Sen. Chuck Schumer was on CNN the other day talking about the Democratic attempt to change the voting rules. In other words, they want to make legal what they did this past election.

He and his cohorts are trying to come up with a plan that Sen. Joe Manchin and others will accept and therefore pass the resolution, and get rid of the filibuster. I pray that Manchin and others stand their ground and deny Schumer and the Democrats their wish.

I find it interesting that Sen. Nancy Pelosi has become very quiet lately and Schumer emerges as the spokesperson for the Democrats. Where are you Ms. Pelosi? Not that I miss you. As far as I am concerned, the disappearance is appreciated and welcomed.

Schumer and others are not happy with what some state leaders are doing to tighten voting in their respective states. So Schumer wants to pass a federal law to override states from regulating their state's voting policies. Schumer is concerned about what he calls young people not being able to vote, disabled folks not making it to the polls, certain demographics suffering from not being able to vote. Here is a solution for you Schumer: come up with a government program that will give rides to and from the polls. You and others have no problem coming up with other idiotic programs.

But here is the kicker, I have no problem with that kind of program. Everyone should be able to legally vote, but when they arrive at the polls, they have to show identification, they have to be American citizens. They have to be at least 18 years old, and of course they have to be ALIVE.

Mail-in ballots should be reserved for those in the military and out of country, and American citizens not in the country. Now, you are going to counter with there are those too disabled to make it to a poll. OK then, they are sent a mail-in ballot upon their request, but need to include their ID with the ballot. There needs to be some system to prove who the voter is and that they are alive.

You have no problem checking a person's status before they purchase a firearm. I am sure someone could come up with a system to do this. Instead of trying to bend the rules to benefit a certain demographic, a certain area, or a certain party, come up with a system that benefits all voters.

Charles E. Hubbard

Middletown

(91) comments

Comment deleted.
phydeaux994

Yes, these new people just seem to come out of nowhere and repeat the RRR(RadicalRightRepublicans)/BTT(BullyTagTeam) Party line. Boomer admitted he was a past commenter coming back with a new handle. Mr. Reid has an in at the FNP that may allow him to have multiple identities.

pdl603

Brilliant LTE. I see the usual progressive suspects running to strap on their depends before wetting themselves. Comical indeed.

bhall74

[thumbup][thumbup]

phydeaux994

Mr. Hall, give us 3 reasons you 🖤love🖤 Donald John Trump.

phydeaux994

piddle, give us 3 reasons you 🖤love🖤 Donald John Trump.

mamlukman

"They [Democrats] want to make legal what they did this past election." Please give me an example of "what they did" that was ILLEGAL. Oh, that's right, you can't.

As for federal law interfering with state election rules, it happens all the time. Age and gender requirement were set by constitutional amendments. The Voting Rights Act [federal, of course] had a lot of other requirements, for example eliminating poll taxes, literacy requirements, etc.

Why show ID when you show up to vote? You already did that when you registered to vote. One commenter below asks what happens if someone fraudulently impersonates you and votes in your name, then you show up later. Easy answer--they allow provisional voting and then they investigate. The Brennan Center for Justice investigated this [https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf] and found that "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than for someone to impersonate another person at the polls."

So once again we have the "It's possible that....." and "Some people say...." ANYTHING is possible. Very FEW things are probable. And "some people" (a surprisingly large percentage!) claim they are victims of alien abduction. It's possible. That doesn't remotely mean that it's true or should be investigated. It's nonsense.

As for mail-in ballots, 8 states currently allow all elections to be conducted by mail. Including Republican Utah. And none of them are "battleground" states. [https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections.aspx] Another 30 or so states allow mail-in voting as an option. There is NO (zero, none, nada, zilch) evidence that this has led to an increase in voter fraud.

And the writer's last paragraph "Instead of trying to bend the rules to benefit a certain demographic, a certain area, or a certain party...." is an excellent description of exactly what the Republican Party has been trying to do. And I agree with the writer--it shouldn't be allowed!

jsklinelga

mamlukman

"They want to make legal what they did in the last election" That is exactly true. The question of legal is moot. Some of the more questionable practices that were instituted because of the [pandemic many of which were done without constitutional legislative oversight, are no longer permitted, ie. illegal Ballot harvesting being one of the main ones.

What Mr. Hubbard is saying is that they , Congressional Democrats, want to make the practices legal, thus overriding the States control and the legislation that was passed to prevent these practices. It is that simple.

Overriding the filibuster for this purpose would be cataclysmic and virtually worthless. The law would certainly not stand up to Judicial scrutiny.

