ALEC announces the end of its non-economic task force
posted at 7:11 pm on April 17, 2012 by Tina Korbe
The American Legislative Exchange Council will disband the task force that tackled non-economic issues like election fraud. From ALEC’s official statement:
“Today we are redoubling our efforts on the economic front, a priority that has been the hallmark of our organization for decades. Fostering the exchange of pro-growth, solutions-oriented ideas is precisely why ALEC exists.
“To that end, our legislative board last week unanimously agreed to further our work on policies that will help spur innovation and competitiveness across the country.
“We are refocusing our commitment to free-market, limited government and pro-growth principles, and have made changes internally to reflect this renewed focus.
“We are eliminating the ALEC Public Safety and Elections task force that dealt with non-economic issues, and reinvesting these resources in the task forces that focus on the economy. The remaining budgetary and economic issues will be reassigned.”
It’s hard to dispute ThinkProgress’ gleeful claim that this announcement by the American Legislative Exchange Council signifies that progressive groups successfully pressured ALEC out of its support for Voter ID laws and other relatively conservative measures.
The group apparently couldn’t quite withstand the withdrawal of support by many of its sponsors in response to a boycott threat by the progressive group Color of Change.
ALEC’s decision was an unfortunate one, but, under the circumstances, it does make sense. They have a vested interest in keeping their focus narrow so as to retain support on both sides of the aisle and to continue to be effective at influencing legislation at the state level. At no time, though, did their support for Voter ID laws actually amount to an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. ALEC’s support for such laws amounted to a deep and abiding concern that illegitimate votes not water down the effect of legitimate votes — a concern that leaders of minority and progressive groups should share, but apparently don’t.
Most importantly, ALEC’s decision to sharpen its focus on economic issues doesn’t exonerate the corporations who succumbed to outside special interest groups to go against their own interests. As Michelle Malkin and Ed noted at the time, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Intuit, Kraft, Arby’s and Walgreens showed their true colors when they quickly abandoned ALEC. Apparently, they prioritize political correctness above all — even above free and fair elections, not to mention the free markets that enabled the success of such corporations in the first place.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I would submit that charging any ancillary fee is equivalent to a poll tax and violates the Constitition.
Ditto for any charges for gun licensing.
unclesmrgol on February 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM
AZ is affected as well…. time to go
Boy are the lsm in an uproar about it
But im not holding my breath….. john Roberts will probably disappoint again
cmsinaz on February 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Voting rights isn’t about “right”. It is about ensuring voter fraud.
antisense on February 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Dear leader trying to pressure the governors right now
cmsinaz on February 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Don’t deceive yourself Ed, the Supreme Court is not going to willingly nor accidentally take away the Democrats only true winning advantage.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 11:31 AM
We’re back to the purple ink.
Bob's Kid on February 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM
If you lose your drivers license, do they charge you to replace the one you lost?
Everyone gets a birth certificate, if you lose it, for $12 bucks you get something to replace it for I.D. purposes…or use your birth certificate, or get a duplicate bc.
Just because someone is irresponsible, doesn’t mean we have to pay for their negligence.
right2bright on February 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM
When the law was last renewed democrats changed the wording to make it easier for voter ID laws to be found discriminatory. Of course Republicans caved and voted in favor of the new law instead of demanding that the language remain the same as before.
Wigglesworth on February 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM
I would go on record for a return of the poll tax. It keeps the freeloaders from voting.
nobar on February 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Then they will have a hard time enforcing I.D. for gun purchases…that’s the box that the libs have put themselves in.
Either you need I.D. for both, or neither…
right2bright on February 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM
I think anyone who makes their living on the Government dole, should not be allowed to vote, since it’s a conflict of interest…
That includes the politician’s…as well as welfare recipients.
right2bright on February 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Whatever. LIB.
Mr. Arrogant on February 25, 2013 at 11:39 AM
I’d be willing to go with the following.
