but what recourse can people take whove been illegally removed from rolls and are denied their right to vote?

i mean, one would assume you could sue the shit out of the state and the fed for something like that if you can prove youre registered and have been voting for years

so they still cannot legally do it until after the primary. But that is still no go...The election is only 2months and 3 weeks after the primary, so they still can't legally do it.

repigs districts as well. But y'know Scott won't do that. He's got this marching orders from his corporate masters.

none of that might help.

CORRECT.

And it is legal (these 'purge' lists). NOT the way they are doing it though.... This is what matters.

And they will CONTINUE to do this EVERYWHERE. They will continue to use our time and our resources until the root issues are dealt with.

They WILL eventually get what they want if this is not done. It is WHY they do what they DO.


PERIOD.

The ROOT issue as I see it is simple: TREASON

That is, what it is.

The progression continues...

IF people would acknowledge that, and that is JUST, then you have THEM by the balls. It is TIME for ACTION.

AND we can start dealing with real problems...

PEOPLE NEED TO PUT THE REAL PICTURE TOGETHER. DO NOT LET THEM DO IT FOR YOU. OTHERWISE IT CONTINUES.
THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY DO. THEY DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW IT. THIS, F&F,






ALL OF IT.

if NONE of this HAPPENS. Then you either MOVE, or you open the NEXT Chapter of what this BOOK IS.

It is your choice and it is a very SIMPLE one.


Meanwhile, the progression continues....and the clock ticks. This is the real world. SEE it for what it is, anything else ultimately is a waste of time.

The notices sent out by the State of Florida tell people they have been removed from the voter lists and it's up to the individual to prove they are legally registered.

I spent my entire working career in the field of law. It was always my understanding that one's rights couldn't be taken away without due process of law (i.e., a trial and conviction). And furthermore, under the Constitution people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

So how can the state, without a trial and conviction, unilaterally declare that an individual is deprived of his/her right to vote? Isn't there something basically wrong with this? It's utterly backwards -- they should prove that an individual is illegally registered to vote before depriving them of their right to vote.

What am I missing here?

"Ninety days of an election" is not what one might call an ambiguous phrase. And even the Republicans have not yet been able to change the definition of a "day."

-- Mal