Most States allow some form of mail in voting. SCOTUS recent decision concerning Arizona relied on the fact that there were multiple available ways for which to vote..

The election of 2022 will be an excellent indicator of the public's opinion on the matter.

mamlukman

The only "illegal" ballot harvesting I'm aware of was done by a Republican candidate in N. Carolina. They re-did the election. "Harvesting" is a loaded word. What it generally means is that a relative or household member submits the ballot of someone who is incapacitated. 26 states allow it. 13 more states neither prohibit nor encourage it. Most states have rules about how many you can submit, who can submit them, etc. If you know of a case where it was "illegal" and they counted the ballots in 2020, please enlighten us--with a link to the information.

DickD

Excellent comment, mam!

Hayduke2

Another post full of inuendo and falsehoods.. The past election, where record numbers of citizens elected to vote, was secure, accurate and legal. Stop the nonsense about dead folks voting, illegals voting, etc. Numerous audits have shown that to be false, Arizona's big gotcha turned out to find a few more votes in favor of Biden, and others have been visited many times with no out of the ordinary findings. Quit the junk accusations and honor the system that has worked and continues to work.

bhall74

Hayduke2 said "Quit the junk accusations and honor the system that has worked and continues to work." Does that mean you are not a supporter of the two election bills that Schumer wants to blow up the filibuster in order to pass? If, as you say, the system has worked and continues to work, then what is the reason for these two bills?

Hayduke2

To codify and preserve the right to vote for every eligible citizen of the US - even the ones you disagree with.

bhall74

Hay, you cannot have it both ways. If the system has worked, then there is no need for these bills. Which is it? Oh, and don't try to spread any BS about Republicans are taking away the rights to vote in the states, because that lie has been debunked so many times, any effort to repeat will just show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Hayduke2

bhall says "If the system has worked, then there is no need for these bills." Exactly and proving my point. The SYSTEM has worked and would continue to work without state legislators searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

phydeaux994

Are all Elections manipulated, fixed, fraudulent, corrupt, or just the 2020 Presidential Election? Because I have serious doubts about the recent Virginia Governors Election. Has there been an audit called for that race by the Virginia Republiban Party?

bhall74

Fido, only where Democrats control the entire election process, which has been going on since at least 1960 when JFK was fraudulently elected with help from the mob in Illinois.

Hayduke2

OMG, you need to stop posting garbage...

public-redux

Fortunately, JFK was killed by Ted Cruz’s father so no harm, no foul.

phydeaux994

Mr. Hall, are you saying that if the Republibans don’t win every race on every ballot cast, it was a fraudulent Election?? Are they holding you back in 7th grade again this year?? Quit eating the Purple Ooze.

DickD

Charles, you give Middletown a bad name! Why don't you start to listen to the truth and quit perpetuating Trump's lies!

MD1756

Dick, do you have a problem with people having to show IDs when they vote? I don't. If better requirements existed, my dead grandmother wouldn't have voted several months after she turned 100 when she died 1 1/2 month later after turning 100 in upstate NY.

Now, wanting better requirements doesn't mean I believe any federal elections have been changed by fraudulent voting, but state and local are greater possibilities. After all Marc Elrich won the democratic primary for County Executive in MoCo by only 77 votes with over 350,000 registered democrats. It shouldn't be hard to show IDs since you have to show IDs to purchase alcohol.

bhall74

[thumbup]

Hayduke2

MD - you just add to the myth that thousands of dead people vote. While I do not dispute your claim, the fact is that this type of voter fraud does not exist on any significant level. Why throw gas on the fake news fire?

MD1756

Hayduke2, I basically said I don't believe any fraud has impacted a federal level election but fraud does happen. The only way we found out was the thank you letter addressed to our grandmother thanking her for voting (NY must have something where they thank those over 100 for voting). My question to you and others is what is the problem with being required to show an ID to get an absentee ballot, vote in person, etc.?

DickD

Those that want to have you show an ID want to stop mail in ballots, that is the reason for their lunatic demand!

Hayduke2

The problem with an id for an absentee ballot is that the person may not be in the state or area where they can easily present the ballot. It is hard for me to believe, in an era of absentee identification for credit reports, bank transactions, MVA documents, etc. that this cannot be easily and securely managed. This past election had record numbers voting - isn't that the goal?

MD1756

Hayduke, I've been required to send a scan of my driver's license to show proof of identity for some things. It's not that hard. It's even easier if one has a cell phone and just takes a picture of it and sends it.