Poll tax = federal budget / number of voters. The government functions on the money paid by the voters who put it into power.
astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM
I haven’t read it and don’t know what it does, but how could anyone be against something called the “Voting Rights Act”? It smacks of Jim Crow, slavery, Hitler and Satan.
forest on February 25, 2013 at 11:43 AM
This whole thing is so stupid! There are so many examples where you HAVE to have a photo ID! Why is it that voting is one the d’s don’t think you should be required to have one, because any person can vote if/if not they are LEGAL citizens! And some, maybe thousands voted more than once?
L
letget on February 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM
I guess if Early Voting can’t be made perfect, they should do away with it altogether, after all, you can still get an absentee ballot if you are not able to go to the polls on election day.
I don’t think you have a constitutional right to early voting. It is a real burden on the clerks offices, because with an absentee ballot you submit it, they look you up when they want to and process it when they have the time. With early voting, people are waiting in line while people have problems over where they are registered, and voting provisionally, and the voters expect to be waiting on that second. The towns can’t handle it because it is not election day. On election day they are ready for the crowds, the questions, the provisional ballots, and they don’t have to do their usual jobs as well.
Fleuries on February 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I love how they’re pointing to FL and OH as being the problems when neither state is covered under the preclearance section. Voting is very easy. It’s generally on more than one day. Geez.
Illinidiva on February 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM
The Constitution is pretty clear on the inalienable right to early voting.
“ever popular” is not a principle of jurisprudence.
BobMbx on February 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM
would submit that charging any ancillary fee is equivalent to a poll tax and violates the Constitition.
Ditto for any charges for gun licensing.
unclesmrgol on February 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM
I would disagree, the nominal fee is for getting the replacement birth certificate not for the ID, and even if it were it would not be for the act of voting, just to show your eligibility to vote. Hence, no poll tax, per se.
D-fusit on February 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM
A quick google math search pulled a number north of 20 grand per vote (at current budget and voter estimates). I get what you were going for though.
nobar on February 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM
What exactly is your problem with poll taxes? Because a sissy in a black robe decided that it is bad? Hey, another sissy said that Obamacare is a tax – did you like that decision, too?
Archivarix on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Kill each and every kind of federal taxation and I’ll be with you on that.
Archivarix on February 25, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Ohio tried to promote the absentee process this past cycle. Heck even I voted by absentee, as quite frankly, I made up my mind long ago on who I was going to vote for.
The early voting process is only so that Dems can bus in as many college students and unionistas as possible into the polling places so as to goose the vote total in their favor (I even saw this happen when I was still a college student, as a fair number of people have). It was a mistake from the get-go and deserves to be abolished for all eternity.
Myron Falwell on February 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM
ANY gun licensing, registration or restrictions regardless of whether their are any fee’s involved are unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of if not the single most simple, straight forward and crystal clear right refereed to in the Bill of Rights.
It requires that one be personally dishonest with themselves as well as everyone else they come in contact with to fail to grasp the indisputable meaning behind the 2nd Amendment.
It starts off by informing everyone who reads it, exactly what the Founding Fathers thought of the Professional Military’s of any and every Nation. That in the end, those Military’s would be loyal not to the citizens, but to the State.
It then proceeds to provide remedy and relief to the problem associated with a State Military being employed against the citizens of the United States of America.
It provides this remedy and relief in as simple and indisputable of terms imaginable, terms that no English speaking person could possibly misunderstand or confuse.
Right in that statement, “The right of the People” any liberal dream or hope of a legal penumbra is obliterated. That statement, “The right of the People” makes it incontrovertibly and indisputably clear that firearms owners and the right to carry them on ones person, whether concealed or openly, was not being conferred by the 2nd amendment, but was an already existing right that under no circumstances what so ever was the Federal or State Governments of the United States of America to ever infringe upon.
The 2nd amendment does not give anyone the right to keep or bear a firearm. It is a legal injunction permanently and completely baring the Federal or State Governments from ever restricting, abridging, halting, interfering with or infringing upon the firearms ownership of any citizen.
In the phrase “Shall not be infringed” the choice of the word “Infringed” was no accident, it was not a negotiated compromise that finally settled upon the word, “Infringed”.
