And then they will have ICE or similar at the polls to intimidate those who are able to stand in lines. Thanks for this information. It's always about the next step for them. I grew up thinking that the more citizens who vote, the better- because everyone would be represented.
The last sentence says that the preceding legal language does not REQUIRE forms of voting other than in-person voting. This is true. If all the rest is already in the law, then the entire resolution is merely redundant. How can it be construed as saying anything new? One might, of course, wish that the last sentence also said that the law as represented in the resolution ALLOWS what it does not require, but are we not intelligent enough to see that?
The last sentence says that the preceding legal language does not REQUIRE forms of voting other than in-person voting. This is true. If all the rest is already in the law, then the entire resolution is merely redundant. How can it be construed as saying anything new? One might, of course, wish that the last sentence also said that the law as represented in the resolution ALLOWS what it does not require, but are we not intelligent enough to see that?
Rachel, this is hugely important. Thank you for calling this out. We have to get to work.
And then they will have ICE or similar at the polls to intimidate those who are able to stand in lines. Thanks for this information. It's always about the next step for them. I grew up thinking that the more citizens who vote, the better- because everyone would be represented.
The last sentence says that the preceding legal language does not REQUIRE forms of voting other than in-person voting. This is true. If all the rest is already in the law, then the entire resolution is merely redundant. How can it be construed as saying anything new? One might, of course, wish that the last sentence also said that the law as represented in the resolution ALLOWS what it does not require, but are we not intelligent enough to see that?
The last sentence says that the preceding legal language does not REQUIRE forms of voting other than in-person voting. This is true. If all the rest is already in the law, then the entire resolution is merely redundant. How can it be construed as saying anything new? One might, of course, wish that the last sentence also said that the law as represented in the resolution ALLOWS what it does not require, but are we not intelligent enough to see that?