Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

California has had drop off boxes for years, dude.
And it's not CA that's prompting all this fuss in the case before SCOTUS:

"The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to overturn a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and then received within five business days of, Election Day."

"Mississippi passed the law at the center of the case in 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic."

"At Monday’s oral argument, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the justices that states have broad power over elections. Laws like Mississippi’s, he argued, are consistent with federal election laws because voters make their final choices by Election Day."

"But the lawyers and justices sparred over the significance of departures from that tradition during the Civil War, when some Union states allowed soldiers to vote from the battlefields. Clement insisted that proxy voting was the most analogous to today’s absentee ballots. Five states, he said, still required ballots to be submitted and received in a soldier’s home state by Election Day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the justices who was most sympathetic to Mississippi, responded that two states had allowed officers to collect and mail-in ballots for soldiers."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-appears-ready-to-overturn-state-law-allowing-for-late-arriving-mail-in-ballots/

I’m just giving you a hard time, of course. California-baiting is one of my favorite sports, here in the beautiful state of Colorado.   along with skiing, hiking, fly fishing, and amateur astronomy, of course.  😀

thanks for using a link to the Scotus blog.   I’ll read that and get back to you. Frankly, I don’t even know and can’t imagine what the constitutional issue is in this case. I hate delayed voting, because it inconveniences me. That said I can’t imagine why it would be unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by James Brown

I’m just giving you a hard time, of course. California-baiting is one of my favorite sports, here in the beautiful state of Colorado.   along with skiing, hiking, fly fishing, and amateur astronomy, of course.  😀

thanks for using a link to the Scotus blog.   I’ll read that and get back to you. Frankly, I don’t even know and can’t imagine what the constitutional issue is in this case. I hate delayed voting, because it inconveniences me. That said I can’t imagine why it would be unconstitutional?

Thanks again for linking that excellent article from the Scotus blog. I see that it is not a constitutional issue at all. This is the more routine “interpretation of the scope of a federal statute“ issue. The statute is pretty clear that all states must observe a specified federal election day. The Court must interpret what that means in the modern era. KJB is quoted as saying precisely this in the article.  whatever the court decides will not affect the equally valid federal statues giving overseas military extra time to vote.  

In my opinion, no one will be disenfranchised, no matter how this decision goes. It is not too much of a problem for a state like mine to require mailed ballots to be received by election day. As a practical matter, nobody mails them anyway, we all use drop boxes , which I gather is also commonplace in California. 🤔💪

So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. The context of the case makes it quite suitable for outrage on the right and the left. That is the Holy Grail of issues I guess, something to be outraged about that doesn’t actually matter much.  Do you personally care which side wins this one?  I do not, although I sure long for the good old time when election results were reported the evening of election day.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

For the mail-in issue, yes, perhaps.

What about the ID issue?   Millions will be disenfranchised.  

For instance, Married women who took their husbands name so that their name on current documents doesn't match birth certificate.   

Driver's license or Real ID not sufficient ID. Folks without a birth certificate...  

Millions of Americans don't have a passport.  

This bill has been  written to disenfranchise a large number of voters who are  statistically much more likely to be Democrat voters.  The poor, people of colour and women.  

The R's see November as a win-at-any-cost election. They are doing what they can to tilt the result their way.  AT.  ANY.  COST.  They are way past giving any fucks about legality.  It is illegal to put troops/ICE/cops near polling stations on an election day.  But they will be there in selected, closely contested districts.  Just like it is illegal to drag a hispanic woman from her home without a judicial warrant or use a 5-year old kid to lure people out of a house.  But they do it anyway with complete immunity.  

James are you prepared to predict that if this SAVE act passes into law the mid-terms will be a fairly contested election with every US citizen  who wants to vote allowed vote?   

SAVE disenfranchisement of millions

  Dave

Hi Dave:  Great question. I think the SAVE act as currently passed through the House is ridiculous. It would indeed disenfranchise millions. My wife has a passport, but if she did not, she would have to get certified copies of her birth certificate and marriage license to match her registered voting name to her US citizenship,and that is an undue burden. So I agree with you, assuming the SAVE act, as passed by the House were  to become law.