The Founding Fathers were educated highly intelligent men who were 100 percent cognizant with the definition and historical origins of the word “Infringe”.
“Shall” derives from the Old English “sceal” meaning “must”. in other words, shall not=Must Not. Thus “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” incontrovertibly and indisputably means that no free citizen of the United States of America shall ever be restricted, prohibited or denied the right to own a firearm and to carry that firearm on their person.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM
…I think homo Holder’s job… is to keep the Supremes busy!
KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2013 at 12:14 PM
I would like to be optimistic about how the Supreme Court will act on this, but with John Roberts still drawing a paycheck…
Myron Falwell on February 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM
I live in a university town. The population is a ‘mish-mash’ of ethinicties. We have a mixed-race ‘president’. I’m tired of ‘minorities’ getting an easier ride than the rest of us. It’s long past due to revise/scrap the VRA!
annoyinglittletwerp on February 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM
The ultimate voting rights law is to allow only American who are not retired and are paying income taxes to vote… Americans who are not retired who are in working age and are not paying taxes shall not vote.
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Ok, that is just plain stupid and bigoted. With that single phrase of imbecilic stupidity you have just erased the entire sufferance movement. You have just stripped every stay at home mom of her voting rights. Like I said, pure imbecilic stupidity.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM
I agree on getting rid of Early Voting. However, the absentee should be for those who will be out of the country. And I say, if you aren’t in country, then you need to go to the nearest embassy or military base and cast your vote while showing your valid ID. For those serving in active military, they can have from mid-October to report to a base to cast their vote. No mailing in votes that get lost on the way.
LoganSix on February 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM
I like David Weber’s idea of the “poll tax” as implemented in the Star Kingdom of Manticore: The taxpayer-funded services an individual receives are subtracted from their own tax burden. If the number is positive, even by one penny, they can vote. If it is negative, no vote.
Sekhmet on February 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM
If they do not pay taxes they shall not vote. This applies to both men and women who are not retired and in working age.
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM
So, any veteran disabled in the service of the United States of America should be deprived of their right to vote unless they are employed, despite being disabled. Yea, sorry, cannot accept that. Also cannot accept that any woman who happens to be a stay at home mom should be deprived of her right to vote because she is not “Employed” either.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM
That is wrong on so many levels it isn’t even funny.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM
The whole law is unconstitutional anyway. You can’t hold some states to a certain standard then other states to another.
Also, the Constitution left control of elections to the States, except in three instances of amendment (mandating that blacks can vote, mandating that women can vote, and mandating that 18 year olds can vote).
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM
I agree.
With your W-2 form each year should be your voter ID card, certifying that you paid taxes and are eligible to vote.
People who bear no consequences for their vote should not be allowed to vote.
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM
So you are OK with the parasites welfare queens and kings who are living on taxpayers expense to vote… You think that this will be against the stay at home moms and I really do not give a damn about them. If they do not pay taxes they shall not vote…
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Libs don’t have a problem with double standards…until they do.
Odysseus on February 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM
And that will be the law of the land in our next Republic, if we are fortunate to have one.
Allowing everyone who breathes the right to vote and counting them equally whether they be producer or parasite has proven to be the death of this country. There is no check and balance possible on that, thus the whole thing goes off the rails, since once the Looters achieve a voting majority (which they now have) there is nothing short of civil war that can stop them from looting the public treasury dry and causing the complete collapse of our economy and government.
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM
A) it’s a fascist proposal and has no place what so ever in a Constitutional Republic.
B) it is an open invitation to the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to bite your a$$ clean off.
C) it disenfranchises every citizen who looses their job or otherwise becomes unemployed for any reason. Or does not have a job due to various personal or family obligations.
Furthermore, it singles you out as a misogynist.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Allowing people who contribute nothing to vote for politicians who promise to take my labor and property to give to them isn’t fascist?
How? If you don’t own a share of stock, you aren’t permitted to vote at shareholder’s meetings of a corporation. If you don’t pay any taxes, why should you get a say in the direction of our government? You have “no skin” in the game.
