It just made my morning to see that not only is the AP reporting this correctly, but the headline explicitly states the insane rarity of voter fraud. (Non-citizen or otherwise.) You have a better chance of getting a clear picture of Bigfoot than you do of having a voter fraud incident in your jurisdiction.
Multiple massive audits of elections in the US have shown that voter fraud is so rare that it can be described as non-existent. Claims of dead voters have been disproven, claims of mail votes being fraudulent have been disproven.
The absense of evidence doesn’t apply when we have evidence that the exiting votes are overwhemlingly proven to be valid on the voter’s end.
Now election fraud, where Republicans get people pulled off voter rolls and their votes discarded as a strategy to suppress votes does exist. But thst is election fraud, not voter fraud.
If it happens so little that it doesn’t matter, then why relax the standard? It’s clearly working then. You spook people who think it could happen when you do that. There’s no positive to doing that. So why do it?
Novody is talking about relaxing the standard. People are opposed to additional barriers to voting designed to disenfranchise minority voters and sow distrust in the election process that is already proven to be secure.
You’re moving the goalposts. Neither the person you’re replying to nor the article mention anything about relaxing the standard. All of the legislation and proposals in this area come from Republicans trying to make it harder for non-citizens to vote.
The article is pointing out the boogyman nature of this focus from the right. I would go a step further and say that this focus is an effort to disenfranchise working class voters by throwing more paperwork between them and their vote. I might even go another step and say that it’s an effort to delegitimize our elections by claiming fraud to pave the way for illegitimate power grabs (like Jan 6).
Yes… Which they can’t do anyway.
https://lemmy.saik0.com/comment/3543053
The ballot initiatives only clarifies and fixes verbiage to make it more clean. Nothing about this is actually making it any harder for legitimate citizens to vote.
If you say so.
This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters, and is not about bills loosening current voting laws. Current voting laws, as you yourself have stated, are clearly working.
Please quote where it says that. I see no such statement.
What about changing verbiage to be clear is “Disenfranchise”?
3rd paragraph in:
Legislatures pass bills. Sometimes they are called resolutions, or other names, but the items that are voted on are bills. Prior to the passage of these bills, only citizens could legally vote anyway. Noncitizens face fines, jail, and deportation for an act that has no mathematical influence on these elections even if it were to happen, which it generally does not.
By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote. This selective enforcement will fall disproportionately on those people who belong to the targeted group - in this case, those who look like the people immigrating across the southern U.S. border - similar to how poll taxes and literacy tests were used to prevent other groups from exercising their legitimate right to vote. And that’s by design, else these measures would not be coupled with fear mongering about these people.
Some people believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make the statement true. They provided no clear example of how any of it could be doing what they claim it would do. So that random statement starting with “some democrats”… is meaningless.
No it doesn’t because the verbiage is “ONLY citizens” as the replacement. It’s still VERY clear that citizens are to vote. What it clears up is any argument that non-citizens should also be allowed to vote.
You’re moving goalposts again, as I provided the excerpt from the article that you asked for in your prior comment.
The truth of the matter is that each of the racially motivated hurdles to voting I’ve previously noted follow a clear pattern of aiming to prevent certain groups from voting and this latest one is no different. No fluctuation of strawman arguments will change that
No. This is what you stated. Instead of showing where any disenfranchisement would happen you quoted
This is not evidence of any disenfranchisement is occurring Instead you’re just wildly speculating that there’s some random clear pattern of some sort that simply doesn’t exist.