Ranked Voting
“Not everybody has easy access to an ID” said Haseebullah
Poppy cock. The only people without IDs are those here illegally. Even they can obtain an NV ID from DMV. The old song and dance that the poor are disadvantaged is BS, since the poor already have to have ID for welfare benefits such as SNAP and Medicaid or fill a prescription.
I can think of several other classes of people (other than “illegals”) who might not have proper ID at any given time. One of the most significantly affected groups would likely be individuals who have recently been evicted from their places of legal residence. In 2023 there were about 85,000 summary evictions filed or reopened in Nevada. This includes about 3,000 per month in Clark County, or about 36,000 per year, i.e., around 10 percent of the entire population of renters in the Valley. The majority of those summary eviction proceedings are granted.
A driver’s license in Nevada must be updated with a new permanent address no later than 30 days after moving, and anyone who has worked with clients dealing with a recent eviction knows or should know that finding a new permanent place to live immediately after an eviction can be challenging to say the least.
The 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections in Nevada were each decided by less than 40,000 votes (about a 3% margin each time). This amount is less than the number of persons evicted yearly in the State.
My point is that folks who otherwise clearly reside in Nevada may not be able to easily acquire a new permanent residence following an eviction. Hence, difficulty in obtaining a new driver’s license.
I agree the wording of the ballot question provides that an ID must be “expired” for no more than four years; and I’ll assume arguendo that a license which doesn’t reflect a current address is not “expired” for voting purposes.
My point is not that they won’t be able to vote with an out-of-date address. The problem will come later, when an allegation is raised that the ID presented – if a driver’s license – likely did not match an individual’s permanent address and thus gives rise to a claim of voter “fraud.” Given the margins for statewide victory, and the likelihood that many persons subject to eviction will present drivers licenses with out-of-date addresses, the incongruity may in turn raise a question about “voter fraud” with enough facial validity to support a challenge to the election results when in reality none exists.
Maybe this wouldn’t seem so problematic to me if Vegas Valley landlords didn’t file about 36,000 eviction proceedings against a renter population of approximately 385,000 on a yearly basis.
Maybe the problem lies not with the landlords . . . but with tenants that are unable or unwilling to pay the rent that they promised to pay when they signed their lease.
I hear ya loud and clear 2:59. I guess you haven’t read the following:
“Las Vegas households now need to make at least $69,810 annually to be able to afford rent in the valley, which is above the median household income, according to a new report from Zillow”
“In Southern Nevada, ‘7 of the 10 most common occupations do not earn the income needed to afford rent for a studio apartment’ while in Reno ‘6 of the 10 most common occupations do not earn the income needed to afford rent for a studio apartment,” according to the report.'”
But sure, I guess it’s possible that the majority of the 385,000-odd renters in the Valley who face a rental affordability crisis are all just moral degenerates.
Of course there are some deadbeat tenants; I worked for a small landlord in college, I saw them up close. But didn’t the Current conclude a few years ago that 7 out of the 10 most common jobs in the Valley couldn’t afford to rent a studio apartment? Didn’t Zillow recently find that the income needed to reasonably rent in Vegas exceeded the local median income? There’s been plenty of reporting on how rent has increased higher than wage growth in recent years, and I’m pretty sure these structural factors could explain a decent chunk of the evictions that ultimately occur in the Valley. IMO placing the moral imperative for evictions entirely on tenants when landlords are the ones performing background checks and setting term rental rates seems a bit one-sided.
But as it relates to the voter ID initiative, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether landlords or tenants are to blame for the astronomical number of evictions in the Valley. Because if the scale of evictions and resulting voter displacement might in and of itself serve as a facially plausible basis for challenging election results after a voter ID system is implemented, IMO that’s reason enough to question whether that ballot initiative, as written, will create more problems than it solves.
Still nonsense.
Of course its one sided. Landlords own, pay for, maintain and rent out the properties. Tenants, if they do not make enough money need to rent somewhere that they can afford.
