2020 Elections

[Irish YJ]

In Florida, the Gutting of a Landmark Law Leaves Few Felons Likely to Vote
State officials don’t know how many felons are registered or eligible to vote. So we did our own analysis and found only a very small percentage of them will be able to cast ballots this election. Some could face prosecution if they do. (ProPublica)



Voters approved a second Amendment to the state constitution (the first concerned gerrymandering - Fair Districts) which granted felons the right to vote.

Judges: Florida felons can’t vote until they pay fines, fees
September 11, 2020, AP news


Now an Amendment (#4) is on the ballot for Nov 3, requiring all proposed amendments or revisions to the state constitution to be approved by the voters in two elections each time getting 60% of the votes., instead of one, in order to take effect.

Some people do not like restrictions on gerrymandering as well as felons voting - and would reverse voters decisions on Constitutional Amendments any way they can.

Legacy, this is not suppression. Here's what was passed (below). Notice the bolded. So asking them to do what is required of them per the amendment passed is not suppression. Do better.

No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yet another racist " you ain't black enough" narrative from the left. This one from CNN and the Brennan Center... Shocked....

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/23/politics/trump-least-racist-black-men/index.html


not only do they keep up the false narrative that Trump won't deny white supremacist, but also says black men like Trump because of his presence in rap, and because black men with money are nouveau riche...

And of course, likened to voter suppression.

Just more nonsense.

Legacy, there's your #4

-------------------------------------------------------
And then there was this. Fox reporting about a CNN personality.


CNN's Van Jones: Trump 'doesn't get enough credit' for the 'good stuff he has done for the Black community'
Jones says he gets 'beat up by liberals' every time he credits the president
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-van-jones-trump-not-enough-credit-black-community

 

[Irish YJ]

So another racist remark by the left lol...

At least she's nice to 50. She's not been near as nice to others. I guess she has to be kinda nice though since he's been all up "in da club". Guessing the club is not too exclusive though..

Chelsea Handler explains shaming of Trump-backer 50 Cent: 'I had to remind him that he was a Black person'
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/chelsea-handler-50-cent-trump

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">On Friday’s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FallonTonight?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FallonTonight</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/50cent?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@50cent</a>’s ex-girlfriend, <a href="https://twitter.com/chelseahandler?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ChelseaHandler</a>, scolded him: “I had to remind him that he was a black person, so he can’t vote for Donald Trump.” If he denounces Trump, “I might be willing to go for another spin, if you know what I’m talking about” <a href="https://t.co/bILbTsK7R0">pic.twitter.com/bILbTsK7R0</a></p>— Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentHBaker/status/1319854787333148673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

Voter suppression in Florida, Part IV

Voter suppression in Florida, Part IV

Let's not get lazy.

Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons (National Conference of State Legislatures)

In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table 1. Details on these states are found in Table 2 below.

Terms of voting for felons in Florida:

(4) An initiated constitutional amendment in 2018 restored the right to vote for those with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, who must still petition the governor for restoration of voting rights on a case by case basis. In July 2019, SB 7066 was signed by the governor of Florida which defined “completion of sentence” to include: release from imprisonment, termination of any ordered probation, fulfillment of any terms ordered by the courts, termination of any ordered supervision, full payment of any ordered restitution and the full payment of any ordered fines, fees or costs.

"full payment of any ordered restitution and the full payment of any ordered fines, fees or costs."

Is Florida the only state that requires these terms for felons to vote in the state?

 

[Irish YJ]

Let's not get lazy.

Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons (National Conference of State Legislatures)

Terms of voting for felons in Florida:

"full payment of any ordered restitution and the full payment of any ordered fines, fees or costs."

Is Florida the only state that requires these terms for felons to vote in the state?

LOL you're reaching dude. So what if Florida has that requirement. You're acting like a requirement to fulfil their legal obligation is some insurmountable task and unreasonable ask. Hell, failure to pay fees/fines can lead to reincarceration lol....

Stop the weak stuff. Be better Legacy.

 

[NorthDakota]

LOL you're reaching dude. So what if Florida has that requirement. You're acting like a requirement to fulfil their legal obligation is some insurmountable task and unreasonable ask. Hell, failure to pay fees/fines can lead to reincarceration lol....

