State senator proposes fining people for not voting in elections – but says they can send in a ‘blank ballot’

HARTFORD, CT – A Connecticut state senator
recently introduced a proposed bill in January that would see
“qualified electors”, anyone eligible to vote within the state,
fined for basically not voting in any state-based elections.

What this state senator wants to accomplish with this bill is to
define voting as a “universal civic duty”.

The
proposed bill for the Connecticut General Assembly is titled
“An Act Concerning Universal Civic Duty Voting” and was
introduced by Democratic state Senator Will Haskell
on January 22nd.

Here’s the onset of the proposed bill in question:

“That title 9 of the general statutes be amended to
provide that (1) at the 2024 state election and each state election
thereafter, all qualified electors shall either cast a ballot or
provide a valid reason for not casting a ballot,”

“(2) following the 2024 state election and each state
election thereafter,”

“(A) the Secretary of the State shall mail to all
qualified electors who did not cast a ballot at the most recent
state election a form inquiring as to why such elector did not cast
a ballot, which form shall advise that valid reasons for not
casting a ballot include travel, illness, conscientious objection
or such other reason as the Secretary may prescribe,
and”

“(B) failure to respond to such form with a valid
reason shall result in a fine of twenty dollars paid to the Office
of the Secretary of the State…”

While that’s a lot to digest, here’s a simplified breakdown
of the aforementioned.

By the time the 2024 state elections come around, anyone within
Connecticut that is eligible to vote must cast a ballot.

In the event that someone decides to not cast a ballot,
they’ll have to respond to an inquiry as to why and provide a
sufficient reason that will appease the Secretary of the State for
not casting a ballot.

The fine is for not providing
your excuse

Do you do so for not filling out a pistol permit, not peacefully
assembling, not going to church, etc?

WTF

— Alex Plitsas 🇺🇸 (@alexplitsas)
January 27, 2021

And if someone doesn’t respond to the inquiry with a
satisfactory answer or just outright ignores any sort of
communication after failing to return a ballot, then they’ll be
hit with a $20 fine.

Of course, the proposed bill continues to note that there
won’t be any “penalty fees or accrued interest” or this
imposed fine serving as a “basis for criminal enforcement” or
“denial of government services or benefits.”

Last year, 66.2% of eligible
voters cast a ballot. It was the highest turnout in 120 years, and
we all celebrated.

But in Australia, turnout typically exceeds 90%. Why? Voting is
considered a civic duty.@MilesRapoport
and I put forward a big idea: https://t.co/Bob1hXMuVR

— Will Haskell (@WillHaskellCT)
January 26, 2021

Furthermore, if someone doesn’t have the $20 to spare for the
imposed fine – then they can, “perform two hours of community
service for a Connecticut-based nonprofit organization if such
elector is unable to pay such fine.”

Essentially, this bill is trying to coerce people into casting
some sort of ballot for state-level elections – via making it
just easier to cast some kind of ballot rather than responding to
an inquiry of not casting a ballot while dangling a fine over
someone’s head. �

Basically, this would turn state-level voting into an obligatory
civic duty akin to being called for jury duty.

But what seems odd in this legislation is that while someone
within Connecticut would have to cast a ballot, the language within
the bill also says that someone can just leave the cast ballot
“blankâ€:

“(3) one month prior to the 2024 state election, the
Secretary of the State shall mail to all qualified electors a
notice thatâ€

“(A) explains the changes that will take effect
beginning at the 2024 state election, as described herein,
andâ€

“(B) includes a statement that each qualified elector
will be required to either cast a ballot, with the option to leave
such ballot blank, or provide a valid reason for not casting a
ballot,â€

“(4) at the 2022 state election and each state
election thereafter, each ballot shall include in sufficiently
large type a statement advising electors that they may leave any
portion or the entirety of such ballot blank…â€

It could make one wonder why on Earth a Democratic state senator
would want to compel residents within the state of Connecticut to
turn in a cast ballot – even a blank one.

Do you want to join
our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get
unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the
media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having
active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters
tell more of these stories.  Click to check it
out.

We at Law Enforcement Today have also recently broke down a
proposed bill in Oregon – and this is something that every Oregon
resident should read, as well as every other American to understand
what types of legislation is getting crafted around the
country. 

And this Oregon bill relates to when the government can seize
your personal property. 

Here’s that report from earlier in January. 

_

OREGON â€“ There’s a new house bill that was
recently drafted in Oregon that has already had its first reading
earlier in January, which aims to amend two standing pieces of
Oregon legislation.  

These proposed amendments would essentially afford the state’s
governor increased authorities with respect to using, and
effectively seizing, personal property during a state of
emergency.

This bill pending in the
Oregon legislature would allow the Governor to take private
property in response to an emergency, and do so temporarily without
compensation to the owner. We’re in a nearly year-long declared
emergency so this is no small thing.https://t.co/MFfCNEj1pV

— Jeff Eager (@Jeff_Eager)
January 22, 2021

The new bill in question is called HB
2238.

