LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's JournalCNN-Howard Stern says Trump backed Iraq War in 2002
This is going to hit trump where it hurts http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/donald-trump-howard-stern-iraq-war/index.html?sr=twpol093016donald-trump-howard-stern-iraq-war1247PMVODtopVideo&linkId=29375004
The shock jock -- whose interview was referenced during Monday night's presidential debate -- told his listeners that Trump was "kinda for the Iraq War" and "us going into Iraq."
The interview was brought up because Trump "was saying he wasn't really for it, so they were forced to mention my name," Stern said.
Stern added that it was "kind of thrilling" to be mentioned at a presidential debate. His remarks were first reported by BuzzFeed Thursday.
A message left with Trump's campaign Thursday night seeking response to Stern's comments was not immediately returned.
With soaring oratory, Mayor Adler defends taco trucks on every corner
I was at the Johnson Jordan dinner for the Texas Democratic Party last night. The mayor of Austin was in black tie (there was another event in the same hotel on a different floor) and gave one of the better speeches of the night http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/with-soaring-oratory-mayor-adler-defends-taco-truc/nsZq2/
We in this room know taco trucks for what they are: the very ambassadors of community, of justice, and of guacamole truly all that makes life worth living, the very bedrocks of our democracy, and of our breakfast, declared Adler, who then, channeling his inner Churchill, continued, And so I enjoin you friends to stand with me, to tell the enemies of taco trucks that we will fight them on the street corners. We will fight them in the parks. We will fight them with tortillas, cheese, and chorizo. We will fight them with growing confidence at breakfast and at lunch, and most of all, after closing time.
We. Will. Never. Surrender. And when it is over, we shall say, never before have so many eaten so well so often.
Adler was responding to a now famous, much ridiculed comment from Marco Gutierrez, the founder of Latinos for Trump, in a Sept. 1 appearance on MSNBC in the aftermath of Donald Trumps Aug. 31 visit to Mexico and very tough speech that night in Phoenix on immigration, the border wall, and mass deportation.
I was amazed that one could do 15 to 20 minutes on taco trucks.
Martin O'Malley also gave a great speech.
Trump’s absurd claim that 92 million Americans represent a ‘nation of jobless Americans’
I keep hearing this sad talking point from right wingers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/16/trumps-absurb-claim-that-92-million-americans-represent-a-nation-of-jobless-americans/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
Right now, 92 million Americans are on the sideline outside of the workforce, and theyre not a part of our economy. Its a silent nation of jobless Americans.
Donald Trump, speech to the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 15, 2016
Trump is grabbing onto a GOP talking point that first emerged in 2014 when the official unemployment rate starting falling below 7 percent. (It is now 4.9 percent.) Republicans started citing a decline in the labor participation rate, which has occurred largely because the baby boom generation has begun to retire.
But here, Trump expresses the rate as a raw number (92 million Americans) and then amps up the rhetoric by referring to a nation of jobless Americans. But this is rhetorical poppycock, as we will demonstrate.....
The Pinocchio Test
As you can see, it is absurd to claim that 94 million Americans are on the sidelines of the economy and are part of a jobless America. You cant be jobless if you dont want a job.
Only a small percentage of these people want a job, as the rest are retired, in school, on disability or caring for children. No matter how much Trump wants to suggest the economy is on the rocks, the fact remains that the unemployment rate is below 5 percent which is pretty good by any measure.
Four Pinocchios
More Shenanigans from Texas in Voter ID Case: Threats to Investigate Voters Who Sign Affidavits
The State of Texas is not happy about losing the voter id case. The 5th Circuit struck down the Texas voter id/voter suppression law and Texas entered into an agreed order that allows Texas voters to use alternative forms of id other than the GOP approved forms of Id if the voters sign an affidavitt stating they could not reasonably obtain an approved form of Id. There is a motion from the DOJ pending on Texas sending out misleading and false information about the new voting procedure and in addition the Texas Attorney General and the top election official in Harris County have been telling the press that they will investigate voters who vote with an alternative form of id and the plaintiffs in the voter id case filed a motion to prevent this and to clarify order.
One should not threaten voters for voting http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86380
Private Plaintiffs1 Motion for Further Relief to Enforce Interim Remedial Order is triggered by a series of statements attributed to Texas officials stating or insinuating that they will conduct criminal investigations of everyone who executes the Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, which this Court ordered as part of its interim relief. Those statements are contrar yto the terms of this Courts Interim Remedial Order, and are intimidating to the very persons that the Order is intended to protect.
