. VOTING HOURS. (a) Except as provided by Section 41.033, the polls shall be opened at 7 a.m. for voting and shall be closed at 7 p.m.

(b) Voting may not be conducted after the time for closing the polls except as provided by Section 41.032.

41.033 says if the entity has fewer than 50 qualified voters and they all vote it can close early.

41.032 allows those in line to vote.

I suggest you try again.

Why are you quoting current law and not the ones that are trying to be passed?

SB7 clearly allows for differences in early voting times, based explicitly on population:

"In an election to which Subsection (a) does not apply,
early voting by personal appearance at the main early voting
polling place shall be conducted at least eight hours each weekday
of the early voting period that is not a legal state holiday unless
the territory covered by the election has fewer than 1,000
registered voters. In that case, the voting shall be conducted at
least three hours each day."

"In a county with a population of 100,000 or more, the
voting in a primary election or the general election for state and
county officers shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each weekday of the last week of the
early voting period, and the voting in a special election ordered by
the governor shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each of the last two days of the
early voting period."

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/bi...navpanes=0

The House version apparently had a similar stipulation:

"H.B.3 requires all counties to open early voting locations for at least nine hours on weekdays (up from the current minimum of eight) between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Counties with 55,000 or greater population would be required to offer at least 12 hours on Saturdays between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and six hours on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-votin...1626297555

I suggest you read the text of HB 3 and SB 7. They cover a different topic. You asked about 'poll time hours'. I answered with Sec 41 which is literally...... uh...... "poll time hours".

The sections you throw up for clarification read on Section 85 for early voting. Section 85 allows smaller counties to go up to the longer hours upon request by a certain small number of voters. Had you done a modicum of background on your snippets, you would readily see they are directed to Section 85. I am sorry you did not do that.

In short, for early voting there is a state standard set at a standard that richer larger areas can easily meet, but not onerous to preclude smaller counties. Smaller counties *can* opt for a lesser standard, but have to adhere to the greater standard if (iirc) 15 voters ask them to.

Similar mechanisms for Saturday and Sunday voting as well.

If you bother to read and quote snippets, read the thing being changed in total. I know the snippets make you feel smart, but you really should try and see where they fit in when you brandish them like holy water.

Again, the state sets a standard that all counties can conceivably and realistically meet. They allow those with less resources to 'go cheaper', unless some small number forces them to play in the adult pool. But, they can actually swim in the adult pool if need be.

Your stand is that the upper standard should be 24 hours, and the predicate is that all counties should be able to shoulder 24 hours. If all can shoulder 24 hours there would be no problem. The simple issue is that they cannot.

So....... the standard has to conform to the hardest that the poorest can meet. That allows conformity. The standard is one that everyone can play in if needed.

As opposed to your formulation of -- allow 24 and fk those who cannot do that.

SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:

Quote:No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code..

and

Quote:Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters.

With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

(07-16-2021 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 02:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:that allows some counties to have polling places open longer than others?

Hunh?

Sec. 41.031. VOTING HOURS. (a) Except as provided by Section 41.033, the polls shall be opened at 7 a.m. for voting and shall be closed at 7 p.m.

(b) Voting may not be conducted after the time for closing the polls except as provided by Section 41.032.

41.033 says if the entity has fewer than 50 qualified voters and they all vote it can close early.

41.032 allows those in line to vote.

I suggest you try again.

Why are you quoting current law and not the ones that are trying to be passed?

SB7 clearly allows for differences in early voting times, based explicitly on population:

"In an election to which Subsection (a) does not apply,
early voting by personal appearance at the main early voting
polling place shall be conducted at least eight hours each weekday
of the early voting period that is not a legal state holiday unless
the territory covered by the election has fewer than 1,000
registered voters. In that case, the voting shall be conducted at
least three hours each day."

"In a county with a population of 100,000 or more, the
voting in a primary election or the general election for state and
county officers shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each weekday of the last week of the
early voting period, and the voting in a special election ordered by
the governor shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each of the last two days of the
early voting period."

