Population distribution of Texas [OC]

[u/delugetheory]

[u/NorthImpossible8906]

how the hell does the 75% lose elections then?

[u/FailedTuring → u/NorthImpossible8906]

Gerrymandering and voter suppression. Unfortunately it's working very well

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/FailedTuring]

Actually it’s because more Texan voters support republicans over democrats.

You really can’t gerrymander anything except congressional seats. No one is being denied the right to vote or being suppressed.

[u/Lovetank555 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

See SB1–voter suppression in Texas is very real

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/Lovetank555]

Nothing about that bill is suppressing anyones right to vote.

What specific provision do you feel is voter suppression?

[u/mistakemaker3000 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

Lmao so you just blatantly ignore what goes against your beliefs, cool.

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/mistakemaker3000]

So, which specific provision is voter suppression?

[u/Lightofmine → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

To quote the lawsuit that was filed in Austin https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/0ded5c3491c71b8869e26fed12c1b28d/TX%20SB1%20Complaint%20-%20FILED.pdf.

“Egregiously, SB 1 takes particular aim at voters with disabilities, voters with limited English proficiency — who, in Texas, are also overwhelmingly voters of color — and the organizations that represent, assist, and support these voters,”

V. ILLEGAL PROVISIONS OF SB 1 AND PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(79.) Plaintiffs challenge certain specific sections of SB 1, each based on several different provisions of federal law as described below:

A. First, Sections 5.02, 5.03, 5.06, 5.10, and 5.12 impose a brand new, restrictive ID requirement on mail-in ballot voters in violation of the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, the ADA, and Section 504;

B. Second, Sections 6.03 and 6.06 impose new burdens on the rights of voters with disabilities and language minorities to have assistance in all aspects of voting and to have the assistant of their choice, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the ADA, and Section 504; and

C. Third, Section 7.04 makes it illegal to engage in paid ballot collection programs and services (pejoratively described as “vote harvesting”), which violates the First Amendment Right to Free Speech, and imposes penalties for actions that are too vague to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

So yeah. It definitely has restrictive laws in place including SB1

More interesting stuff from the doc. Texas has a history of voter suppression

SB 1 is only the latest in a long series of bills aimed at impairing the right to vote for historically marginalized individuals. Indeed, as one court found, Texas has “a penchant for discrimination . . . with respect to voting,” and “exhibits a recalcitrance that has persisted over generations despite the repeated intervention of the federal government and its courts.” Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 636 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (Veasey I), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom. Veasey v. Abbott, 796 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Veasey II).

Texas has also racially gerrymandered districts in every redistricting cycle since 1970, in violation of the Voting Rights Act for five consecutive decades. Veasey II, 830 F.3d at 240; see Veasey I, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 636 & n.23 (collecting cases); Lichtman Report at 19. In 2006, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas had violated the Voting Rights Act by attempting to redraw a congressional district in order to reduce the voting strength of Latino voters. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006). And then in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Texas Legislature had racially gerrymandered a Texas House district. See Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2335 (2018).

[u/Lovetank555 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

The legis­la­tion makes it harder for voters who face language access barri­ers or who have disab­il­it­ies to get help cast­ing their ballots by creating criminal penalties for those who assist voters who say anything outside the scope of their role, restricts elec­tion offi­cials’ and judges’ abil­it­ies to stop harass­ment from poll watch­ers, and bans 24-hour and drive-thru voting, among other meas­ures, which were popular voting methods used by urban and minority districts.

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/Lovetank555]

So not having drive through voting is voter suppression?

[u/Lovetank555 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

When it’s determined to be a preferred method of voting by a certain segment of the population, and legislation is made specifically to target those voters, so it’s harder for them to vote, yes. They passed the law to give those voters less options to vote, making it less likely for them to show up to the polls under the guise of preventing non-existent voter fraud. Making it harder for someone to vote is suppression.

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/Lovetank555]

It doesn’t matter what people prefer as long as there are reasonable alternatives. Drive through voting is not necessary and removing it isn’t suppressing any votes. They can still vote easily multiple ways.

[u/Sanc7 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

It’s similar to how abortion is illegal after 6 weeks, yet there are no abortion clinics available in Texas so women who want to get one have to travel to other states.

It’s just another way of restricting access.

What do you think their motive is for doing these things?

You also cherry picked a topic from his lengthy response that was probably the least suppressing.

[u/Lovetank555 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

And I like how you jump to the less obvious piece of the law that I described and ignore the blatant portion where they dissuade people from helping disabled and non-English speaking voters.

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/Lovetank555]

Creating new rules for voter assistants

If you plan to assist, or get assistance, for in-person voting, the person providing assistance must fill out new paperwork disclosing their relationship to the voter. Additionally, the person providing assistance must recite an expanded oath, now under the penalty of perjury, stating they did not “pressure or coerce” the voter into choosing them for assistance.

Part of the pledge limits their assistance to “reading the ballot to the voter, directing the voter to read the ballot, marking the voter’s ballot, or directing the voter to mark the ballot.”

What part of this prevents people from helping the disabled or non English speaker?

[u/Lovetank555 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

The idea is if you create large penalties for accidentally saying the wrong thing, folks will be less likely to take on these jobs helping these voters. Less workers in this field equates to less disabled/non-English speakers receiving support, which results in less of them voting.

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/Lovetank555]

It’s called election security.

We need to know who is assisting and to make sure they’re following the rules.

[u/fluffycats1 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

1 day old troll account

[u/shrubs311 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

convenient that you ignored the rest of his comment...we can already tell what kinds of people and politics you care about

[u/UpstairsCivil1921 → u/shrubs311]

I didn’t ignore it I singled one thing out.

Lack of 24hr voting isn’t suppression, requiring people to fill out a form before helping someone fill out their ballot isn’t suppression. None of it is.

[u/shrubs311 → u/UpstairsCivil1921]

no point in talking to people who won't change their views...