Stop the weak stuff. Be better Legacy.

Restitution is big too. If I steal your car and trash it, I owe you some amount of restitution to make you whole again. If a felon hasn't paid their restitution I have no beef with a state telling them they haven't earned some of their rights back yet.

Hell some states dont allow you to even earn the right to vote back, so perhaps these felons should just be happy they have the opportunity to do so.

 

[Irish YJ]

Restitution is big too. If I steal your car and trash it, I owe you some amount of restitution to make you whole again. If a felon hasn't paid their restitution I have no beef with a state telling them they haven't earned some of their rights back yet.

Hell some states dont allow you to even earn the right to vote back, so perhaps these felons should just be happy they have the opportunity to do so.

Yea, I have zero problem with some felons getting their vote back. I actually prefer it for most depending on the crime. I do want them however to serve their time, and pay their dues whatever those might be. Regarding restitution, it's only fair. If you steal something, damage something, etc. , you should absolutely make things right. If not to the person you stole from, to the insurance company who had to cover it.

I'm not sure if Legacy actually believes this is unreasonable, or is just being a lib shill and reaching for narrative sakes. Either way, super dumb.

 

[Legacy]

House of Reps forecast '20 and 2018 results

House of Reps forecast '20 and 2018 results

Dems had a net gain of 41 seats in the House in 2018, sweeping into power in the will of Americans Voters. This was historic. Tthe last time, which was the largest gain of House seats in an election since the 1974 elections, when the Democrats gained 49 House seats after the Nixon resignation. Democrats won the popular vote by more than 9.7 million votes or 8.6%, the largest midterm margin for any party and the largest margin on record for a minority party.

Twenty seven of the thirty-one seats won by Trump in '16 and by Dems in 2020 were gained in Republican districts based on Cook's ratings, three Democratic districts that voted for Trump. One was rated Even. Thirty-three of forty-one districts gained by Dems voted for Trump in 2016.

Trump and the Reps are not getting almost all of these back, which should be very concerning whether their deciding factor is Trump himself.

Most election ratings use:

Tossup: no advantage
Tilt (sometimes used): slight advantage
Lean: clear advantage
Likely or favored: strong, but not certain advantage
Safe or solid: outcome is nearly certain

Of those thirty-one that were flipped by the Dems in 2018, seventeen are rated Solid Democratic or Likely Democratic in 2020. Five are Lean Democratic. Six are Tilt Democratic. Only four of the thirty-one districts that flipped from Rep to Dem, which Trump won in 2016 are Toss-Ups. None are rated as Tilt, Lean, Likely or Solid Republican.

Additionally, six House races that Trump won in '16 and a Rep won in '18 are considered Toss Ups - all in Republican districts.

House Reps retired at significantly greater numbers than Democratics. Of nine incumbent's districts won by Trump in '16 and a Republican in '18 and the incumbent retired, five are Toss Ups with two Likely Dem and two Tilt Democratic.

Overall, the Democrats are forecast to retain almost all forty seats won in '18 and flip another 10-20 seats. Just as a Trump victory in '16 swept office many Republican House districts, his performance and personality affected American Voters in '18 and will in '20.

Currently, the composition of the House 435 seats is 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. Should Dems win 10 additional seats, the new House would have 245 Dems and 189 Reps - a difference of fifty-six seats.

 

[NorthDakota]

Dems had a net gain of 41 seats in the House in 2018, sweeping into power in the will of Americans Voters. This was historic. Tthe last time, which was the largest gain of House seats in an election since the 1974 elections, when the Democrats gained 49 House seats after the Nixon resignation. Democrats won the popular vote by more than 9.7 million votes or 8.6%, the largest midterm margin for any party and the largest margin on record for a minority party.

Thirty-three of the forty-one seats were gained in Republican districts based on Cook's ratings, three Democratic districts that voted for Trump. Thirty-three of those districts voted for Trump in 2016.

Trump and the Reps are not getting almost all of these back, which should be very concerning whether their deciding factor is Trump himself.