DickD

You already showed ID to register and you have to sigh a statement as to who you are to vote. That has always been enough and as Mamlukman says above there is a possibility of fraud, always has been but there NEVER has been any significant fraud. I worked on the Election Board for ten years, it just does not happen!

MD1756

Then please explain how my dead grandmother voted in upstate NY. I'm not against mail in voting for reason (I did it when at Va Tech to vote in NY) and I'm not against voting by computer (with proper precautions). I am for making it easier to vote in person more polling places, expanded times, etc. although I don't like voting periods that stretch for months. One or two weeks should be enough.

MD1756

You also ignored my comment about it not being an issue for federal elections (I don't know of any that would be changed) however it could be fore state/local where the pool of voters is smaller and again I point out that Marc Elrich won the primary by only 77 votes out of a pool of more than 350,000 potential democratic voters.

Boomer631B

Tired of hearing about how folks cannot get to vote at the actual polls and need mail-in ballots different than Absentee voting. They could find their way to the store, the mall, their favorite restaurant and bar, but needed to vote by mail. Mostly their lazy, forget this idea about covid safety and protecting themselves as I said earlier they were out and about doing whatever... the showing of an ID should not be any issue since we must show ID for so many things in our life already and then they can produce an ID... so the real problem is when you can send in ballots thru the mail that were not validated earlier by legal request with proof of ID and with the known penalty of a felony for violating the voting laws. The Constitution allows the states to decide how to run their elections not the Federal Government and now Chuckie Schumer once it under federal mandate... why they see what is coming in 2022 and 2024 and without a covid virus to alter the voting process in some of the more key swing states the Dems know they have a big problem... please don't tell me either that having someone show an ID is stopping them from voting that is pure BS because as stated earlier they have no problem producing that ID when they want to buy their necessities in life now do they....

bhall74

[thumbup]

Blueline

I have no problem with absentee voting. I used it myself when I was in college. However, mass mailing of ballots to blank adressees & practices like election day registering/voting should not be allowed.

shiftless88

You realize that states have been using these processes for decades with no issues, correct?

Boomer631B

Yes, and some of those states decided to modify their process via the Gov or court rather than thru their legislature body to make those changes plus factor in they did bulk mail out of ballots without validating IDs of those voters in most places... so yes states have been using mail-in ballots but some states altered their process using Covid as an excuse...

Blueline

States have mass mailed blank ballots like junk mail? What states, & when (prior to 2016)?

bhall74

Washington State is one

Blueline

bhall - no, registered voters get a ballot by mail at the address of the registered voter. There is not a blanket mailing of absentee ballots to any address.

bhall74

Blueline, and if the "registered voter" is no longer a citizen of Washington State, the ballot is still sent to the address they were registered at. A friend of mine received her Washington state ballot, which was forwarded to the Arizona address where she had moved to and was registered in Arizona. I know of others who had the same thing happen. And if the ballot is not forwarded to a new address, then the occupant of home at the old address can potentially vote that ballot. You don't see a problem here?

Hayduke2

bhall goes to the " a friend of my uncle's first cousin knows someone who told him at the grocery store about a friend getting a ..... argument. Stop the what ifs, most folks are honest and I am sure if you research it you'll see no major fraud claims. And, no, I don't see a problem because those cases are the exception, not the norm. A fix looking for a problem.

shiftless88

People like bhall do NOT understand the mail-in ballot process. It doesn't really matter who GETS a ballot, as long as only the right people have a returned ballot count. That is where the control is. If you are not registered and you mail in a ballot it would not be counted. Believe me, this has all been sorted out. There is essentially no voter fraud. I think bhall has zero appreciation for how hard any large-scale ballot fraud is.

Blueline

No shift, it does matter who gets a ballot. If you mail out ballots with no checks on who gets them, it opens questions to security and fraud. Voting should be straightforward, but it has to have some measure of checks & balances. Schumer wants no accountability, why is that?

