I Move To Amend House Substitute - Kansas Legislature: Fill & Download for Free

Reasons for Filibuster:Neil Gorsuch is not considered “mainstream” regarding his beliefs:Discrimination: In the National Review, Judge Gorsuch wrote:“American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”Neil Gorsuch“Judge Gorsuch’s hostility to the use of courts by discrimination victims to enforce their rights under the Constitution and federal law demonstrates his ideological agenda and has been reflected in his judicial decisions, particularly dissents and concurrences, during his decade on the bench.”Judge Gorsuch“Strickland v. UPS. In this case, the majority held that Carole Strickland, a UPS account executive, could proceed with a sex discrimination claim under Title VII based on evidence that she was treated worse than male colleagues despite her outperforming them in sales. Judge Gorsuch dismissed the evidentiary record and dissented; he voted to throw the victim’s discrimination claim out of court.”Judge Gorsuch“Weeks v. Kansas, writing for a conservative panel, Judge Gorsuch threw out another Title VII case where the plaintiff, Rebecca Weeks, was fired in retaliation for her advocating on behalf of two colleagues who had been discriminated against. In his opinion, Judge Gorsuch declined to consider a superseding Supreme Court decision that might have benefitted the plaintiff simply because she did not raise it in her briefs, a troubling approach because judges have a duty to consider relevant case law regardless of whether the parties have cited it.”Judge GorsuchImmigration:“In the closely-divided en banc decision in Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., Judge Gorsuch voted to affirm the district court’s granting of summary judgment which blocked a Title VII national origin discrimination case from going to trial despite evidence of animus, unlawful reverification, and document abuse by the employer. The lead concurrence in this case, which Judge Gorsuch joined, reflects an approach that insulates employers from liability for discrimination against immigrant workers so long as they claim that they were unaware of the law or took their actions due to a fear of sanction by federal immigration authorities – even where those actions themselves violated immigration law. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that if he were confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he would give great leeway to immigration enforcement strategies that use the fear of sanction against employers as a principal mechanism, and would condone employers hiding behind federal immigration laws to justify unlawful workplace practices.”Judge GorsuchWomen’s Health: “Judge Gorsuch has written or joined opinions that would restrict women’s health care, including allowing religious beliefs to override women’s access to birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood.”“Judge Gorsuch has supported religious institutions which objected to requirements for employers to provide access to contraception. In one of his most high-profile cases, he defended the religious owners of retailer Hobby Lobby who refused to fund birth control via staff health insurance.”Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as nominee for Supreme Court - BBC News“Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, Judge Gorsuch dissented from the majority’s decision to keep in place a preliminary injunction that stopped the state of Utah from blocking access to health care and education for thousands of Planned Parenthood's patients. If the policy had gone into effect, it would have cut off access to an after-school sex education program for teens and STD testing and treatment for at-risk communities.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdf“Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, Judge Gorsuch dissented from the majority’s decision approving the accommodation in the birth control benefit that allows non-profit employers to opt out of the benefit but makes sure the employees get birth control coverage. Judge Gorsuch joined a dissent that argued the simple act of filling out an opt-out form constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdf“Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, he signed on to an opinion allowing certain for-profit employers to refuse to comply with the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act. Citing to Citizens United v. FEC, the decision held that corporations can be “persons” with religious beliefs and that employers can use those religious beliefs to block employees’ insurance coverage of birth control.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdfLGBT Rights: “2005 National Review article Judge Gorsuch expressed disdain for those seeking to use the courts to enforce their rights under the law, and he specifically criticized LGBT Americans who have relied on federal courts in their quest for equality.”Gorsuch’s rationale he employed in the Hobby Lobby case – a license to discriminate for private corporations – has also been used by several states to justify discrimination against LGBT Americans.Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdfDruley v. Patton, Gorsuch “voted to reject a claim by a transgender woman incarcerated in Oklahoma who alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was denied medically necessary hormone treatment and the right to wear feminine clothing. Other federal courts have reached the opposite conclusion in such cases.”Judge GorsuchPolice Misconduct:In the case Wilson v. City of Lafayette, a 22-year-old man possessing marijuana was fleeing arrest, and a police officer shot him in the head with a stun gun from a distance of 10-15 feet away, which was contrary to the police department’s training manual. The young man, Ryan Wilson, died. Judge Gorsuch held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim, reasoning that the use of force was reasonable because the young man was fleeing arrest. The dissent in this case criticized Judge Gorsuch’s analysis and stated:‘In the present case, it would be unreasonable for an officer to fire a taser probe at Ryan Wilson’s head when he could have just as easily fired the probe into his back. The taser training materials note that officers should not aim at the head or throat unless the situation dictates a higher level of injury risk. Nothing about the situation here required an elevated level of force.’”Judge GorsuchStudents with Disabilities: “Judge Gorsuch has consistently ruled against students with disabilities seeking educational services to which they were entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”Judge Gorsuch“In A.F. v. Española Public Schools, he dismissed a claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the school district had previously settled a lawsuit with the student for IDEA violations. A dissenting judge in this case criticized Judge Gorsuch’s reasoning and observed: “This was clearly not the intent of Congress and, ironically enough, harms the interests of the children that IDEA was intended to protect.””Judge Gorsuch“In Garcia v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, Judge Gorsuch held that a student who left the school out of frustration with the school’s failure to follow the IDEA was entitled to no remedy. “Judge GorsuchIn Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P.,he held that a student with autism did not have a right under the IDEA to attend a private residential program, even though the district court and a Colorado Department of Education hearing officer determined that such a placement was necessary for Luke and that public schools had been unsuccessful in addressing his educational needs.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch’s Decisions Against Worker’s Rights:“opinions favor corporations over workers and he's shown ‘a stunning lack of humanity’ in some of those decisions” - Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch“Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine requires deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as the interpretation is reasonable, which has resulted in the safeguarding of workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, food safety, and many other protections for people’s health and well-being. Judge Gorsuch believes that judges should make these decisions instead of agencies with the relevant expertise, which would lead to a dramatic expansion of the power and role of the judiciary. He would relegate this vital precedent to the dustbin of history because it disfavors the corporate interests he championed as a lawyer and as a judge. As several commentators have noted, Judge Gorsuch’s cramped view of the Chevron doctrine is even more extreme than the views of Justice Antonin Scalia.”Judge GorsuchCorporate Bias:“Judge Gorsuch’s judicial activism was on display last year in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, where he issued a lengthy concurrence to an opinion he himself had written – a signal that his colleagues refused to sign on to his ideological agenda.”Judge Gorsuch“In his concurrence, he questioned the constitutional legitimacy of a decades-old binding precedent, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine requires deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as the interpretation is reasonable, which has resulted in the safeguarding of workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, food safety, and many other protections for people’s health and well-being. Judge Gorsuch believes that judges should make these decisions instead of agencies with the relevant expertise, which would lead to a dramatic expansion of the power and role of the judiciary. He would relegate this vital precedent to the dustbin of history because it disfavors the corporate interests he championed as a lawyer and as a judge. As several commentators have noted, Judge Gorsuch’s cramped view of the Chevron doctrine is even more extreme than the views of Justice Antonin Scalia.”Judge GorsuchMoney in Politics: “Judge Gorsuch expressed openness to providing a higher level of constitutional protection to a donor’s right to make political contributions than the Court at times has provided the right to vote.”Judge Gorsuch“In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, he wrote a separate concurrence that suggested courts should afford strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional protection, to political contribution limits. That view puts Gorsuch among the ranks of judges who are extremely hostile to campaign finance reform measures and would essentially gut the ability of Congress and the states to set any reasonable limits on money in our elections.””Judge GorsuchEnvironmental Protection: “Judge Gorsuch’s rejection of the binding Chevron decision, which prevents judges from substituting their judgment for that of federal agencies with expertise, betrays a general hostility to regulatory agencies and regulatory safeguards that protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife.”Judge Gorsuch“In United States v. Nichols, he wrote a lengthy dissent that tried to revive an obscure legal doctrine that could strike down many significant environmental laws.”Judge Gorsuch“In Wilderness Society v. Kane County, he concurred with a decision to dismiss a claim brought by several environmental organizations asserting that a county ordinance that opened a large stretch of federal land to off-highway vehicles was preempted by federal law. The dissent in this case observed that the majority holding “will have long-term deleterious effects on the use and management of federal public lands.””GorsuchRight to a Fair Trial:In the case United States v. Benally, Judge Gorsuch voted to deny a petition for rehearing en banc by a Native American defendant who was convicted by a racially biased jury. The foreman of the jury “told the other jurors that he used to live on or near an Indian Reservation, that ‘[w]hen Indians get alcohol, they all get drunk,’ and that when they get drunk, they get violent.” A second juror said she agreed with the foreman. In light of these troubling statements, the district court threw out the jury verdict, concluding that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial had been violated. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and upheld the conviction. Although Judge Gorsuch was not a member of the original panel, his vote to deny rehearing en banc was a vote of support.”Judge Gorsuch“Judge Gorsuch’s approach to this issue was recently rejected by the Supreme Court in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, where the Court ruled that anti-Hispanic statements during jury deliberations constituted a Sixth Amendment violation.”Judge GorsuchVoting Rights:“In 2006, when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch stated in his Senate questionnaire that between June 2005 and July 2006, he served as the Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, a job in which he managed several litigating components at the Justice Department, including the Civil Rights Division. On Gorsuch’s watch, political appointees ran roughshod over career attorneys who sought to lodge Section 5 objections under the Voting Rights Act to Georgia’s photo ID law.”“This disgraceful practice was exposed in a November 2005 Washington Post article: “A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents…. The plan was blocked on constitutional grounds in October by a U.S. District Court judge, who compared the measure to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.””Judge GorsuchGorsuch should be questioned about his role in supervising the Georgia photo ID litigation and the extent to which he was involved in supporting the use of photo ID laws by Georgia and other states, and about his role in overturning the recommendations of career attorneys to object to such laws.Judge GorsuchGorsuch’s support of Spakovsky: “Few people in the Republican Party have done more to limit voting rights than Hans von Spakovsky. He’s been instrumental in spreading the myth of widespread voter fraud and backing new restrictions to make it harder to vote. But it appears that von Spakovsky had an admirer in Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, according to e-mails released to the Senate Judiciary Committee covering Gorsuch’s time working in the George W. Bush Administration.”In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts“In another e-mail, when von Spakovksy said he was participating in a “Ballot Access and Voter Integrity Conference” at the Justice Department, Gorsuch wrote, “Sounds interesting. Glad to see you’re doing this. I may try to attend some of it.” Though the Justice Department was supposed to investigate both voting discrimination and voter fraud, the latter cause took priority and eventually led to Republican US Attorneys’ being wrongly fired from their jobs for refusing to prosecute fraud cases.”In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression EffortsPoliticized Hiring in Civil Rights Division:“The year in which Gorsuch helped manage the Civil Rights Division, political appointees there engaged in unlawful hiring discrimination against lawyers with liberal affiliations, and this became the subject of a 2008 Inspector General report entitled “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division.””“Gorsuch should be questioned by Senators about his knowledge of and role in these activities, which constituted an unlawful attempt to exclude lawyers from the Department of Justice who had a civil rights background and who would have aggressively enforced federal civil rights laws. He should also be questioned about his role in the 2005 appointment of Bradley Schlozman – whom the Inspector General concluded committed the most infractions – to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.”Possibility of a Successful filibuster:“There are now at least 36 Senate Democrats who oppose Gorsuch and have pledged to block him with a filibuster, just five shy of the number that would be required to mount a successful filibuster.” - Dem opposition to Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch grows; Schumer warns GOPThe Federalist Society and The Heritage foundation wanted Gorsuch to be selectedThe Federalist Society & The Heritage Foundation are “immensely influential but largely unseen network of conservative organizations, donors and lawyers who all share a common goal: Fill the federal courts with scores of judges who are committed to the narrow interpretation of the Constitution that they believe the founders intended.” - In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the Judiciary“Federalist Society’s supporters include well-known industry-oriented and libertarian-minded business leaders like Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family, which gave significantly to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and helped start Breitbart News.” - In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the JudiciaryThese groups are also motivated by extreme religious beliefs.Gerrymandering:“Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps, allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts. While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans…Gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes — which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of powerlessness. In 2010, droves of Tea Party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didn’t need to. Those who now oppose President Donald Trump are quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already seems preordained?”Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy“The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and it’s a case that could transform — and reinvigorate — American democracy at a time when a positive shock is sorely needed.”Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy“Next term, the Supreme Court is poised to hear the most promising challenge to partisan gerrymandering in more than a decade. Gorsuch is overwhelmingly likely to vote to allow such gerrymandering to continue.”Memo to Democratic senators: If you like your job, filibuster GorsuchThis isn’t just about being bitter over Merrick Garland.The Nuclear Option:“If Democrats amass enough support to block a confirmation vote…Republican Senate leaders to try to change the chamber's long-standing rules and allow confirmation by a simple majority, a move backed by Trump that is sometimes called the "nuclear option." - More Democratic senators oppose Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick“unilaterally changing Senate rules to lower the threshold for Supreme Court justices from 60 votes to a simple majority in the 100-member Senate…it would amount to a dramatic departure from Senate norms of bipartisanship and collegiality.”Dem opposition to Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch grows; Schumer warns GOPThe Nuclear option is dangerous:“White House expects between 70 to 90 appeals court positions to open up over the next four years. That would give Mr. Trump the opportunity to fill anywhere from one-third to half of all appellate seats — a profound impact considering that those courts are often the final word on thousands of cases that never reach the Supreme Court.In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the JudiciaryFilibustering was the strategy of the GOP to fight Obama on everything and, like McConnell said, to try and make Obama a one term President.Democratic politicians have historically been much more willing to compromise because that is what their constitutes expected of them. Republican politicians, on the other hand, were much less willing to compromise because that is what their constitutes expected of them:Republicans in Congress have very little incentive to come to the middle on the big issues before the country.And a new poll from the Pew Research Center says it all: Quite simply, it's because the GOP base demands principles over compromise.According to the new national Pew survey, 50 percent of Americans would rather that their elected officials "make compromises with people they disagree with" rather than "stick to their positions" (44 percent).But when you break it down by party, you see the reason we have gridlock.While 59 percent of Democrats prefer compromise to principled stands, just 36 percent of Republicans say the same (compared to 55 percent who want principled stands).For Republicans, that's actually up slightly from the 32 percent who wanted compromise two years ago, after the 2010 election in which the GOP reaped huge gains by standing resolutely against Obama's agenda. But over the same span, the percentage of Democrats calling for compromise has risen significantly -- from 46 percent to 59 percent. And independents have also moved by double digits toward favoring compromise.Whether or not you agree with the idea that Republicans are more unwilling to compromise than Obama and the Democrats, that's certainly the perception that exists today.For Republicans, it seems, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their base demands that they resist compromise, but doing so causes the party as a whole to fall out of favor with the American public.The Post-ABC poll shows 71 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP, while 59 percent disapprove of the Democratic Party and 41 percent disapprove of Obama.Under this set-up, there are really no easy answers for the GOP. If the party's lawmakers compromise more, they may gain favor with the political middle, but their base will resist -- and has resisted -- and they will risk their political careers. If they continue to make principled stands, they will likely win reelection, but their party's brand may remain, as GOP former congressman Tom Davis (Va.) famously said, the political equivalent of "dog food."How and whether Republicans solve this riddle will say a lot about how they progress as a force in American politics.Why Republicans have no incentive to compromiseMore Democrats Than Republicans Prefer Candidate Who CompromisesAmericans Again Call for Compromise in WashingtonThe reality is, there is a lot at stake in the Supreme Court and many of the Democratic politician’s constitutes don’t want Gorsuch to be confirmed:Democrats could be putting up more of a fight than they have so far, and have faced criticism from left-leaning advocacy groups as a result…An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans, at 92 percent and 90 percent respectively, believe that “decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court have an impact on my everyday life as a citizen,” according a C-SPAN poll released on Friday.There are plenty of Democrats who don’t want Gorsuch confirmed. It’s just that in the end, liberals may care slightly less about this particular Supreme Court appointment than conservatives. Pew data indicates that although a full 50 percent of Democrats believe Gorsuch shouldn’t be confirmed, an even higher percentage of Republicans, at 55 percent, didn’t want Garland to be confirmed.There are also indications that the Supreme Court appointment was a more decisive issue for Trump voters than Clinton voters. Seventy-five percent of Trump voters told pollsters that Supreme Court appointments were either the most important factor or an important factor in how they decided to vote, compared to 68 percent of Clinton voters, according to NBC News…Liberal advocacy groups have expressed disappointment in the collective Democratic response to the nomination…wrote in a letter to Democratic Senators earlier this month, arguing that congressional Democrats had “failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee” and urging “Democratic senators to immediately make clear your opposition.”…Another challenge for liberal activists who want Senate Democrats to oppose the nomination is that the Supreme Court fight has so far flown relatively under the radar in the midst of congressional battles over the Affordable Care Act, and protest from activists to the Trump administration’s early moves in office…Why Are Democrats Holding Back on Gorsuch?