If it matters that much to you that’s a lot of incentive to get off your butt and GET a job, isn’t it?
And if you meet your personal or family obligations by expecting other taxpayers to feed you, why should you be allowed to vote yourself more cheese when you don’t earn anything?
I’m just as in favor of taking the vote away from welfare seeders as I am breeders. How is that misogynist?
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Did you know that only property owners were allowed to vote until 1850?… If you do not like it pick it up with the Founding Fathers…
I will have an exception for part C about the unemployed, however if they stay unemployed for more than 3 years and on elections day they lose their right to vote in the next elections and they will get back their right to votes once they get a job.
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Did I say that such a law applies only to women?… Seriously idiot get the f*** off from being so stupid…
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 1:00 PM
I vote absentee because of mobility issues. My voting location is at a mega church with multiple wings, all parking is FAR from each door, including handicap spots, and usually they don’t have seating options while waiting in line. In 2008, the line was 45 minutes during working hours and it damn near killed me (knee pain). That is the last time I voted in person on Election Day. They only had one sit down voting machine and there was another wait for that one, too.
So don’t be so dismissive of why some people vote absentee even if they are not traveling on Election Day.
A few days ago, I drove an extra 10 miles to a DMV office to renew my driver’s license. The office closest to me is inside a huge shopping center, very far from any outside entrance, handicap parking is very far from the entrances, too. And there is no casual seating in the middle of that indoor center on the way to the inner entrance of that DMV office. When I went there in 2006 when I moved here, that hike damn near killed me, too. The location I drove to a few days ago had a direct outside entrance and parking no more than 30 feet from the door.
Thankfully, I don’t have to go in person again for another 8 years. And MI just enacted its own voter ID so that license is needed to vote. I made the effort to get my state ID, anyone else can, too. In fact, we have a regional tax that covers mobility impaired people who can’t make it to a bus stop and can’t drive. So for $5 they get a subsidized van ride from their front door and back when they have appointments to get to, which would include the state ID for voting. So there is no excuse to not have one for anyone who wants to vote who is legally allowed to vote.
karenhasfreedom on February 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM
this disabled vet thanks you
/sarc
dmacleo on February 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Exactly… Parasites will vote only to get more money from the producers and hence they vote for the destruction of the nation… Therefore they shall not be allowed to vote…
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM
You contributed to the country with your service.
There is a big difference between being disabled for a reason like that and refusing to work.
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Yep, bigoted and ignorant.
What? Equality under the law? Pshaw.
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Answered.
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM
As I suggested, your Voter ID comes as part of your W-2. Make it good from April 15 to April 15.
The consequences of restricting the voting franchise to actual taxpayers would create a situation where no one should ever have to go a year without a job unless they are lazy.
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 1:13 PM
She can influence her husband’s vote. Just as it was prior to the Progressives shoving the 19th Amendment down our throats along with a bunch of other horrible amendments in that era.
Or she can get a job. Just like the men. Oh, and sign up for the draft at 18.
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 1:15 PM
While the Founding Father were Brilliant men, that doesn’t mean they were infallible. Perhaps you should do your research just a little better to see what that statement makes you out to be.
You got that, you want to return to when ONLY WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS were allowed to vote.
Only 46% of woman in America are in the work force, you want to prohibit 54% of the women in America from voting, yes, that does make you a misogynist.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Assuming that number is true, I’d love to see a breakdown of it by ethnicity and region.
How much you want to bet that most of the non working types live in Liberal Utopian Urban Paradises like Detroit and Chicago?
wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM
If we were living in a Constitutional Republic and operating under the rule of law; that would be true. Neither of those conditions currently apply, and the law is whatever Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen decide at any given moment is in their immediate interest. It has no requirement for either consistency, or permanence. It will change at whim depending on who it benefits.
The good news is that laws created and applied without the consent of the governed lack legitimacy and probably will not be obeyed, with sequalae to those who impose them.
