The core argument is simple and historically solid. The original Constitution does not create a broad federal right to vote. Article I, Section 2 ties House voter qualifications to whatever the states set for their own most numerous legislative body. Article I, Section 4 leaves the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections primarily to the states. Article II leaves the method of appointing presidential electors to state legislatures. The Framers built a republic with deliberate filters against pure majoritarianism. Federalist 10’s warning about faction was not decorative.
The later amendments changed the landscape only in specific, negative ways:
15th Amendment: no denial on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
19th: no denial on account of sex
24th: no poll tax in federal elections
26th: no denial to citizens 18 and older
These are anti-discrimination rules. They do not transfer ordinary qualification authority (photo ID, registration rules, citizenship verification, ballot chain-of-custody standards) from the states to Washington. Neutral, evenly applied requirements are not discrimination against a protected class.
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee (No. 24-1260) on June 29, 2026. In a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson), the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that federal election-day statutes do not preempt state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted a few days later.
Mississippi’s law (ballots received up to five business days after Election Day) survives. Similar grace periods in roughly a dozen other states, including California’s seven-day window, are now clearly on solid legal ground.
U.S. Supreme Court Source: Georgia Public Broadcasting / public domain news photo
U.S.Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Miranda Devine on the latest Pod Force One episode for a wide-ranging, no-nonsense discussion on foreign policy, immigration, surveillance, and holding power accountable.
Full episode of Sen. Paul's interview here (duration 40 mins) [VIDEO]
[VIDEO] So basically voting should only be done by married men who owns property. Perhaps going backwards in time when the right to vote across America was limited. You have to be a legit stakeholder in order to decide who gets to govern America.
I'd be interested in the real justification for this argument. Not likely to happen, however, what logical reason could be had to remove anyone's right to vote.
This is the 19th Amendment which was enacted over 100 years ago.
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 sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
[VIDEO] I think this is one of those man on the street phony petition segments from one Mark Dice, who even stayed in character when a guy who recognized him dapped him and stated "Newsom sucks". People were willing to sing this petition and you know what I don't really have to determine if this is a real proposal.
When you think about it President Brando.....Biden wanted to impose a vax mandate on companies over 100 employees. Then you have a comedian like Jimmy Kimmel - who I used to love on The Man Show - who believes vaccinated patients should be favored over the unvaccinated.
A few young women who were cadets at West Point were interviewed on Hannity last week talking about how the people who run the US Military Academy referred to them as diseased only because they weren't vaxxed. Just shows how are society has become with regards to this pandemic.
We were funny about social distancing and then were were funny about masking. Now we're getting funny about vaccinations. You're not allowed to participate in our society if you're not vaxxed.
Again I'm not anti-vax, it's up to you if you feel this is necessary and always talk to your doctors if you have any concerns. I would expect they know you better than I would. I'm just tired of the extremes with regards to this that I have been seeing in the news.
[VIDEO] Well the argument continues whether or not having a voter show their ID to cast their ballots on election day has racist intent. Does it? Especially when in some cases you can be issued a free ID so that you can vote. Also does having an ID suppress voter turnout and especially of racial minorities.
I've been hearing the arguments against this for years and aside from any "racism" it seems there's always some hardship as far as getting even a free ID to vote on election day. A free ID to have someone come to your place to assist you in getting a free ID. Or the cost of getting a state ID or driver's license. Or the expense and time it takes to go to any facility to get an ID.
My fall back on this is that is anyone who argues those above points think that some people are just too incompetent to get an ID? As you see in the beginning of this video as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz states the debate over voter ID is intensely partisan.
[VIDEO] Been a few year since I shared with you an episode of a local political program known as Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz. He had gotten more national exposure when the NY Times did a story about him and that time he interviewed a future President of the United States who was then an Illinois State Senator. His program was longrunning enough where many of the episodes I saw in the 2000s weren't through YouTube.
This time the edition of Public Affairs I'm sharing with you is underwritten - almost like a PBS series - by a company in downtown Chicago named Residco. Today's episode discusses the integrity of our elections with guest Attorney Joe Morris. They primarily discuss the after-effects of the 2020 election.
It's interesting to hear Morris state that both parties try to create rules that favor them in an election. Both parties want to know how people vote, although we as voters expect a secret ballot. No answer as far as whether or not there must be an election day or an election season, however, there definitely should be a cutoff as far as voting.
