It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nineteen Foreign Nationals Charged for Voting in 2016 Election and why Dems want ICE gone

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not against the purging of voter rolls, within reasonable limits. But the section you cited seems quite vague. Perhaps that's the problem. Is there a definition of current? Does that mean everyone has to be verified every election?

Does your state do that?




Yes my state complies with the federal law and updates its rolls although they were recently sued this summer by left wing groups alleging they violated the Federal voter registration act. They are accusing the state of failing to register people to vote because in Mo a photo ID is required in order to obtain a Mo drivers license. If the person wanting the license doesnt have the required documentation as required by law Mo DMV systems do not prompt the state worker to fill out motor voter registration in the system. The problem here is they are claiming people 65 and older are the groups affected, which runs contrary to how Mo laws work. They are arguing disenfranchisement by maintaining accurate voting rolls. Absolutely nothing prevents the people from voting / voting on provisional ballots / registering to vote / etc.

They are pushing for looser restrictions on maintaining voter rolls.

Judicial Watch Sues California and Los Angeles Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls

The reasonable limit -

Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.



edit on 26-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections


I can't find that in the federal code. Can you help me out?
edit on 8/26/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra




Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections


I can't find that in the federal code. Can you help me out?


52 U.S. Code § 20507 - Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration

(d) Removal of names from voting rolls
(1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—

(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

(B)
(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and
(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar’s record of the registrant’s address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:

(A) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the registrar’s jurisdiction, the registrant should return the card not later than the time provided for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant’s address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice,and if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant’s name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

(B) If the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered, information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.

(3) A voting registrar shall correct an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformance with this subsection.


Also the states refusing to comply with the voter info request violated the law -

(i) Public disclosure of voter registration activities
(1) Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered.

(2) The records maintained pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in subsection (d)(2) are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made.






edit on 26-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




52 U.S. Code § 20507 - Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration



Appears to say that a state cannot remove a voter from the rolls unless those conditions are met.

A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—






Also the states refusing to comply with the voter info request violated the law -

Well, damn. It seems California is not alone.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 8/26/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why do you ask questions and then ignore the answers? Did you or did you not ask about the 2 general election standard. I provided you the info. I provided you the section. For some reason you fixate on something not relevant to your question and stumble into a new direction, pulling the thread even further off topic.

I gave you the link to USC.
CA officials refuse to clean their voter rolls.
I pointed out States broke the law and you fixate on California.

Is there any chance in hell you can pick a topic and stick with it. The game you play in the forums is getting old.
edit on 26-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you or did you not ask about the 2 general election standard.
The federal law does not specify any specific criteria for the purge of voter rolls. It does specify requirements that must be met before voters can be declared ineligible to vote in federal elections. Beyond that it is silent. Read it.



I pointed out States broke the law and you fixate on California.
No. You fixated on California. I pointed out that many other states refused to comply with the request of Trump's stupid commission.

edit on 8/26/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: highvein

Then you're going to have to go after more states than California. Like, all of them. Because none of them provided all of the information asked for. Many of them, including "red" states, refused to provide any information.

You know why? Because the committee overreached. Bigly.

States rights. And stuff.



I agree more than just California needs to be gone after. The committee overreached? How?



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually it does. When registration notifications go out and the person doesnt respond and 2 cycles go by the name is removed from the voter rolls. Go back and actually read the section beyond the first paragraph where it states when names can be removed. Secondly it goes hand in hand with the requirement in section 4 where it says states wil maintain current voter rolls.

You got your answer -
2 federal election cycles and if they dont vote / etc their name is to be purged from the rolls.

The supreme court ruling in 2018 dealing with Ohio confirms that requirement.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: highvein

Then you're going to have to go after more states than California. Like, all of them. Because none of them provided all of the information asked for. Many of them, including "red" states, refused to provide any information.

You know why? Because the committee overreached. Bigly.

States rights. And stuff.



I agree more than just California needs to be gone after. The committee overreached? How?


Thats just it - they didnt. The federal courts confirmed that when they threw out 7 lawsuits challenging the committee requests.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Go back and actually read the section beyond the first paragraph where it states when names can be removed.
The first paragraph is the prologue for the subparagraphs which follow. It goes (d) sub (1) sub (B) sub (ii).



