by Steve Haner

Let us elevate a discussion from the comment string to the main page:  Having examined Richard Hall-Sizemore’s offered examples of Virginia Republicans seeking to discourage voting in Virginia, I reject his assertion (part of a coordinated national campaign) that those bills “would result in fewer people voting.”

The broadest Republican bill he pointed to, Senate Bill 1459 offered by Senate Minority Leader Thomas Norment, R-James City, basically returned voting rules to the situation in 2019.  It restored the requirement for photo identification, with the option of a provisional ballot.  With a provisional ballot allowed, how would that “result in fewer people voting?”

It also ended the practice of absentee ballot drop boxes, initially provided as an “emergency” response to the “temporary” issue of the pandemic.  Virtually every emergency, temporary adjustment blamed on the pandemic has now been enshrined as the only possible fair way to ever conduct an election and seeking to return to 2019 rules is branded as “Jim Crow.”

Jim Crow was, is and will always be a Democrat.  But that’s another story.  Jim Crow laws when instituted were supported (or ignored) by some of the same breed of craven corporate executives who are kowtowing to The Power today. Again, another story. Back to Hall-Sizemore’s examples.

House Bill 2209 was a perfectly reasonable approach to handling absentee ballots with a required signature.  All that it required was a signature!  Senate Bill 1455 would have added a requirement that someone who witnesses an absentee (requiring a witness!  How repressive!) also provide their address.  Damn, just like the police dogs and fire hoses on the Pettus Bridge!

One bill Hall-Sizemore cited may have indeed prevented somebody from voting. House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert sought to repeal the provision for same-day registration, approved in 2020 for implementation this year.  Good for him. That is an outrageously bad idea, as it means no effort can or will be made to check the registrant’s identity or address.  It will also delay the lines on Election Day.  Preventing fraud is voter suppression, Dick?

On the basis of those bills, Democrats seek to compare today’s Republicans with their own direct political ancestors who instituted a poll tax, literacy tests, and firebombed churches to prevent registration drives?  President Biden’s statements in this regard are as or more despicable than any comment made by his predecessor.  They are blood libel.  But the media applauds his libels and crawls in with him.

Hall-Sizemore also points to three bills that Republican opposed, claiming that their passage “expanded the voter base.”  Absolutely false.  They had nothing to do with registration, which creates the “voter base,” and had they failed every Virginian would have still have plenty of easy avenues to voting, in person, by mail, early or on Election Day.

Senate Bill 1245 dealt with ballot drop boxes and instituted a “cure” process for absentee ballot errors that on its face looks similar to the one in Norment’s bill.  House Bill 1888 is a more extensive absentee ballot bill and the third bill mentioned, House Bill 1968, provided the option of early voting on Sundays.  It is local option.  It is possible nobody will do it. Will it be racism to give registrar employees Sunday off?

Here is my deal for my writing buddy Dick:  I’d like him to leave off with the claims that any effort to ensure that people voting are who they say they are, and are only voting once, equates you to Eugene “Bull” Connor or Virginia’s Massive Resistance leaders (all Democrats.)  In return, I’ll agree that the changes sought in 2020 and 2021 were not intentional efforts to steal elections with fraudulent votes.

That doesn’t mean I agree with them all.  Some will make it easier to cheat.

Looking through these again, one important point is that Virginia law as it stands today, with these changes, looks quite similar to the Georgia laws that just passed and are being hypocritically attacked by a horribly biased national media and corporate fellow travelers.

As previously stated, there is nothing wrong with a period of early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, as long as steps are taken to verify identity, prevent repeat voting, and enforce deadlines.   Those were changes that actually did increase turnout.  Wait for Part II on that point.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

102 responses to “GOP and Virginia Election Laws, Part I”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    And RPV will demonstrate how it is done soon.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    So I have a question for Steve. If a fool-proof method of voting by phone could be developed – would you support it?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      First, he would need to learn the difference between foreign interference and voter fraud. One is documented and the other is an admitted lie.