[VIDEO] Dave Morrison of Blue Collar Logic wonders if Gov. Brian Kemp R-GA) is the one who could take Republicans forward. He notes how Gov. Kemp was stepping into the fire as his state enacts into law some voter changes. Also remember Kemp and the Georgia Sec. of State showed no willingness to step in and insure that President Trump could still win the 2020 election.
However, Georgia Republicans are taking hit referring to their new election law as a resurgence of Jim Crow. Gov. Kemp is fighting this and rightfully and as Trump used to say this is fake news.
We got Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) taking heat for a fake story regarding "pay-to-play" with regards to the distribution of vaccines by a grocery/pharmacy chain. Perhaps we got two strong Republican leaders who if Trump decided not to run in '24 perhaps Kemp and DeSantis might step forward.
Also noted Trump unfortunately and this is correct wasn't able to really adequately address the "very fine people" myth from Charlottesville, Virginia and considering the environment we're in that proved to be dangerous. People were already pointing at our now former President as a racist and those who were loud about their thoughts on the president began to seep through the noise.
I remember back in about 2006 when still a student at Morehouse in Georgia that one class had a discussion about a proposed voter ID law. It seemed that our professor and some of the students were coming up with every excuse to say that proposed law was bad for Black people.
Basically can they go to a facility to get a license. I came up with this one just to be funny, they can't even afford a phone to make a phone call. Can they afford an ID? Were they just saying people were too incompetent and cheap to handle their business especially to get an ID.
I suggest to folks on both sides of that issue that the more fundamental question is whether Congress has the authority to set aside a state’s Electoral College votes. In my view, there are two key aspects of the question:
First, is there sufficient evidence of fraud in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and others to justify the decisions of Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri to register objections to the acceptance of their Electoral College votes? I haven’t had the opportunity to review all of the evidence for all of the allegations, but, as explained, for example, in this “American Thought Leaders” interview on The Epoch Times with the Data Integrity Group, the evidence of vote manipulation in multiple states is substantial and cries out for a critical investigation.
Second, Congress has an absolute right to set aside the Electoral College votes, according to President Abraham Lincoln, who told Congress on February 9, 1865, that “the two Houses of Congress, convened under the twelfth article of the Constitution, have complete power to exclude from counting all electoral votes deemed by them to be illegal, and it is not competent for the Executive to defeat or obstruct that power by a veto …”
The process seen in Wednesday’s Joint Session, interrupted as it was by the riot around and within the Capitol, was conducted as prescribed in the Constitution. Each properly framed and submitted objection to the acceptance of a state’s certified Electoral College votes gets two hours of debate in the Senate and the House, at the end of which members of both chambers vote on whether to accept or reject the objection.
Unfortunately, the other objects on the table weren't discussed thanks to the riots that took place on Capitol Hill. So this is indeed the ballgame, however, don't let anyone convince you that those challenges are a threat to democracy. We should care if anyone is essentially disenfranchised by any voter fraud, we should want honest elections.
[VIDEO] This news broke over the weekend and may well affect the Georgia US Senate runoffs today. I was seeing on YouTube uploaded snippets of a call. As ABL would state whatever is reported by some outlets such as the Washington Post whatever was said on the call was taken out of context.
What's going to be portrayed is that the President was hoping that the Georgia Secretary of State can simply manufacture some votes and give Trump Georgia's electoral votes. I think some Republicans or Conservatives, better yet Trump supports have recognized that the Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger or the Governor Brian Kemp didn't work that hard in this process. Hell we see Trump supporters and Trump himself give Arizona Governor Doug Ducey a hard time for certifying Arizona's votes.
The bottom line is that we have cases of fraud in places like Georgia and Arizona. I think Trump really won those states but some serious cheating was involved to turn Georgia blue. And it seems we will have some challenges in Congress to votes in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Georgia although it's not likely this will change anything. Let's tell the truth I think the odds are very slim of anything changing although there are some ongoing legal challenges or appeals.
One weird thing going on though, Trump is on his way out and for Trump's leaked call to Secretary Raffensperger there are some unhinged Democrats who want him impeached again. Which includes members of the Squad, I'm considering this.
Well as I type and publish this post it will be on January 5 and Trump will leave the Presidency if there is no other weirdness on January 20th. US Rep. Ilhan Omar isn't exactly wrong there is no time limit on impeachment regardless of how much longer he will remain in office, however, if the impeachment trial of Rod Blagojevich from December 2008 through January 2009 is any indication it took about a whole month for the process to go forward. In my mind, that process which began not too long after Governor Blagojevich's arrest by federal authorities it still took a month for it to play out.
