Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (1) |
Author: ptheland 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 84346 
Subject: A couple court decisions
Date: 07/11/24 7:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
Wisconsin appeals court. Absentee ballots.

Wisconsin requires absentee ballots to have a witness, and that witness needs to include their address as part of their witness statement. But the law does not specify what constitutes an address. Republicans in the state have tried to invalidate ballots that contain incomplete address for the witness (examples include missing zip codes or missing city, particularly common when spouses act as witnesses for each other - they share an address and a complete address can easily be determined if portions are omitted). The lower court decided that as long as the address was sufficient to identify a location where the witness could be contacted, it was acceptable. The appeals court has generally affirmed that decision.

democracydocket.com - Absentee ballots wont be thrown out for witness address variations wisconsin court of appeals rules

US District Court, Alabama. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Section 2 of the VRA contains the enforcement provisions. One recent attack on the VRA is to claim that Section 2 does not contain a "private right of action", which is the ability of individuals or groups of individuals to file suit to enforce the VRA. That would mean that only the Department of Justice could enforce the VRA. The 8th Circuit court has ruled that there is no private right of action, but that only applies to that circuit. 3 other Circuits have ruled that there is a private right of action.

Today's ruling upholds this private right in Alabama, and will allow the current case regarding redistricting in Alabama to continue.

democracydocket.com - Federal court rejects republican call to weaken voting rights act

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to ptheland here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (1) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community