Maintaining integrity to the election requires, according to Republicans in Texas, that local election officials will be held accountable if they send any Texas citizen a nomination form before obtaining a permit from that person. Similarly, Georgian Democrats have announced that voting rights will be violated if election observers fail to comply with Georgia’s secretary general’s policies. Each side of these cases and most of the electoral laws states that the other team is trying to change the rules of the game to its advantage. Each side is correct.
When wolves and vultures are arguing over how to protect a chicken coop, one thing you can be sure of is the one on the list. You can be sure that no matter how many wolves and foxes they have changed by changing chickens, they will not ask for the same chickens. This is something to keep in mind as Democrats seek ways to move to the U.S. Senate another form of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. A law recently passed by the House of Representatives, the law makes it possible for all electoral laws to be opened against elected political judges and officials from the U.S. Department of Justice. While no one can predict the same problems, we can be sure that they will be guided by the fact that one party or another can benefit from the changes that have been made here, an idea that was changed there.
American voters are not just chickens, but we have been on the list for years. And even if the foxes or foxes that run our political parties are not interested in the voting ideas about how elections should be conducted in their own countries and regions, a closer look at those ideas shows that We the People are very united in this regard. Blue and Red teams can’t find anything more acceptable than hating the other side, but Americans every day accept more.
A lot of research and team research shown in recent weeks by the State Policy Network in conjunction with Heart + Mind Strategies reveals that although our two major parties have launched a campaign against electoral law as a competition between voting and voter protection, Americans want it all, and don’t think horizontal to start coming the other. Thus three-thirds said that voting should be easy and that people must show photo ID before voting.
Political analysts and party leaders want to document these seemingly contradictory targets as evidence of voter turmoil, but upon closer inspection, we find that there is a justice that perpetuates all of these roles. About 80% of Americans say it’s easy to vote in person, but they want to know that every eligible voter can say the same thing. Fair play is why he wants a photo ID – making sure no vote is stolen or removed by someone who steals the machine. The ethics of justice further, in addition, strongly contributes to ensuring that all eligible Americans are able to receive a photographic image.
Although wolves and hawks work long hours to highlight the opportunity to vote and vote as opposing targets, this study clearly shows that the American people are capable of realizing that this is a must. While voters believe that the authorities are working hard with their faith to increase legal voting, the polls show that they are open to taking action on security measures designed to prevent voter fraud. The American people rightly see the availability and security operating closely. Doing one makes the other work better.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, unfortunately, seeks to ignore the principles and concerns of the American people on a daily basis. Officials in the U.S. both parties believe that ballot papers should be verified frequently and that someone should take action when local officials fail to have the right to be visible on valid ballots. But the House bill would try to challenge the courts and lawyers of the DOJ. The law attempts to wear this on the pretext of interfering in areas where there has been a violation of voting laws, but what has been described is the same as what is considered a “violation” every time a U.S. attorney general raises an objection to state law. No matter which party directs the attorney general’s office further, be aware that 100% of the AG’s objections are against the rules issued by the authorities to the opposing parties.
All told, everyone already knows that this is a political event. It is not about establishing the will of the people, or protecting the right of the American people to know freely and fairly who they will represent. It is no wonder, then, that America’s reliance on government for decision-making has been shattered over the past 20 years. With the recent atrocities perpetrated on the basis of democracy – the way a nation elects its leaders – this reliance can continue. What is needed now is to strengthen the confidence of voters in the way our government operates and to promote all that is needed for elections: access and security.