It would only be right...
MLB Moves All-Star Game to 80% WHITE city with voter ID laws
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
You missed part of the law. - You should really try reading the law instead of listening to your favorite far right idiots.
nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector,
within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
1819
(2) Within any polling place; or
1820
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place
So a neighbor can not give water to anyone in line even if the line is one mile long and the person is more than 150 feet from the building. The law clearly states no person shall give food and drink to anyone standing in line to vote. There is no possible other interpretation when you read this law. A voter standing in line will always be within 25 feet of a voter standing in line.
Colorado has universal mail-in voting and automatic voter registration.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not a chance. they are just as blinded and devoted as trumpers are to trump
it was 66 in Atlanta on Nov 3rd
The funny thing about elections. They don't always occur on Nov 3rd, 2020. The funny thing about weather in Atlanta, it isn't 66 every day of the year and every year of the century.
The primary election on Aug 11 had a temperature above 90 degrees for over 4 hours.
Again, that is what is banned. Folks with a political interest. Regardless, the reality is it does not ban folks from getting food and water while in line for voting, unless they are within the 150 feet and the person giving it has a political interest.
It is how the rules are written nearly everywhere, no electioneering within "insert distance here". In CO, the distance is 100 feet and not one of you ever complained about it. No electioneering, no poll taking, no gift giving... etc. same rules. Now somebody in line within that 150 feet (if the line really is coming out of the building) can simply have somebody mark their place and walk a few feet to get some water from somebody's campaign that is outside the limit if they can't wait a few minutes to get a drink. But the limit is what it is.
Right, but what I'm getting at is the distance seems wholly arbitrary...there's no scientific backing behind it, it's just a random number pulled out of thin air with no justification. It could be 100, it could be 1000, it could be 1. Maybe it should be nothing since it's completely arbitrary anyway?
CO has universal mail-in voting and automatic voter registration, so I'm not sure why you're bringing CO into this, when their elections are done almost entirely by mail, and everyone is automatically registered to vote.
Last edited:
It is specifically so that folks will not be intimidated by other folks. The laws were put into effect to protect the very folks you think are being negatively affected by this as electioneering was a bit "forceful". This allowed the poll workers to get the sheriff, or cops, to remove the folks that were trying to intimidate voters.
The distance is what is allowed by the SCOTUS as even the electioneer has some first amendment rights to put up their signs, etc. so the limits were set to ensure that folks near the polling place could not be intimidated or simply and directly "bought" by electioneers. (In the past those folks were allowed in to make sure their bribes worked, or that their fear tactics worked...) Basically, it places a limit to where that kind of thing can happen to people. IMHO... 150 feet is actually too close. But I follow the rules and mark the 100 feet limit (even shorter here in CO) when I am an election judge.
Again, this is saying that someone is intimidated at 100 feet but not at 101 feet? It makes no sense. It's completely arbitrary and doesn't change or affect anything meaningful.
You sure about that? This new Georgia law, for example, wasn't put into effect by any liberals here. I bet that if you look at a lot of the electioneering state and local laws, you'll find most of them were written by Republicans and Conservatives since they usually control the state legislatures where this is a question.
I guess the work you'd need to do would be to investigate these laws to find out when they were passed, and who passed them....because it sounds to me like you're making an assumption here without doing that work.
And again, I am saying that it is for the electors protection. As I specifically gave history for in the preceding post.
It isn't "arbitrary" it is what is allowed by the SCOTUS to protect the rights of both groups (the electors and the electioneers).
Remove them...to 101 feet. Not remove them altogether.
So my question still stands...how is it electioneering at 100 feet, but not at 101 feet?
Only if you can provide an ID that isn't free when you register to vote.
You get a free state ID after showing at least 2 other forms of identification. Those other forms of identification are not free.
What scientific method did SCOTUS use to determine whatever that acceptable distance is?
What is the science behind this decision?
And if there is no science behind it, then wouldn't that make it wholly arbitrary?
I love you too.
It is electioneering at any feet. It does provide a safe distance that somebody can be within and not be intimidated, approached, prodded, polled, etc. This also protects the poll workers...
That you don't get to stand there and intimidate folks and they can escape your nonsense is what the SCOTUS allowed and/or required (again to protect both groups rights, the electors and the electioneers).
The same "science" they use to allow/impose a distance between protesters and abortion clinics. Amazingly, the distance appears to work.
evince
Truthmatters
There is just nothing even resembling set morals in the Republican Party anymore
Their moral compass is a plastic spinning pinwheel
Spinning every which way