Democrats Whip Against GOP's Latest Election Crackdown

More from the article...

... Why it matters: House Republicans have made non-citizen voting in federal elections -- for which there is no evidence of a widespread phenomenon -- a marquee issue going into the 2024 campaign. ...

What is it with Republicans and their continuing inability to provide any evidence for the assertions they make?

@#3

I don't know at this point how by-mail voting might be affected.

Another aspect is this from the article...

... State of play: The House is set to vote next week on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which would require "documentary proof of United States citizenship" to vote in federal elections.

- - - That could include a passport, a photo ID card that proves a voter was born in the U.S. or another form of photo ID along with supporting documentation such as a birth certificate, the bill says.

- - - The legislation would require non-citizens to be removed from voter registration rolls, require election officials to ask voter registration applicants for proof of citizenship and open them up to legal consequences if they do not. ...

That required removal of non-citizens from voter registration rolls could affect mail-in ballots.

For example, some localities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections (not Federal elections).

However, if non-citizens are removed from voter registration rolls, then non-citizens cannot vote in any local election.

imo, that's a bit of overreach by the House GOP.

@#5 ... Gotta be tough to have to keep coming up with new ways to cheat to win ...

Yeah.

For example, the Trump-backed Senate in Wisconsin. Didn't even appear to live in Wisconsin until he announced.

Eric Hovde transferred $2.3 million DC home to his brother before launching US Senate run (February 2024)
wisconsinindependent.com

... The Republican has lived mostly in California since 2018 and leading up to his decision to run for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin. ...

What is the phrase? I learned it long ago.

Oh yeah....

Carpetbagger
en.wikipedia.org

... In the history of the United States, carpetbagger is a largely historical pejorative used by Southerners to describe allegedly opportunistic or disruptive Northerners who came to the Southern states after the American Civil War, and were perceived to be exploiting the local populace for their own financial, political, and/or social gain. ...

@#8 ... Requiring proof of citizenship to vote? ...

I've no problem with that for Federal elections.

But for local elections, the stage changes. Local communities get to decide who can vote in their elections.

And then there is the overriding of local decisions that affect local politics by the Federal government.

Isn't that "State control" what MAGA is objecting to?

And, possibly, one more thing... non-citizens does not mean undocumented immigrants, as much as you might want it to have that definition.

@#10 ... They support the bureaucracy... when it enforces their rules. ...

Fascism rears its ugly head.

And, for the record, I've no problem with requiring voter-ID provided that such a requirement is put into place without a desire to restrict political views.

When I vote, I show my driver's license (which has the Real ID star, btw). One of my neighbors is an election worker. I've spent many holiday parties at her and her husbands house. yet, when I go to vote, she asks me for my ID. I like that.

But Connecticut has not put into place voter ID to affect political views.

Unlike...

U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law (2016)
www.npr.org

...The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" -- then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

The appeals court suggested that the motivation was fundamentally political -- a Republican legislature attempting to secure its power by blocking votes from a population likely to vote for Democrats....

[emphasis mine]

@#13 ... What's so onerous about requiring proof of citizenship? ...

The question I asked (#9), and I note your comment avoids, is ... why override the local election regulations?

Personally, I've no issue with proof of citizenship. As I noted I have a Real ID driver's license.

But for me, that is not the actual issue here.

The actual issue seems to be Republicans trying to deny the ability to vote of valid voters who tend to vote for Democrats.

As I noted in #12.