Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[Risottia]

“QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.” (The Constitution of the State of Texas, Article 3, Section 10)

Which is nice and all, but does not apply outside of Texas. Police in Texas cannot legally enforce Texas law outside of Texas, and police forces from places outside of Texas cannot enforce Texas law at all. Federal law enforcement itself cannot enforce state law.

Time to go The American Way™ and start with abduc... ehm, "extraordinary renditions".

[Kowani]

What the fuck is this shit?

This just sounds wrong.

It's really not. It's much more mundane than folks are making out.

i mean it is important but the quorum-busting is not the important part of it as anything other than a red-flag

[Fahran]

i mean it is important but the quorum-busting is not the important part of it as anything other than a red-flag

I'll actually have to look into the impact of voter suppression tactics of this kind at some point, but I figured the OP was more interested in the procedural song and dance than in the policy debate. It did get lots of people do flash their inner-hypocrite.

[Kowani]

i mean it is important but the quorum-busting is not the important part of it as anything other than a red-flag

I'll actually have to look into the impact of voter suppression tactics of this kind at some point, but I figured the OP was more interested in the procedural song and dance than in the policy debate. It did get lots of people do flash their inner-hypocrite.

this is somewhat more anti-democratic (or at least less restrained in its anti-democratic sentiment) than previous iterations
...and also it's easier to suppress young voters (who usually have very little group identity) than it is minorities (who are easy to target but harder to suppress because of strong group identities)
though i'm not certain "voter suppression attempts are okay because enough people can scramble over the barriers" is really the hill we want to die on

[Gun Manufacturers]

They're not afraid of voting against it, they just know that they don't have the numbers to prevent it from passing.

This is the only recourse they have and I fully support it.

Elections have consequences.

[Shofercia]

That's how I feel about it, although I'd rather have consistent opinions that say that "quorum busting sucks" than opinions of partisanship and divisiveness.

I should also note the praise that I'm getting from Conservatives on NSG, (either in the thread of via TG,) even though I'm arguing, in very clear terms, that Republicans shouldn't round 'em up. I think it shows that anyone in the US, (except for the crazies on both sides of the aisle,) can be reasoned with, as long as we're making consistent arguments, and the nation isn't as divided as the media portrays it to be.

Anecdotal evidence is a crap standard and never is mere assertion that the republicans had past reasonableness on voter ID post southern strategy.

Besides it's not like anyone cared that i posted that the system itself is not the fair playing filed everyone assumes we should act like it is and i doubt the conservatives would glomp on to if i revealed that i'm leaning on tolerating what happened in Oregon.

Your interrelationships with cons are your own(and honesty good for you) not a sign of people's general reasonability or the so-called falsehood of polarization .

When you have one side screaming "as many restriction as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "no restrictions at all!" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems, irrespective of what side of the debate you're on. And yet, that's what I see with politicians, whereas the common people, aka "deplorables" and "47 percenters on welfare", to quote Clinton and Romney respectively, are actually trying to compromise.

The reason that Republicans are acting that way, (at least in terms of Voter ID,) is because the Democrats adopted a "my way or the highway" approach. You can't yell "NO VOTER ID NEVER!" and expect the opposing party to just shut up and take it. So of course the rebuttal is going to be harsh; your choices are twofold, (again focusing on Voter ID) - either negotiate with Republicans, or accept the harsh laws as they come. If your side doesn't come to the table, why should the other side do so?

this would be a good point in isolation, if the voter id debate was just starting
but in the context where we are now, it's not
texas had-prior to this law-some of the most stringent voter restrictions in the country
and even this atrocity of a bill didn't create voter id laws-they already had those
it just added extra hoops for people to jump through for it
there's a presumption of reasonableness here that isn't owed given the facts

I'm taking things one by one rather than trying to debate everything at once. It's a forum, not a dissertation station. One of the other things that I think this law does well, is that it cuts out 24 hour polling stations. I'm all for having polling stations open a week or two before election day, but what's the benefit of wasting taxpayer dollars having one open between 1AM and 4AM? The all important vampire vote? And if we're just talking about voting boxes, those aren't always properly secured.

I should also note the praise that I'm getting from Conservatives on NSG, (either in the thread of via TG,) even though I'm arguing, in very clear terms, that Republicans shouldn't round 'em up. I think it shows that anyone in the US, (except for the crazies on both sides of the aisle,) can be reasoned with, as long as we're making consistent arguments, and the nation isn't as divided as the media portrays it to be.

