US 2012 Election - Voter Suppression

[PeZook]

Serious question: in Poland, when an election campaign starts, the courts will hear cases of election frauds, violation of statutes, etc. ahead of schdule in order to prevent shady moves from influencing the campaign too much. Is there a similar institution in the states?

[Sea Skimmer]

Its not formally legislated as far as I'm aware, but the courts do normally show awareness of the need for prompt action in election and other time sensitive manners. So if a law is thought to be likely to be illegal , and have an immediate adverse affect, the court will be much more likely to grant a preliminary injunction blocking it, and then take its time with a formal ruling. If time really really matters they'll move right into the formal ruling too.

Maybe the ultimate example of time sensitive hearings would be the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore in 2000, when the court heard and voted on the case by December 12th, following a November 7th election. Oral arguments took place on December 11th. That total elapsed time included the whole federal appeals process. Obamacare meanwhile became law in March 2010 and took until June 2012 to be ruled on, and that was very fast by normal Supreme Court Standards. Lower courts and state and local courts move faster in general, and you can actually get important results out of them virtually overnight if the clear need exists. US courts are damn slow with criminal cases, for which the war on drugs clogging them with cases is as much to blame as anything else, but in matters of law they do a better job.

[Lord Falcon]

Thanks, Sea Skimmer. Still, it pisses me off that these criminals are not in jail where they belong. I think of them as traitors.

[Hillary]

Thanks, Sea Skimmer. Still, it pisses me off that these criminals are not in jail where they belong. I think of them as traitors.

Seriously, how old are you?

[Lord Falcon]

Er, 24, but I can admit I'm very immature. But seriously, what else would you call them? The right to vote is a basic constitutional right. They're trying to take it away to further their own agenda. That seems un-American to me.

[Sea Skimmer]

Universal suffrage at age 18 as it exists today is really one of the less basic constitutional rights, since it took repeated amendments to the US constitution spanning more then a century and a half to obtain it. As the constitution was written very few people we think of today as collage students could have voted.

Now anyway, freedom of speech is also a constitutional right, as freedom of the press and the right to petition. One right is not greater then another, making the whole concept of 'basic' redundant if commonplace, and the fact that you don't like the way someone exercises his or her rights of speech or petition does not make that person criminal. Nor is is criminal for the government to pass any damn law it likes, though enforcement of such laws may be ruled unconstitutional and blocked.

It might be un-american in your book and many others, but its also un-american to use the legal system to silence dissident which is what labeling people as criminals is calling for. Indeed this is one of the most un-american things possible since it was a direct factor in the American revolution, British trying to shutup the colonials by banning newspapers and printers from operating, while nobody really gave a damn that the resulting system only allowed white land owning males over age 21 to vote in favor of slavery.

[TimothyC]

But seriously, what else would you call them?

Politicians.

Now, on the last page I asked you a question.

Are they banning them from voting or are they simply requiring that students vote at their place of permanent legal residence (which is often their parent's home)? If it's the later, then what is stopping the student from voting absentee? The only limit I can see is that it requires that people think about the process ahead of time and plan accordingly.

Would you please answer it? If you don't know the answer, that's fine, but say so.

[Losonti Tokash]

It's pretty silly to disallow students from voting in the area they spend most of the year and the greater part of their money. When I went to Rutgers, my life was not particularly affected by issues local to Omaha, NE, it was primarily affected by issues in New Brunswick, NJ.

[TimothyC]

It's pretty silly to disallow students from voting in the area they spend most of the year and the greater part of their money. When I went to Rutgers, my life was not particularly affected by issues local to Omaha, NE, it was primarily affected by issues in New Brunswick, NJ.

Then you change you permanent residence to New Brunswick. I don't see how this hard. At no part of this process are you stopping someone from voting.

[Losonti Tokash]

Gee, what a great idea. It's almost like there might be people trying to make it so college students can't actually do that because they don't like the way college students vote.

[Block]

It's pretty silly to disallow students from voting in the area they spend most of the year and the greater part of their money. When I went to Rutgers, my life was not particularly affected by issues local to Omaha, NE, it was primarily affected by issues in New Brunswick, NJ.

Then you change you permanent residence to New Brunswick. I don't see how this hard. At no part of this process are you stopping someone from voting.

Too bad you can't unless you live off campus.

[TimothyC]

It's pretty silly to disallow students from voting in the area they spend most of the year and the greater part of their money. When I went to Rutgers, my life was not particularly affected by issues local to Omaha, NE, it was primarily affected by issues in New Brunswick, NJ.

Then you change you permanent residence to New Brunswick. I don't see how this hard. At no part of this process are you stopping someone from voting.

Too bad you can't unless you live off campus.

Not in my experience*. Please provide a source for me.

*I have no doubt that my current experience - living in an on-campus apartment complex for non-traditional and graduate students - is not the normal one, but I've yet to even see any actual claims that people are being denied the right to vote - simply some claims that people might have to vote absentee and have it count at their permanent residence.

[Block]

No state, that I'm aware of, counts an out of state undergraduate student as a resident unless you establish residence by living in the state for a year first. They've worked it out that way on purpose so that out of state students have to pay out of state tuition, but it also affects voter registration because dorms are considered a temporary living quarters. It may be different for on campus apartment complexes, my brother lived in one that was subsidised by the state of MAryland but technically privately owned, and if he'd been an out of state student would've helped him to establish residence.