Hayduke2

B and B - Washington State has one of the most secure election processes in the US. There has been no finding of any type of fraud that could have affected the outcome of this election, it seemed just fine for all the down ballot folks and has been reviewed and confirmed a number of times. Quit the overhype!

public-redux

bhall, You would do well to acknowledge your errors when they are pointed out rather than moving the goalposts. Blueline corrected your error about WA. Instead of thanking them and admitting your mistake, you tried to change the subject with an anecdatum. C’mon man, you’re embarrassing us conservatives with that puerile behavior.

bhall74

[thumbup]

bhall74

shifty, since ignorance is bliss, I suspect that you are one happy camper.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

[lol][lol][thumbup]

public-redux

I sincerely wish my party would put it's efforts into earning votes and stop writing off huge swaths of the electorate.

shiftless88

Chuckles could shorten all of his letters by just writing a letter once a month that says "I hate liberals". It is his consistent message so it would save everyone time and space if he just went ahead and condensed it down.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

New York is letting illegals vote. Once the camel gets his nose under the tent......

shiftless88

No, they are not. But I am not surprised that this is what your news sources have told you. They are allowing LEGAL green card holders vote in local elections. This is not uncommon. These are people who are in the country legally and on a path to citizenship through all the proper channels. The local elections directly impact many issues for these people, such as local taxes that are paid by legal immigrants. Or schools. When will you ever be right about anything?

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Thanks for clarifying that New York is allowing non-citizens to vote. That's precious. They can figure out how to get a green card, but requiring a voter ID is disenfranchisement.

bhall74

How will these green card holders register to vote? Will they have to show their green card identification? Or will the Democrats just line them up and sign them up without proof of green card status? Isn't New York already giving illegal aliens driver's licenses like California?

public-redux

Voting by non-citizens was much more common prior to the 20th century. It’s hardly a recent development.

shiftless88

Conservatives should ask themselves why they think green-card holders will automatically want to vote Dem. I think down inside you realize that you are losing out because you have no ideas and are afraid of the future, so you automatically assume everyone is against you (and they might be). Very interesting thought process, though.

bhall74

Allowing non-citizens to vote IS uncommon.

shiftless88

bhall; maybe you should read up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States

bhall74

shiftless, did you read the Wiki article, if so then you would realize that it has not been "common" in state and federal elections for a long, long time. As for the localities where it is allowed, I notice most of them are Democrat strongholds. One of the great privileges afforded citizens of this great United States as part of their citizenship is the ability to vote. Why are Democrats and leftist so hell bent on letting non citizens vote? Why do you feel that noncitizens should have the right to vote?

shiftless88

I think anyone who pays taxes ought to have some right to dictate how it is spent. If they are here legally and paying taxes, then voting in local elections seems reasonable. I thought you were an "originalist" who wants to keep things the way they were? Because non-citizens voting was the way it was for much of US history.

gary4books

I read "but when they arrive at the polls, they have to show identification ..." and wonder if Charles has voted in Maryland and if so, has ever paid attention to the process. They do ask for information and verify it with their records and I do sign a form. That is just as well as an ID card (which I have) and allows people who find it difficult to keep an ID card or update it to vote. I suspect Charles had just as soon want them to not vote.

bhall74

So riddle me this Batman, how does the poll worker really know that the person claiming to be you is actually you? For example, if you died a few days before the election, you would still be on the voter register, wouldn't you? So I could show up, say I am you, and cast your ballot for the entire Republican slate of candidates, couldn't I. They wouldn't know that I wasn't you, would they? As such, the potential for fraud is ripe. This is why the Democrats don't want voter id, because it will limit their ability to steal elections.

gary4books

There is a riddle of sorts. They ask my name and address, then I tell them my name and address and they ask my date of birth. It is a very secure system. Have you ever voted in Maryland? This includes people that are registered to vote and have proved their identity when they registered. Now it is a convenience for all of us and for those with limited mobility a way to include some who might otherwise be excluded. Why would you want to exclude registered voters? And yes, I do sign a statement that I am voting and I am the person I claim to be. That will convict me if I am lying.

bhall74

gary, I've been a MD voter since 1992 and since the first time I voted I realized how easy it would be for someone to vote in my place with some basic knowledge about me. The fact that you believe it is secure does not mean that it is secure, it just means that it meets your low standards for security. So, why are you so opposed to voters showing ID at the poll in order to vote? Seems like it's only Democrats who are against voter ID, why is that? The only reason that I can think of is that it will eliminate their ability to commit voter fraud. Prove me wrong...if you can.

shiftless88

yes, bhall, but when you then show up to vote and someone claims you've already voted they can look at your ID and check the signature. Then they can give you a provisional ballot until they can sort it out. But here's the deal. That is ONE vote. How easy do you think it is to systematically shift votes significantly through your method? Not easy at all, especially without a huge number of people involved (which means they'd get busted). There is a reason no one does that. The shift of a few votes is not worth the penalty if you get caught.

