Sounds like they very explicitly don't want oversight to see something. All the more reason those monitors need to be there.
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
150 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1927 readers
443 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Either that or because they want to feel like a big boy all mighty and powerful by telling the federal government to kick rocks
I wonder how they'd feel about losing the 37% of the Texas budget that comes from the Feds?
nooooo don't take away my socialism
"MY socialism. Not theirs, no one else can have it."
No one puts baby in the corner
My proposal for the new state motto
The only way that notorious piss-baby, Greg Abbott, can win an election is by telling the fed to fuck off, losing, but then campaigning on both telling the fed to fuck off and taking credit for other people's work.
pretty sure you can't tell the federal government 'no', here. and besides, who else is gonna help you count past '1'?
Elections in America are run by and certified by the States. The Federal government has laws on campaign finance (FEC) when the elections are held and to be certified by, and who is eligible to be elected.
If a state wants to refuse access to monitors they can. It's absolutely ignorant to refuse monitoring as it would only help to prove a fair election to have them there. However, under the constitution it is the right of a state to verify their own electoral process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States
The idea, this year, is to prevent certification. Then they can manipulate the system through a compliant Speaker of the House to finagle a Trump win. If federal monitors are there, it will undermine this plan.
Oh I understand the motive, I'm just stating the nature of the problem. Essentially that we don't have an enforceable unified framework for federal elections. There is the ECRA which would prevent unfaithful electors and other issues, also removes SCOTUS from the initial review.
However I don't think it goes far enough. The Senate blocked any meaningful legislation to require voter access and combat vote suppression when they didn't pass the FtVA.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/biden-signs-electoral-count-reform-act-into-law/
It’s absolutely ignorant to refuse monitoring as it would only help to prove a fair election to have them there.
That's exactly why they're kicking them out: they want to cast doubt on the fairness of the election, so that they can manufacture excuses to throw out votes in Democrat-leaning ares, make it easier for Trump's lawsuits challenging the results to succeed, etc.
Plenty of precedent for federal government to get involved. Voting rights act (1965) would be the most recent significant example that comes to mind. Constitutionality at that time was challenged and upheld as the states were violating the constitution by disenfranchising African Americans.
If we currently had a voting rights act that pertained to voter attendance or required monitor access I'd agree with you. But we don't, so here we are.
I one hundred percent agree that Merrick Garland (or Biden even) could absolutely send agents down there to force compliance with federal monitoring. However I don't see that happening for a few counties in Texas.
Hey! You're wrong for more than one reason:
- We're Texas and we can do whatever we want! 1+1. We can too count good!
I once counted to 23 by taking off my shoes. Would have been 25 if it hadn't been for that firework accident at the meth lab.
What a dystopian and normal headline.