PJ Rule of Law: “Here’s the problem, those poll watchers – which News21 simply must identify as white like some crime report from 1961 (A negro robbed a woman. . . ) – have a right to be in the polls under state law to observe the election. News21’s funders might not like the fact that tens of thousands of law abiding citizens will be in the polls all over the nation this fall to ensure that crimes don’t occur and laws are followed. But the poll watchers in the story did nothing wrong.
Except of course, they were white. What more do you need?
News21 published the racial paranoia of Jamila Gatlin as if there was not a whiff of crazy in it. To college kids, heads filled with all species of racial grievance, perhaps there wasn’t. But to the rest of us as adults live in a multi-racial country with hundreds of interactions in a week with people of all races, Gatlin sounds nuts.
Worse than nuts, actually. She sounds like the segregationist from 1950’s Mississippi. A black person ‘round here? How dare they!! Somebody do something.”
Racial Incitement Against Law-Abiding Poll Watchers
PJ Rule of Law: “Here’s the problem, those poll watchers – which News21 simply must identify as white like some crime report from 1961 (A negro robbed a woman. . . ) – have a right to be in the polls under state law to observe the election. News21’s funders might not like the fact that tens of thousands of law abiding citizens will be in the polls all over the nation this fall to ensure that crimes don’t occur and laws are followed. But the poll watchers in the story did nothing wrong.
Except of course, they were white. What more do you need?
News21 published the racial paranoia of Jamila Gatlin as if there was not a whiff of crazy in it. To college kids, heads filled with all species of racial grievance, perhaps there wasn’t. But to the rest of us as adults live in a multi-racial country with hundreds of interactions in a week with people of all races, Gatlin sounds nuts.
Worse than nuts, actually. She sounds like the segregationist from 1950’s Mississippi. A black person ‘round here? How dare they!! Somebody do something.”
“Military voting rights under fire”
Lawyers for the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee marched into federal court last week to argue that it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow military voters to cast in-person early ballots on the Saturday through Monday before Election Day, given that early voting for all other voters stops on the Friday before Election Day. Apparently, Team Obama has decided to take a break from howling about the alleged injustice of voter-ID laws to argue that military voters don’t deserve an occasional accommodation. John Fund @ NRO.
“Military voting rights under fire”
Lawyers for the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee marched into federal court last week to argue that it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow military voters to cast in-person early ballots on the Saturday through Monday before Election Day, given that early voting for all other voters stops on the Friday before Election Day. Apparently, Team Obama has decided to take a break from howling about the alleged injustice of voter-ID laws to argue that military voters don’t deserve an occasional accommodation. John Fund @ NRO.
Pennsylvania rebukes DOJ: “Inquiry into ID law is politically motivated, outside authority”
The administration of Gov. Tom Corbett is suggesting that a U.S. Department of Justice inquiry into Pennsylvania’s tough, new voter identification law is politically motivated and outside of its authority. Link to the full story.
Pennsylvania rebukes DOJ: “Inquiry into ID law is politically motivated, outside authority”
The administration of Gov. Tom Corbett is suggesting that a U.S. Department of Justice inquiry into Pennsylvania’s tough, new voter identification law is politically motivated and outside of its authority. Link to the full story.
“Military voters as political pawns” or the most disenfranchised?
An opinion piece by Professor Richard Hasen that ends with a quote likely to get the blood moving this Monday morning. “Keeping the military out of the voting wars would be especially good for the military and the country”. Link
Wikipedia definition: Pawn may refer to:
A regretful title and characterization of our soldiers trying to participate in the election of their civilian leaders. However, much like the Obama lawsuit, it again shows the insensitivity to the challenges of military duty. Military members have been fiercely independent rising above the partisan rhetoric of politicians and law professors engaged in the voting wars of their own creation. They are not political pawns of either party. Period.
What is surprising about the lawsuit, as well as Professor Hasen’s article, is the absence of understanding why the arguments in the lawsuit are insensitive and offensive to military members. While Hasen mentions that the lawsuit may in fact restrict military voting rights, especially if the federal judge decides to close the early voting period for all voters, that issue seems to be of little concern. The bigger concern for both Hasen and the Obama campaign is whether one of the campaigns is able to bus in thousands of voters in the days before the election.
Nor does the article mention the longstanding challenges faced by military voters, as well as the fact that thousands of military members have been disenfranchised in recent elections. That point was made by Bob Carey, the former Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Office, Department of Defense, who estimated that 300,000 military voters, the population of entire large city, had been disenfranchised in the 2010 election.
For years, the military has been caught in the middle of the “voting wars” as a silent bystander and that is ending. The military should be able to exercise their right to vote without being accused of being partisan or political pawns in the larger voting wars. Former Infantry Officer Pete Hegseth explains at Military.com that the “US should be expanding Military Voters’ Rights” and notes that what’s at stake here is not “special” treatment for military personnel so much as a respectful recognition of the heavy burden our government places upon them in service to our nation.
“Military voters as political pawns” or the most disenfranchised?
An opinion piece by Professor Richard Hasen that ends with a quote likely to get the blood moving this Monday morning. “Keeping the military out of the voting wars would be especially good for the military and the country”. Link
Wikipedia definition: Pawn may refer to:
A regretful title and characterization of our soldiers trying to participate in the election of their civilian leaders. However, much like the Obama lawsuit, it again shows the insensitivity to the challenges of military duty. Military members have been fiercely independent rising above the partisan rhetoric of politicians and law professors engaged in the voting wars of their own creation. They are not political pawns of either party. Period.
What is surprising about the lawsuit, as well as Professor Hasen’s article, is the absence of understanding why the arguments in the lawsuit are insensitive and offensive to military members. While Hasen mentions that the lawsuit may in fact restrict military voting rights, especially if the federal judge decides to close the early voting period for all voters, that issue seems to be of little concern. The bigger concern for both Hasen and the Obama campaign is whether one of the campaigns is able to bus in thousands of voters in the days before the election.
Nor does the article mention the longstanding challenges faced by military voters, as well as the fact that thousands of military members have been disenfranchised in recent elections. That point was made by Bob Carey, the former Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Office, Department of Defense, who estimated that 300,000 military voters, the population of entire large city, had been disenfranchised in the 2010 election.
For years, the military has been caught in the middle of the “voting wars” as a silent bystander and that is ending. The military should be able to exercise their right to vote without being accused of being partisan or political pawns in the larger voting wars. Former Infantry Officer Pete Hegseth explains at Military.com that the “US should be expanding Military Voters’ Rights” and notes that what’s at stake here is not “special” treatment for military personnel so much as a respectful recognition of the heavy burden our government places upon them in service to our nation.