Hayduke2

Conversely bhall, the fact that you think it is insecure does make it insecure.. Circular argument.

public-redux

Can you point to any stolen elections, by either party. In the last 50 or so years? And if so, would voter ID have prevented it?

bhall74

1960, JFK vs Nixon

public-redux

The academic studies suggest otherwise. But let's stipulate that it was stolen. How would voter ID have prevented that?

bhall74

public, in the 1960 election, voter ID would have made no difference. As Joseph Stalin said "“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” Unfortunately, that appears to be the case whenever local election officials make decisions regarding which absentee or mail-in votes are counted, or not counted.

DickD

 "Unfortunately, that appears to be the case whenever local election officials make decisions regarding which absentee or mail-in votes are counted, or not counted."  BHall just destroyed his own argument by stating this because if the election officials make the decision it is not fraudulent voting.  The reality is election officials make a determination of whether it is a valid, by the rules vote.  And there are two people that make that decision, one Republican and one Democrat.

public-redux

bhall, So why are you so gung ho on voter ID as a way to prevent stolen elections when you readily acknowledge that it won’t?

public-redux

“ Unfortunately, that appears to be the case whenever local election officials make decisions regarding which absentee or mail-in votes are counted, or not counted.”

I certainly hope that you are not insinuating that the solution is bigger government making those decisions.

Brookhawk

in Colorado and Oregon, mail-in is the only way to vote and has been like that for years with no problems. Time and time again the "fraud" people believe is happening is shown NOT to be happening. Mail-in or ballots dropped into drop boxes can be and ARE checked for validity. Certain factions don't like them because it makes it harder for them to close polling places and create other difficulties for those they don't want to see voting.

matts853

What exactly did the democrats do “what they did this past election”, other than win fair and square?

But I’ll tell you what republicans did do the last election. Lie about the results and try to overturn it by force. That should be anathema to us, but you just glossed right over it. Very patriotic of you.

public-redux

“ In other words, they want to make legal what they did this past election.”

What was illegal in the past election?

gary4books

public = Good question. And if there is an answer, I do want some proof.

jsklinelga

Gary,

I try to limit my responses but this one deserves and answer Here is a quote from Time "and forced many states to rapidly change how people get and submit their ballots, with unpredictable and potentially disastrous results"

I saw a comment yesterday that caught my attention concerning the election. It stated it was a fair and honest election as has been reported

public-redux

And the illegal part was....?

jsklinelga

gary

My computer playing tricks again. A comment submitted before finishing. I wanted to say as reported over and over and over. reporting something over and over and over does not make it fact. there were many quick and un-legislated changes to the election that have now been addressed.

shiftless88

It was a very simple question, jsk. What was illegal?

DickD

Name them, Jim!

gary4books

Thanks for the comment. My experience voting in Maryland, well over 30 years, is that there have not been so many changes and that it has been very secure. I will leave the question of legislated changes to the courts. But so far there have not been adverse decisions. We will see how it works out.

phydeaux994

jsk NEVER names anything. He just makes stuff up with no specifics that would allow you to fact check it. So I’ll ask. What were the quick and un-legislated changes that have now been addressed jsk?

public-redux

Gary. It is telling that short simple questions get long non-responsive replies.

jsklinelga

Mr. Hubbard,

No doubt this will be a contentious issue throughout 2022. Voting is a cherished right of an open and free Democratic society. Equal access to all eligible voters is certainly the ideal standard that should be sought.

Coupled with equal access should be systems to guarantee the integrity of the process. A vote or votes by individuals that are not legally qualified dilutes the value of the legal vote and undermines this fundamental right.

Debates will rage this year. This would be an ideal opportunity for community media outlets like the FNP to inform and explore in depth the intricacies of the current laws and the proposed changes.

For example; Should there be a modest burden associated with voting? Or is ballot harvesting ripe for potential fraud?

gary4books

JSK = Burdens, modest or not, should have some reason. Since we do have a very good system to identify voters, why should we make it more difficult? Will this "weed out" some voters?

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Gary, how is being required to show an ID to vote going to "weed out" anyone legitimately entitled to vote. Who amongst us cannot get some sort of ID to prove who they are?

Hayduke2

Some reason WFT -https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2021/08/13/identification-is-harder-to-obtain-than-you-think/?slreturn=20220007231753

shiftless88

jsk; do you believe the systems in place for the 2020 vote were lacking in integrity? I thought conservatives were supposed to be about small government; in other words not creating rules and laws to fix problems that do not exist. I will ask again; do you think the outcome of the 2020 elections were fraudulent?

DickD

Tell us where the fraud is, Jim! If you can't quit perpetuating Trump's lies!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.