Subotai Bahadur on February 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM
You idiots are acting like a bunch of liberals… When all fail accuse others of bigotry… If the law applies to men and women and regardless of skin color or anything else how is it going to be bigoted… Now go and f*** yourself fool…
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM
Listen little f***… If the laws applies to men and women and regardless of skin color or anything else how is it going to be bigoted… Now go and f*** yourself fool…
mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Proposal: Amendment to the Constitution:
A flat $100 poll tax. 50% of all proceeds go to the feds, and the rest to the states where the voters reside in (absentees counted as regular voters, oversees and vets exempt).
nobar on February 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Psst, if she’s married, she’s probably not taking government money for anything, so any taxes she pays go over that one cent threshold. Non-working spouses can be assessed their “share” of the family filing.
There can be an exemption for disabled military, or others injured in service to the country (such as intelligence agents, FBI agents, and the like).
Sekhmet on February 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM
How do the 54% of non-working women put food on the table? If it’s from their husbands, great. If it’s from you and me, no votey.
Sekhmet on February 25, 2013 at 1:34 PM
STFD and STFU. You want to use what the Founding Fathers did as a rule, then suck it up fool, the Founding Father made SLAVERY legal, no they weren’t always right. Yes, the Founding Father originally only allowed WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS the right to vote, and they were bigots and misogynists and so are you. You want to go back to what the Founding Fathers did, then there you are, a bigot and a misogynist, like I said, STFD and STFU.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 1:34 PM
The American Revolution was fought in part over the issue of voting. The Revolutionaries rejected the British argument that representation in Parliament could be virtual (that is, that English members of Parliament could adequately represent the interests of the colonists). Instead, the Revolutionaries argued that government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
This made many restrictions on voting seem to be a violation of fundamental rights. During the period immediately following the Revolution, some states replaced property qualifications with taxpaying requirements. This reflected the principle that there should be “no taxation without representation.” Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting.
By 1790, all states had eliminated religious requirements for voting. As a result, approximately sixty to seventy percent of adult white men could vote. During this time, six states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) permitted free African-Americans to vote. “
Seems it was pretty quick that the founders came around to letting blacks vote. Blacks that were not the property of a master who could dictate their votes that is.
As for poll taxes, I tend to think the people who pay for government should dictate EXACTLY what that government is. The way it is now, 50% of the population pays 97% of the income taxes. As you can see, the people who support the government slightly more than 3% have more than 50% of the potential votes in this nation. If you think that is moral, then you have problems. If you think that it is wise, you have problems, and if you think it is sustainable, that effectively 50% or more of the population is shielded from the cost of government, you are insane.
We have gone from the taxation without representation to representation without taxation. Both are equally evil and unjust.
astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 2:26 PM
Why do we vote at all anymore?
We’ve developed some really cool ways to find a winner.
Survivor: US Senate
We could have a show for every state, and they wouldn’t last as long as the campaigns currently do.
That, or resurrect “The Weakest Link” and let the politicians go at it there.
BobMbx on February 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM
So it’s in the hands of the smiling constitutional traitor in chief, Chief Justice John Roberts, who rewrote ObamaCare and shoved it down our throats.
The smart money will have the decision being just as Roberts’ hard left Harvard professor Laurence Tribe and Obama want the outcome, just like the ObamaCare decision was decided.
RJL on February 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Your lack of skill at argumentation and negotiation is not helpful to your supposed cause. You have suggested (without any caveats) a return to a system that was facially racially discriminatory. You have suggested that you don’t care if your idea would prevent otherwise good citizens from voting because they are women. You have frequently and consistently had to bowdlerize your responses to others here. When called out on these items, you have repeated your foul language and name-calling. Methinks the commenter doth protest too much.
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Uh…no he didn’t. And no one with a lick of reading comprehension skills could come to that conclusion. Nowhere in this thread did he say women should be prevented from voting because they are women. The only time he mentioned women at all was in response to someone else who brought up women.
Maybe if folks like you didn’t say he said things he didn’t say(like liberals tend to do), he wouldn’t be so angry.
And for the record, I’m not defending his plan. But if you’re going to disagree with him, at least disagree based on what he said, not something he didn’t say.
xblade on February 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM