Little League Suppression

Ray Jay wrote:I'm currently collecting birth certificates so that my son's 8 year old's baseball team can plan in the local travel league (basically within one county in Mass.). No birth certificate, no play in League!

Why? Is it for proof of age (to stop ringers)?

How easy are you finding it?

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I'm currently collecting birth certificates so that my son's 8 year old's baseball team can plan in the local travel league (basically within one county in Mass.). No birth certificate, no play in League!

Why? Is it for proof of age (to stop ringers)?

How easy are you finding it?

It's proof of age ... there isn't a citizenship requirement. I've got 6 out of 15 so far. No doubt some people need an ultimatum which is basically that their son cannot play if they don't provide it. That will work and I expect to see 15 out of 15. We live in an area with a reasonably large immigrant population (primarily well educated Indians, Chinese, and Russians because of the quality local school system) , but I suspect everyone is legal. For me the salient point is that if people have to provide proof of i.d., for the most part they will. It is not as burdensome as critics make it out to be.

Well, let us know if you do get 15/15

One of the provisions of the Florida law required that groups trying to regiister voters had to submit them within 48 hours. So, for example, if you were registering voters on Friday afternoonyou would have a pretty tough time turning those in within 48 hours. The bottom line is that voter fraud is largely hypothetical while Republican voter suppression is not.

freeman2 wrote:One of the provisions of the Florida law required that groups trying to regiister voters had to submit them within 48 hours. So, for example, if you were registering voters on Friday afternoonyou would have a pretty tough time turning those in within 48 hours. The bottom line is that voter fraud is largely hypothetical while Republican voter suppression is not.

Um, that would be a weird requirement, since most such laws are based on business days. Do you have a source that says the 48-hour requirement is "real time?"

Well, 48 hours doesn't sound like next business day does it, Steve.? I originallly saw it on Hardball where Chris Matthews kept hammering a Republican from Florida on this point (he had no answer) Here is a source. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/05/47150.htm
So, um, there's your answer

freeman2 wrote:Well, 48 hours doesn't sound like next business day does it, Steve.? I originallly saw it on Hardball where Chris Matthews kept hammering a Republican from Florida on this point (he had no answer) Here is a source. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/05/47150.htm
So, um, there's your answer

Very "fair" website. In one article, about the WI recall, it called a race "close" when the margin was 14 points.

Of course, if you're watching Chris Matthews, you can expect nothing but . . . whatever Debbie Wasserman-Schultz approves. Why liberals love the ruling:

The ruling drew praise from Democrats including Eric Jotkoff, a spokesman for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, which conducts its own voter registration drives and trains volunteers.

"We're working to get as many Americans involved as possible, which is why we welcome the preliminary injunction," Jotkoff said in a statement.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said he also was glad to see Hinkle's ruling.

"This law clearly was designed to stop people from voting," the Florida Democrat said in a statement.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/31/2 ... rylink=cpy

Anything that permits ineligible voters to vote is a plus for Democrats.

A different perspective in Florida:

Liberals have described the purge as an attempted act of “voter suppression,” in part because so many of the targeted potential noncitizens — 87 percent — are minorities. Whites and Republicans are the least likely to face removal.

A major reason minorities are disproportionately caught up in the hunt for noncitizen voters: Hispanics and Haitians comprise the larges immigrant groups in Florida. Any effort to target noncitizens will focus on new immigrants.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2 ... rylink=cpy

What, Steve, no response to my info on the 48 hours rule? Doesn't Fox News have a rebuttal? One part of the law was to stop Democratic groups from registering new voters (the 48 hour rule). As for purging non-citizens, they don't have a good way of identifying which non-citizens are on the rolls so they wind up guessing and purging voters who are citizens (similar to what they did in 2000 in Florida when thousands of Florida voters were turned away because their name was similar to a felon's name)

freeman2 wrote:What, Steve, no response to my info on the 48 hours rule? Doesn't Fox News have a rebuttal?

I'll see you a Hannity and raise you a Schultz.

No, no response. Why should I? If your source is right, it's right and I see nothing to suggest it's wrong. Of course, I would have preferred something slightly more objective.

One part of the law was to stop Democratic groups from registering new voters (the 48 hour rule). As for purging non-citizens, they don't have a good way of identifying which non-citizens are on the rolls so they wind up guessing and purging voters who are citizens (similar to what they did in 2000 in Florida when thousands of Florida voters were turned away because their name was similar to a felon's name)

Because only Democrats register voters, or because Democrats are more likely to register faux voters? Ever hear of "provisional ballots?" That's what they do when eligibility is uncertain. Now, why should Florida be prevented from removing ineligible voters? Or, doesn't MSNBC have a rebuttal?

DELETED

DELETED

Are wer really playing the game of "I'm going to ignore your source because of its perceived political position, regardless of the evidence"?

danivon wrote:Are wer really playing the game of "I'm going to ignore your source because of its perceived political position, regardless of the evidence"?

I didn't. I noted the source, but did not dispute the substance. I would prefer something a bit more objective.

freeman2 wrote:Well, 48 hours doesn't sound like next business day does it, Steve.? I originallly saw it on Hardball where Chris Matthews kept hammering a Republican from Florida on this point (he had no answer) Here is a source. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/05/47150.htm
So, um, there's your answer

How about we refer to the actual bill and not some partisan interpretation of it. Here is a link to the bill. If we look at line 579 on page 21 we find

(3)(a) A third-party voter registration organization that collects voter registration applications serves as a fiduciary to the applicant, ensuring that any voter registration application entrusted to the third-party voter registration organization, irrespective of party affiliation, race, ethnicity, or gender, shall be promptly delivered to the division or the supervisor of elections within 48 hours after the applicant completes it or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that 48-hour period.

Therefore, your hypothetical is unfounded because the time is tolled until at least monday.