      1. Total snark that addresses no substantive point raised in the post.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Actually there IS a difference between voting rules AND disinformation campaigns to influence voters.

          ” WASHINGTON – Russia and Iran engaged in multi-faceted, covert influence campaigns aimed at swaying the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to a declassified assessment released Tuesday by U.S. intelligence officials.

          The report from the Director of National Intelligence said U.S. officials did not find evidence that foreign actors tried to alter “technical” aspects of the voting process, such as voter registration files or vote counting.

          But some U.S. adversaries, including Iran and Russia, “spread false or inflated claims about alleged compromises of voting systems to undermine public confidence in election processes and results,” the report says.”

          1. Why does no Dem talk about the Mexican government’s interference in telling its former [and some current] citizens who/what to vote for in order to get a better pro-Mexican govt in DC?

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Then let me answer Larry’s question with a question.

          To what level of political hackery would one have to sink to protest the interference with our lives that government poses, and then insist on governmental restrictions on the only legally prescribed method we have to change that government?

          1. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
            PassTheBuckBureaucrat

            I was going to say Libertarian Socialism, but it sounds more like Groucho Marxisim to me.

            Disqus must be destroyed!

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            hmm.. that sounds like the point of Jim Crow, no?

          3. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
            PassTheBuckBureaucrat

            I really hate this new comment platform. Too many “rulz”.

            Disqus must be destroyed!

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            what rules?

    2. ” If a fool-proof method of voting by phone could be developed – would you support it?”

      Perhaps, but would you be able to use it?

      😉

  3. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
    PassTheBuckBureaucrat

    2 factor auth by SMS (text message) is asking for fraud. Then again, I guess asking for proof of identity to pay your bills online is social injustice. thankfully, I got a free obama phone

    1. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
      PassTheBuckBureaucrat

      Hey Lar, that’s what “2 factor” means.

      SMS is hardly secure or private, which is why its not a good second factor. If your bank is using SMS as a second factor, its false security.

      Also, Disqus must be destroyed!

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        there are stronger variants of 2fa/mfa which is pretty universal now with a wide variety of organizations.

        It can be a land-line as well as SMS or email.

        So why is it not secure if you get a 6 digit code
        and you have to also use the last four SSN or Driver License or voter number?

        How would you hack that? Point me to a link.

        1. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
          PassTheBuckBureaucrat

          You must travel to Google, or, even better, DuckDuckGo. There, you will find the answers you seek, my friend.

          (but yes, there are proper methods for 2 factor authentication. SMS is not one of them)

          Disqus must be destroyed!

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      then MFA – using a one-time 6 digit code AND some other info that only the voter would likely know – like their voter number or a login/passcode, drivers license, etc.

      I’ll admit that some voters, might actually find this no easier than voting in person so it would need to be phased in and let voters choose which is easier for them. Younger folks won’t have any trouble at all with it.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Instead of Voter Integrity Laws, how about Candidate and Electee Integrity Laws? Geez, never mind. We’d have to move Richmond to Mecklenburg.

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    oh boy

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Okay Steve. C’mon. What’s the purpose of the witness?

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Have you ever considered tranquilizers?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      To verify you paid the poll tax or knew the 14th President?

      😉

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Or can spell “Chrysanthemum”. It’s an old joke from the late Jim Crow period.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      I had to have a witness for my absentee ballot when I previously cast and lived in PA. I didn’t find it cumbersome to prove, nor did I find it cumbersome to request that absentee ballot and I was working 16+ hours days on the railroad.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Cumbersome isn’t an issue. Necessary is. You recently stated something about removing superfluous laws from the books. The very definition of a superfluous law is one that unnecessarily burdens the people. The witness serves no purpose.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          One is required a witness when signing all legal documents, as to validate the individual who signed it is who they say they are and it was not done so under duress.

          Validation of the individual for purposes of legal and civic duties is not superfluous. Virginia prohibiting intercourse with the lights on, tickling and hunting on Sundays except for raccoons are examples of superfluous.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            A check is not a legal document? Didn’t need a witness when I took out my mortgage, or signed my 1040. Bought my boat without a witness. Didn’t need a witness when I bought my two cars two years ago. Signed the contract, stroked the check.

            You sir, are just plain wrong.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            A check is not a legal document, it’s a bill of exchange/negotiable instrument.

            “Didn’t need a witness when I took out my mortgage”

            If you didn’t, than your mortgage is not valid. During closing you would’ve signed documents with a Lawyer or an individual who holds a license do to said documents who would’ve then signed it in the presence of a notary or would have been the notary themselves.

            “Bought my boat without a witness. Didn’t need a witness when I bought my two cars two years ago”

            Again, you signed those documents in the presence of another person (i.e. a witness) and they were going to be signed by those individuals in the presence of a notary.

            “You sir, are just plain wrong.”

            Not really, it just appears you are unaware of how contracts are ratified.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What are you going to do with an oral contract?
            https://www.lawdepot.com/law-library/faq/legal-faq/#.YHnYCtEpChA
            “Most documents and contracts do NOT require a witness for them to be legally valid. However, some documents such as a Will can have clearly regulated requirements pertaining to witnesses. Additionally, many banks and other institutions have their own policies about signing requirements, and may refuse to accept documents that are not notarized regardless of their legal sufficiency. If you want to avoid bureaucratic hold-ups, it may be a good idea to take your document to a Notary Public or have it witnessed. You may also want to contact the institution, branch or registry where your document will be used to determine what they require.”

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So now that you’ve moved the goalposts, we can conclude you were wrong and are unable to admit it.

            Having signed a mortgage just last year I assure you that the recorder who came to my home required me to produce an ID and witness my signature. To which she used her notary stamp following that step. Having purchased a new vehicle this year, I can assure you I had to produce an ID to the finance department when procuring the loan, to which that loan officer signed and attested that I am who signed it.

            “A boat is a hole in the water you throw money into”

            Humm clearly the word “however” seems to thrown you in a loop, perhaps you should contact your firms legal department and ask them how they record contracts.

            Edit: Furthermore, breach of contract isn’t a crime, it’s punitive. Voter fraud is criminal offense.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “One is required a witness when signing all legal documents, as to validate the individual who signed it is who they say they are and it was not done so under duress.”

            I did not ‘move’ goal posts. But you made a patently unreasonable statement.

            “… required … all legal documents…”

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            something about tarbaby?

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yeah. He’s a hoot. I’ll bet his profs were glad when he graduated. Kinda let’s you know how the med school folks felt about Battacharayya.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            😉

          9. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            You do realize that’s a racial slur right?

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No, I didn’t. That’s a perfectly valid statement and nothing you posted took away from it.

            If you think that you’re going to sign a legal document without a witness or proving you are who you say you are, you’re a fool. Well that or you’re a liar, because you previously made statements that cannot be a reality given the legal requirements to enter into those agreements.

          11. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Signed plenty of documents, some with perjury warning, and if you work for the government, so have you, that did not require a witness.

          12. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Goalposts moved yet again.

            PS: Any number of people have tax returns filed in their names by not themselves, yearly.

            https://www.thebalance.com/fraudulent-tax-return-4586864

            I had to previously prove who I was and undergo a background check (which requires a color photo copy of an ID) to even receive those Government forms.

            They don’t give out SF-86’s to just anyone.

          13. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            They don’t give ’em out to anyone anymore. It’s all online.

          14. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            You are sent a secure link, clearly you’ve not held a clearance a very long time if ever.

            Edit: Oh and you’ve already proven who you are with a SS card and Photo ID.

            Would you care to make any more fallacious remarks?

          15. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            None of what is contained validates your points or statements. The notion that you can willy nilly attest and sign something without proof of identification is completely and utterly fallacious.

          16. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “The application shall include a signature section which includes items such as: city and state where signed; date of signature; signature of each proposed insured of the age of majority required by the state where the policy is issued for delivery, or the applicant’s legal residence; signature of spouse for spouse benefits; signature of parent, guardian or person liable for any proposed insured’s support; signature of owner if other than the proposed insured; title of officer signing as owner if owner is a corporation, partnership or trust; printed name and signature of a witness (the company may require that the sales representative sign as witness).”

            Keyword MAY… And, of course, NOW you will claim an insurance application is not a legal document…
            https://www.insurancecompact.org/rulemaking_records/141204_ind_life_application.pdf

          17. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Again irrelevant, as you’ve already proved to your insurance company who you are via photo identification. This is becoming fairly ridiculous and making you look more and more foolish.

  7. Yup, asking someone to witness a signature on an absentee ballot is the moral equivalent of this:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a6c4e24f40a75534d518fdaaef409228568e6faaea4857ee6c0ca03391800de.jpg

    How can you not see it, Steve?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      See, this is WHY , VPAP does not consider BR “news”!

      😉

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        So ^%$## it, I’m going to draw some blood….

        Voting by phone? Not so sure. But some phone-based ID system? Send me a six digit number and I enter it at voting registration? Hmmmm. But people have ID, this business of ID being an unfair requirement is absolute BS. As I recall you are not offended by requiring ID.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          “draw blood” ? over VPAP?

          Yes, two-factor authentication – so a six digit number that is tied to you for that transaction.

          If we can do two-factor authentication to get into a bank account or login to your investment account, why not for voting?

          That would allow people to vote without precincts… and securely….

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The problem with what you are suggesting is that it is secure and auditable.

        2. Trust me when i state that phones are not secure —— we hacked so many in other places to do really cool actions…. makes the movies look simply arcane.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so point to a link that explains how…

          2. i can’t say, but i understand that ‘Wikileaks – Vault 7’ has some info

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Individual phones can be hacked and are just like there can be individual fraud in an election but on a massive scale that favors one candidate?

            Go to the Virginia SBE site and navigate to where you must provide personal info to be able to see your personal voter info.

            Think about how you would hack – not just one but dozens, hundreds…

            That very same info could be challenged in a MFA environment. If you think about it, that’s what SBE is doing… you can’t see your voter record unless you provide SEVERAL pieces of information such as the last 4 digits of your SS and your birthday.

            If MFA asked you for this same info – how could you hack it?

    2. Throw off those chains…oh wait that was ‘China Joe’ before he told Blacks [AP standard] they weren’t black unless they voted for him, after the praised KKK Byrd, after the was totally impressed with how clean and articulate Barry Obama was.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    First, what is the purpose of a witness? In contracts, the purpose is the possible incapacitation of a signatory before or during the execution, e.g., Will or Medical Directives, depositions, etc., and to atest to the absence of duress or coercion.

    Are you expecting a mass incapacitation event? I mean other than Sydney Powell and/or being a Republican.

    What’s next? Notary? Medallion guarantees?

    Here’s an idea. Passcode. When I register to vote, I give an exemplar signature AND a passcode that I make up.

    Then, on my ballot, I sign and provide the passcode.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Yes. I’d like to hear the purpose of the witness from those that advocate it…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Here’s a better idea. Most of these absentee frauds — the really documented cases — involve old people, e.g., the PA guy who voted for Trump using his mother’s ballot, or “nursing home harvesting” (which were all witnessed by the same person).

        Well ya can’t vote if you’re too young… why not? Voting is for those 18 to 70 only. Problem solved.

        1. So you do know what actual voter suppression is, after all…

          😉

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yeah, and all in favor of “driver suppression” for the same reason too.