There is a simple reason for this ridiculous dictionary debate. It is simply a justification for the Electoral College.But I think this question really addresses the deeper issue of what direction we want to move as a country, so I want to ask a broader question:In the 229 years since the ratification of our Constitution, do “We the People” really want a true democracy? Based on our historical evolution, the answer is an overwhelming, ear-shattering YES.In the United States, 99.99% of our elected offices, from dog catcher all the way up to governor, are determined by who gets the most votes. Each of these positions are set up so that the elected official does their job as a representative of the people.With the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage, every citizen has the right to vote. Universal voting rights in electing 99.99% of our public offices mean that our government functions as a representative democracy. (Even if you want to argue that we should instead substitute terms like “federal republic,” “constitutional republic,” or “democratic republic,” nothing changes one simple fact (excuse me for trying to make this clear for the hard of hearing)..There are 519,682 ELECTED OFFICIALS in the U.S. and ONLY ONE is NOT ELECTED DIRECTLY by the PEOPLE. Just how many elected officials are there in the United States? The answer is mind-blowingFrom a historical perspective, the divisions in this country are reaching the same level of acrimony as the years leading up to the Civil War. And because of the increasing power of the executive branch, nothing is more important to the people of this country than seeing their candidate win.The fact that two presidents in the last sixteen years have lost the popular vote is what makes the Electoral College such a controversial topic. (I guarantee you that if the Republicans had lost two elections after winning the popular vote, a Constitutional amendments would have already been ratified.)A quick history lesson on presidential elections not decided by the winner of the popular vote and how it corresponds to the current debate. (don’t worry, there will be a TL;DR section for you slackers)1824: What is remarkable about this election (the first in which the popular vote mattered) is that all four candidates in the election identified with the same party. There was a plurality vote, where Jackson received the most votes (41.4%), John Quincy Adams was second (30.9%), Henry Clay third (13.0%) and William H. Crawford fourth (11.2%). (Fun Fact, both Jackson and Adams had the same running mate.)However, the election was even closer in terms of electoral college votes and states carried: Jackson (99 EC votes, 11 states); Adams (84 EC votes, 7 states); Clay (41 EC votes, 4 states); and Crawford (37 EC votes, 3 states)Since no candidate secured the required 131 votes from the Electoral College, the election was decided by the House of Representatives, where Clay’s electors shifted over to Adams to give him a highly contentious one-vote victory. Because Clay agreed with Adams on many of the major issues, he threw his support to Adams, resulting in Adams winning the most states, even though he still only won 41% of the total House votes.The key takeaway here is how the process was similar to the idea of an Instant-runoff voting system, since Clay supporters had their voices heard the best by switching over to the candidate who was closest to their views on the issues. (Note: If the 2000 election employed this system, Gore would have won Florida with 50.5% of the vote, and the electoral college vote as well. In 2016, assuming the Libertarians’ second choice was Trump and the Green Party voters’ second choice was Clinton, Trump would have won the popular vote by 163,323 votes, but does not include reduced African-American turnout due to voter-ID laws, estimated at 200,000 just in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)1876: What makes this election so controversial is not that Tilden (D) is the only candidate in history to win a majority of the votes and still lose the election, but because of disputed state voting results in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina (where have we heard this before?).Also, this is relevant because of the deal with the devil made by the Republicans to get those electoral votes so their candidate, Hayes, could win. Southern Democrats ceded those key electoral votes in exchange for removing federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction, allowing them to disenfranchise black voters in subsequent years.1888: Even though the main issue was tariff policy, the real story was the ugliness of our election system. Harrison won Indiana and New York by means of notoriously fraudulent balloting. On the other hand, Cleveland dominated the South, winning 65–82% of the vote in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and South Carolina, all of which had disenfranchised the black vote.What’s also interesting is that Cleveland won in 1892, because of the tariff policy and his opposition to the 1890 Voting Rights proposal. The vote was split by the rise of the third party populists, which played a major role as a left-wing force in American politics calling for regulation and reform in national politics, supporting the labor union movement.TL;DR: The underlying forces at play in these disputed elections and the current semantic debate over democracy are simply the desire of one group to win and maintain power (regardless of whether their ideas are supported by the majority of Americans, or how much those actions ignore the principles of our Constitution).Because the values of the political parties have completely flipped since the 1960s Civil Rights movement, I don’t want to confuse this discussion by identifying the political parties associated