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: highvein

Then you're going to have to go after more states than California. Like, all of them. Because none of them provided all of the information asked for. Many of them, including "red" states, refused to provide any information.

You know why? Because the committee overreached. Bigly.

States rights. And stuff.





I agree more than just California needs to be gone after. The committee overreached? How?


Thats just it - they didnt. The federal courts confirmed that when they threw out 7 lawsuits challenging the committee requests.



So what stopped the committee from going any further?
edit on 26-8-2018 by highvein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

and the remainder of the section spells out the criteria to remove names and the legnth of time to pass before it can be done. The state of California is not complying with the requirement.

Enough with your circular bs. You either understand the statute or you dont. I am leaning towards the latter.. Either that or you are in one of your mood where you just want to argue about everything without really getting anything out of it education wise.

If you wanna play bs games do it by yourself.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: highvein

Then you're going to have to go after more states than California. Like, all of them. Because none of them provided all of the information asked for. Many of them, including "red" states, refused to provide any information.

You know why? Because the committee overreached. Bigly.

States rights. And stuff.





I agree more than just California needs to be gone after. The committee overreached? How?


Thats just it - they didnt. The federal courts confirmed that when they threw out 7 lawsuits challenging the committee requests.



So what stopped the committee from going any further?


Trump moved the group from the committee over to ICE and ICE is currently doing the job.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: highvein

Then you're going to have to go after more states than California. Like, all of them. Because none of them provided all of the information asked for. Many of them, including "red" states, refused to provide any information.

You know why? Because the committee overreached. Bigly.

States rights. And stuff.





I agree more than just California needs to be gone after. The committee overreached? How?


Thats just it - they didnt. The federal courts confirmed that when they threw out 7 lawsuits challenging the committee requests.



So what stopped the committee from going any further?


Trump moved the group from the committee over to ICE and ICE is currently doing the job.


Well then. That is why the Left are really against ICE then. Thx, that explains a lot more than you know.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




and the remainder of the section spells out the criteria to remove names and the legnth of time to pass before it can be done.


You mean paragraph (2)? No. That's about what what the postcard has to say:

(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:


edit on 8/26/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not gonna play your games...

Educate yourself -

52 U.S. Code § 20507 - Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration
(d) Removal of names from voting rolls
(1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—

(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

(B)
(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and
(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar’s record of the registrant’s address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:

(A) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the registrar’s jurisdiction, the registrant should return the card not later than the time provided for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant’s address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice,and if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant’s name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

(B) If the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered, information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.

(3) A voting registrar shall correct an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformance with this subsection.


The answer is above.

Have fun



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: highvein




So what stopped the committee from going any further?

Judges found against the commission a couple of times. That sort of killed it.

On August 29, the government's attorney told the judge that confusion at the Department of Justice had resulted in the failure to disclose relevant documents to the plaintiffs, and Kollar-Kotelly ordered the government to provide a list of documents it wanted to withhold, and how it would comply with disclosure rules.[152]

In November 2017, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democratic member of the commission, said that Kobach was refusing to share working documents and scheduling information with him and the other Democrats on the commission. He filed suit, and in December a federal judge ordered the commission to hand over the documents.[153] Two weeks later, in January 2018, the Trump administration disbanded the commission, and informed Dunlap that it would not obey the court order to provide the documents because the commission no longer existed.[154]

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 8/26/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes. Paragraph 2 is about what the notification postcard should say.

(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:


Nothing about mandated purge criteria anywhere in the federal law. As it should be. Right? State's right's. Right?
edit on 8/26/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The courts didnt kill the group.

Why cant you read entire articles for full complete information? The source you linked even says that.

But by all means cite in the source you provided where it says the courts shut the commission down.
edit on 26-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The mandated purge is in there.


52 U.S. Code § 20507 - Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration
(d) Removal of names from voting rolls
(1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant—

(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or

(B)
(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and
(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar’s record of the registrant’s address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with a notice to the following effect:

(A) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or changed residence but remained in the registrar’s jurisdiction, the registrant should return the card not later than the time provided for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant’s address may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice,and if the registrant does not vote in an election during that period the registrant’s name will be removed from the list of eligible voters.

(B) If the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered, information concerning how the registrant can continue to be eligible to vote.

(3) A voting registrar shall correct an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformance with this subsection.


The answer is above.

Have fun
edit on 26-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join