A counter to the WSJ piece posted a couple of days ago

Matthew Harwood from the Brennan Center takes an in depth look at some of the GOP “voting integrity” plans.

The title of his piece says it all. And it is not from some left-wing site, but The Reason, a LIBERTARIAN website and magazine. They don’t publish much that doesn’t tend toward libertarianism.

And this reminder of what our democratic republic should be about: “In a democratic nation, the vote ensures that we engage in politics, not war. It gives us a voice: one vote to cast as we please, plus the right to speak freely and convince others to also cast their ballots for particular candidates or causes. It gives us the ability to privilege the ballot box over the cartridge box when things get real. The winner today may not be the winner next election. The self-corrective process of elections allows for the peaceful transfer of power—a historical miracle that, after the Capitol riot, we might not want to take for granted” (My emphasis added)

8 thoughts on “A counter to the WSJ piece posted a couple of days ago

  1. When someone is regurgitating left wing babble, I don’t care who they work for, it is still left wing babble. The WSJ was very tempered in its reporting of what the changes really are, not what some screaming race baiter says. I really don’t see why some people need so much time, unverified ID and accommodation to vote if they really want to. If it was up to lefties it would be an unverified free for all phone in election American Idol style with multiple redial votes. I think it should be a 2 week election, in person and photo ID required period with few exceptions like military. If you don’t care enough to show up on time with proof of ID, you don’t care.


    1. Just because you disagree with an opinion does not make it “left wing babble”.

      The piece I posted takes a very in depth look at the efforts to suppress votes in communities of color under the guise of “election integrity”. Any rule that PREVENTS eligible citizens from voting, or makes it harder than it should be should be tossed on the trash heap of history, like the Confederacy.

      11 hour lines for voting? When you close precincts in areas and force people to stand in longer lines, that does not help ANY one who wants to vote.

      I get it. You are of the same opinion as the jackass in AZ who said not everyone should vote. Another “only the RIGHT people” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) should vote.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. See? That is squarely the kind of race baiting trash that must go!! Your “opinion” doesn’t jive with reality so you try to cast aspersions making ridiculous comparisons of people you know nothing about. Voter “suppresion” claims are plain left wing BS. The facts do not support it like WSJ pointed out.


        1. Race baiting? Or speaking the simple truth? The courts have already found illegal racist motives in election actions by the GOP. North Carolina comes to mind. Many of these 250 or so measures will not survive court challenges for the same reason.

          For your information here is the full text of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution . . .

          “Section 1
          The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

          Section 2
          The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

          If voting laws and administration can be shown as a matter of fact to abridge the rights of minorities to equal access to the ballot they are violations of the Constitution. GOP decisions that limit voting places in minority neighborhoods and cause 10 hour waits are clearly such. If you love the rule of law and the Constitution you should be outraged that they do such things in so many places.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Letting the people who are being discriminated against decide if they are being discriminated against is NOT left wing BS. If people feel threatened or that their rights are being threatened, who are you to say otherwise?

          Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “A counter to the WSJ piece posted a couple of days ago”

    Not a very strong one. The Reason writer (who works for the liberal, not libertarian Brenner Center) complains about Georgia proposals that didn’t make it into the final bill the Governor just signed and which WSJ described.

    The more fundamental issue is that election integrity and participation represent a trade off. The more secure and reliable the vote counting process is, the less easy it must be to vote.

    Fortunately, democracy doesn’t require easy participation. It requires only that participation not be unreasonably difficult or discriminatory.

    With this slightly lower standard in mind, such things as verified registration, in-person voting, photo ID and one-day voting are not unreasonable.


    1. Brennan, not Brenner. (David Brenner is an avowed progressive, but not relevant to this discussion). And they are considered: “The Guardian has described the Brennan Center as “the foremost non-partisan organization devoted to voting rights.””
      So regardless of what YOU may believe, it is a good source. But you won’t think so because once again, your world view is called into question.

      What election integrity problems were there in 2020? (Most were addressed in the article, including the T**** appointed judges who laughed the majority of the cases out of court) Not to the level that would change the outcome of the election. T*** lost (and a lot of down ballot GOPers, won) so states that he lost feel it is necessary to change the laws to make it even more difficult for voters to participate? That is horseshit. Period.

      “It requires only that participation not be unreasonably difficult or discriminatory.”

      Who are you to decide what is unreasonable or discriminatory, or not? You are not affected by any of these laws and you don’t give a rats patootie if someone else’s RIGHTS are put in jeopardy. All you give a damn about is if your chosen candidate wins, by hook, crook or discriminatory laws.

      “With this slightly lower standard in mind, such things as verified registration, in-person voting, photo ID and one-day voting are not unreasonable.”

      Side effect on that will be military members voting while deployed or away from their home states as I was for my entire Navy career. I had to request an absentee ballot (not unreasonable), but was never required to show anything. Are you saying my ballots from 1984 through 2007 should not have counted? Seems that way to me.

      The changes proposed in Arizona alone are idiotic. The GOP controlled legislatures made those laws in 2005. Now, all of a sudden they have an issue with their own laws. Why? Because T**** lost by about 10,000 votes. No fraud. No questions of integrity. Except those raised by the former president (and his toady, minion-looking useful idiots) MONTHS before the first ballots were even cast.

      The GOP in this country has given its political soul over to a demagogue who cares nothing for this country, only what it can do for HIM.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. “The more secure and reliable the vote counting process is, the less easy it must be to vote.”

      Laughable considering the 202 election was DEEMED THE MOST SECURE AND FAIR IN DECADES. There are no LEGITIMATE reasons to put up barriers to voting. Period.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s