Should states be required to comply with the MOVE Act, a federal law passed in 2009 mandating that absentee ballots be provided to military personnel overseas at least 45 days before election day?

I think all states should have to comply.

I think they should have to comply as well. It may seem like 45 days is a lot, but in terms of how long it takes for mail to get there and then get back, it’s really not much time at all.

I think they should have to comply. Those fighting for us should be able to vote.

I have a question. Why do the states not want to comply? Is it dificult for them to do the administrative work? I know you implied it is because these states lean left, but I wondered what reason they are stating or the exemption.

Also, those states tend to be very blue, so the vote of the military men would probably not change anything, if they were swing states it would matter a lot more. If it was FL, OH, NC, then it would be more of an issue. I still think those states should comply, but just pointing out it probably does not affect the end result. When I vote for president in TN I feel it means nothing. If I were voting in NY, my vote would have little influence also.

@JLeslie Many states (at least 16) have always been very lax on getting the absentee ballots out in a timely manner. Pew did a study in 2007 documenting this fact and that is what led to the MOVE Act being passed in 2009 to force the states to act on absentee ballots in a timely manner. Apparently the states were also given the right to request exemption from the law for any given year. The states noted in the question (and two non-states) requested the exemption for 2010.

All of the states are Democratic states and the Democratic Atty Gen (puppet, in my opinion) moves his arms and head in accordance with the strings as them are pulled.

With many seats in Congress up for bids, every vote counts on these. Alaska is right now counting absentee ballots to determine whether the incumbent senator holds her seat.

So the military absentee ballots are very important throughout the country.

So it comes down to why oh why is the atty gen passing out exemptions just to those states that could be of some benefit to his party.

In general, all states should comply. However, with only a little digging, I found out why Washington State has requested a waiver. It’s because their current system is actually better than the move act, allowing 51 days of total transit time between the ballot being sent out and the required return date (which is 21 days after the general election). I think your assumption about why this is happening is false, and likely prompted by right wing fear-mongering.

Source (See page 3, if it doesn’t direct you there automatically.)

@augustlan MOVE Act Benefits thereof

There may be legit reasons for exemption. I didnt read the full letter from Washington state. If it meets all the requirements of MOVE plus some, fine with me.

I try not to look at extreme left spin or extreme right spin. I do keep an eye on the Attorney General, who demolished the minimal authority he had coming into the office on his swearing in day, by alleging racism in our country and government.

Then he tries to move the 9/11 terrorists to NYC and also civilian courts.

Then he marches to O beat with the frail suit against AZ

Sooooo….that’s the very first place I look for “shell games”

When I see the sorry job the states do on this, and the efforts by congress to clean it up, then I question anything Holder does, especially when its a “now you see it, now you don’t trick” that appears to benefit his O man.

@plethora That little fact that @augustlan found makes me think that whoever compiled that original list you gave us has an agenda to make dems look bad.

About the 9/11 terrorists, under Bush, and I think under other presidents too, terrorists had been tried in civilian court. If they were not part of an army created by and working under the direction of a countries government, they were viewed as civilians. I think it could go either way on how someone defines it. I don’t think we can accuse all of the people who have decided to try terrorists in the civilian court system as bleeding heart liberals (especially since some of them have been republicans). Not that you used that term bleeding heart liberals, but I think that it how it is portrayedby the far right.

You know what would be interesting to me is how state residency breaks down for the military men and women. You probably know that military men can maintain residence and voting rights in one state, even if they are moved around to another state or out of the country. I woner if the bulk of them, especially the enlisted personnel, are from the red states anyway.