You and Kowani both have a consistent and reasonable approach to the issue of breaking and obtaining quorum in all frankness, even if those perspectives don't necessarily align. I think people can appreciate what comes across as a principled argument. I happen to disagree with both of you on that issue as well, at least at present. If we begin having to deal with runaway congresspeople every single session over small bills, I might well change my mind and support axing quorum-busting maneuvers like this.

My stance is that I support this as a valid tactic, irrespective of whether it occurs in Texas or Oregon. Just wanted to clarify that.

George Takai says hello.

I wouldn't put it past Republicans to do it.

SCOTUS rules that the internment of Japanese Americans was unconstitutional and therefore illegal

But Thermy, don't ya know that SCOTUS will overturn Roe v Wade any minute now, they have six baddies! /sarcasm

[The Alma Mater]

Anecdotal evidence is a crap standard and never is mere assertion that the republicans had past reasonableness on voter ID post southern strategy.

Besides it's not like anyone cared that i posted that the system itself is not the fair playing filed everyone assumes we should act like it is and i doubt the conservatives would glomp on to if i revealed that i'm leaning on tolerating what happened in Oregon.

Your interrelationships with cons are your own(and honesty good for you) not a sign of people's general reasonability or the so-called falsehood of polarization .

When you have one side screaming "as many restriction as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "no restrictions at all!" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems, irrespective of what side of the debate you're on.

Is that what is happening though ? Most democrats seem to be fine with voter ID, as long as getting it is *completely* free - which includes acquiring the underlying paperwork, making it possible without needing to take a day off from work etc.

[Myrensis]

When you have one side screaming "as many restriction as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "no restrictions at all!" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems, irrespective of what side of the debate you're on.

Is that what is happening though ? Most democrats seem to be fine with voter ID, as long as getting it is *completely* free - which includes acquiring the underlying paperwork, making it possible without needing to take a day off from work etc.

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing.

If you rephrase his latest nonsense to conform to actual reality it becomes much more clear:

When you have one side screaming "as many restrictions on voters of the other party as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "You consistently fail to produce any evidence and have been repeatedly forced to publicly admit that fraud doesn't happen, so why do we need more restrictions at all?" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems...

When it's obviously not hard at all, even for the 'common people'... unless of course you make a point of constantly bombarding them with false equivalencies and bothsame bullshit to convince them that there's no reason to pay attention because everybody knows all politicians are bad anyway.

[Galloism]

When you have one side screaming "as many restriction as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "no restrictions at all!" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems, irrespective of what side of the debate you're on.

Is that what is happening though ? Most democrats seem to be fine with voter ID, as long as getting it is *completely* free - which includes acquiring the underlying paperwork, making it possible without needing to take a day off from work etc.

As an aside, keeping the DMV open 7 days a week for extended hours would benefit everyone in a significant amount of ways and the cost would be very moderate.

[Kowani]

this would be a good point in isolation, if the voter id debate was just starting
but in the context where we are now, it's not
texas had-prior to this law-some of the most stringent voter restrictions in the country
and even this atrocity of a bill didn't create voter id laws-they already had those
it just added extra hoops for people to jump through for it
there's a presumption of reasonableness here that isn't owed given the facts

I'm taking things one by one rather than trying to debate everything at once. It's a forum, not a dissertation station.

how is this related to anything i said

One of the other things that I think this law does well, is that it cuts out 24 hour polling stations. I'm all for having polling stations open a week or two before election day, but what's the benefit of wasting taxpayer dollars having one open between 1AM and 4AM? The all important vampire vote?

well it doesn't do that, it closes them after 22:00 and doesn't let them open until 6:00
like we're not talking "wee hours of the morning" here

And if we're just talking about voting boxes, those aren't always properly secured.

do we have evidence that this is
a) true in significant numbers
b) actually impacted an election
c) solved by what the bill does

[Drew Durrnil]

why is the banana kid (or should I say, his successor) here

[Shofercia]

When you have one side screaming "as many restriction as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "no restrictions at all!" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems, irrespective of what side of the debate you're on.

Is that what is happening though ? Most democrats seem to be fine with voter ID, as long as getting it is *completely* free - which includes acquiring the underlying paperwork, making it possible without needing to take a day off from work etc.

But are the Democratic politicians offering it?