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/bi...navpanes=0

The House version apparently had a similar stipulation:

"H.B.3 requires all counties to open early voting locations for at least nine hours on weekdays (up from the current minimum of eight) between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Counties with 55,000 or greater population would be required to offer at least 12 hours on Saturdays between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and six hours on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-votin...1626297555

I suggest you read the text of HB 3 and SB 7. They cover a different topic. You asked about 'poll time hours'. I answered with Sec 41 which is literally...... uh...... "poll time hours".

The sections you throw up for clarification read on Section 85 for early voting. Section 85 allows smaller counties to go up to the longer hours upon request by a certain small number of voters. Had you done a modicum of background on your snippets, you would readily see they are directed to Section 85. I am sorry you did not do that.

In short, for early voting there is a state standard set at a standard that richer larger areas can easily meet, but not onerous to preclude smaller counties. Smaller counties *can* opt for a lesser standard, but have to adhere to the greater standard if (iirc) 15 voters ask them to.

Similar mechanisms for Saturday and Sunday voting as well.

If you bother to read and quote snippets, read the thing being changed in total. I know the snippets make you feel smart, but you really should try and see where they fit in when you brandish them like holy water.

Again, the state sets a standard that all counties can conceivably and realistically meet. They allow those with less resources to 'go cheaper', unless some small number forces them to play in the adult pool. But, they can actually swim in the adult pool if need be.

Your stand is that the upper standard should be 24 hours, and the predicate is that all counties should be able to shoulder 24 hours. If all can shoulder 24 hours there would be no problem. The simple issue is that they cannot.

So....... the standard has to conform to the hardest that the poorest can meet. That allows conformity. The standard is one that everyone can play in if needed.

As opposed to your formulation of -- allow 24 and fk those who cannot do that.

So basically the standard has to be met, but if that standard can’t be met, it can be lowered.

Weird logic there. Sounds more like the state sets floors for all, which vary and can result in unequal access to voting depending on where one lives.

(07-16-2021 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 02:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:that allows some counties to have polling places open longer than others?

Hunh?

Sec. 41.031. VOTING HOURS. (a) Except as provided by Section 41.033, the polls shall be opened at 7 a.m. for voting and shall be closed at 7 p.m.

(b) Voting may not be conducted after the time for closing the polls except as provided by Section 41.032.

41.033 says if the entity has fewer than 50 qualified voters and they all vote it can close early.

41.032 allows those in line to vote.

I suggest you try again.

Why are you quoting current law and not the ones that are trying to be passed?

SB7 clearly allows for differences in early voting times, based explicitly on population:

"In an election to which Subsection (a) does not apply,
early voting by personal appearance at the main early voting
polling place shall be conducted at least eight hours each weekday
of the early voting period that is not a legal state holiday unless
the territory covered by the election has fewer than 1,000
registered voters. In that case, the voting shall be conducted at
least three hours each day."

"In a county with a population of 100,000 or more, the
voting in a primary election or the general election for state and
county officers shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each weekday of the last week of the
early voting period, and the voting in a special election ordered by
the governor shall be conducted at the main early voting polling
place for ["at least" is struck through] 12 hours on each of the last two days of the
early voting period."

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/bi...navpanes=0

The House version apparently had a similar stipulation:

"H.B.3 requires all counties to open early voting locations for at least nine hours on weekdays (up from the current minimum of eight) between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Counties with 55,000 or greater population would be required to offer at least 12 hours on Saturdays between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and six hours on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-votin...1626297555

I suggest you read the text of HB 3 and SB 7. They cover a different topic. You asked about 'poll time hours'. I answered with Sec 41 which is literally...... uh...... "poll time hours".

The sections you throw up for clarification read on Section 85 for early voting. Section 85 allows smaller counties to go up to the longer hours upon request by a certain small number of voters. Had you done a modicum of background on your snippets, you would readily see they are directed to Section 85. I am sorry you did not do that.

