Skip to main content

View Diary: Miami-Dade blocks voters standing in line from using the bathroom (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what does the DOJ (4+ / 0-)

    Have to do with how a state runs their own elections? Is there some federal law that I don't know about regarding bathroom facilities?

    •  It's called the Constitution (12+ / 0-)

      Section 4, Clause 1

      The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…
      and the Voting Rights Act, which forbids voter suppression against certain classes of people in any form.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:57:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Against classes of people who need to go pee? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlwaysDemocrat, OrganicChemist

        Sorry, I think this is a wretched choice by the State of Florida, but the sad fact is that it probably doesn't violate any laws.

        "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

        by auron renouille on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:12:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Against voters in Miami-Dade County... (9+ / 0-)

          If voters in Miami-Dade County have to choose between voting or peeing themselves, I would consider that an impediment to voting. Especially as Democratic voters hold a 2-1 registration advantage over Republicans.

          Are counties with Republican majorities also not going to be allowed to use restrooms?

          Anything that suppresses the vote is a bad idea, anything that suppresses the vote of one class is illegal.

          A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

          by falconer520 on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:17:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I think it violates the VRA, (14+ / 0-)

          not to mention, this solution does not actually solve the ADA noncompliance violation that county clerk pretended it solves.  People who need handicapped bathrooms still need them in a place of public accommodation, which polling places are on Election Day.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:37:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This discriminates against the class of humans (14+ / 0-)

          If voting only takes 10 minutes, as it does in my well-to-do suburb, no problem.  But six hours? If you don't have to urinate in that time period, you aren't drinking enough water.  

          This is an unduly burdensome decision that impairs voting rights.  Especially given the lack of adequate means to vote in places like Miami-Dade.  If you have not visited and been an observer in places where there are long lines, I urge you to.  This can be a huge burden on voters for reasons ranging from infirmity, to the need to get to or return to work.   Putting those stories into evidence can develop the framework to make a winning case on this issue.  

          I have talked to hundreds of such people in lines like this.  From WWII vets to people voting for the first time in their sixties (to elect a president who finally put forth a message that spoke to them), to first time 18 year-olds struggling to establish a place for themselves in the labor market. For a lot of people - lots of our people - voting is hard.  Again, putting those stories into evidence can develop the framework to make a winning case on this issue.  

          Making voting harder is discrimination regardless of the details of the legal analysis of the subject class.  Making it harder happens for one reason only, and that reason goes back to the efforts to limit voting to wealthy, educated, landowners.  Making it harder by eliminating the chance to void ones bladder or bowels is, in my opinion, beyond the pale for even Justice Kennedy.  

          Accordingly, I disagree with your legal analysis and respectfully urge you to choose the alternative of supporting a challenge on legal grounds whether or not it violates current law.  This is how law is changed.    

          If we do not maintain Justice, Justice will not maintain us. -Sir Francis Bacon.

          by Res Ipsa Loquitor on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:44:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Against classes of people who need to go pee? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raspberryberet

          This action violates the laws regarding people with disabilities.

          I have never heard of a government body fixing their accessibility issues by closing a facility.

          And, why does anyone have to wait 6 hours to vote? How incompetent are these people?

          •  It's not incompetentcy. It's intentional harrass- (0+ / 0-)

            -ment of voters attempting to vote.  And not just the bathrooms but the long lines.  Voting machines should be distributed on the basis of percentages of registered voters in each county.. period.

        •  auron (0+ / 0-)

          Don't you think there are state laws that require restrooms be available to the public in polling places? I would think that is true in every state, but of course, I don't know that for certain. I will try googling and see what I come up with.

          •  If you can find one, cite it. (0+ / 0-)

            I would be shocked if you found it.

            "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

            by auron renouille on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  exactly. each state decides (0+ / 0-)

        how to run its own elections. Start to finish, from registration to tallying votes. Each state has their own laws. If...a state violates the voting rights act, then...the DOJ steps in. And the voting rights act got gutted if I'm remembering correctly.

        •  SCOTUS threw out most of preclearance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peregrine kate

          based on the obvious lie that the 1960s formula does not apply today when the same kinds of behavior are going on, but not any of the rules on what constitutes a violation. We have the more difficult road of waiting until suppression measures are implemented and then going to court, instead of DoJ saying Nuh-uh when suppression is proposed.

          There is still a way to put states, counties, and cities on the preclearance list for bad behavior. It's just harder than applying the previous rule that looked at their history.

          When we take the House again and nuke the filibuster on legislation we can write new preclearance rules with a new formula.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:10:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They gutted section 5. (0+ / 0-)

          That took away federal review for any new voting rules in 15 states that had a history of discriminating against minority voters.  All of the rules and regs still stand.   That's how Rick Scott got smacked down on his recent voter purge attempts.

          America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

          by Back In Blue on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:24:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site