It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Boadicea
Hi Boad
I wonder about all of the judicial decisions. Are all the judges so very corrupt, or does the idea of forcing the elections system to become more honest make them terribly uneasy?
Some of this may be a cancerous inertia in the various branches of state and federal government.
Cheers
But in reaching the settlement during a May 19 court hearing, a statement by the Leagueās legal team noted āthe League and Ms. Jennings agreed to publicly condemn intimidation of any kind in connection with the exercise of the right to vote.ā
The voter registration dispute heard May 16 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Phoenix involves Senate Bill 1260. It was signed into law last year and in part revised Arizona Revised Statute 16-165 to add a mandate for when a voterās registration must be cancelled if it appears the voter has moved to a new county within Arizona.
Several provisions of SB1260 are currently on hold due to a legal challenge by the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, which contends the new requirement violates the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA). The NVRA requires due diligence on the part of elections officials before cancelling a voterās registration without their consent.
But SB1260 included a now disputed provision requiring a county recorder to cancel someoneās voter registration upon āconfirmationā from a second county recorder that the voter is now registered in the second county.
The new law, which went into effect Sept. 26, does not require the original county to send the voter a notice of the cancellation or undertake any further verification.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Boadicea
After my last post i turned it off.
What did i miss? Whats a pool camera?