In short, for early voting there is a state standard set at a standard that richer larger areas can easily meet, but not onerous to preclude smaller counties. Smaller counties *can* opt for a lesser standard, but have to adhere to the greater standard if (iirc) 15 voters ask them to.

Similar mechanisms for Saturday and Sunday voting as well.

If you bother to read and quote snippets, read the thing being changed in total. I know the snippets make you feel smart, but you really should try and see where they fit in when you brandish them like holy water.

Again, the state sets a standard that all counties can conceivably and realistically meet. They allow those with less resources to 'go cheaper', unless some small number forces them to play in the adult pool. But, they can actually swim in the adult pool if need be.

Your stand is that the upper standard should be 24 hours, and the predicate is that all counties should be able to shoulder 24 hours. If all can shoulder 24 hours there would be no problem. The simple issue is that they cannot.

So....... the standard has to conform to the hardest that the poorest can meet. That allows conformity. The standard is one that everyone can play in if needed.

As opposed to your formulation of -- allow 24 and fk those who cannot do that.

So basically the standard has to be met, but if that standard can’t be met, it can be lowered.

Weird logic there. Sounds more like the state sets floors for all, which vary and can result in unequal access to voting depending on where one lives.

You might consider the delta between them isnt extraordinary. But again, you seem to like to transform my comments into a 'extreme case for everything', as has happened many times before this, and I suppose many times subsequent.

If you are looking for 'strict unequality' you might be correct. But, as I noted previously, the issue isnt necessarily strict inequality, it boils down to making sure there are not gross inequalities.

That is, like the difference between 24 hours and 10, like some whom have explicitly said that. And, the state actually considers that floor as one all counties might reasonably meet. Again, like the difference between 24 hours and 10, and again like some whom have explicitly proposed the former.

If one looked at Section 85, instead of the simple changes to it in the acts, you might see that interaction. And one might conceivably access the various statutory notes and records. Or they can choose not to do so and still opine why it is best to go with an 'allow 24 and fk those that cant' stance. Free choice and all that jazz.

You might want to before you go on a snippet rampage again.

And maybe the record has a reason and rationale while 9 hours is the standard in early voting, that is except for the very limited boost on two or three days for larger population centers. Again, the boost that you cite so proudly is, well, you can read what it is --- a limited boost. So if you really want to crow over say, 6 hours over the entire early voting period --- feel free to puff out that chest in self-pride. Maybe a gold star is in your future.

But again, that would take reading the entirety of that law and other portions of Section 85, that is, as opposed to the war snippets you put out.

(07-16-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:

Quote:No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code..

and

Quote:Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters.

With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

Quite simple. I've seen no evidence that a ballot was mailed that wasn't properly requested. I did see the fact that applications, not ballots, were mailed to registered voters somehow morphed into the claim that ballots were mailed.

84.012 requires the clerk to mail applications to those who request it. It does not prohibit mailing applications to others. If that's what the Lege intended it would have said "mail...only to those requesting"

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:

Quote:No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code..

and

Quote:Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters.

With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

Quite simple. I've seen no evidence that a ballot was mailed that wasn't properly requested. I did see the fact that applications, not ballots, were mailed to registered voters somehow morphed into the claim that ballots were mailed.

84.012 requires the clerk to mail applications to those who request it. It does not prohibit mailing applications to others. If that's what the Lege intended it would have said "mail...only to those requesting"

Interesting methodology to delete text from a statute. That only makes sense if you discard the entire idea of the power allocation from Texax to the counties as a whole.

Can you point to any positive grant of power to a clerk, any clerk, to allow them to do such a mailing at their discretion?

Hate to tell you, the Texas Constitution requires such a positive grant for such officials for that type of action. Interesting tidbit there, isn't it

(07-29-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:

Quote:No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code..

and

Quote:Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters.

With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

Quite simple. I've seen no evidence that a ballot was mailed that wasn't properly requested. I did see the fact that applications, not ballots, were mailed to registered voters somehow morphed into the claim that ballots were mailed.