Most election ratings use:

Tossup: no advantage
Tilt (sometimes used): slight advantage
Lean: clear advantage
Likely or favored: strong, but not certain advantage
Safe or solid: outcome is nearly certain

Of those thirty-one that were flipped by the Dems in 2018, seventeen are rated Solid Democratic or Likely Democratic in 2020. Five are Lean Democratic. Six are Tilt Democratic. Only four of the thirty-one districts that flipped from Rep to Dem, which Trump won in 2016 are Toss-Ups. None are rated as Tilt, Lean, Likely or Solid Republican.

Additionally, six House races that Trump won in '16 and a Rep won in '18 are considered Toss Ups - all in Republican districts.

House Reps retired at significantly greater numbers than Democratics. Of nine incumbent's districts won by Trump in '16 and a Republican in '18 and the incumbent retired, five are Toss Ups with two Likely Dem and two Tilt Democratic.

Overall, the Democrats are forecast to retain almost all forty seats won in '18 and flip another 10-20 seats. Just as a Trump victory in '16 swept office many Republican House districts, his performance and personality affected American Voters in '18 and will in '20.

Currently, the composition of the House 435 seats is 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. Should Dems win 10 additional seats, the new House would have 245 Dems and 189 Reps - a difference of fifty-six seats.

What was the point of this post?

 

[ACamp1900]

I voted,... took all of five minutes despite all the reports of mass hysteria and destruction at polling areas

 

[Legacy]

As a follow-up for Republican incumbents from Republican districts ilosing House seats in n 2018 and considering the real possibility of more lost seats in 2020, here's what that means in an historical perspective.

- The party of an incumbent president tends to perform similarly to that president on the ballot. Since 1920, 15 elections have taken place where an incumbent president sought re-election. Eleven of those elections resulted in the incumbent president winning, with all but Dwight Eisenhower's (R) re-election in 1956 also resulting in the president's party gaining seats in the House. (1956 saw no loss of seats by Reps, just no gain)

- Should Trump win re-election and lose House seats he would be the first President to do so.

- In three of the four elections where the incumbent was defeated, all but George H.W. Bush’s (R) 1992 loss also resulted in the president's party losing seats in the House. Those four one-term Presidents since 1920 were GW Bush, Carter, Ford and Hoover.

- Regardless of whether the president seeks re-election, a president's party that loses seats during the president's first midterm tends to gain seats in the following election. Between 1918 and 2016, 14 out of 16 presidents saw their party lose seats in the House during their first midterm (average 35 seats). In nine of those cases (64%), the president's party went on to gain seats in the following election (average five seats). Five of the sixteen Presidents who lost House seats in the midterms also lost House seats the following two years.

- Regardless of the Presidential outcome, the House forecast of Dems gaining seats would result in Trump becoming the sixth President of seventeen to lose House seats in the midterm and in the year of his re-election bid.

- Republicans in 2018 won about 16 more U.S. House seats than would have been expected based on their average share of the vote in congressional districts across the country due to gerrymandering according to one analysis. Without gerrymandering and if Fair Districts Amendments in various states were not undermined, the Democratic majority in the House would be even greater than thirty-eight.

As far as keeping the Senate in Republican hands, Trump reportedly said at the Nashville Marriott fund-raising event, according to an attendee. “I think the Senate is tough actually. The Senate is very tough. There are a couple senators I can’t really get involved in. I just can’t do it. You lose your soul if you do. I can’t help some of them. I don’t want to help some of them.”

 

[Irishize]

I voted,... took all of five minutes despite all the reports of mass hysteria and destruction at pooling areas

You sure? I heard the election was canceled due to COVID-19.

 

[NorthDakota]

As a follow-up for Republican incumbents from Republican districts ilosing House seats in n 2018 and considering the real possibility of more lost seats in 2020, here's what that means in an historical perspective.

- The party of an incumbent president tends to perform similarly to that president on the ballot. Since 1920, 15 elections have taken place where an incumbent president sought re-election. Eleven of those elections resulted in the incumbent president winning, with all but Dwight Eisenhower's (R) re-election in 1956 also resulting in the president's party gaining seats in the House. (1956 saw no loss of seats by Reps, just no gain)

- Should Trump win re-election and lose House seats he would be the first President to do so.

