Skip to main content

View Diary: An explanation of dispute on Fairfax County provisionals in AG race (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  umm - look at the schedule (19+ / 0-)

    There are few minimum wage workers who would be working Sat-Sun and on a Monday Holiday

    those workers already have a problem with having to vote on a Tuesday, although Virginia does allow someone who expects to be outside their jurisdiction during the hours the polls are open on election day to vote absentee either by mail or in person (and most jurisdictions allow in person voting on saturday).

    Rather than sniping on this, why not recognize that the Fairfax Board, which is majority Republican, is doing all it can to ensure that the votes of those who cast them provisionally can be included?

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 04:58:43 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My issue is not with the local board; it is with (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, codairem, delver, Tortmaster

      the State Board of Elections.  And since the vote is so close, the ruling by the State Board could alter the outcome of the election.  

      And as for your Bush v. Gore comment above, I thought that the decision said very clearly that it was not precedent.  

      •  it did, but SCOTUS has since referred to it (7+ / 0-)

        on several occasions, and it is has been referenced in a number of lower federal courts as well

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 07:34:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  no need to invoke Bush v. Gore at all (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        don mikulecky, codairem, Woody

        The State Board said that it was acting "in order to 'obtain uniformity in their [local election officials'] practices and proceedings and legality and purity in all elections.'" That is quoting Virginia statute on the legal obligations of the state board.

        Of course that quotation doesn't prove that the state board got this decision right. I'm just pointing out that this is, at least initially, a matter of state law, not federal law.

        "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 07:42:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The big question is, was Fairfax the only Co. (5+ / 0-)

          allowing this variant procedure? And, if not, were all the other counties similarly stopped?

          It's similar to what originally happened in Ohio, where the (R) SOS had tie-breaking powers, and broke ties in (R) strongholds in favor of expanded early voting, and broke ties in (D) strongholds against expanded early voting . . . and somehow claimed with a straight face that he was upholding uniformity.

          We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

          by Samer on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 08:56:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  fair question (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            patbahn, don mikulecky, rmx2630

            I've seen people who seem to know say that yes, Fairfax was the only such county. At any rate, the memo clearly applies to all counties -- although, as a matter of logic, it could have differential impact if some counties completed their meetings before the memo was issued. I have no reason to think that is the case. (But I'm HudsonValleyMark, just relying on what I've heard and read.)

            It is far from obvious what impact the memo will have in Fairfax, but maybe we will know after the dust settles.

            "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 10:04:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I "looked at the schedule" so to speak thinking of (4+ / 0-)

      going the absentee route as we have a usual Tuesday commitment that would have to be adjusted to vote in person.

      Yes, it would be possible, but the hoops one has to jump through in our case made it easier to adjust schedule. For many we know, including neighbors not seen between the hours of about 5:30 a.m. through as late as 8 p.m. as they commute and work long hours, that adjustment is less possible. While federal employees get, I believe two hour, voting leave many private firms do not give such leave—and an important meeting trumps voting if you value your job in the contractor world. I know people, past and this election, that fully intended to vote but had to be in the commute grind to make such meetings before six and then got stuck in a meeting or traffic until after seven. The schedule is an effective voter suppression mechanism for NOVA.

      What is needed is early voting without the "absentee" frills of signing affidavits of "valid" excuse and then commuting to one of the in person polling stations in this large county or coping with the schedule of mail that is useless unless you know well in advance you have a valid excuse. If I recall correctly a few decades ago, before the area was as urbanized as now and political divisions were so deep, NOVA representatives tried to change the law making our voting easier and downstate representatives of both parties blocked that effort.

      If we ever get a legislative majority we need to ram that one through, preferably as a constitutional amendment after the quick fix of a statute.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 07:38:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site