Is that what is happening though ? Most democrats seem to be fine with voter ID, as long as getting it is *completely* free - which includes acquiring the underlying paperwork, making it possible without needing to take a day off from work etc.

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing.

If you rephrase his latest nonsense to conform to actual reality it becomes much more clear:

When you have one side screaming "as many restrictions on voters of the other party as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "You consistently fail to produce any evidence and have been repeatedly forced to publicly admit that fraud doesn't happen, so why do we need more restrictions at all?" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems...

When it's obviously not hard at all, even for the 'common people'... unless of course you make a point of constantly bombarding them with false equivalencies and bothsame bullshit to convince them that there's no reason to pay attention because everybody knows all politicians are bad anyway.

Myrensis strikes with an ad hominem that boldly defends Democrats as more and more Americans want a third party, what a shocker! Voter restrictions apply to all voters, Republican and Democrat, you can't actually restrict voters based on their party affiliation, and if you'd read the US Constitution, Myrensis, you'd know that.

[The Black Forrest]

why is the banana kid (or should I say, his successor) here

Best to report and ignore.

[Shofercia]

Is that what is happening though ? Most democrats seem to be fine with voter ID, as long as getting it is *completely* free - which includes acquiring the underlying paperwork, making it possible without needing to take a day off from work etc.

As an aside, keeping the DMV open 7 days a week for extended hours would benefit everyone in a significant amount of ways and the cost would be very moderate.

I'm down for that, as long as the hours are reasonable, say 10am to 10pm on Saturday and Sunday.

I'm taking things one by one rather than trying to debate everything at once. It's a forum, not a dissertation station.

how is this related to anything i said

One of the other things that I think this law does well, is that it cuts out 24 hour polling stations. I'm all for having polling stations open a week or two before election day, but what's the benefit of wasting taxpayer dollars having one open between 1AM and 4AM? The all important vampire vote?

well it doesn't do that, it closes them after 22:00 and doesn't let them open until 6:00
like we're not talking "wee hours of the morning" here

And if we're just talking about voting boxes, those aren't always properly secured.

do we have evidence that this is
a) true in significant numbers
b) actually impacted an election
c) solved by what the bill does

As long as people who are in line by 10pm can turn in their vote, and as long as the polling places are open on the weekend from 6am until 10pm, I fail to see how this is restrictive. Are there people who work from 6am until 10pm, Monday through Sunday? Or are so incredibly busy with their lives that voting between 6am and 10pm strikes a harsh burden?

As far as election impact, wasn't there a Democrat claim about a Republican winning in North Carolina due to engaging in these types of shenanigans?

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/74680063 ... llot-fraud

Prosecutors in North Carolina filed new felony charges against a Republican political operative accused of ballot tampering in a congressional election in 2018. Leslie McCrae Dowless was charged Tuesday with two counts of felony obstruction of justice, perjury, solicitation to commit perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice and illegal possession of absentee ballots, according to a statement by Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman.

It's much easier to tamper with unguarded boxes than it is to tamper with guarded boxes, that's just a simple statement of fact. As for the current bill, I'm not defending it.

[Kowani]

As an aside, keeping the DMV open 7 days a week for extended hours would benefit everyone in a significant amount of ways and the cost would be very moderate.

I'm down for that, as long as the hours are reasonable, say 10am to 10pm on Saturday and Sunday.

how is this related to anything i said
well it doesn't do that, it closes them after 22:00 and doesn't let them open until 6:00
like we're not talking "wee hours of the morning" here

do we have evidence that this is
a) true in significant numbers
b) actually impacted an election
c) solved by what the bill does

As long as people who are in line by 10pm can turn in their vote, and as long as the polling places are open on the weekend from 6am until 10pm, I fail to see how this is restrictive.

as it turns out, an action that restricts the hours of operation of a polling place is in fact restrictive

Are there people who work from 6am until 10pm, Monday through Sunday? Or are so incredibly busy with their lives that voting between 6am and 10pm strikes a harsh burden?

As far as election impact, wasn't there a Democrat claim about a Republican winning in North Carolina due to engaging in these types of shenanigans?

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/74680063 ... llot-fraud

Prosecutors in North Carolina filed new felony charges against a Republican political operative accused of ballot tampering in a congressional election in 2018. Leslie McCrae Dowless was charged Tuesday with two counts of felony obstruction of justice, perjury, solicitation to commit perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice and illegal possession of absentee ballots, according to a statement by Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman.

