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

a reply to: Xcathdra

The courts didnt kill the group.

I didn't say the courts did.

a reply to: Phage


So the Democrats on the committee got it shutdown, because the Republicans wouldn't share documents. I wonder why the Republicans on the committee wouldn't just share the documents?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The mandated purge is in there.

Nope. The permissible purge requirements are there. No mandate to do so.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The courts didnt kill the group.

I didn't say the courts did.

So then you didnt say this -

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

No - it didnt sort of kill it. The courts didnt kill it. The judges didnt kill it.

a reply to: highvein

So the Democrats on the committee got it shutdown, because they wouldn't share documents.

No. The court said that the committee had to comply. The president shut it down.

I wonder why they wouldn't just share the documents?

My guess is because they didn't have them. It was a cluster# from the get go.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The courts didnt kill it. The judges didnt kill it.

Right. But the requirement that they turn over documents seemed to have a dramatic effect.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The mandated purge is in there.

Nope. The permissible purge requirements are there. No mandate to do so.

Yes there is -

You do understand the act is more than just the one section you are ignoring right?
Title 42 - The Public Health And Welfare Chapter 20 - Elective Franchise Subchapter I-h - National Voter Registration

The Congress finds that -

(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;

(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and

(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.

(b) Purposes

The purposes of this subchapter are -

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;

(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

Current being the key word. 2 federal election cycles being the time frame required with no vote / non compliance with address updates to remove a person for voter rolls.

If a person doesnt vote / update their address for 2 election cycles states are to remove them from the voting rolls in order to keep their voter rolls current - as required by law.

It is why I pointed out to you the amicus brief California filed during the SCOTUS ruling on Ohio's voter roll purge and how California lost when the supreme court ruled in Ohios favor in removing people from the voter rolls. Also reaffirming the 2 federal election cycle time period and the requirement for states to maintain current voter rolls.


So yes - its in there. You either didnt read it, didnt understand it or are ignoring it for the sake of arguing.

It is one of the reasons states, like California, are being sued for failing to maintain current voter rolls.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The courts didnt kill it. The judges didnt kill it.

Right. But the requirement that they turn over documents seemed to have a dramatic effect.

and yet doesnt change the fact courts nor judges killed it because it is still in operation under ICE. You are the one who nitpicks stupid # like this so dont get pissed when its applied to yourself.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and yet doesnt change the fact courts nor judges killed it because it is still in operation under ICE.

What? The commission wasn't disbanded?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Current being the key word.

Where is "current" defined?

It is one of the reasons states, like California, are being sued for failing to maintain current voter rolls.

Heh. Trump is being sued too.
en.wikipedia.org...
What's your point?

a reply to: Phage

2 federal election cycles.

as for the lawsuit on voter rolls what part dont you understand? Seriously I can dumb it down even more so you do understand it? Or are you still playing your game?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

and yet doesnt change the fact courts nor judges killed it because it is still in operation under ICE.

What? The commission wasn't disbanded?

A judge nor the court killed it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

2 federal election cycles.

I asked where it is defined in Title 42, not what you think it means.

A judge nor the court killed it.

Correct. But it sure went away fast after that second demand from the court. Didn't it?

But I thought you said it was still going. That's what I was asking about.

and yet doesnt change the fact courts nor judges killed it because it is still in operation under ICE.

a reply to: Phage

and I told you - 2 federal election cycles. Which by the way is listed in the USC I linked to.

See, now your just arguing to argue.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No.

I asked where the word "current" used in Title 42 is defined. You then referred to the suggested wording for the voter registration postcard from 52.

They are two different things. Does 42 somewhere refer to the postcard wording in 52?

a reply to: Phage

and I told you - 2 federal election cycles. Which by the way is listed in the USC I linked to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is in the suggested wording for the registration notification postcard in 52. It is not specified in Title 42 which is a different law.

a reply to: Phage

The evidence says its a whole bunch statistically. If only .2% of the population is evaluated for voter fraud (a stretch of N Carolina) and 19 are found....that indicates that there could be an additional 10k cases.

a reply to: 727Sky

Yes they are pushing ways for illegals to get its for voting in even harder in my state they just started allowing you to go to local library scan a copy of your old I'd take the driving examine written test online and pay the librarian 40 bucks for your new license with the same picture that was on old license. The problem here is any one can take a license and change picture and use it to get false id.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

No. I don't think abolishing ICE would do much good.
But it doesn't seem to have much to do with citizens who commit voter fraud. Does it?

But what does what you added have to do with the original thread? It's almost like you have an agenda to derail certain types of threads posted by certain types of people. That can't be so, can it?