On August 26, in a news article appearing in Houston Press, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart was directly quoted or paraphrased as follows:
Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, thats up to the [Harris County District Attorneys Office]. But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database. Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added).3 On August 30,
Private Plaintiffs wrote to the State, asking the State to confirm (1) whether Stanart made these remarks, and, (2) irrespective of whether he did, take action to cure the damaging effects of the publication of such statements. Letter from Counsel for the Private Plaintiffs to Angela Colmenero and Matthew Frederick (Aug. 30, 2016) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Private Plaintiffs expressed concern that these statements will intimidate voters and chill participation in the November election by dissuading voterswho may no longer have once-issued SB 14 ID, or may have forgotten that they have SB 14 IDfrom participating in the election or, worse yet, subjecting them to potential prosecution if they execute a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment in good faith. Despite Private Plaintiffs attempt to meet-and-confer before presenting this important matter to the Court, Defendants have indicated that they plan to do nothing about and, in effect, condone these remarks. Indeed, Defendants responded to Private Plaintiffs on September 2, stating that Mr. Stanarts statements provide no reason to believe that the Harris County clerk will engage in a wholesale investigation of every voter who signs a Reasonable Impediment [Declaration]. Letter from Angela Colmenero to Ezra Rosenberg (Sept. 2, 2016), at 2 (quoting Private Plaintiffs August 30 letter) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Private Plaintiffs do not understand why the Harris County Clerks quoted statement that he will investigate everyone who signs that form provides no reason to believe he will do just that.
Moreover, Defendants flatly refused to inquire whether Mr. Stanart made these remarks, and took the troubling position that they have no responsibility for the actions of Texas county and local election officials, including Mr. Stanartthe chief election officer of the largest county in the state, with more than 2 million voterseven when they are implementing this Courts Interim Remedial Order: Mr. Stanart is the Harris County Clerk; he is not an employee or agent of any of the named State Defendants in this case. The State Defendants do not have any control over Mr. Stanart or his dealings with the press. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants September 2 response indicated that they find no problem with Mr. Stanarts quoted statements and asserted that they have no responsibility to cure any adverse effects of the publicity given to those statements. Id. Defendants positiondisclaiming the clear intimidating effect of Mr. Stanarts remarks and any responsibility for the statements or actions of election officials implementing the Courts orderis a serious confirmation that this Courts Interim Remedial Order and, indeed, any meaningful remedy resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are at risk in this upcoming election. This is increasingly clear from Defendants refusal to correct their own misrepresentations in state-produced materials, even after Plaintiffs have brought those misrepresentations to their attention. See Motion to Enforce Interim Remedial Order by the United States (Doc. 924) (documenting Plaintiffs efforts since August 12 to show Defendants that, per the interim remedy order, the standard for signing a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment is if a voter does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain a SB 14 ID). Common sense dictates that, under even normal circumstances, statements by an official that authorities will investigate everyone who executes a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, and threatens to refer them to the District Attorney is self-evidently intimidating. But these are not normal circumstances. The Interim Remedial Order was issued for the express purpose of protecting voters who are the victims of the discriminatory effect of SB 14, who are largely poor and Black and Hispanic Texans. Indeed, it was expressly designed to facilitate their ability to vote, not scare them from coming to the polls. But, as stated in the affidavits of those whose mission is to get out the vote, the publicized statements of Attorney General Paxton and Mr. Stanart are having the opposite effect
More Shenanigans from Texas in Voter ID Case: Threats to Investigate Voters Who Sign Affidavits
Source: Election Law Blog
From a newly filed motion from the private plaintiffs, apart from the DOJ filing, and now to be heard at a Sept. 19 hearing:
Private Plaintiffs1 Motion for Further Relief to Enforce Interim Remedial Order is triggered by a series of statements attributed to Texas officials stating or insinuating that they will conduct criminal investigations of everyone who executes the Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, which this Court ordered as part of its interim relief. Those statements are contrar yto the terms of this Courts Interim Remedial Order, and are intimidating to the very persons that the Order is intended to protect.
On August 26, in a news article appearing in Houston Press, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart was directly quoted or paraphrased as follows:
Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, thats up to the [Harris County District Attorneys Office]. But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database. Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added).3 On August 30,
Private Plaintiffs wrote to the State, asking the State to confirm (1) whether Stanart made these remarks, and, (2) irrespective of whether he did, take action to cure the damaging effects of the publication of such statements. Letter from Counsel for the Private Plaintiffs to Angela Colmenero and Matthew Frederick (Aug. 30, 2016) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Private Plaintiffs expressed concern that these statements will intimidate voters and chill participation in the November election by dissuading voterswho may no longer have once-issued SB 14 ID, or may have forgotten that they have SB 14 IDfrom participating in the election or, worse yet, subjecting them to potential prosecution if they execute a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment in good faith. Despite Private Plaintiffs attempt to meet-and-confer before presenting this important matter to the Court, Defendants have indicated that they plan to do nothing about and, in effect, condone these remarks. Indeed, Defendants responded to Private Plaintiffs on September 2, stating that Mr. Stanarts statements provide no reason to believe that the Harris County clerk will engage in a wholesale investigation of every voter who signs a Reasonable Impediment [Declaration]. Letter from Angela Colmenero to Ezra Rosenberg (Sept. 2, 2016), at 2 (quoting Private Plaintiffs August 30 letter) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Private Plaintiffs do not understand why the Harris County Clerks quoted statement that he will investigate everyone who signs that form provides no reason to believe he will do just that.