It's much easier to tamper with unguarded boxes than it is to tamper with guarded boxes, that's just a simple statement of fact. As for the current bill, I'm not defending it.

i don't see how an operation proves your point

Dowless was indicted along with seven alleged co-conspirators. The operative was the alleged ringleader in a scheme instructing his co-conspirators to sign certifications that falsely stated they had seen a voter vote by absentee ballot, and improperly mailing in absentee ballots for someone who had not mailed it themselves.

securing ballot boxes wouldn't have affected this in the slightest
this is exceedingly dumb

[Shofercia]

I'm down for that, as long as the hours are reasonable, say 10am to 10pm on Saturday and Sunday.




As long as people who are in line by 10pm can turn in their vote, and as long as the polling places are open on the weekend from 6am until 10pm, I fail to see how this is restrictive.

as it turns out, an action that restricts the hours of operation of a polling place is in fact restrictive

Are there people who work from 6am until 10pm, Monday through Sunday? Or are so incredibly busy with their lives that voting between 6am and 10pm strikes a harsh burden?

As far as election impact, wasn't there a Democrat claim about a Republican winning in North Carolina due to engaging in these types of shenanigans?

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/74680063 ... llot-fraud



It's much easier to tamper with unguarded boxes than it is to tamper with guarded boxes, that's just a simple statement of fact. As for the current bill, I'm not defending it.

i don't see how an operation proves your point

Dowless was indicted along with seven alleged co-conspirators. The operative was the alleged ringleader in a scheme instructing his co-conspirators to sign certifications that falsely stated they had seen a voter vote by absentee ballot, and improperly mailing in absentee ballots for someone who had not mailed it themselves.

securing ballot boxes wouldn't have affected this in the slightest
this is exceedingly dumb

At some point we need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to accommodate the slightest whims of Joe Blow to vote at 5AM. It's not the Government's job to accommodate every whim of every registered Democrat. It's the Government's job to provide all voters reasonable access to the ballot box. As for the "exceedingly dumb" quote, I cited two different points, and you conflated them, so yes, conflating two different points would be exceedingly dumb.

Using your logic we can argue that the social safety net not providing beachfront property to everyone with asthma is restrictive of their rights, as the ocean air is very good for asthma patients. Yes, saying you cannot vote at 2AM is restrictive, so what? I openly favor those types of restrictions.

[New Rogernomics]

This went on for a month in 2003 over redistricting. The Texas Republicans can wail all they like, but they weren't able to arrest Democrats then and they wouldn't be able to arrest them now.

As long as they remain in DC or in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature, Republicans really can't do much about it.

[San Lumen]

This went on for a month in 2003 over redistricting. The Texas Republicans can wail all they like, but they weren't able to arrest Democrats then and they wouldn't be able to arrest them now.

As long as they remain in DC or in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature, Republicans really can't do much about it.

The governor can call another special session immediately after which he’s threatened to do.

[Shofercia]

This went on for a month in 2003 over redistricting. The Texas Republicans can wail all they like, but they weren't able to arrest Democrats then and they wouldn't be able to arrest them now.

As long as they remain in DC or in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature, Republicans really can't do much about it.

Can't they, theoretically, stop them from seeking reelection if the Democrats aren't back in the state when the primaries roll around? Not sure, hence the inquiry.

[Kowani]

as it turns out, an action that restricts the hours of operation of a polling place is in fact restrictive

i don't see how an operation proves your point

Dowless was indicted along with seven alleged co-conspirators. The operative was the alleged ringleader in a scheme instructing his co-conspirators to sign certifications that falsely stated they had seen a voter vote by absentee ballot, and improperly mailing in absentee ballots for someone who had not mailed it themselves.

securing ballot boxes wouldn't have affected this in the slightest
this is exceedingly dumb

At some point we need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to accommodate the slightest whims of Joe Blow to vote at 5AM. It's not the Government's job to accommodate every whim of every registered Democrat. It's the Government's job to provide all voters reasonable access to the ballot box.

this bill saves neither "taxpayer dollars" nor allows anything approaching "reasonable access" to the ballot box (nor, for that matter, is it a particularly large expense to have polling places open for 24 hours)

As for the "exceedingly dumb" quote, I cited two different points, and you conflated them, so yes, conflating two different points would be exceedingly dumb.

this is even more stupid
if the north carolina election fraud wasn't related to the bill at hand then there's no reason to bring it up in the first place
presumably words have meaning and aren't just thrown out into the aether for the sake of it