What the summary
of the bill hopes to achieve, if it were ever passed, is modify
ORS 35.350 and ORS 401.188 – both of which are current law, but
these proposed amendments would have some rather generous
expansions.

So, we’ll examine both ORS 35.350 and ORS 401.188 in
their current form, and then analyze what the proposed additions to
the standing laws can translate to – if passed –  via getting
past all of the legal jargon.

Here’s the current standing of ORS
35.350:

“This chapter does not affect the ability of a public
body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (“Public body†defined), to
take immediate possession of property in an emergency that poses a
threat to persons or property. [2005 c.565 §2]â€

The current law is pretty straight forward – in that, a
“public
body†(like a maybe cop, sheriff, constable and so on) can
take effective possession of any item/items that presents a danger
“persons or propertyâ€. Say, for instance, someone’s crudely
constructed meth lab or stockpile of IEDs or IIDs.

And here is what HB 2238 would like to add to that legislation
(new bill text in italics):

“…poses a threat to persons or property, including
under the direction of the Governor under ORS
401.188.â€

“(2) An owner of property that is used or possessed
only temporarily under this section is not entitled to compensation
except as the owner may prove entitlement to compensation under
Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution.â€

So that proposed added text to section one, and the addition of
section two, to ORS 35.350 wouldn’t even require there to
necessarily be an element of “a threat to persons or propertyâ€
for a government body to “temporarily†use or possess an Oregon
resident’s private property.

Furthermore, all the while not even compensating the owner of
the property during these state of emergency seizures.

Sure, there’s the citing that someone could make a claim
under Article
1, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution to receive
“compensation†for seized and temporarily used property.

With that, I’d say, ‘good luck’.

Now while the proposed amendment to ORS 35.350
doesn’t specifically mention that any type of personal property
can be seized under direction of the state governor, it does
mention “under the direction of the Governor under ORS
401.188â€.

Which ORS 401.188 just so happens to be the other standing law
that HB 2238 wants to alter and would effectively make any and all
property able to be seized under a declared emergency.

Here’s the current legal text of the
standing ORS 401.188:

“Whenever the Governor has declared a state of
emergency, the Governor may issue, amend and enforce rules and
orders to:â€

“(1) Control, restrict and regulate by rationing,
freezing, use of quotas, prohibitions on shipments, price fixing,
allocation or other means, the use, sale or distribution of food,
feed, fuel, clothing and other commodities, materials, goods and
services;â€

“(2) Prescribe and direct activities in connection
with use, conservation, salvage and prevention of waste of
materials, services and facilities, including, but not limited to,
production, transportation, power and communication facilities
training, and supply of labor, utilization of industrial plants,
health and medical care, nutrition, housing, rehabilitation,
education, welfare, child care, recreation, consumer protection and
other essential civil needs; andâ€

“(3) Take any other action that may be necessary for
the management of resources following an emergency.â€

Basically, the current legal standing of ORS 401.188 relates to
when there is an active state of emergency declared by the Oregon
governor, the governor can effectively mandate most aspects related
to entities engaging in general commerce, trade, and services.

Obviously, during the era
of the pandemic, Oregon (and many other states, for that
matter) saw a whole lot of “control and restrict†when it
related to certain types of businesses that were deemed
non-essential.

And of course, Oregon has also in the past year declared states
of emergency for wildfires,
planned rallies,
during the election
in November, and adding continuations to the state of emergency
with respect to COVID.

But as ORS 401.188 stands currently, there aren’t stipulations
related an individual’s private property. That’s where this
proposed added text to ORS 401.188 would kick in under HB 2238.

Under Section 3 of ORS 401.188, HB 2238 aims to add the
following (new bill text in italics):

“(3) Take any other action, including through the
seizure, use or possession of any real or personal property, that
may be necessary for the management of resources following an
emergency.â€

That’s about as broad as it can get with regard to what can be
used or seized by the government during a state of emergency.

Maybe you have an extra bedroom in your house and the government
decides they need it to be utilized to house a person or
persons.

Perhaps you have more than one vehicle, and the government
decides that your extra car needs to be utilized by them or someone
else during a state of emergency.

The aforementioned, and even more, could certainly be possible
if HB 2238 were to actually come to fruition.

There needs to serious
clarification of this new bill (HB 2238) concerning ‘emergency
powers’ by the governor. As a person who participates in
emergency management, I am concerned with this language as law.
Please address this @duckwilde

#orpol
#Oregon pic.twitter.com/PhsncpgvoG

— Alex Fast (@alexfastpdx)
January 21, 2021

According to the heading among HB 2238, the proposed legislation
was sponsored by Representative Marty
Wilde â€“ a Democrat representing District 11 within the
legislature.

It might be a good time for Oregon residents to email their
District 11 representative to share their thoughts on this proposed
bill.  

_

Make sure you
click “following†and then click “see first†so you
don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part
of the LET family!

The post
State senator proposes fining people for not voting in elections
– but says they can send in a ‘blank ballot’ appeared
first on Law
Enforcement Today.

Read the Full Article