            I’d rather ride in a car driven by a drunk than an old person. Two hours later that drunk may be more sober, but that old guy is just getting older.😎

          2. How do you get the emojis to show up? I haven’t been able to get them since the switch to disqo, or disqus, or whatever it is.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I don’t know, but I suspect it’s something to do with Java scripting. I have been trying various browsers that will work with OS 10.3.3 on an iPad and they ALL hate this site and others. But apparently, I get the keyboard 🎹 emojis.

      2. Requiring a second signature means that IF someone was filling out fraudulent ballots it would take them twice as long to complete each one so they could only complete half as many in a given time period. 😉

        Or, it could potentially uncover fraud if, say, a group of suspect ballots were audited and it turned out the same person witnessed 30,000 absentee ballots. The witness signature functions as a sort of [very] low-tech 2-factor authentication.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Best unreasonable reason ever. 6 pack of beer and 5 buddies.

          Nursing homes often have the same witness… a staffer.
          Very very low,

    2. For a will, a witness would only be used to prove absence of duress or that the decedent was of sound mind if the will was challenged. However, if the will does not contain a self proving affidavit, the witnesses would be required to testify that the will was in fact signed by the decedent.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Great. We know that.

        Now what purpose on an absentee ballot? If the ballot is in issue, ask the voter. The witness is of NO added value, and comes at a cost to the voter.

        1. What if the voter dies after signing the absentee ballot, but before his/her ballot is disputed?

          What if there is a question of timeliness of mailing or delivery?

          Is it that hard to imagine situations where it would be to the voter’s advantage to have a witness who could say “I saw Voter execute his ballot on that date”?

          If you knew that witnesses are used to prove that the document in question is authentic, why didn’t you say so?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Okay. It is certainly true. Kerry said it yesterday, “Americans SUCK at probability.”

            How many Virginians will die between, say, Sept 1 and November 15? Of those that died what is the number over 18? Of those over 18 and died, what percentage will vote? Of those voting over 18 that died, what percentage will use absentee? Of the dead absentee voters, what percentage will have signatures sufficiently different as to call the ballot into question?

            And finally…

            If it is the voter’s ballot, shouldn’t he have the right to decide if he wants it to count should he die and it be contested?

  9. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
    PassTheBuckBureaucrat

    Seriously, someone explain why its so hard to get an official ID? And, is this a mass issue? If you can get bothered enough to go vote, why can’t you be bothered enough to get an ID?

    Then again, the idea of voting is just a stupid waste of time anyway.

    Representative democracy should be based on the lottery system, akin to jury duty. Random selection from the population should statistically result in representation quite similar to actual demographics.

    If you say, “we need experienced legislators that understand the system”, well that’s just the result of our Bureaucratic Democracy.

    Disqus must be destroyed!

    1. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
      PassTheBuckBureaucrat

      ACLU says:

      2-3% of potential voters don’t vote when IDs are required
      The reason given for not getting an ID is its too damned expensive!

      Virginia has about 6m registered voters. Assuming ACLU claims to be accurate, apparently 180,000 in Virginia can’t afford to get an ID. Assuming all 180,000 of these folks would vote for Trump, Biden still wins Virginia.

      Best solution: get rid of voting!

      Further, Disqus must be destroyed!

    2. Please provide the names of ten people who have been unable to get a govt-supplied photo ID.

      Please give me the name of ten people who do not have a single govt-approved photo-ID.

      PROVIDE FACTS TO SUPPORT THESE ‘COMMONLY HELD’ ASSERTIONS

      1. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
        PassTheBuckBureaucrat

        That voting is a waste of time? That depends on how much you value your time, which is a personal matter.

        Given the typical choice of voting for either a Douche or a Turd, I’d rather waste my time posting comments on this blog. If the ACLU assertions are remotely correct, I imagine there are 180,000 other Virginians that feel about the same way.

        Or, maybe you’re asking for facts supporting the fact that: Disqus must be destroyed!. I’ll address that some other time.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Stan? Stan Marsh, is that you?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            shoooooeeee

  10. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    My time for rebuttal.