I understand they used rules from Clinton's impeachment so granted we're talking about a state process vs a federal process, however, there is some overlap. I think states generally would use some federal rules and thus the federal process isn't much different. I think Rep. Omar is just ignorant of the process and either this makes for a good soundbite or she's very serious about this which is troubling.
I mean President Trump is really a lame duck at this point, and I don't foresee anything changing that.
Brilliant maps said share this map so therefore it's shared. The beige colors represent those states with large numbers of voters who didn't vote. This may have made a different for President-elect Donald Trump and these voters could've elected the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A huge what if admittedly!
I'm glad this wild election season is over though I recognize that this season had some surprising results.
Years ago it was noted that anyone voting for Judge - it seems like a difficult process especially in Cook County which has a humongous court system - seems to look for an Irish name. They don't look for someone most qualified they look for an Irish name. I've heard aspiring judges who aren't Irish change their names to help them in their bids.
Then at Capitol Fax, I see a story about foreign sounding names that cost some aspiring Trump delegates their spots. We're not that open minded in this state apparently.
I consider although this does seem like a stupid question, Barack Obama is a "foreign" name how did he make it in Chicago politics at least? Well if you read the comments to the link above Obama - and hopefully for the best - may have changed that.
BTW, I wonder if Rich Miller thinks that there could be a brokered convention judging by his last comment. I recognize that he tends to stay away from national politics.
The Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm sure many who consider themselves Black leaders are upset about this development. Every now and again we hear that this law needs to be extended as it had been since 1996 according to the Tribune article excerpted below.
The question is what's the problem now?
The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, ruling that Southern states may no longer be forced to seek federal approval before making changes in their election laws.
The ruling came on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaking for the court.
Roberts said the 1965 law had been a “resounding success” and has ensured that blacks now register and vote at the same rate as whites.
But he said it was no longer fair or rational to subject these states and municipalities to special scrutiny based on a formula that is more than 40 years old.
“States must beseech the federal government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have a right to enact and execute on their own,” he wrote. This conflicts with the principle that all the states enjoy “equal sovereignty” and cannot be subjected to different federal laws, he said.
Furthermore:
The decision may have an immediate impact. Texas has been fighting federal courts over its voter ID law and plans to redistrict its congressional districts. Those state actions were halted under the part of the law struck down Tuesday.
The decision leaves open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new formula to target states or municipalities for special scrutiny.
The decision leaves intact the rest of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to adopt or enforce laws that have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. But civil rights advocates say the provision struck down Tuesday was still needed because it stopped discriminatory measures before they could take effect.
As we take a breath from this decision as we're going to hear all types of hyperventilation over this ruling. I would encourage you to read this posting at Instapundit which covered this ruling. As a matter of fact it will show the hyperventilation and the legal analysis. That's certainly a good thing since well the blog is authored by a law professor.
Also I would encourage you to check out the SCOTUS blog that covers all US Supreme Court decisions. Instapundit is a very ideological blog geared towards the right wing, SCOTUS Blog on the other hand probably shouldn't be viewed as ideological. There's a special section on the ruling regarding the Civil Rights Act.
For a bonus, local reaction from one Rev. Jesse Jackson. :P
Yesterday, was the moment of truth. Mainly in the former Congressional district of Jesse Jackson Jr as his former constituents chose Robin Kelly as their new federal representative instead of her Republican opponent. Also many municipalities around the state also had their moment of truth and chose their mayors and other municipal officials.
Chicago Argus has a message for those of you who chose not to vote in these elections. It's often stated you can't complain if you refuse to cast a vote. Also, another wrinkle is that you can only show the powers that be that you can be walked over.
At least for the contest in the 2nd Congressional District turnout wasn't expected to be very high.
This month's Presidential debates are over and next week is election time. We saw three debates between President Obama and Mitt Romney and one debate between Vice President Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan. We saw the President off his game the first debate, a near fight in the second, and we saw how bad both men wanted it in the third and final debate. What we saw with VP Biden & Ryan was Biden laughing a lot.
What can we take from those debates? Well whatever you're able to. Besides we get to hear a bit more about what each man hoped to accomplish in the next administration. The thing about these debates is that they may play only to those who have already decided who's ticket they want to punch.
If it was me, I still evaluate each candidate and will only decide on Election Day. Also if you followed who said what about the debates on twitter or facebook you will see where the sentiment lies in either direction. Most of the people on my timeline on either site were for Obama and maybe a few were very much in Romney's camp.