Moreover, Defendants flatly refused to inquire whether Mr. Stanart made these remarks, and took the troubling position that they have no responsibility for the actions of Texas county and local election officials, including Mr. Stanartthe chief election officer of the largest county in the state, with more than 2 million voterseven when they are implementing this Courts Interim Remedial Order: Mr. Stanart is the Harris County Clerk; he is not an employee or agent of any of the named State Defendants in this case. The State Defendants do not have any control over Mr. Stanart or his dealings with the press. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants September 2 response indicated that they find no problem with Mr. Stanarts quoted statements and asserted that they have no responsibility to cure any adverse effects of the publicity given to those statements. Id. Defendants positiondisclaiming the clear intimidating effect of Mr. Stanarts remarks and any responsibility for the statements or actions of election officials implementing the Courts orderis a serious confirmation that this Courts Interim Remedial Order and, indeed, any meaningful remedy resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are at risk in this upcoming election. This is increasingly clear from Defendants refusal to correct their own misrepresentations in state-produced materials, even after Plaintiffs have brought those misrepresentations to their attention. See Motion to Enforce Interim Remedial Order by the United States (Doc. 924) (documenting Plaintiffs efforts since August 12 to show Defendants that, per the interim remedy order, the standard for signing a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment is if a voter does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain a SB 14 ID). Common sense dictates that, under even normal circumstances, statements by an official that authorities will investigate everyone who executes a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, and threatens to refer them to the District Attorney is self-evidently intimidating. But these are not normal circumstances. The Interim Remedial Order was issued for the express purpose of protecting voters who are the victims of the discriminatory effect of SB 14, who are largely poor and Black and Hispanic Texans. Indeed, it was expressly designed to facilitate their ability to vote, not scare them from coming to the polls. But, as stated in the affidavits of those whose mission is to get out the vote, the publicized statements of Attorney General Paxton and Mr. Stanart are having the opposite effect
Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86380
The State of Texas is not happy about losing the voter id case. The 5th Circuit struck down the Texas voter id/voter suppression law and Texas entered into an agreed order that allows Texas voters to use alternative forms of id other than the GOP approved forms of Id if the voters sign an affidavitt stating they could not reasonably obtain an approved form of Id. There is a motion from the DOJ pending on Texas sending out misleading and false information about the new voting procedure and in addition the Texas Attorney General and the top election official in Harris County have been telling the press that they will investigate voters who vote with an alternative form of id and the plaintiffs in the voter id case filed a motion to prevent this and to clarify order.
One should not threaten voters for voting
Breaking: DC Circuit Reverses in Kobach-EAC Proof of Citizenship Voting Case
Source: Election Law Blog
Acting very quickly after oral argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has issued this order preliminarily enjoining changing the federal form to allow Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia to require documentary proof of citizenship if registering to vote using a federal voter registration form.
The vote was 2-1, with senior Judge Randolph dissenting.
The ruling is only on the request for a preliminary injunction. There can still be a full hearing on the merits.
The upshot is that for this election, the federal form cannot include a state request for proof of citizenship documentation before voting. That is good news for voters, because it will be easier to register and vote in these states. And it wont harm voters or the state, because the amount of non-citizen voting is quite small.
Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86390
The Kansas Sec. of State, Kobach, has been trying to force voters to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. A Kobach ally got on the United States Election Assistance Commission and adopted Kobach's proposal for voters in Kansas, Georgia and Arizona. The resulto of this would be that voters in these states would have to provide birth certificates or other forms of proof of citizenship to register to vote. The district court denied injunction but the DC circuit overturned and granted injunction. The Obama administration did not defend this rule and weighed in on the winning side.
“Democrats Settle Election Dispute with the State of Arizona”
Source: Election Law Blog
Release:
The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Ann Kirkpatrick for Arizona, the Arizona Democratic Party, Hillary for America, and Sanders, Inc., announced that they reached a settlement in their joint lawsuit against Maricopa County, Arizona that will make it easier for residents to vote.
Maricopa County miscalculated voter turnout and underestimated the number of vote centers needed to accommodate voters during the March presidential primaries. In the federal lawsuit, Democrats proffered a line expert explaining why Maricopa Countys allocation formulas were wrong, and offered a number of remedies. In response to the Democrats motion for an injunction, Maricopa County represented to the Court that it would be implementing many of those suggestions. In addition, as part of the settlement agreement, Maricopa County agreed to consider further recommendations from line experts to better ensure that voters will not again be subject to unacceptably long lines as a result of unsupported allocation decisions.
Marc Elias:Great result for the voters of Maricopa. The remaining claims remain against the state.
Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86399
Arizona had understaffed the Arizona primary which resulted in long delays. Hillary Clinton's election law litigator brought this lawsuit due to long delays in the Arizona primary and forced a favorable settlement.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 145,147