Vis a vis the ID initiative and compliance with “current address” requirements, this argument is a red herring at best. That law can easily be challenged in context and fixed by the legislature or the courts, it matters not. But, don’t think for a second that any of us buy your attempts to humanize the issue, when the perils of NOT passing such a law are so much more onerous.
What exactly are the “perils” of not passing the law? About a third of the country doesn’t have voter ID laws at all, and the last Presidential election was called the safest in history according to the government experts tasked with overseeing it.
Comparing those states with no voter ID requirement against common state-by-state quality of life metrics is pretty telling. It turns out that many of the states which hazard the “perils” of not requiring voter ID consistently dominate the top 10 spots for quality of life nationwide. So all of those unvetted voters in those states must be getting something right.
0-43. Rudy, Fox “News,” billons in civil judgments, hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants in prison, but you keep telling yourselves JFK Jr.’s going to raise up from the dead to prove the election was stolen.
Silent about what? Not a SINGLE election result from 2020 being overturned? Not a SINGLE election lawsuit won by Trump or his supporters Not a SINGLE dead son of an ex-president has risen from the dead to save the election? I’ll keep squawkin buddy, best believe that.
Presuming everything you said is valid, why shouldn’t landlords expect rent to be paid to them as agreed and on time? Even when tenants don’t pay rent, the landlord’s mortgage payments are still due.
Weird thing is, we don’t call ourselves Kamala-ers and no one else (except you) does. Progressives have yet to follow a candidate based on personality alone. We ain’t in that cult. That’s y’all’s thing. We’re just voting for the candidate who doesn’t want to be a dictator on the first day or any other day.
You sure as fuck are not following her for her policies. . . . . 🤣
Luckily, most of us don’t give a shit what you think about how or why we we prefer Trump. But I promise you its policy related, circa 2019. Keep up with the MSNBC talking points.
I don’t follow her and I don’t watch MSNBC, but good try. And who calls anyone a communist anymore? Psssst. Your boomer is showing and the fun thing about boomers is that every day there are fewer and fewer of them. Bye Felicia.
Sorry, you already outed yourself with the “we don’t call ourselves . . .”.
And the boomer label isn’t the burn you think it is.
Comfortably, Gen X here. Govern your conduct accordingly.
Govern my conduct accordingly? What’re you going to do? Drop another sick burn on an anonymous blog. Woooo how spooky. And how TF did I “out” myself? So weird. Hahahahaha
Access for Marginalized Groups: Critics argue that voter ID laws can disproportionately affect low-income individuals, the elderly, and minorities, who may have more difficulty obtaining the required IDs. This raises concerns about potential disenfranchisement of certain voter groups.
Potential Impact on Voter Turnout: Research has shown that strict voter ID laws can lead to lower voter turnout, particularly in communities that may find the process of obtaining an ID burdensome due to factors like travel costs, limited access to ID-issuing offices, or lost wages from time taken off work.
Questionable Necessity: Fraud prevention is often cited as the primary reason for implementing voter ID laws. However, many studies indicate that in-person voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Critics argue that the laws might not address a problem significant enough to warrant restrictions that could affect legitimate voters
All of these = Bullshit and have no basis in either fact or science.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2024 10:49 am
For everyone’s sake, hopefully the NVSC decision is a minor detail. But, how can a non-postmarked ballot even *show up* at a counting facility 3 days after election day? Would this be a mail-in ballot that someone drops into a mailbox next Tuesday at 11:55pm? Barring some brazenly obvious shenanigans, we have to presume the number of “non-postmarked ballots received 3 days after election day” would be no more than 100-200 total? Right? Or are we missing something?
well no postage is necessary on ballots, so that can’t be a reason. Again, what’s a valid reason one of these would even show up not-postmarked 3 days after the election?
Not a valid reason, but a possibility.
The USPS will stamp everything that goes through its system, postage or no postage.
Ballot harvesting. Someone goes door to door, say in a retirement community, and says “Hi sweetie, The election was yesterday, but I can help your vote to count. Do you need help with your ballot?”, and collects a bushel basket full on the day after the election, then dumps them at the post office after hours.
