Voting rights is now a liberal wishlist item

[jp1]

The republicans are now freely admitting that they view voter enfranchisement as a liberal wishlist item. Someone should probably tell White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow that it’s generally a bad plan to admit on tv that your party is in favor of voter disenfranchisement.

"So much of the Democratic asks are really liberal, left wish lists — voting rights and aid to aliens and so forth," he told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/coronavirus-stimulus-kudlow-says-trump-wont-accept-voting-rights-plans.html

[LDAHL]

I don’t think aliens should have voting rights.

[jp1]

I don’t think even Larry Kudlow is ignorant enough to think that democrats want to let undocumented people vote In federal elections. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if Fox ‘news’ says it from time to time to rile up their gullible and ill informed viewers.

[Alan]

I don’t think even Larry Kudlow is ignorant enough to think that democrats want to let undocumented people vote In federal elections. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if Fox ‘news’ says it from time to time to rile up their gullible and ill informed viewers.What about using undocumented people to increase congressional seats and the resultant electoral college votes? Are democrats in favor of that?

[jp1]

What about using undocumented people to increase congressional seats and the resultant electoral college votes? Are democrats in favor of that?

Depends on whether they care what the constitution says about it.

[Teacher Terry]

Alan, that’s a silly question. Democrats want a fair election and not one rigged by the republicans. If the orange moron is going to these lengths to cheat he thinks he is going to lose.

[Alan]

Depends on whether they care what the constitution says about it.
It doesn't distinguish between citizens and "undocumented" for the purposes of the census, only for voting. But if a state like California can gain (or at least not lose) representatives and electoral college electors based only upon "undocumented" residents, they probably don't want them to vote anyway. The states Democratic majority will get all the benefit with none of the risk of those potential voters violating the expected orthodoxy.

[jp1]

It doesn't distinguish between citizens and "undocumented" for the purposes of the census, only for voting. But if a state like California can gain (or at least not lose) representatives and electoral college electors based only upon "undocumented" residents, they probably don't want them to vote anyway. The states Democratic majority will get all the benefit with none of the risk of those potential voters violating the expected orthodoxy.

So you’d be happier if Democrats wanted to violate the constitution? That seems like an odd position to take.

[Alan]

So you’d be happier if Democrats wanted to violate the constitution? That seems like an odd position to take.It's not odd at all, it's the basis of the entire 3/5 compromise from over 200 years ago when the nation had to deal with how to appropriate seats to states with large numbers of people lacking the civil rights (such as voting) that citizens enjoy. How do you deal with the dilemma of having no clear resolution?

The original dilemma was solved by granting citizenship to slaves but the undocumented haven't followed the requirements for that so the question remains, should they be able to inflate a state's influence in the same manner the slave states wanted so long ago?

[jp1]

I don't see anything having an unclear resolution. The constitution clearly states how the census should be done and congressional seats apportioned. If you, or someone else wants to change that, then go for it. The constitution also makes clear what that process is. In the meantime I think we should follow the law as set forth in the constitution. If we don't follow the constitution where do we stop following it. At that point it would be entirely plausible that if a president threatened to cancel an election that he might actually succeed.