- In three of the four elections where the incumbent was defeated, all but George H.W. Bush’s (R) 1992 loss also resulted in the president's party losing seats in the House. Those four one-term Presidents since 1920 were GW Bush, Carter, Ford and Hoover.

- Regardless of whether the president seeks re-election, a president's party that loses seats during the president's first midterm tends to gain seats in the following election. Between 1918 and 2016, 14 out of 16 presidents saw their party lose seats in the House during their first midterm (average 35 seats). In nine of those cases (64%), the president's party went on to gain seats in the following election (average five seats). Five of the sixteen Presidents who lost House seats in the midterms also lost House seats the following two years.

- Regardless of the Presidential outcome, the House forecast of Dems gaining seats would result in Trump becoming the sixth President of seventeen to lose House seats in the midterm and in the year of his re-election bid.

- Republicans in 2018 won about 16 more U.S. House seats than would have been expected based on their average share of the vote in congressional districts across the country due to gerrymandering according to one analysis. Without gerrymandering and if Fair Districts Amendments in various states were not undermined, the Democratic majority in the House would be even greater than thirty-eight.

As far as keeping the Senate in Republican hands, Trump reportedly said at the Nashville Marriott fund-raising event, according to an attendee. “I think the Senate is tough actually. The Senate is very tough. There are a couple senators I can’t really get involved in. I just can’t do it. You lose your soul if you do. I can’t help some of them. I don’t want to help some of them.”

"Gerrymandering" lol

 

[drayer54]

As far as keeping the Senate in Republican hands, Trump reportedly said at the Nashville Marriott fund-raising event, according to an attendee. “I think the Senate is tough actually. The Senate is very tough. There are a couple senators I can’t really get involved in. I just can’t do it. You lose your soul if you do. I can’t help some of them. I don’t want to help some of them.”

Susan Collins. Martha McSally. That’s my guess at who that it. If Trump wins, he’ll probably support the primary candidate against Murkowski.

Good riddance to Collins, IMO. How the hell you vote against ACB is beyond me. I get it, she’s a moderate in an independent area, but..

McSally is keeping her distance. Bold strategy, IMO. Pollsters probably told her to do it, but I don’t think it is wise.

As for the gerrymandering- Democrats never acknowledge a loss. If they lose an election- it was gerrymandering. If a Justice they don’t like is appointed- It’s illegitimate. If there’s more than one vacancy filled- it’s court packing. It’s just whiny.

 

[Irish#1]

Let's not get lazy.

Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons (National Conference of State Legislatures)



Terms of voting for felons in Florida:


"full payment of any ordered restitution and the full payment of any ordered fines, fees or costs."

Is Florida the only state that requires these terms for felons to vote in the state?

Are you really arguing to allow criminals to vote?

 

[GowerND11]

Are you really arguing to allow criminals to vote?

I mean, once you have completed your sentence, why can't someone vote?

 

[drayer54]

I mean, once you have completed your sentence, why can't someone vote?

Or own a gun if it was a non-violent crime?

 

[Rocket89]

Legacy, this is not suppression. Here's what was passed (below). Notice the bolded. So asking them to do what is required of them per the amendment passed is not suppression. Do better.

Actually, the amendment to the Florida Constitution (which passed overwhelmingly by the people of Florida) doesn't mention paying fines and restitution in order to regain voting rights. This amendment had bipartisan support from both liberal and conservative groups and took over a decade of work to put together.

The issue of paying fines and restitution came a year later when the Republican-controlled State Senate put forth a bill signed by Republican governor Ron DeSantis.

That bill was struck down as unconstitutional in district court as a "pay to vote" or "vote tax." DeSantis appealed to the 11th Circuit Court who, in a 6-4 decision along party lines, overturned the lower court, effectively gutting the constitutional amendment. It's been appealed to the US Supreme Court but they've refused to hear the case so far.

Is this voter suppression?

