2 minor thoughts from the Texas decision:
- I think Alito might be the worst writer on the Court. Putting aside what the clinically-correct ruling would be (I don't know), his decision is so dense and unengaging that I couldn't get through it. Sotomayor's dissent is much stronger. (Actually, Kennedy is probably the worst writer on the Court.)

- The fact that Alito wrote this opinion makes it slightly less likely that SCOTUS rules against the union in Janus v. AFSCME. (It's been thought that if the union lost, Alito would be the likely author of the decision.)

New Hampshire GOP passes law to restrict college students from voting

Hassan 48, Ayotte 47.8
Hillary 47.6, Trump 47.3
GOP: Time to shrink the electorate!

Man, that one doesn't even have a pretextual "prevent fraud" justification.

no worries

Let's be realistic here. It took them two hours to hack into these voting machines. Russian hackers had months to attempt to gain whatever amount of physical access was necessary and to hack in. I believe I remember reading something about some of the machines not being airgapped. There's a quote in that article that all it would take was five seconds with a USB drive to have future remote access. What are the odds a Russian could secure five minutes with one of them in the leadup to the election? Could it be done during the election? Like, could someone walk in to vote, plug a USB drive in and compromise the machine on the spot?

There's been reporting that Russia tried to hack voting machines. It sure sounds like they would have had an easy time doing it...

What are the odds that zero results were changed in the 2016 election? 1%? 5%? 25%?

Like, there's no evidence of it so the media can't/won't cover it, and we may never know for sure... but if we just think about the probability that votes were changed somewhere, it has to be pretty high, right? What about the probability that they hacked enough votes to change the outcome and literally install Trump as President? I think it's reasonable to consider that an act of war, if it happened, for whatever that's worth.

Yes, once the various conservatives in charge destroyed all the records there was indeed no evidence to examine. (See, I think, Georgia)

Mind you, that could have been done to cover up any number of fraudulent election crimes committed.

My brother who is far right sent me this article today.

Thoughts?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-than-estimat/

My thoughts are it is an order of magnitude more difficult to refute bull**** than it is to create it.

(But it's definitely pure bull**** - 5.7M risking deportation to vote - riiiiiiight.)

https://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ns-claim-57-m/

LOOOL

Don't read "articles" sent to you by nazi's even if they are your family.

It's bull****.

The source (Moonie Times) should have been the first clue.

This should have been the second:


"independent conservatives and libertarians"

Actual scholarly research has been done on this topic which is the reason Kris Kobach keeps losing lawsuits (and even Kobach didn't spew numbers that ****ing ridiculous).

Sharad Goel and others have been using antiquated techniques like "mathematics" to **** all over these garbage studies for years now. Here's one of many articles if you care to read more: We looked at 130 million ballots from the 2012 election and found practically zero evidence of fraud.

Common sense should be enough, though; How is it remotely possible to get MILLIONS of people who won't even answer the door for a census taker for fear of deportation to come out in droves on election day and commit felonies?

Honest question from someone who is very liberal and is deeply against voter suppression tactics: What is the issue opponents of this law have with it?

When I was in college, I wasn't a resident of the state in which I attended school. Thus, I voted absentee in the state of which I was a resident. Seems reasonable to me.

I am fully willing to admit that I could be missing something significant here. It just seems, on its surface, to make sense. Vote in one's state of residency.

Thanks, I glanced through it and it seemed like bull**** but hadn’t really dug into it deep.

When I was in college, I spent ~75% of my time in the state of the college rather than the state I was born in, and so arguably, I was more interested in the state and local laws to which I was subject more often than in the laws I was subject to less often. It seems most reasonable to do what we do for most people who have residences in multiple states: let them pick which one the register to vote in, and let them vote absentee if they won't be in that state at election time.

It's not the most egregious of the suppression laws, but the requirements to have both a state ID AND register one's vehicle in the state seem like they could be problematic taken together. I assume the second bit is not required if you do not actually own a vehicle, but the article doesn't explicitly say that.

Per the article, NH is the only state that didn't already have the residency requirement.

This American Life did an episode partially on Goel's work called "Things I Mean To Know" that was really good if you're into podcasting (TAL has its own app now, highly recommended in general). It dealt mainly with Kobach's assertion of widespread double-voting. Here's the link to the transcript:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/630/transcript

And this, yesterday, from the Party of Election Integrity

Yeah, that makes sense. I was thinking something similar.

When I was in college, I was more concerned with what was going on in my home state, so I never really wanted to vote in my school's state.

I stayed registered in my home state as well, but saying that you want to register in the state where you live most of your days seems like unassailable logic to me.

I did laugh at the assertion that polls show non citizens vote Democratic. It might be meaning situations where non citizens can vote in certain elections but the implication is that pollsters have already polled those non citizens just discovered to have voted and they vote Democrat

Fivethirtyeight has a good piece on the flaw in the research on which these claims have been based, which has been acknowledged by the authors of the original study. I would bet that this same criticism applies to this new attempt using the same data.

Giving you the choice doesn't seem fair to me. Should be a national rule for one or the other.

That would require a constitutional amendment. States have almost complete autonomy when it comes to election rules and regulations.

So is there anything preventing someone from voting in multiple states? Or would that even violate any laws at all?

The malfeasance is limited only by your imagination!