84.012 requires the clerk to mail applications to those who request it. It does not prohibit mailing applications to others. If that's what the Lege intended it would have said "mail...only to those requesting"

Interesting methodology to delete text from a statute. That only makes sense if you discard the entire idea of the power allocation from Texax to the counties as a whole.

Can you point to any positive grant of power to a clerk, any clerk, to allow them to do such a mailing at their discretion?

Hate to tell you, the Texas Constitution requires such a positive grant for such officials for that type of action. Interesting tidbit there, isn't it

The ellipses etc were added to condense the language. Here's the full text of 84.012:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.
It does not say:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot only to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.

The Texas Constitution (Art 5 Sec 20) gives the Lege the authority to define the duties and powers of the County Clerk. Not sure where you get the "requires a positive grant" idea.

Can we agree the County Clerk is the official responsible for mail ballot applications? The issue here is to what extent that responsibility is limited. My opinion is that absent a limitation expressed by the Lege, the Clerk is free to fulfill that responsibility in any way that meets the requirements established by the Lege.

(07-30-2021 03:33 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:

Quote:No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code..

and

Quote:Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters.

With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

Quite simple. I've seen no evidence that a ballot was mailed that wasn't properly requested. I did see the fact that applications, not ballots, were mailed to registered voters somehow morphed into the claim that ballots were mailed.

84.012 requires the clerk to mail applications to those who request it. It does not prohibit mailing applications to others. If that's what the Lege intended it would have said "mail...only to those requesting"

Interesting methodology to delete text from a statute. That only makes sense if you discard the entire idea of the power allocation from Texax to the counties as a whole.

Can you point to any positive grant of power to a clerk, any clerk, to allow them to do such a mailing at their discretion?

Hate to tell you, the Texas Constitution requires such a positive grant for such officials for that type of action. Interesting tidbit there, isn't it

The ellipses etc were added to condense the language. Here's the full text of 84.012:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.
It does not say:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot only to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.

The Texas Constitution (Art 5 Sec 20) gives the Lege the authority to define the duties and powers of the County Clerk. Not sure where you get the "requires a positive grant" idea.

Can we agree the County Clerk is the official responsible for mail ballot applications? The issue here is to what extent that responsibility is limited. My opinion is that absent a limitation expressed by the Lege, the Clerk is free to fulfill that responsibility in any way that meets the requirements established by the Lege.

Using your ‘express limitation’ rationale, that would allow the county water quality personnel to issue ag exemptions. I’d say that viewpoint is a little more than just a a tiny bit problematic.

If you wish I can extend that false interpretation to any number of functions at the county level, let alone non-discretionary clerk functions dictated by statute.

I could have a rip-roaring fun time playing your ‘they didn’t include the word “only” in the statute’ if that is the road you want to lay your chips on.

On the constitutional issue, it is related to your issue that you highlight above. Counties may only execute the specific powers granted, and in the manner granted. Sorry, your plenary view of county government authority is dodgy at best. But it seems right in line with an ends based rationale that is quite the rage these days in certain political sets.

California voters go to the polls only to find they have already voted

Yep, voter ID requirement really sucks.

(09-13-2021 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:   California voters go to the polls only to find they have already voted

Yep, voter ID requirement really sucks.

All of them Republicans? Nothing suspicious there. In truth, if they were to hint at any wrongdoing, they would be labeled conspiracy theorists and dismissed out of hand. Typical right-wing kooks.

(09-13-2021 12:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:   California voters go to the polls only to find they have already voted

Yep, voter ID requirement really sucks.

All of them Republicans? Nothing suspicious there. In truth, if they were to hint at any wrongdoing, they would be labeled conspiracy theorists and dismissed out of hand. Typical right-wing kooks.

Regardless of affiliation --- a record that you have voted when you have not SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

But when the law says you do not need an ID (as Cali does), it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the prevalence of this happening rises dramatically.

I think I told you all what happened to me in one minor election in CA. But requiring voter ID is racist to some (or somefink like that).