The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week issued a statement of interest agreeing with civil rights advocates in North Carolina that the massive Republican-led purging of voter rolls in the state counts as a violation of federal law.
Is this news? I seem to have read about this for the past eight years. The DOJ has not exactly made voter suppression a priority. Oh yes now I remember, we have an election coming up and Hillary and the Democrats need those black votes now. Well ,well,well I guess we must protect voter rights for the next week. I finally had enough and after 40 yrs as a Democrat I happily voted for Jill Stein .
What a jackass. Here we have an article about Republican expansion of Jim Crow voting restrictions and you turn it into an anti Clinton rant. Screw those Black Democrats anyway, they're just Hillary supporters. Another reason the Green Party will not only fail to get 5%, but will continue to be despised. You have to fight for the rights of all voters.
They are suppressing Green votes too. Shame on North Carolina:
Stein refers to that incident as "our first report of voter suppression". Could she live in a smaller world?
Obviously she means suppression of Green votes reported to the Stein campaign. I am the one who associated it with this article because they both happened in North Carolina. I recommend educating yourself on the support shown to minorities by the Green Party.
That requires a very short course. I posted some days ago that the Green Party was invisible on the ground here in Alameda County regarding Prop 61, which Bernie has been supporting against massive corporate opposition. To be fair, I have since seen a Green Party voter guide put out by its Berkeley HQ supporting prop 61. But they skip many local elections and appear to have few if any candidates of their own and no voter initiatives originating with them. Even here, with a very diverse population, they remain a small white sect. Well meaning I'm sure, but of little consequence.
So your argument that the Green Party is not sufficiently supportive of minorities is that they failed to show sufficient support for a California proposition about prescription drugs. Even though they publicly endorsed it. You know their resources are tiny because of the two-party stranglehold, and they can't be everywhere. Jill Stein has been vigorously speaking out and showing up for Black Lives Matter and the DAPL water protectors in particular, so I reject your point.
You might want to watch this clip of Jill Stein's running mate Ajamu Baraka speaking at Dillard University in New Orleans:
Or Stein/Baraka campaign manager David Cobb speaking with Kshama Sawant about all movements being interconnected:
Also I can't find any information about this on any news site, but there is a debate happening right now between all 4 vice-presidential candidates with national ballot access, in North Carolina:
I didn't actually touch on how "supportive of minorities" the Green Party is or is not. I don't think they are of much consequence for any community. I fully expect they will mostly disappear until the next presidential election.
You beat me to it. My thoughts exactly. I live in Kansas and worry about the same thing. last year they would not let me vote because my drivers ID was expired stating that I might live somewhere else even though i had a rent statement and birth certificate. Living in a Republican state can be down right depressing. Living in a Trumponian country would be outright dangerous for blacks ad latinos. I cannot belive how many democratic voters have given up on their democratic party just because they don"t snotty HRC. Most Republicans acknowledge that Trump is a ass but thy stick with their party. Democrats are wishy washy primadonnas.
I hear there have been some positive moves in Kansas. Good luck.
First, the headline is misleading.
That is the sort of headline the NAACP would speak. The DoJ statement was about violations of Federal Law that are deemed under Federal law to suppress the vote, race not specified.
-- That the NAACP is making these charges sounds less like 'fact', and more like alarmism intended to rile up persecution complexes.
What I heard on the NPR radio news this morning is that names may not be purged from the voter rolls within xx [30?] days of the election.
-- But names are still challengeable, and the same evidence can be presented after the election to remove those names from those rolls, before the next election.
-- This does not mean that those people can't vote. Simply that their past registrations at past addresses get removed. And that neither they nor anyone claiming to be they can or should be allowed to vote in a precinct where they don't live.
Days ago I was reading that voter rolls in Philadelphia PA are so stale that they contain the names of people born in the first half of the 19th century.
Is it news that "progressives" on here don't seem to pay attention to the fact that our DOJ defended the Voting Rights Act in front of the Supreme Court? Is it news that "progressives" here seem to dismiss what electing Donald Trump could mean for voting rights? Is it news that progressives don't seem to understand that Republicans appropriate money for the federal government, and the voting rights section of the DOJ isn't high on their list? I guess it is news. Nothing can ever change, all is lost (except for Medicare expansion, renewable energy tax credits, gay marriage, overtime rule protection, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, net neutrality, 20 million more people with health insurance)--vote Stein!