    First, nowhere in my comments did I compare, directly or

    indirectly, current opposition to more openness in election laws to the Jim Crow tactics and laws of yesteryear. Not only did I not say anything to that effect, it was not my intention to do so.

    Second, some general observations. According to the Dept. of Elections, turnout in Virginia in the 2020 general elections was 81.5 percent of registered voters. That is phenomenal, far and awayhigher than any other election. Undoubtedly, the presence of Donald Trump on the ballot accounted for a portion of the increase in turnout. But, there also was the pandemic, which would ordinarily have discouraged a portion of those voters to stay at home. However, with new laws and procedures in place to make it easier to vote early and by absentee in person, people were able to vote in record numbers. And, there was no scandal, no stuffing of the ballot box with illegal votes. The logical conclusion from this test: We can open up the voting process, making it easier for more people to vote, without experiencing significant voter fraud. Since they worked, why not make these “temporary” procedures permanent?

    I don’t buy the argument that the Republicans only wanted to
    “return voting rules to the situation in 2019.” Of course, that is what they wanted because those were the rules they had put in place. But, if the new rules resulted in increased voter participation without fraud, it would seem that the reason for returning to the old system is because one does not like the increased participation. Some Republicans are candid about why they oppose voting reforms pushed by Democrats. The lawyer for Arizona Republicans told the Supreme Court they were opposed “because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.” https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/03/02/arizona-gop-lawyer-admits-real-reason-wants-election-reform/6895380002/ Even Trump voiced that opinion. In explaining his opposition to proposals by Democrats to provide funding for expanded absentee voting and voting by mail, he said, “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-voting-republicans/

    Now, on to some of Steve’s specific objections and challenges. Norment wanted to require a photo ID, with the option of a provisional ballot if a voter did not have one. Steve wanted to know how it would result in fewer people voting if a rovisional ballot is allowed. Casting a provisional ballot is a hassle and those voters may have to return later to provide proof. Anytime there are additional processes involved, some people will choose not to vote and go through the hassle. Also, they may feel intimidated if they don’t have the photo ID.

    Steve raised a legitimate objection to my reference to some
    bills expanding the “voter base” when those bills had nothing to do with registration. That was sloppy terminology on my part. I was referring to likely voters and, technically, the “voter base” consists of registered voters. In the end, however, he did not dispute my basic point: Republicans opposed bills that would have made it easier for people to vote and, therefore, likely increase the number of registered voters actually voting.

    I can happily agree with his proposed deal because it is, in effect, moot. I have never equated Republican efforts to tighten voting procedures with Bull Connor or Massive Resistance and he has never asserted that the changes made in 2020 and 2021 were efforts to steal elections with fraudulent votes.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    As for “same day”, you seemed happy to throw a provisional ballot at a “no photo ID” voter. Okay, a same-day provisional ballot would give time. Voila, problem solved.

    Now as to a photo ID. Why? What fraud has occurred without a photo ID? In order to fraudulently vote on a non-photo ID, I’d have to 1) register using a valid voter’s identity, 2) know that the registrar has validated that voter AND 3) have a fake ID for that person.

    What non-photo ID would I use? A birth certificate? A death certificate? What ID? A bill from Dominion?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Sure, a utility bill stolen out of the mailbox, or mailed to a deceased voter, would work perfectly under current law.

  12. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    My time for rebuttal.

    First, nowhere in my comments did I compare, directly or
    indirectly, current opposition to more openness in election laws to the Jim Crow tactics and laws of yesteryear. Not only did I not say anything to that effect, it was not my intention to do so.

    Second, some general observations. According to the Dept. of Elections, turnout in Virginia in the 2020 general elections was 81.5 percent of registered voters. That is phenomenal, far and away higher than any other election. Undoubtedly,
    the presence of Donald Trump on the ballot accounted for a portion of the increase in turnout. But, there also was
    the pandemic, which would ordinarily have discouraged a portion of those voters to stay at home. However, with new laws and procedures in place to make it easier to vote early and by absentee in person, people were able to vote in record numbers. And, there was no scandal, no stuffing of the
    ballot box with illegal votes. The logical conclusion from this test: We can open up the voting process, making it easier for more people to vote, without experiencing significant voter fraud. Since they worked, why not make these “temporary” procedures permanent?

