8 DAYS TO DECIDE: Both Parties Predict Control of House

[Gerald]

Despite Complaints About GOP Advantage.

There are more and more indications that when it comes to pouring cash into the 2010 midterm elections, it's Democrats who have the bigger funnel.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees boss Gerald McEntee announced to the New York Times Tuesday that the million-member union's latest batch of political ads will take the group's spending on the midterm elections to $91 million, far and away the most spending by any group this cycle.

Also on Tuesday, an analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that taken as a whole, Democrats and Democratic allied groups have raised and spent far more than their Republican counterparts -- $856 million to $677 million.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...-gop-advantage


Note:October 27, 2010

[tater]

Sadly it won't matter all that much.

Our only hope is to significantly cut "mandatory" spending. Failure to do this and we're hosed. Won't happen.

[Platapus]

Being a masochist at heart, I will try to introduce some facts in to the Arizona decision discussion. I doubt it will do any good here.

Let's look at this logically and not emotionally. Can Arizona implement a law that requires citizens to prove their citizenship?

First we need to start with the basis of our system of laws, the United States Constitution. Specifically Article 1 section 4

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

This means that the States are free to make the laws governing how they run federal elections but the Congress has the authority to change these laws. However, the Congress must change these laws through legislation.

In 1965, the Congress did so.

Voter Rights Act 1965 PL 89-110 42 U.S.C. 173 was that law and the federal regulation is represented by 28 CFR Part 51. One of the provisions of the VRA was that any changes to a state's federal election law must be pre-screened by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or, in the case of an election regulation be pre-screened by the United States Department of Justice. Arizona is one of those states subject to this pre-screening requirement.

This means that before Arizona can either change or implement a law affecting how Arizona runs federal elections, this change or implementation must be pre-screened by the US District Court for DC. Since this was not done, the proposed Arizona law is in conflict with the VRA and therefore is in violation of the Election Clause of the Constitution.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1996 PL 103-31 and 107 Stat. 77 governs how people can register, in their states, to vote in Federal Elections.

Under this law, there are three methods, and only three methods in which someone is allowed to register to vote in Federal Elections. The state does not have the authority to change this.

1. The first method of voter registration is described in Section
3, § 1973gg-3. This section provides that any application
for a driver’s license submitted to a state motor vehicle
authority “shall serve as an application for voter registration
with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant
fails to sign the voter registration application.”

2. The second method of voter registration, set forth in Section
4, § 1973gg-4, requires states to register federal voters by
mail using the Federal Form.

The form asks for either a SSAN or a Driver's license number. Barring that, the state will assign an identification number and the state sets the procedure for this. Only in this case can Arizona, through either law or regulation require someone to verify their citizenship.

3. The third method of federal voter registration is mandated
by Section 5, § 1973gg-5, which requires states to designate
certain state offices for voter registration. Targeting “the poor
and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s
licenses and will not come into contact with” motor vehicle
agencies.

Lastly the Help America Vote Act of 2002 PL 107-252 defines how a person who is registering for the first time can establish their identity.

HAVA requires any voter who registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a Federal election show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.

The proposed law from Arizona is in violation of the Voter Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. As a result, the decision to remand specific parts of the proposed Arizona law is appropriate.

Now my personal opinion: I think that anyone registering to vote in Federal Elections should be required to establish their citizenship or eligibility to vote. I think that is a reasonable expectation from the government.

That means that the appropriate procedure is to introduce in Congress a bill that modifies the VRA, NVRA, and HAVA. It is not permissible for one state to unilaterally decide whether they will or will not follow federal law and federal regulations.

There is a correct way to do this, and Arizona chose the wrong way.

So this decision has nothing to do with politics, it is not a liberal/conservative/Democrat/Republican issue at all. It is a legal issue and Arizona failed to follow the law.

[Ducimus]

http://www.cagle.com/news/CampaignAds10/main.asp

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON -- Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.

The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.

It's certain that Republicans want to capitalize quickly on tea party-fueled anger and the antiestablishment fervor that they believe will provide momentum to accomplish an activist to-do list. It's equally clear, however, that the outsized expectations of a fed-up electorate and a crop of unruly newcomers could complicate the plans. So could Obama and fellow Democrats who will still be around after Tuesday's elections.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...s-plan-b-cuts/


Note:Published October 28, 2010

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Being a masochist at heart, I will try to introduce some facts in to the Arizona decision discussion. I doubt it will do any good here.

Let's look at this logically and not emotionally. Can Arizona implement a law that requires citizens to prove their citizenship?

First we need to start with the basis of our system of laws, the United States Constitution. Specifically Article 1 section 4

This means that the States are free to make the laws governing how they run federal elections but the Congress has the authority to change these laws. However, the Congress must change these laws through legislation.

In 1965, the Congress did so.

Voter Rights Act 1965 PL 89-110 42 U.S.C. 173 was that law and the federal regulation is represented by 28 CFR Part 51. One of the provisions of the VRA was that any changes to a state's federal election law must be pre-screened by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or, in the case of an election regulation be pre-screened by the United States Department of Justice. Arizona is one of those states subject to this pre-screening requirement.