Using your logic we can argue that the social safety net not providing beachfront property to everyone with asthma is restrictive of their rights, as the ocean air is very good for asthma patients.

i refuse to believe this is a genuine statement
it might actually be the most inane thing you've said and this entire post is a relentless firehose of stupidity

Yes, saying you cannot vote at 2AM is restrictive, so what? I openly favor those types of restrictions.

it's a pointless restriction that does nothing but disenfranchise people for practically no gain
and remember, this bill doesn't cut off the line at 2AM. wanted to vote at 22:30? too bad? wanted to vote at 5:45 before work starts? out of luck, mate
should've had the good sense to get a cushy middle class job where the hours aren't as long before we tried to disenfranchise you¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

[Myrensis]

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing.

If you rephrase his latest nonsense to conform to actual reality it becomes much more clear:

When you have one side screaming "as many restrictions on voters of the other party as we can get away with!" and another side screaming "You consistently fail to produce any evidence and have been repeatedly forced to publicly admit that fraud doesn't happen, so why do we need more restrictions at all?" it's a bit hard to blame just one side for all of the problems...

When it's obviously not hard at all, even for the 'common people'... unless of course you make a point of constantly bombarding them with false equivalencies and bothsame bullshit to convince them that there's no reason to pay attention because everybody knows all politicians are bad anyway.

Myrensis strikes with an ad hominem that boldly defends Democrats as more and more Americans want a third party, what a shocker! Voter restrictions apply to all voters, Republican and Democrat, you can't actually restrict voters based on their party affiliation, and if you'd read the US Constitution, Myrensis, you'd know that.

Yes, dear, we're well aware that Republicans can't actually (yet) just write a law saying Democrats can't vote.

What they can do is write laws slashing polling places and hours in heavily minority/high population areas (read: Democratic areas), restrict mail-in ballot access to make sure they can't just skip the lines entirely, declare various forms of ID commonly carried by their opponents invalid for voting while preserving those favored by their own base, and cut or reduce early voting days based solely on their popularity with their oppositions voters.

And I can't help but notice that you casually glossed over the whole 'unable to produce any evidence to the contrary and frequently forced to outright admit that the "problem" they claim the laws are supposed to address doesn't actually exist.' aspect.

But of course, you know all of this all ready, and as always the sole purpose of your weaselly-centrist-bleating-about-the-regular-people act is purely to deflect, downplay, and defend the bad behavior of the GOP.

[Forsher]

Myrensis strikes with an ad hominem that boldly defends Democrats as more and more Americans want a third party, what a shocker! Voter restrictions apply to all voters, Republican and Democrat, you can't actually restrict voters based on their party affiliation, and if you'd read the US Constitution, Myrensis, you'd know that.

Yes, dear, we're well aware that Republicans can't actually (yet) just write a law saying Democrats can't vote.

What they can do is write laws slashing polling places and hours in heavily minority/high population areas (read: Democratic areas), restrict mail-in ballot access to make sure they can't just skip the lines entirely, declare various forms of ID commonly carried by their opponents invalid for voting while preserving those favored by their own base, and cut or reduce early voting days based solely on their popularity with their oppositions voters.

And I can't help but notice that you casually glossed over the whole 'unable to produce any evidence to the contrary and frequently forced to outright admit that the "problem" they claim the laws are supposed to address doesn't actually exist.' aspect.

But of course, you know all of this all ready, and as always the sole purpose of your weaselly-centrist-bleating-about-the-regular-people act is purely to deflect, downplay, and defend the bad behavior of the GOP.

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Politicians I despise are being rounded up.

Pretty ok in my book. It was their choice not to do their job and actually practice democracy, now they’re paying the price. This just proves politicians really only care about themselves.

Atleast your honest about your bias but holy fuck this is wrong. Politicians you don't like shouldn't be rounded up and you shouldn't be ok with it just beacuse you don't like them.

[Fahran]

Third parties do bring up a rather relevant point about bipartisan suppression of opposition at the institutional level. Not that any of America's third parties, barring American Solidarity, deserve anyone's vote. I'd throw a bone to the Greens if they stopped putting absolute whackos at the helm.

[San Lumen]

Politicians I despise are being rounded up.

Pretty ok in my book. It was their choice not to do their job and actually practice democracy, now they’re paying the price. This just proves politicians really only care about themselves.

Holy cow. Can you please just come right and say you want a full blown dictatorship?