    I don’t buy the argument that the Republicans only wanted to
    “return voting rules to the situation in 2019.” Of course, that is what they wanted because those were the rules they
    had put in place. But, if the new rules resulted in increased voter participation without fraud, it would seem that the
    reason for returning to the old system is because one does not like the increased participation. Some Republicans are candid about why they oppose voting reforms pushed by Democrats. The lawyer for Arizona Republicans told the Supreme Court they were opposed “because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.” Even Trump voiced that opinion. In explaining his opposition to proposals by
    Democrats to provide funding for expanded absentee voting and voting by mail, he said, “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

    Now, on to some of Steve’s specific objections and
    challenges. Norment wanted to require a photo ID, with the option of a provisional ballot if a voter did not have one. Steve wanted to know how it would result in fewer people voting if a provisional ballot is allowed. Casting a provisional ballot is a hassle and those voters may have to return later to provide proof. Anytime there are additional processes involved, some people will choose not to vote and go through the hassle. Also, they may feel intimidated if they don’t have the photo ID.

    Steve raised a legitimate objection to my reference to some
    bills expanding the “voter base” when those bills had nothing to do with registration. That was sloppy terminology on my part. I was referring to likely voters and, technically, the “voter base” consists of registered voters. In the end, however, he did not dispute my basic point: Republicans opposed bills that would have made it easier for people to vote and, therefore, likely increase the number of registered voters actually voting.

    I can happily agree with his proposed deal because it is, in
    effect, moot. I have never equated
    Republican efforts to tighten voting procedures with Bull Connor or Massive Resistance and he has never asserted that the changes made in 2020 and 2021 were efforts to steal elections with fraudulent votes.

  13. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    America… where they interrupt a news story about the police killing an unarmed man/child with a live report from a FedEx facility where 8 people were killed in a mass shooting. Pandemic? What pandemic?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Indeed, the “news” these days consists of Police Killings alternating with mass killings…..

  14. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I have tried to post a rebuttal. I composed it in Word and copied it to this space. However, when I tried to take out the extra line returns and make the comment look and read better, the comment disappeared when I hit “post” and system announced that it had been marked as spam. I give up.

    See below. Thanks to Nancy, I figured out how to do it.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Is there a word count limit Disqus comments that would require it to be broken into multiple parts?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Don’t give up. Copy to a nottebook/email and convert to “text only” and give it another go. I saw it posted twice, but now it’s gone.

      Personally, I’m tired of the “how burdensome is it?” excuse of the Republicans and the only response is “Why is it necessary?”

    3. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
      PassTheBuckBureaucrat

      Disqus must be destroyed!

    4. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
      PassTheBuckBureaucrat

      Disqus must be destroyed!

  15. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    My time for rebuttal.

    First, nowhere in my comments did I compare, directly or indirectly, current opposition to more openness in election laws to the Jim Crow tactics and laws of yesteryear. Not only did I not say anything to that effect, it was not my intention to do so.

    Second, some general observations. According to the Dept. of Elections, turnout in Virginia in the 2020 general elections was 81.5 percent of registered voters. That is phenomenal, far and away higher than any other election. Undoubtedly, the presence of Donald Trump on the ballot accounted for a portion of the increase in turnout. But, there also was the pandemic, which would ordinarily have discouraged a portion of those voters to stay at home. However, with new laws and procedures in place to make it easier to vote early and by absentee in person, people were able to vote in record numbers. And, there was no scandal, no stuffing of the ballot box with illegal votes. The logical conclusion from this test: We can open up the voting process, making it easier for more people to vote, without experiencing significant voter fraud. Since they worked, why not make these “temporary” procedures permanent?