I think the majority of Americans think so. Forcing felons to pay off their fines in order to vote is deeply unpopular and I think only one other state (Arizona?) has such rules. I found this comment from you interesting and a good insight into why you (wink, wink) know it's voter suppression:

"You're acting like a requirement to fulfil their legal obligation is some insurmountable task and unreasonable ask."

The vast majority of felons do not have the means to pay off everything in a timely manner, many of whom it can take years after they've served their time to fully meet this demand. Some have extraordinary costs and are effectively disenfranchised despite the amendment.

Even setting that aside, let's pretend for a moment that this isn't voter suppression and it's "legal" in whatever sense you'd like to use. Has the state of Florida set up a system--again based on their own bill from the Senate--to help released felons figure out their financial situation and coordinate with the state Division of Elections to update voter registration rolls?

Nope.

12th Circuit judge Beverly Martin wrote in her dissent:

“The majority breezes over the infirmities of the process. But I cannot so easily condone a system that is projected to take upwards of six years simply to tell citizens whether they are eligible to vote … and which ultimately throws up its hands and denies citizens their ability to vote because the state can’t figure out the outstanding balances it is requiring those citizens to pay."

The twisted irony to everything is that felons are likely to vote if they have paid their fines, but due to no updated registration system for them and a mountain of confusion, may be deemed "illegal" votes in a hotly contested November election.

One could argue this is the whole point for the GOP in Florida. Use the courts to overturn a popular constitutional amendment and sow doubt about the election even when their own policies are a result of confusion while at the same time throwing up your hands about helping felons and wait for the SCOTUS to ultimately rule in your favor.

DeSantis and the Florida GOP need to do better.

 

[Irish YJ]

Actually, the amendment to the Florida Constitution (which passed overwhelmingly by the people of Florida) doesn't mention paying fines and restitution in order to regain voting rights. This amendment had bipartisan support from both liberal and conservative groups and took over a decade of work to put together.

The issue of paying fines and restitution came a year later when the Republican-controlled State Senate put forth a bill signed by Republican governor Ron DeSantis.

That bill was struck down as unconstitutional in district court as a "pay to vote" or "vote tax." DeSantis appealed to the 11th Circuit Court who, in a 6-4 decision along party lines, overturned the lower court, effectively gutting the constitutional amendment. It's been appealed to the US Supreme Court but they've refused to hear the case so far.

Is this voter suppression?

I think the majority of Americans think so. Forcing felons to pay off their fines in order to vote is deeply unpopular and I think only one other state (Arizona?) has such rules. I found this comment from you interesting and a good insight into why you (wink, wink) know it's voter suppression:

"You're acting like a requirement to fulfil their legal obligation is some insurmountable task and unreasonable ask."

The vast majority of felons do not have the means to pay off everything in a timely manner, many of whom it can take years after they've served their time to fully meet this demand. Some have extraordinary costs and are effectively disenfranchised despite the amendment.

Even setting that aside, let's pretend for a moment that this isn't voter suppression and it's "legal" in whatever sense you'd like to use. Has the state of Florida set up a system--again based on their own bill from the Senate--to help released felons figure out their financial situation and coordinate with the state Division of Elections to update voter registration rolls?

Nope.

12th Circuit judge Beverly Martin wrote in her dissent:

“The majority breezes over the infirmities of the process. But I cannot so easily condone a system that is projected to take upwards of six years simply to tell citizens whether they are eligible to vote … and which ultimately throws up its hands and denies citizens their ability to vote because the state can’t figure out the outstanding balances it is requiring those citizens to pay."

The twisted irony to everything is that felons are likely to vote if they have paid their fines, but due to no updated registration system for them and a mountain of confusion, may be deemed "illegal" votes in a hotly contested November election.

One could argue this is the whole point for the GOP in Florida. Use the courts to overturn a popular constitutional amendment and sow doubt about the election even when their own policies are a result of confusion while at the same time throwing up your hands about helping felons and wait for the SCOTUS to ultimately rule in your favor.

DeSantis and the Florida GOP need to do better.

No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4.
Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

TLDR, but this seem pretty simple. Fines and what not are a part of the bolded above in the original amendment. The spin that it does not, or wasn't "the intention", doesn't really matter. If financial penalties or a part of their sentence, it's part of the sentence...

