Why are Republicans so opposed to vote by mail?

"Even as the rising American electorate gains momentum, new regressive laws, rulings, and maneuvers are threatening voting rights without facing the strict scrutiny that would come with an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

Enshrining an explicit right to vote in the Constitution would guarantee the voting rights of every citizen of voting age, ensure that every vote is counted correctly, and defend against attempts to effectively disenfranchise eligible voters. It would empower Congress to enact minimum electoral standards to guarantee a higher degree of legitimacy, inclusivity, and consistency across the nation, and give our courts the authority to keep politicians in check when they try to game the vote for partisan reasons."
https://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment

Republicans are constantly trying to screw people.

 

We already have this.
See Amendment 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26.

Nothing will endure this as there are always errors - but ONE of the steps toward this goal is a requirement for a valid, state-issued picture ID.

Democrats are constantly trying to cheat.

 

We used to force governments to get independent voting authorities. We let foxes guard the hen houses, and there is always disenfranchisement. Mostly by Republicans (check the documentation in the re-authorisation of the VRA), but also some Dems.

As Republican Judge Posner pointed out, new ID requirements are about supressing voting.

 

"We"? The US?
No. Never. The states are -the- voting authorities - always have been.

Indeed - voter ID will suppress the votes of those not able to legally vote.
Thsi is why Democrats oppose it.

 

Foreign governments.

"As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?”
Judge Posner (he's Republican)

 

And thus, completely irrelevant to what we do in the US.

Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Law Requiring Photo ID to Vote
A federal district court and, on appeal, the 7th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court found Indiana's requirement to be constitutionally valid and a reasonable restriction. Writing for the high court's majority, Justice Stephens (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy) held, "on the basis of the record made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes excessively burdensome requirements on any class of voters." Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, joined the majority and defended the delegation of election administration powers to the states under Article 1, Section 4: "t is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes except when it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elect...preme-court-upholds-indiana-photo-id-law.aspx

 

Sure, if you want dirty elections.

 

Note how elections are only "dirty" when Democrats lose.

 

Note how you run away from the obvious...

 

As you just did.

 

Explicitly right to vote on what and when? When your state/county/city holds an election what "explicit right to vote are you being denied"? Again there is federal voting, elections are governed by the states.

 

Because all elections are state elections.

 

The obvious bit is that an independent authority would bite equally.

But since Republicans depend on cheating...

 

Sorry should have read

Again there is no federal voting, elections are governed by the states. The proposed amendment he linked to is wide open gobbledygook that would virtually turn all control of elections to the federal government..........what utter folly to believe the States would vote for that.

 

If you want an "independent authority" to control your elections then appoint one in YOUR state where you vote, keep mine out of it.

 

I accept the implicit admission you want to keep things dirty.

Not that there is any surprise there.

 

Speaking for myself, it's not so much that I'm opposed to voting by mail, as I am concerned about the efficacy of doing so. Voting is extremely important. And voting by mail is like putting all your eggs into one basket. It's risky, unnecessary and has never been done before in total. So we have no safeguards while adversaries and disruptors of Democratic elections await, measuring and scheming.

 

I accept you have to make things up when you can't support your own position.

 

If true, the Democrats will oppose any such idea as it would result investigations of the elections they win, and how they cheated to do so.

 

-Some- people do not understand the amendment process.
These people -usually- support an amendment to remove the electoral college and the 2nd Amendment.

 

Note how elections are only "dirty" when Democrats lose.
Not that there is any surprise there.

 

Dissembling won't help you.

An independent authority would come down on both sides equally, and you know it.

 

Your side faces the same problem every time. You need to substantiate your claims in court, and you never can...

 

Truth hurts, eh?

If true, the Democrats will oppose any such idea as it would result investigations of the elections they win, and how they cheated to do so.
And you know it.

 

Speaking of Vote by Mail:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/politics/vote-mail-texas-supreme-court/index.html