    I don’t buy the argument that the Republicans only wanted to “return voting rules to the situation in 2019.” Of course, that is what they wanted because those were the rules they had put in place. But, if the new rules resulted in increased voter participation without fraud, it would seem that the reason for returning to the old system is because one does not like the increased participation. Some Republicans are candid about why they oppose voting reforms pushed by Democrats. The lawyer for Arizona Republicans told the Supreme Court they were opposed “ because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.” Even Trump voiced that opinion. In explaining his opposition to proposals by Democrats to provide funding for expanded absentee voting and voting by mail, he said, “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

    Now, on to some of Steve’s specific objections and challenges. Norment wanted to require a photo ID, with the option of a provisional ballot if a voter did not have one. Steve wanted to know how it would result in fewer people voting if a provisional ballot is allowed. Casting a provisional ballot is a hassle and those voters may have to return later to provide proof. Anytime there are additional processes involved, some people will choose not to vote and go through the hassle. Also, they may feel intimidated if they don’t have the photo ID.

    Steve raised a legitimate objection to my reference to some bills expanding the “voter base” when those bills had nothing to do with registration. That was sloppy terminology on my part. I was referring to likely voters and, technically, the “voter base” consists of registered voters. In the end, however, he did not dispute my basic point: Republicans opposed bills that would have made it easier for people to vote and, therefore, likely increase the number of registered voters actually voting.

    I can happily agree with his proposed deal because it is, in effect, moot. I have never equated Republican efforts to tighten voting procedures with Bull Connor or Massive Resistance and he has never asserted that the changes made in 2020 and 2021 were efforts to steal elections with fraudulent votes.

  16. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The following allow for “motor voter” registration and updating of registration in Virginia:
    Department of Motor Vehicles
    Department of Health
    Department of Social Services
    Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services
    Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
    Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
    Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired
    Virginia Board for People with Disabilities
    Virginia Employment Commission in Northern Virginia (Planning District 8)
    Regional offices of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
    Armed Forces Recruitment Offices
    Any other agencies (such as community services boards) whose primary function is to provide state-funded programs to persons with disabilities

    This is great! They use the information required to obtain these services to register voters. There’s some obvious changes and questions:
    1) VEC — Why District 8 only?
    2) Where’s the Dept of Taxation? My 760? And similarly, any payment of other taxes, e.g. RE and PP?

    So, given all of these, why do I need a photo?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      and here is what is required to register to vote in Virginia (and the portal seems to be onilne):

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c99e04be3398548675851d5d63c420f6908b0ece7e8b7f27f8b6f79c81e2de6.jpg

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s not necessary to prevent voter fraud.
        What’s necessary is to detect it, and make it detectable.

        https://www.gq.com/story/north-carolina-ninth-district-fraud

        It’s not the voter who sways the election with fraud, it’s the campaigns and the parties.

        So, why fvck with the voter?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I agree. One change I would support would be a mandatory audit by an independent authority with a complete report of anomalies and trend data that might indicate something askew.

          But bottom line, make it super easy to vote, make fraud hard to do and after each election publish the audit.

          In other words, build and secure the process and assure it’s integrity as opposed to trying to restrict it because of “concerns” that seem more akin to excuses to limit participation than actual real fraud.

  17. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The greatest act of voter suppression in Virginia is off-year elections. If Dems really wanted more people to vote they would insist that we move state elections to even numbered years.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I agree with you. But, changing it would not be as easy as it may sound. This has come up before and one stumbling block is that, in order to switch election years, the incumbent governor would either have to serve 3 years or 5 years. There has been trouble getting consensus on that. Also, not only would the Code need to be changed, but the Constitution would have to be amended to allow a one-time 3-year term or 5-year term. The same situation applies for members of the General Assembly.

  18. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Oh James, poor James, you’ve given up control of your comments to unforgiving algorithms and faceless censors.

    Unless, of course, Steve…. nah, far too scrupulous, boneheadedly so.

Leave a Reply