As far as financial abilities. I don't have a lot of sympathy. No one made them commit a felony. I'm for most getting their voting rights back, but have zero problem requiring them to fulfil all requirements.

 

[Irish YJ]

2016 Flashback...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Happy birthday to this future president. <a href="https://t.co/JT3HiBjYdj">pic.twitter.com/JT3HiBjYdj</a></p>— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NorthDakota]

Actually, the amendment to the Florida Constitution (which passed overwhelmingly by the people of Florida) doesn't mention paying fines and restitution in order to regain voting rights. This amendment had bipartisan support from both liberal and conservative groups and took over a decade of work to put together.

The issue of paying fines and restitution came a year later when the Republican-controlled State Senate put forth a bill signed by Republican governor Ron DeSantis.

That bill was struck down as unconstitutional in district court as a "pay to vote" or "vote tax." DeSantis appealed to the 11th Circuit Court who, in a 6-4 decision along party lines, overturned the lower court, effectively gutting the constitutional amendment. It's been appealed to the US Supreme Court but they've refused to hear the case so far.

Is this voter suppression?

I think the majority of Americans think so. Forcing felons to pay off their fines in order to vote is deeply unpopular and I think only one other state (Arizona?) has such rules. I found this comment from you interesting and a good insight into why you (wink, wink) know it's voter suppression:

"You're acting like a requirement to fulfil their legal obligation is some insurmountable task and unreasonable ask."

The vast majority of felons do not have the means to pay off everything in a timely manner, many of whom it can take years after they've served their time to fully meet this demand. Some have extraordinary costs and are effectively disenfranchised despite the amendment.

Even setting that aside, let's pretend for a moment that this isn't voter suppression and it's "legal" in whatever sense you'd like to use. Has the state of Florida set up a system--again based on their own bill from the Senate--to help released felons figure out their financial situation and coordinate with the state Division of Elections to update voter registration rolls?

Nope.

12th Circuit judge Beverly Martin wrote in her dissent:

“The majority breezes over the infirmities of the process. But I cannot so easily condone a system that is projected to take upwards of six years simply to tell citizens whether they are eligible to vote … and which ultimately throws up its hands and denies citizens their ability to vote because the state can’t figure out the outstanding balances it is requiring those citizens to pay."

The twisted irony to everything is that felons are likely to vote if they have paid their fines, but due to no updated registration system for them and a mountain of confusion, may be deemed "illegal" votes in a hotly contested November election.

One could argue this is the whole point for the GOP in Florida. Use the courts to overturn a popular constitutional amendment and sow doubt about the election even when their own policies are a result of confusion while at the same time throwing up your hands about helping felons and wait for the SCOTUS to ultimately rule in your favor.

DeSantis and the Florida GOP need to do better.

I very much doubt that was contemplated in the amendment process.

People vote in support for an amendment....great. the state now needs to carry that out. Its not the state of Florida's job to hold felons hand and walk them through getting financials sorted out. These guys know they owe money.

If it takes them years to pay back, that's a personal problem. If Florida wants to help these guys get it figured out or whatever, thats cool too and honestly probably a good idea. But... in the meantime, I dont see a single legitimate argument against Florida requiring these guys to fulfill their obligations before getting their voting rights back.

Florida hasn't overturned a popular amendment in any sense, they have merely defined the parameters of what the amendment meant.

 

[Legacy]

I'd restore voting rights to someone convicted of a felony after they have been released. Restriction of voting rights otherwise just seems to be an unwritten punishment beyond serving time.

In summary:

- In the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
- In 16 states, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
- In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.
- In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table 1. Details on these states are found in Table 2 below.

(Source)

Pretty cool from the NYT. I believe PA picked up two seats in special elections after their Supreme Court ruled (SCOTUS too that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause ).
The New Pennsylvania Congressional
Map, District by District

Dems are "Likely" to flip two North Carolina Districts in 2020 (NC 2, 6) after their redistricting.