with each action.Here’s a timeline that shows the battle between those in favor of equality and justice for all vs. those who will do anything to maintain power.1787: The Three-Fifth Compromise written into the Constitution not only recognized slavery, but gave the Southern states additional representation and voting power by counting their slaves without giving them any rights.1850: The Compromise of 1850 allowed California to be admitted as a free state, but recognized slave rights in recovering slaves who had escaped the South.1865: 13th Amendment abolished slavery.1868: 14th Amendment established the citizenship right and equal protection under the law for former slaves.1870: 15th Amendment established the right to vote, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (but did not include women).1876: Corrupt election methods left the results disputed in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. The South ceded the election in order to reestablish the old order of power and disenfranchise its black population.1888: Corrupt election methods changed the election’s outcome, but the other side suppressed the black vote.1890: In response to undemocratic forces, the Federal Elections Bill would have authorized fair elections (especially to enforce the ability of black to vote in the South), but stalled in the Senate when different factions traded away voting rights for Southern support of bills in their economic interest.1912: The 17th Amendment to the Constitution established the popular election of U.S. Senators instead of their selection by State legislatures. The idea of direct elections for the Senate goes back as far as 1826 (only two years after the first popular vote to select Electoral College voters).1920: The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.1948: President Truman signed an executive order integrating the military.1954: The Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.1957: President Eisenhower used the military to force the integration of Little Rock High School in Arkansas.1964–65: LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1965 in order to fight discrimination and overcome legal barriers that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote. This resulted in a complete reorganization of the political parties.2000: Florida’s Secretary of State ordered a purge of the voter roles that led to the disenfranchisement of 12,000 voters, of which a substantial number were black. This occurred in an election decided by 537 votes. In addition, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that black voters were nearly 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected. In addition, the lack of a consistent federal standard for voting meant that poor counties were more likely to possess voting systems with higher spoilage rates. Diebold voting machines in Volusia County malfunctioned and gave a Socialist Candidate 9,000 votes and the Vice President getting minus 19,000, forcing an immediate hand recount.2004: Diebold CEO and political fundraiser Walden O’Dell wrote to donors: "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." Diebold was the company that made voting machines for the state of Ohio, in which there were a tremendous amount of problems. Diebold Indicted: Its spectre still haunts Ohio elections.2013: The Supreme Court (packed with two George W. Bush appointees) struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, saying it was no longer relevant. By December of 2013, voter suppression bills had been introduced or passed in 33 states.2016: 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election, including Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin (all of which voted for a Democrat in 2008 and 2012).ConclusionsOne side supports universal voting, a consistent standard for voting machines and election officials, and making it easier for every eligible voter to register and cast their vote.The other side is doing everything it can to suppress the votes of people who will regularly vote against them. Those techniques include Gerrymandering, reduced registration efforts, fewer days of early voting, restricting the number of days to mail in votes, fewer polling places and voting machines in “enemy” districts, and voting machines (controlled by big corporations) which don’t provide a paper trail in case there are irregularities in the count.(One last position to consider is how to make every vote count. In our current two-party system, the only thing third party candidates do is to occasionally siphon off enough votes from the favorite to cause an upset. I’m sure that the majority of Ross Perot voters would have voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992. And it is an absolute certainty that Green Party voters would have chosen both Al Gore over George W. Bush. With Instant-Runoff Voting, this would never be a problem again.)We are fighting a new kind of the Civil War. It is being fought by those of us who believe that if you are an American citizen, you have a place at the table, regardless of what you look like, what you believe, or where your parents came from, versus those of us who believe that only “real Americans” (based on their definition) should have those rights.Which side are you on?[EDIT: Some people may quibble with my using the word disenfranchised in reference to what the South did to its African American citizens after Federal troops pulled out of the South in 1876. While a few blacks did vote in the South, read about the violence, intimidation and discriminatory laws that prevented 97% of eligible black voters from registering to vote as late as 1940. Race and Voting in the Segregated SouthAlso for those of you who don’t believe that gun-toting lunatics would ever try to overthrow an elected government, please check out the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where white Democrats overthrew a duly elected biracial government headed by a white mayor, the only successful coup d’etat on U.S. soil.]