CDR: Re: Courts interfering with election

[petro]

>TimMay wrote:
>#    I thought I was jaded, but this is too much even for me to believe.
>#
>#    A judge in St. Louis has ordered the polls kept open later, until 10
>#    pm local time. The effect will be to let more inner city,
>#    Democrat-leaning voters vote.
>
>What a lame-ass complaint.
>
>For some reason, certain polling areas got jammed up,
>as in long lines. The court agreed to keep the polls
>open longer so the people could vote. It didn't matter
>who the people might vote for, despite the Democrats
>asking for the extended hours.
>
>The Republicans actually went into federal court to
>try and block this, and failed.
>
>Did you expect a Republican judge to say no since
>the people who might be unable to vote by the normal
>deadline were Democrats?
>
>What's your objection to people voting? Try not to
>mention a political party in your reply.

	It's not an objection to voting, it's an objection to 
manipulating the open and closing times of polls (in this case the 
closing time) to make it more convenient for a specific segment of 
the population.

	If I remember correctly, in Missouri Polls are open from 7 am 
to 7pm (though that could have changed), and IIRC it is mandatory for 
an employer to allow you time to vote.

	There is simply no reason for polls to have to be open longer 
than their allotted time, and specifically not just for specific 
sections of a state.

	If anything, it would make more sense to keep rural polls 
open longer, since they are often more difficult to get to.

	The thing is, voting should *not* be easy. It *should* 
require some effort (not a LOT of effort, but it should be 
non-trivial) so that only those who actually care to bother will.
-- 
When money becomes the objective, truth is abandoned. --The Guru