This means that before Arizona can either change or implement a law affecting how Arizona runs federal elections, this change or implementation must be pre-screened by the US District Court for DC. Since this was not done, the proposed Arizona law is in conflict with the VRA and therefore is in violation of the Election Clause of the Constitution.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1996 PL 103-31 and 107 Stat. 77 governs how people can register, in their states, to vote in Federal Elections.

Under this law, there are three methods, and only three methods in which someone is allowed to register to vote in Federal Elections. The state does not have the authority to change this.

1. The first method of voter registration is described in Section
3, § 1973gg-3. This section provides that any application
for a driver’s license submitted to a state motor vehicle
authority “shall serve as an application for voter registration
with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant
fails to sign the voter registration application.”

2. The second method of voter registration, set forth in Section
4, § 1973gg-4, requires states to register federal voters by
mail using the Federal Form.

The form asks for either a SSAN or a Driver's license number. Barring that, the state will assign an identification number and the state sets the procedure for this. Only in this case can Arizona, through either law or regulation require someone to verify their citizenship.

3. The third method of federal voter registration is mandated
by Section 5, § 1973gg-5, which requires states to designate
certain state offices for voter registration. Targeting “the poor
and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s
licenses and will not come into contact with” motor vehicle
agencies.

Lastly the Help America Vote Act of 2002 PL 107-252 defines how a person who is registering for the first time can establish their identity.

HAVA requires any voter who registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a Federal election show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.

The proposed law from Arizona is in violation of the Voter Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. As a result, the decision to remand specific parts of the proposed Arizona law is appropriate.

Now my personal opinion: I think that anyone registering to vote in Federal Elections should be required to establish their citizenship or eligibility to vote. I think that is a reasonable expectation from the government.

That means that the appropriate procedure is to introduce in Congress a bill that modifies the VRA, NVRA, and HAVA. It is not permissible for one state to unilaterally decide whether they will or will not follow federal law and federal regulations.

There is a correct way to do this, and Arizona chose the wrong way.

So this decision has nothing to do with politics, it is not a liberal/conservative/Democrat/Republican issue at all. It is a legal issue and Arizona failed to follow the law.

Please don't cloud the issue with the facts.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by tater

Sadly it won't matter all that much.

Our only hope is to significantly cut "mandatory" spending. Failure to do this and we're hosed. Won't happen.

[tater]

When the 1965 law was written, no state would have even considered giving illegal aliens a DL. They'd have laughed.

The state next door to AZ (NM) as well as several others give DLs to illegals. As the regular US IDs get polluted with non-citizens, they become worthless as proof of citizenship.

The only reason democrats fight against IDs, etc, is they benefit from fraud, period.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by tater

When the 1965 law was written, no state would have even considered giving illegal aliens a DL. They'd have laughed.

The state next door to AZ (NM) as well as several others give DLs to illegals. As the regular US IDs get polluted with non-citizens, they become worthless as proof of citizenship.

The only reason democrats fight against IDs, etc, is they benefit from fraud, period.

They didn't think of issuing special ID cards that look nothing like ours? Like, something that really stands out so there is no mistaking a non-citizen ID for a citizen's ID.

[Gerald]

This sounds very complex, and require many ants in the head of the citizen!

[tater]

The current law presumes only citizens will vote, and have State IDs.

If the voter registration cannot be forced to prove citizenship, then I'm all for draconian laws to get rid of all the illegals. Illegals should not vote, if we cannot do the simple thing, and check citizenship, then hunt them down like rats and kick them out.

The obama admin is all for massive increases in government jobs, hire the unemployed to hunt down illegals.

[Gerald]

The former president reportedly pressed Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Senate race in Florida and to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist's independent bid — but Meek says he's not a quitter.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...race-until-end




Note:October 28, 2010

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Vendor

The former president reportedly pressed Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Senate race in Florida and to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist's independent bid — but Meek says he's not a quitter.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...race-until-end




Note:October 28, 2010

Imagine if a Conservative pulled this? They would be called racist etc but Billy "cigarman" Clinton does it and everything is okay.

As a Florida native I applaud Meek for staying in even though it is a lost cause for him, because Crist is a coward and sore loser, not to mention an Obama supporter.Charlie should just go ahead and change to Democrat because if he were Senator, he would no doubt vote with them.I voted for Rubio already.

[Gerald]

Meek made a good decision, even though he knows that "the race is run," Clinton to appear in the image depends on his popularity, and that D has problems which are well known, well-planned strategy and hopes can not sort out the matter at the eleventh hour

[Gerald]

Washington Ahead of Midterms.

WASHINGTON -- Just three days before pivotal midterm elections, comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert threw a "sanity" rally in the shadow of the Capitol that organizers insisted wasn't about politics.

But there were political undertones to Saturday's event as the two Comedy Central hosts entertained a huge throng stretched alongside the National Mall by poking fun at the nation's diversity and its ill-tempered politics.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ly-washington/



Note:Published October 30, 2010