Biden DOJ sues Virginia
-
-
Those are the only two docs I’m aware of that are available to all.
Honestly the federal law makes perfect sense. Sure, we need to go through exercises to keep voter rolls up to date and clean. But those processes are going to have false positives, some times a lot of them. Can’t be doing that right before an election.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden DOJ sues Virginia:
As I suspected, tons of false positives. There’s a good reason you don’t do this right before an election.
lol "tons". Never stated was how many non-citizens were removed successfully from the rolls, through this process. Stated clearly was the process by which any mistake could be rectified, a process which was entirely legal and limited to a time frame before the election. Theories about Youngkin doing this in order to keep legal voters from voting, remain the domain of conspiracy theorist imbeciles. His motivation is clearly to clean up the rolls.
-
Had he done this in June I’d agree with you. Rectification takes time. Might require getting a copy of your birth certificate. 90 days is totally reasonable, youngkin broke the law and will lose.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Had he done this in June I’d agree with you. Rectification takes time. Might require getting a copy of your birth certificate. 90 days is totally reasonable, youngkin broke the law and will lose.
@jon-nyc said in Biden DOJ sues Virginia:
Had he done this in June I’d agree with you. Rectification takes time. Might require getting a copy of your birth certificate. 90 days is totally reasonable, youngkin broke the law and will lose.
Whether he broke the law depends on the wording of the federal law which defines, in precise legalese, the actions prohibited within 90 days of an election. Is it really illegal to remove illegal voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election? I doubt it. Is it illegal to employ any process intended to remove illegals but which may remove others in error? We will let the courts decide, but it is obviously not a done deal until that decision is made.
-
Had he done this in June I’d agree with you. Rectification takes time. Might require getting a copy of your birth certificate. 90 days is totally reasonable, youngkin broke the law and will lose.
@jon-nyc said in Biden DOJ sues Virginia:
Had he done this in June I’d agree with you. Rectification takes time. Might require getting a copy of your birth certificate. 90 days is totally reasonable, youngkin broke the law and will lose.
Evidently this has been going on for months. The fact that the guy has claimed he has proven his citizenship 5 times points to the fact that this goes back to before the 90 day window.
-
As is usually the case in politics, both sides do stupid stuff trying to prove they are the less stupid.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden DOJ sues Virginia:
Sure that’s fine. You just have to stop 90 days before the election. And they didn’t.
Again...
Kaine’s administration specifically asked the Justice Department to determine if the law was compliant with federal laws, including an express inquiry about the NVRA.
On December 16, 2006, the Justice Department completed its review and found no objections to the Virginia law though it added that it reserves the right to object in the future to any such laws.
Gov. Youngkin further told Fox News that past governors continued to use the law within the 90 days period without a peep of objection from the Justice Department.
Is Youngkin lying?
-
From the article
The bipartisan legislation was signed into law by then Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. It has been used without any objection for all those years.
I would be curious to see how many voters were removed in a similar time frame before other elections. If the answer is "zero", then maybe it does seem political. If the answer is a similar number (6000) to what is happening now, then it does seem to be okay.
-
-
The court’s six conservative justices supported the stay, with the three liberals dissenting.
How odd, one would have hoped that legal interpretations around these issues would be cut and dried. I wonder which set of justices were ruling with their hearts rather than their heads? Do you suppose it's the justices appointed by presidents who can't shut up about how government needs more heart?