In spite of their attempts to differentiate each other by telling us their specific domestic and foreign policies - in addition to the usage of numbers in discussion of jobs, taxations, etc. - sometimes I wonder if the American people can catch up. When they talk numbers I recognize that neither man really has a great concept of what they're talking about and were coached to be very convincing.
Another question to be asked if the American voter was convinced of who should be President in November? Are they going with either of the major party candidates? Or are they going to choose independent or third party challengers?
Well, it's safe to say the ones who made up their minds haven't changed their minds. Perhaps a precious few are no longer undecided as a result of the debates. With that result in mind the next question is, how useful are these presidential debates?
[VIDEO] Chanelle Hardy of the National Urban League discusses a report on the impact of Black voters in key swings states in this years presidential election. Looking at the info on this AP video's YouTube page those states include Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida.
The question I asked in this post's title Hardy seeks to answer in the first 20 seconds of this video. The report doesn't seek to answer that question anyway, however, she does explain that the laws in support of voter ID came about after the 2008 elections.
Though in my humble opinion, what she states is another salvo by those who think voter ID laws are a bad idea. Not that I've heard all the arguments against. When I was in school in Georgia, it was about whether or not registered voters could get an idea. That is go to the DMV (or in Illinois the Secretary of State) to get a ID to vote at least and in ATL with not a very significant public transportation system that makes it difficult for those without cars to go to a place to get an ID. It almost seems as if no one who could be affected by such laws are able to get an ID so they can vote.
Of course one counter I've heard in all the hoopla is that well can't get to a place that offers IDs, that's fine authorities can come to your home to give you an ID. That seems to get lost in all the racial pleas, economic or transportation hardships of that debate. In this video, it also seems and probably was always an argument, that voter IDs are about suppressing "minority" votes.
Generally I don't support the idea of compulsory voting, however, I can share the frustration of many who may choose to sit out any given election. That shows discontent as any thing else. People in Illinois are voting for people or in elections that no one seems to stand out. That's true everywhere of course.
While a successful businessman I now see Donald Trump as an entertainer thanks to his foray into "reality TV". He's got The Apprentice where he "fires" people who fail to complete a given task. It can be fun to watch, but at times it's a bit lame.
Anyway, Trump is making a foray into politics now thanks to his celebrity as the host of a "reality TV" program and as a successful businessman. Recently he's taken a lot of shots at Obama and at that on the issue of whether or not he was born in this nation. Personally I would rather he takes shots at our President for the direction this country is going and Trump should leave the birth certificate question alone.
The New York City Board of Elections says Donald Trump hasn't voted in any primary elections for more than 21 years.
The
board says the last time the possible Republican presidential candidate
voted in a primary election was in the 1989 primary for mayor. That's
when Rudy Giuliani beat businessman Ronald Lauder.
He also skipped the 2002 general election.
...
His lawyer Michael Cohen said Saturday that "for one of the greatest
international businessmen who travels all over the country and the
world, his voting record is very, very good."
Meh, that doesn't really matter to me all that much. I just know there are those out there like CBS News who might care about this. I think Trump has more baggage than this.
But I had just voted over a month ago. It's all good because this run off election starting at 6 AM will be it for the Chicago municipal elections for the next four years. In February voted already had made their choice for not only Mayor, but City Clerk and Treasurer. And for many, the choices for any of those city offices wasn't hard. In fact the incumbent was the only one running for City Treasurer.
In 14 city wards, no candidate was able to garner at least 50% plus 1 to avoid a run off. So there are run offs elections starting at 6 AM Tuesday. I
live in one of those wards. Look no further than The Sixth Ward to find coverage of the campaign in the 6th ward. In fact I was just made aware of this [VIDEO] from Progress Illinois (P.I.) Monday night. Interviewing both incumbent Ald. Freddrenna Lyle and her challenger Roderick Sawyer.
BTW, Progress Illinois is sponsored by the SEIU. The SEIU had put out several mailers attacked Sawyer based upon his statements on video gaming. Mainly saying that he supports it and also stating that he's failed to pay back taxes. Of course this is not to say P.I. is biased towards any candidate in any run off election this year.
This election is important since there will be a change in regime at Chicago's city hall. We know what to expect with outgoing Mayor Daley, but who knows what the future will hold with a Mayor Emanuel. He talks a good game but I want to see what he will implement going forward.
So in the 14 run offs to be decided this morning and into the evening, voters will determine who will represent their communities during the term of the Emanuel administration.
Let's hope that we will have made the correct choices going forward.
