Apparently, there is no legally meaningful definition of "voter suppression" and, therefore, there

[Atticus]

is no such crime. Of course, some actions which suppress voting may be crimes, but many actions which are intended to suppress voting and, in fact, accomplish just that, do not constitute crimes.

"Intentionally deceiving qualified voters to prevent them from voting is voter suppression—and it is a federal crime." That is from the FBI website.

But, passing state laws which require specific difficult and expensive to obtain ID's in order to vote is not a crime

Passing state laws which say that FOID cards are acceptable voter IDs but student IDs---even from state universities---are not is not a crime.

This situation should be changed. We need a clear federal definition of "voter suppression" and a statute "with teeth" that prohibits it by anyone anywhere.

[sop]

1. Defining voter suppression can be like defining pornography...you know it when you see it.

In 1964 SC Justice Potter Stewart tried to define obscenity and pornography, saying "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it."

[Atticus]

6. I'm aware of Justice Potter's rather famous quotation, but I hardly think voter suppression

would be subject to anyone's subjective idea of morality as "pornography" certainly was.

For a start, "VOTER SUPPRESSION is any action or speech, including those done under color of law, which is: a.) intended to prevent, discourage or inhibit voting; OR, b.) in fact prevents, discourages or inhibits voting for no clearly articulable purpose based in fact."

As I said, that's a start. Minds better than mine could surely enhance it.

[sop]

9. Most of these recent laws - like limiting early voting days, requiring special IDs or making voting

by mail more restrictive - cannot be defined as "voter suppression" when it cannot be clearly established such laws prevent, discourage or inhibit voting, or specifically target a particular segment of the electorate.

It's one thing to openly decree a certain race, or other special class, cannot easily vote. That's the classic definition of voter suppression. Simply creating restrictions under the guise of eliminating "voter fraud," without regard to race, party or other factors, is another matter

Most rational people realize these restrictions affect certain classes of voters more than others, if only because of conomic circumstances and voting habits particular to that segment of the electorate. However, proving it will be difficult. Republicans aren't fooling anyone, though. Most people know voter suppression when they see it.

[Atticus]

10. This type of discussion could go on for hours and I doubt much would be accomplished by it. Suffice

it to say that, while I understand you point about the difficulties with proof, it is also difficult to prove intent in a trial of a first degree murder charge, yet it is often done without a confession.

Further, intent could be deemed to exist under "b" of my suggested "start".

Thanks for your comments.

[Walleye]

2. We did deal with this once with the voting rights act of 1965

Fuck John Roberts

[Atticus]

4. Understood, but it needs to be dealt with again. Thanks for your response. nt

[Walleye]

5. Yes we do. John Lewis voting rights act. Stacy Abram's told how to do itl

We need to be bloody, bold, and resolute

[TexasLefty29]

3. Good post.

I agree. You hit the nail on the head with this.

[mopinko]

7. this is true. as focused as those efforts have been on poc,

they are focused on them because they vote dem.
there's nothing random or abstract about this shit.
voting rights need to apply to every fucking voter, every where. even them.

[alwaysinasnit]

8. K&R

[stillcool]

11. those who write the laws...

make legal/illegal whatever they want.. and all of our civil rights have proven to be hard to get, and easy to lose.