juiceboxsblog

[juiceboxsblog]

Real World Meaning of Defunding Police - What is the cost to consumers?

https://juiceboxweekly.wordpress.com/2020/11/28/real-world-meaning-of-defunding-police/

[juiceboxsblog]

[juiceboxsblog]

Lol!!

[juiceboxsblog]

[juiceboxsblog]

Voter Rights or State’s Rights

With all the talk of hackers intruding in our elections or influencing the outcome in a way that wouldn’t reflect voter choice, speculation is on the technology and equipment used to cast and collect votes. The problem is, equipment varies from state to state. Some states use paper ballots or some form of paper trail, some don’t.

In Bush v Gore, cited more recently as it pertains to mail in ballots, which is another invitation for fraud altogether, equal rights of voters is the right upheld in that Supreme Court decision. So do states have the right to chose their technology and in choosing more vulnerable technology violate the Equal Protection Rights of its voters? Here what the Supreme Court thought at that time:

“When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.”

“This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.”

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000)

In other words, no it may not. When voter choice is not “equally protected” there can be no guarantee of accuracy in tabulation when some states have a system in place to add checks and balances to ensure accuracy, and some don’t. While states rights are upheld in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), cited in concurring decisions with  Justice Kennedy, Justice Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas point out the limitations on state’s rights when the Constitutional Rights of citizens are being denied in some way. The concur that states rights must reflect Constitutional Rights of citizens and in the denial of uniformity and Equal Protection, those rights are not upheld.

Additionally, what are the vulnerabilities when votes are tabulated in each County’s Election Office before they are submitted to the Secretary of State for certification? What possibilities are there, to spot irregularities in the totals in their computers. Would that be the more vulnerable place for say, Russia to hack, change the totals that came in from each precinct, so when they are sent to the Secretary of State for certification, they are different than the actual voter choice.

Until we have uniformity in each county in each state as to standard requirements to check and double check results in all phases of vote casting, first by voters in the ballot box with a paper confirmation of their vote, followed by checking the totals at the Election Office then again in the office of each Secretary of State prior to certification, there is no guarantee the integrity voter choice is protected. Uniformity is required to comply with the decision made by the US Supreme Court in hold that Equal Protection is a key factor in the application of Constitutional Rights of each and every voter. Clearly, legislative action is required to remedy this inconsistency and to ensure equal rights are upheld in the choice of equipment, technology, and security each state chooses to use.

[juiceboxsblog]

Voter Rights or State’s Rights

With all the talk of hackers intruding in our elections or influencing the outcome in a way that wouldn't reflect voter choice, speculation is on the technology and equipment used to cast and collect votes. The problem is, equipment varies from state to state. Some states use paper ballots or some form of paper trail, some don't.

In Bush v Gore, cited more recently as it pertains to mail in ballots, which is another invitation for fraud altogether, equal rights of voters is the right upheld in that Supreme Court decision. So do states have the right to chose their technology and in choosing more vulnerable technology violate the Equal Protection Rights of its voters? Here what the Supreme Court thought at that time:

“When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary."

"This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000)

In other words, no it may not. When voter choice is not "equally protected" there can be no guarantee of accuracy in tabulation when some states have a system in place to add checks and balances to ensure accuracy, and some don't. While states rights are upheld in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), cited in concurring decisions with  Justice Kennedy, Justice Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas point out the limitations on state's rights when the Constitutional Rights of citizens are being denied in some way. The concur that states rights must reflect Constitutional Rights of citizens and in the denial of uniformity and Equal Protection, those rights are not upheld.

Additionally, what are the vulnerabilities when votes are tabulated in each County's Election Office before they are submitted to the Secretary of State for certification? What possibilities are there, to spot irregularities in the totals in their computers. Would that be the more vulnerable place for say, Russia to hack, change the totals that came in from each precinct, so when they are sent to the Secretary of State for certification, they are different than the actual voter choice.

Until we have uniformity in each county in each state as to standard requirements to check and double check results in all phases of vote casting, first by voters in the ballot box with a paper confirmation of their vote, followed by checking the totals at the Election Office then again in the office of each Secretary of State prior to certification, there is no guarantee the integrity voter choice is protected. Uniformity is required to comply with the decision made by the US Supreme Court in hold that Equal Protection is a key factor in the application of Constitutional Rights of each and every voter. Clearly, legislative action is required to remedy this inconsistency and to ensure equal rights are upheld in the choice of equipment, technology, and security each state chooses to use.