Bill Proposed for Uniform Times for In-Person Absentee Voting
I think this is a decision best left to the local clerks based on their resources.
A Republican lawmaker is proposing limits on the hours and days voters can cast in-person absentee ballots even as such voting increases in popularity in the state.
The bill would have a heavy impact in Madison, one of several municipalities that have held extended hours on nights and weekends to accommodate in-person absentee voters.
Critics said the bill, introduced in the state Assembly late last week, would force municipalities to spend more on mail-in absentee ballots while making it harder for people to vote.
The measure proposed by Rep. Duey Stroebel, R-Saukville, would prohibit clerks from opening early, late or on weekends to accommodate voters wishing to cast their ballots before Election Day.
Stroebel aide John Soper said the bill aims to give residents of smaller communities the same access to absentee voting as those in larger communities that can afford to hold extended balloting.
“To have those disparities for in-person absentee balloting, Representative Stroebel believes, is not fair,” Soper said. “His focus is on equality in the system. That’s the way he views it.”
I have lived in smaller communities ( 2000-3500) and larger communities. I think Duey misses on this. Living in a community of 3500, getting to the clerks office during lunch or before after work was ten minutes….In communities like Madison or Milwaukee, you can’t just hop over to the clerks office in 10 minutes. I agree Owen, this should be up to the local office as they know the needs of that area….obviously Duey doesn’t realize what it’s like to live in a larger community.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 1403 hrs
Reduce the early voting period to three days. Less time to bribe the unmotivated takers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 1443 hrs
Reduce the early voting period to three days. Less time for people who won’t vote for my candidates.
That’s what you really mean, Smeety. And yes, that’s exactly the point of this, and every, bill that seeks to limit the times and days for early absentee voting. Nothing but an attempt to drive down Democratic turnout.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 1641 hrs
Yes. The unmotivated takers vote D.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 1703 hrs
Yup. Consistent with all other Republican voter initiatives. Whether it’s Voter ID or in person absentee voting, the goal is to discourage and reduce the voter turnout where the voters discouraged are likely to vote Democratic. Republican democracy in action !
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 1936 hrs
Once again, another Republican who thinks there are points to be scored by making it harder for everyday people to vote.
By Duey’s logic, let’s make all the rich white voters in Ozaukee County stand in six-hour lines like in Miami. If we’re going to make voting a miserable, inflexible, inconvenience, let’s make sure the playing field is truly level.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 05, 2013 at 1945 hrs
Maybe you can explain how it’s harder for a Democrat to vote within a time frame than a Republican.
Or maybe you can’t.
Obama mitigated a poor performance, a horrible economy, and an unmotivated base with a Putin-style get out the vote machine. Not what our founding fathers intended. Those looking to why Walker won a few months earlier need to look no further….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 2016 hrs
Mike,
The founding fathers didn’t want people to vote? I mean, I guess you’re right, in that most women and non-white males couldn’t vote, but…
Your tears taste delicious, by the way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 2049 hrs
So are you going to answer my question, or just put forth snark and straw?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 2052 hrs
Other countries embrace online voting, mail-in balloting, on and on. Here, it’s the exact opposite. Here in America - gee, how can we make voting less convenient for people? Like waiting in lines and inconveniencing oneself is some kind of badge of honor, like it proves you love democracy more if you’re wiling to waste your time standing in line for it.
Only in America…
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 05, 2013 at 2104 hrs
The other idea I like is splitting up the electoral by congressional district. Give the libs their supermajority in Mke and Mad and take the rest of the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2013 at 2213 hrs
Of course you’d like that Smeety. It’s another way for Republicans to take advantage of the fact that the Democratic voters tend to live in densely-populated urban areas and further exploit their love of gerrymandering, creating states where Romney can’t win 47% of the vote but could walk away with 11 of 14 electoral votes.
It’s your perfect democracy: one in which you can find ways for your shrinking, white, Christian minority to cling to power for just a l’il bit longer.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 06, 2013 at 0154 hrs
Just get rid of absentee voting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2013 at 0707 hrs
Tell you what, we are a democratic republic. WE want voters to vote (unless you a minority that cannot appeal to the majority). So let’s make voting mandatory subject to fines if they do not vote. Then we can be sure we get the true will of the majority. Works for other countries, why not here? Oh yeah, I remember why…‘cause you guys are trying to limit the vote to the right kind of people (i.e.-those that think like we do) as evidenced by BVBB above.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2013 at 0924 hrs
No such thing is evidenced, Dave. You can make voting easier without absentee voting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2013 at 0943 hrs
The founding fathers didn’t want people to vote? I mean, I guess you’re right, in that most women and non-white males couldn’t vote, but…
Include non land owners to women and blacks. Voting was very restrictive when it was first used in the US. I would personally be all for a voting requirement(or equal enticement).
Make voting day tax day and everyone who votes gets a $100 credit. Then the biggest dodgers will be people who don’t pay their taxes. Would either party disagree with that? Double voters would have to submit taxes multiple times. Pretty easy to spot then… Not paying or receiving taxes? Then you don’t get to vote. Is that too restrictive?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2013 at 1102 hrs
Here’s the real reason we have the talk about voter fraud.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/06/the-real-gop-voter-fraud-employees-admit-forging-voter-registration-forms/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2013 at 2134 hrs
Dave, thanks for providing real evidence of voter fraud committed and prosecuted.
As to this bill, it is simply an attempt to limit voting because the Democrats are much better at getting people out early to vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 0956 hrs
So Dave believes this report, but hundreds of ACORN reported fraudulent practices are exaggeration… Grow up Dave, both parties continually work on getting extra votes and suppressing other party votes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1001 hrs
It’s so much fun to read the comments section on voting rules and regulations. We get to read what elected Republicans really believe but try not to let slip in public.
Posted by Northern Pike on March 07, 2013 at 1044 hrs
I still say that making all of the restrictions for exercising ones rights the same. Can any one explain why one must pay and take a class in advance of paying and applying for a permit that requires an extensive and comprehensive background check and approval to exercise one right on top of proving identity. While another is a veritable free for all? The ramifications and possible outcomes cannot be a factor because one has shown to have greater, more far reaching and lasting damage than the other and yet the lesser threat carries the higher burden of rules, regulations, punishments, and requirements. I have the right to free travel and yet can be stopped randomly in the southwest for search and proof of identity. I have the right to keep and bear arms and yet it can cost upwards of many thousands of dollars(yes time has a cost too) and someone’s approval to exercise. This and yet what I am reading, is apparently I have the right to vote and so does anyone else…on the honor system. If ease of access to ones rights is so important then why not apply it across the board to all rights? Why such high hurdles for some and not others?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1110 hrs
Elections are largely about people. People (voters) present themselves to people (election officials) in order to cast ballots for other people (candidates). That’s the way it should be. It just isn’t that difficult to certify sufficient election officials and polling places. Nor is it an imposition on people that they present themselves to vote. Nor is it difficult to provide access for those who can’t reach a polling place unassisted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1208 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 06/19/2013 07:20 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).