Where we differ is that I know the SAVE act passed by the House has 0% chance of becoming an enforceable law.

The SAVE act as it is presently drafted will never pass the Senate, and it will be eviscerated by the Supreme Court if it did pass. As currently drafted it is a ridiculously unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.  Mark my words, any final SAVE act that passes out of the Senate will require only a drivers license, a state issued ID card, a military ID, a student ID, or some other readily available identification card to register and vote.  

You have probably read that 80% of the US favors some ID requirement to register for voting. What the citizens are saying is that people who want to vote need to demonstrate in a relatively typical fashion that they are who they say they are. In Colorado well over 95% of voters register at the drivers license bureau, when we apply for or renew our drivers license.

We do, of course, have to prove our identity when we first get a drivers license, and that is not an undue burden on anyone. Those who have no drivers license, no state issued ID card, and no  other papers of any sort will be burdened, but that is a vanishing small number, and each state can figure out a way for them to prove their identity if they still want to vote.

I imagine you require some sort of identification in Canada if you want to vote?   Most countries do have some sort of ID requirement. So, personally, I am in favor of some minimal identification requirement in order to register to vote, usually a drivers license. On the other hand, I  think it would be ridiculous and unconstitutional to require a married woman to prove that she is a citizen back to birth if she has changed her name. Same deal with other people who changed their names for any number of legal reasons.  

bottom line, the SAVE act as it is currently drafted is a ridiculous and unconstitutional burden on our guaranteed right to vote, and it will never become law.  I expect some watered down, relatively simple and non-invasive voter ID law to pass eventually, and Trump, as is his style,  will claim victory and move onto the next ginned up crisis.  Jim

stupid iPhone double post…

Fun fact, I read today that more Democrats have passports the Republicans. Since the passport is the only “easy” way to comply with the House version of the SAVE Act, it could disenfranchise more Republicans than Democrats. Not that it will ever pass as currently drafted, and it will not survive the constitutional challenge, if it did pass as currently drafted.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Dave:  Great question. I think the SAVE act as currently passed through the House is ridiculous. It would indeed disenfranchise millions. My wife has a passport, but if she did not, she would have to get certified copies of her birth certificate and marriage license to match her registered voting name to her US citizenship,and that is an undue burden. So I agree with you… assuming the SAVE act, as passed by the House were  to become law.

Where we differ is that I know the SAVE act passed by the House has 0% chance of becoming an enforceable law.

The SAVE act as it is presently drafted will never pass the Senate, and it will be eviscerated by the Supreme Court if it did pass. As currently drafted it is a ridiculously unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.  Mark my words, any final SAVE act that passes out of the Senate will require only a drivers license, a state issued ID card, a military ID, a student ID, or some other readily available identification card to register and vote.  

You have probably read that 80% of the US favors some ID requirement to register for voting. What the citizens are saying is that people who want to vote need to demonstrate in a relatively typical fashion that they are who they say they are. In Colorado well over 95% of voters register at the drivers license bureau, when we apply for or renew our drivers license.

We do, of course, have to prove our identity when we first get a drivers license, and that is not an undue burden on anyone. Those who have no drivers license, no state issued ID card, and no  other papers of any sort will be burdened, but that is a vanishing small number, and each state can figure out a way for them to prove their identity if they still want to vote.

I imagine you require some sort of identification in Canada if you want to vote?   Most countries do have some sort of ID requirement. So, personally, I am in favor of some minimal identification requirement in order to register to vote, usually a drivers license. On the other hand, I  think it would be ridiculous and unconstitutional to require a married woman to prove that she is a citizen back to birth if she has changed her name. Same deal with other people who changed their names for any number of legal reasons.  

bottom line, the SAVE act as it is currently drafted is a ridiculous and unconstitutional burden on our guaranteed right to vote, and it will never become law.  I expect some watered down, relatively simple and non-invasive voter ID law to pass eventually, and Trump, as is his style,  will claim victory and move onto the next ginned up crisis.  Jim

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

It looks like Canada does require a relatively straightforward ID of some sort, to prove identity, in order to vote. This is a good reasonable law.   Well done 👍🏼.  I think this is the sort of reasonable law the US will end up with eventually.  I hope so anyway.