Another cool site from 538 on how Florida redistricting currently and might look in different scenarios. You can change to other states.
The Atlas Of Redistricting

I agree that Collins and maybe McSally are probably two Trump is referring to, though McSally has voted with Trump 94% of the time. Perhaps Loeffler in Georgia who was appointed by DeSantis to fill the remainder of a term against Trump's choice - Collins. None of the three women Senators have been endorsed by Trump.

Perdue (94%), Tillis (93%), Gardner (89%), Ernst (91%), Daines (86%) and Graham are loyalists he endorsed all of whom are in close races.

With redistricting and Fair Districts, Dems are also counting on down ballots of state legislators and state courts. Voters have a chance to elect four of the nine Texas Supreme Court justice positions (all nine are currently Rep).

 

[NorthDakota]

I'd restore voting rights to someone convicted of a felony after they have been released. Restriction of voting rights otherwise just seems to be an unwritten punishment beyond serving time. ).

I think its perfectly fine to advocate for voting rights after they are released. But anyone suggesting it's voter suppression to require the felon to fulfill their obligations to the state and the victim doesn't seem like an unreasonable burden.

 

[Legacy]

After obtaining a decision on appeal that allowed only one drop box per county, Reps lost a decision that would have eliminated the drive-through voting that so many Texans in Harris County (Houston) seem to be using.

Voters in Harris County may continue using drive-thru voting, Texas Supreme Court rules

The four million people in Houston are more than the combined populations of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana and Alaska in an area the size of Rhode Island.

Masks in polling places in Texas are not mandated.

 

[ACamp1900]

So I thought something was suspicious at my polling place yesterday,... you could tell who was the republican working the booth and who was the democrat,... let’s just say it was plainly obvious. The democrat saw me ( mind you this is El Paso, I stand out) and REALLY tried to make the republican move on to someone else so she could handle my stuff instead. I mean they almost fought right in front of me. When I’m done I ask where I submit my ballot and the Dem wants me to give it to her, the other pollster walks me over to the machine and we insert it and done. I leave.

Today my sister in law (only other WASP in that whole side of the family) goes there and afterwards tells me a story of this angry lib chick who insisted she handle my SiL and tried to hold on to her ballot (something about putting them in with others at once) until the other poll worker said ‘no, she inserts her ballot here,...’ dear lord. I’m not implying anything on the LONG running ‘discussion’ on voting this and that but yeah that happened in the last 48 hours. Fun stuff. My SiL is apparently going to report it.

 

[Irish YJ]

50 Cent is hilarious. Changing his tune for another "spin" lol. The Angel Fernandez mention is classic.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">👀a what, 😳another spin 💫Fu*k Donald Trump, I never liked him. 🤨for all I know he had me set up and had my friend Angel Fernandez killed but that’s history. LOL <a href="https://twitter.com/chelseahandler?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chelseahandler</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmyfallon?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jimmyfallon</a> <a href="https://t.co/Tya6EqDBFt">pic.twitter.com/Tya6EqDBFt</a></p>— 50cent (@50cent) <a href="https://twitter.com/50cent/status/1320184040654295040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<iframe width="500" height="280" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FsboRHGzn2g" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[RDU Irish]

Just saw that 21 million early ballots have already been cast. Number could easily eclipse 50+ million by election day as many states are just beginning early voting.

Over 60 million now - and google search trends for "how do I change my vote" are popping. Can't wait to walk in and out in 15 minutes on election day - won't be anyone left to vote!

 

[NorthDakota]

Over 60 million now - and google search trends for "how do I change my vote" are popping. Can't wait to walk in and out in 15 minutes on election day - won't be anyone left to vote!

Thats a big reason I'm not particularly comfortable with these huge voting windows. Then again, those folks have no one to blame but themselves

 

[drayer54]

Nothing to see here folks

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Shot and chaser <a href="https://t.co/aBH8eSBIoC">pic.twitter.com/aBH8eSBIoC</a></p>— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) <a href="https://twitter.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1321064307258515458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[TorontoGold]

Nothing to see here folks

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Shot and chaser <a href="https://t.co/aBH8eSBIoC">pic.twitter.com/aBH8eSBIoC</a></p>— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) <a href="https://twitter.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1321064307258515458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wait until you find out a SC justice was used in a political ad! Scary stuff!