2026 Midterm Thread

#451
#451
BigOrangeMojo said:
Just saying the Dems, in this scenario, could use the fact that House races are "federal" and could pass some law that gives them the authority to draw federal Congressional districts. Their argument could be Rs used Congressional power to overrule Article 1, Section 4 so we will do the same thing.

Just saying, the additional federal involvement could be a double edged sword when you arent in power...
Click to expand...
I'm not too keen on playing the "Name That Fallacy" game (it's the slippery slope fallacy, fwiw).

Again, I believe that in federal elections, the federal government should get a say in how voters are registered/verified, and how ballots are handled. I'm not interested in being afraid to do what's right because someone might do something wrong some day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
#459
#459
GOP state legislatures may have stacked the deck just enough to preserve their slim majorities.
 
#462
#462
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not too keen on playing the "Name That Fallacy" game (it's the slippery slope fallacy, fwiw).

Again, I believe that in federal elections, the federal government should get a say in how voters are registered/verified, and how ballots are handled. I'm not interested in being afraid to do what's right because someone might do something wrong some day.
Click to expand...

Trampling on the Constitution isnt right.

There is no such thing as a "federal election." The Constitution gives states the right (with minimal exceptions) to run elections as they see fit. I live in Tennessee. The people of Tennessee needs to decide the way they want to run their election and who they will send to Washington. Not someone from California or Oregon. We can't be for "let the states decide on abortion" and flip flop and take power away from states for a Constitutionally stipulated activity...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Carl Pickens, MercyPercy and 2 others
#463
#463
BigOrangeMojo said:
Trampling on the Constitution isnt right.
Click to expand...

WTH are you taking about?

BigOrangeMojo said:
There is no such thing as a "federal election."
Click to expand...

I'll say it again. I believe that the Federal gov't has and should have the right to oversee how voters are registered/verified, and how ballots are handled, in elections that affect federal offices. If states want to have a separate process for their state and local elections, then so be it.

BigOrangeMojo said:
The Constitution gives states the right (with minimal exceptions) to run elections as they see fit. I live in Tennessee. The people of Tennessee needs to decide the way they want to run their election and who they will send to Washington. Not someone from California or Oregon. We can't be for "let the states decide on abortion" and flip flop and take power away from states for a Constitutionally stipulated activity...
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about?


Article I Legislative Branch​

  • Section 4 Congress​

    • Clause 1 Elections Clause
    • 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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Click to expand...



By providing Congress power to preempt state election procedures, the Framers sought to prevent states from thwarting the Federal Government’s operation by using state law to manipulate or preclude elections for the House of Representatives.9 For example, during the Constitutional Convention Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania expressed concern that the States might make false returns and then make no provision for new elections,10 while Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist Papers that Nothing can be more evident than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy.11 Despite the Elections Clause providing Congress power to preempt state law governing elections, Congress did not exercise this power until 1842 when it passed a law requiring that Representatives be elected on a district basis.12 Congress subsequently added contiguity, compactness, and substantial equality of population to districting requirements.13
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and Orangeburst
#464
#464
hog88 said:
Still not a “federal election”.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't seem interested in playing semantics on this. (It's the language used by the SCOTUS in defending the position that I am sharing. Is this word play really productive?)

Again, I believe that the Federal gov't has and should have the right to oversee how voters are registered/verified, and how ballots are handled, in elections that affect federal offices. If states want to have a separate process for their state and local elections, then so be it. (But that seems a bit silly unless the feds impose something stupid on elections for federal offices.)

In the Court’s 1997 decision, Foster v. Love, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision that, under the Elections Clause, federal law preempted a Louisiana statute governing congressional elections.14 The Foster Court noted that while states can prescribe regulations governing the Times, Places and Manner of holding elections, Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.15 The Court stated:
Click to expand...

<SCOTUS quote below>
The [Elections] Clause is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections but only so far as Congress declines to pre-empt state legislative choices. Thus, it is well settled that the Elections Clause grants Congress ‘the power to override state regulations’ by establishing uniform rules for federal elections, binding on the States. ‘The regulations made by Congress are paramount to those made by the State legislature; and if they conflict therewith, the latter so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.'16
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
#469
#469
Orange_Crush said:
The Constitution doesn't seem interested in playing semantics on this. (It's the language used by the SCOTUS in defending the position that I am sharing. Is this word play really productive?)

Again, I believe that the Federal gov't has and should have the right to oversee how voters are registered/verified, and how ballots are handled, in elections that affect federal offices. If states want to have a separate process for their state and local elections, then so be it. (But that seems a bit silly unless the feds impose something stupid on elections for federal offices.)



<SCOTUS quote below>


Click to expand...
As a follow up, here's an interesting article.
thefederalist.com

How Senate GOP Can SAVE Trump’s Presidency And Wreck Dems

A voter ID filibuster would be a 24/7 GOP campaign ad.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com

We hear about a 60 vote requirement in the senate to pass anything.
This article is saying that the 60 vote requirement is just to end the debate before everyone has had their say. In other words, Republicans can put it on the floor and each senator can filibuster till they pass out or have to leave to use the bathroom, etc. They can each talk two times. Then it's automatically time to vote with 51 votes settling the question. It's just inconvenient to wait for everyone on the other side to filibuster until they can't anymore.
 
#470
#470
Trump yesterday: “Everybody knows I won the election.” No Donald, “everybody” does not know that. Maybe your loyal leg humpers erroneously think that but nobody else believes it. And 63 courts don’t believe it either. It has been SIX years and we’re still waiting for a meaningful fraud finding. Just because you keep repeating that lie means spit.

Personally I think this voting nationalization junk is a front his fears that the mid terms are up in the air and that public opinion is slipping away on a number of subjects even among his supporters. The longer it goes, the more desperate he is going to get.
 
#475
#475
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...



abc7.com

2024 election fact check: Noncitizens can't vote, and instances are 'vanishingly rare'

Former President Donald Trump and Republican leaders across the country have for months characterized the alleged scourge of noncitizen voting as a pressing threat to a free and fair election, using heated rhetoric to suggest that widespread illegal voting could tilt the scales toward Democrats...
abc7.com abc7.com

False.

Instances of illegal immigrants voting is extremely rare.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top