Originally Posted by James Brown

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

It looks like Canada does require a relatively straightforward ID of some sort, to prove identity, in order to vote. This is a good reasonable law.   Well done 👍🏼.  I think this is the sort of reasonable law the US will end up with eventually.

My last comment tonight: the Republicans are pushing a clearly unconstitutional and ridiculously burdensome ID scheme. Meanwhile, the Democrats are insisting that any ID requirement whatsoever is the end of the world. I wish our elected representatives could be as reasonable as those in Canada, where a relatively simple ID requirement is the law of the land.  Unfortunately, this is an issue each party can manipulate to spin up their base.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"In my opinion, no one will be disenfranchised, no matter how this decision goes."

"So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation."

If that was the true, then you wouldn't have Trump and the GOP pushing so hard for SCOTUS to overturn the case, which they will do. 
Afterall, the GOP, in particular, has always been a staunch advocate of states-rights and against any intrusive effort by the federal government to be deemed superior, especially in matters of electing officials to office. Thus, it seems evident the latter is the real motivation driving this case and not some sort of clamor for clarification of a "minor case of federal statutory interpretation." Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing so hard on this one...

The outcome of this case will make no difference, as we discussed above. You did not answer when I asked whether you personally thought the outcome of this case mattered, one way or the other.

Trump is pushing hard for one reason only… He’s using this case to advance his BS voter fraud narrative. Also, does any Democrat really think that allowing “postmark“ +5 day mail in ballots is necessary to preserve the right to vote for anyone?

I’m going to stand by my opinion that this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. That does not mean the parties will not exploit the case to spin up their rabid bases.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia allow grace periods for late-arriving mail ballots, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. A Votebeat analysis of data from the 2024 election found that at least 750,000 ballots eligible to be counted arrived after Election Day that year. Groups representing military and overseas voters have warned they could be disproportionately affected, and election experts have also said tightening the receipt deadlines could disenfranchise voters affected by slow postal service through no fault of their own."

https://www.votebeat.org/national/2026/03/23/supreme-court-late-mail-ballots-election-day-mississippi-2026-midterm-elections/

IMO, anything in this regard that potentially impedes the counting of votes is generally a boon to Trump and his fellow Republicans.

Drop boxes.  No one should count on the USPS to quickly deliver extremely time sensitive mail.

750,000 is a shockingly small number by the way.  Over 150,000,000 (150 million) votes were cast.  If 14 states allowed "postmark" voting, I would expect lots more than 1/2% of the voters to use it.  I wonder if 750k is a typo?

Last a semantic point - the article misuses and dilutes the word "disenfranchise" in my opinion.  In Colorado, for example, someone who mails their vote too late for it to be counted, or who shows up at the drop box an hour after voting closes is not "disenfranchised"  They merely failed to vote through their own negligence.  If every state requires actual receipt of the ballot by election day, no one will be disenfranchised.  At most those who prefer to vote by mail will have to make the minimal effort to get their ballot to the post office 5 or 6 days before the election.    Even in Colorado, if you are too lazy to mail your ballot on time, and too inept to find a drop box, you can still vote in person on election day.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

IMO, anything in this regard that potentially impedes the counting of votes is generally a boon to Trump and his fellow Republicans.

What do you base your opinion on?  Trump won the hypothetical "popular vote."  Are Democrats less able to vote on time, for some reason I'm not aware of?

Originally Posted by James Brown

What do you base your opinion on?  Trump won the hypothetical "popular vote."  Are Democrats less able to vote on time, for some reason I'm not aware of?

Every now and then I like to remind you I voted for Harris in the last election.   Any break from D party dogma can be interpreted as support for Trump, which is not my intention here.    

I think the SAVE act, as passed by the house is an unconstitutional disaster.   At the same time, I think it is beneficial, and certainly not a big deal, if mailed ballots must be received by election day to count, with appropriate exceptions for military personnel stationed overseas, as already included in other federal laws.