this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
376 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19243 readers
3090 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump announced plans to reform U.S. elections, including mandating paper ballots, same-day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship, while eliminating mail-in voting.

Trump criticized California’s ban on requiring voter ID, calling for a nationwide overhaul. Though mail-in and early voting surged during the pandemic, Trump has long opposed these methods, claiming fraud, despite evidence showing fraud rates are extremely low.

Critics argue his proposals could disproportionately affect rural, disabled, and nonwhite voters, potentially disenfranchising key Democratic-leaning groups.

The reforms would mark significant shifts in U.S. election policies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Wouldn’t he basically need a constitutional amendment to do this. Which would be almost impossible these days.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hard to say. voting is up to states for methodology but like we did have restrictions on state due to discrimation till recently that would not allow them to change their rules or purge voters like they do again nowadays.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No. Federal government could always regulate elections. We used to require southern states to get federal governments permission before they can change their state election laws, so that they cant make racist election laws, but then the supreme court struck down that part of the Voting Right Act, then southern states immediately enacted Voter ID Laws.

Now that republicans have a trifecta in federal government, they are doing an uno reverse to regulate blue states like we used to regulate southern states.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The VRA was an extension of the fourteenth amendment. And the federal government never said the racist states had to do X. They said the states had to submit changes to the federal government to make sure they weren't racist and thus unconstitutional.

Trump's stuff doesn't have any of that grounding.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well if all the red and swing states do it, they will still win.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yup. He can try for a reverse VRA but it's going to be a pretty big fight if he does.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

how hard can it be when you hold the Senate, Congress, and the supreme court?