Yes, because the USPS has never made a mistake, and no one has ever had a package/letter say it was delivered and it really wasn’t… I don’t give a lot of credit to most, if not all, government agencies.
fair point 11:45am. I guess the only way this is an issue is if “non-postmarked ballots 3 days after election day” are 10x or 20x higher than past elections. We shall see.
Nor true. I have received multiple items delivered by the US mail that were missing a postmark where there should have been one. Not saying I agree with the ruling, but it is simply false to assert that the USPS postmarks everything.
How can it show up. By the unions and other organizations submitting ballots and stuffing the ballot box. This is what they did in 2022 and 2020. How many votes do we need-let’s find some mail ins. What happened with election day being an election day instead it is a month and weeks after.
great point 12:59pm. It’s likely that the number of ballots impacted by this ruling is a couple hundred. Obviously, if there are 25,000 “unmarked ballots received 3 days after election day,” there is perhaps some shenanigans going on. But, until then, it’s likely much ado over 200-500 total ballots.
Right right right. It’s so much more likely that those evil unions and other organizations are engaging in a criminal conspiracy that involves themselves and the poll workers (who are accepting mail-in ballots from someone other than the post office) instead of the postal service missing the postmarks for ::checks notes:: 26 ballots in the Primary.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2024 11:57 am
Herndon’s concurrence and analysis of the statute makes sense. The majority’s interpretation does not. Pickering is just guano-crazy.
Pickering is probably the sharpest justice we have on the Court and was the only one who would stand up to Big Bad Jim.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2024 2:11 pm
Mail in ballots, drop off ballots, and early voting are a bunch of guano. I say scrap it. There should be in person voting only on the first Tuesday in November from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. And yes, bring your valid government issued id.
Why do you hate the overseas military?
Why do you hate the elderly and the disabled?
Why do you hate Natives who live on tribal lands far from a poll site?
@2:11 as a veteran who could only vote via mail in ballots while on active duty, I cannot emphasize exactly how far off you can fuck. I sure as hell did not raise my right hand so dumbasses like you could take away my rights.
Thanks to UOCAVA, deployed military can vote online in Nevada with EASE. Of course, not all military have ready and able access to the interwebs, but it’s an option. 2:11 would happily strip that access away in favor of “single day, paper only, hand counted” BS propaganda.
(EASE also extends to the disabled and tribal folks, which I am very much in favor of. Over 3,300 EASE ballots have been returned for this election)
Did you actually read 2:11’s comment? You’re the gaslighter lyin’ ass.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2024 2:53 pm
Just read the election case. The majority’s opinion is by far one of the worst reasoned opinions I have ever read in my life. Embarrassing!
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2024 3:21 pm
I want a new job that doesn’t require 1900 billable hours, gives me at least 2 weeks/10 days of vacation, and does something positive for the world. Any suggestions?
Go work for Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada. They are hiring CAP attorneys. The best position in their firm. Providing a voice to a child in need. Plus they pay full health insurance, paid time off, maternity/paternity leave. Great place to work, unless you’re a supervisor (then your hours are long).
I appreciate this and do CAP cases pro bono. Its a tough 40 if you allow the cases to get you down. The squalor that these kids often were in and the damage done to children takes an emotional toll. I can only do 1 or 2 at a time. But kudos to those of you who can do this full time
Plenty of other options in other departments – in particular, directing attorney for consumer dept. They are looking for someone with litigation experience who can grow the complex litigation realm. https://lacsn.org/careers
Realistically, how much do the attorney positions pay? What’s the top end? I have never been able to find out about this. Salary is never listed in their job listings. The attorneys there do great work but I’m not sure how they make their bills.
Off topic for the day, but wondering if someone can confirm some random Nevada attorney trivia. I am aware that back in the day, attorneys were not provided a bar number, and then at some point the Bar decided that attorneys should be assigned a bar number. Question: how were those initial bar numbers assigned? I thought I had been told that the initial batch was assigned alphabetically to those who were already licensed attorneys, rather than in order of when they had become licensed. In other words, whoever got Bar No. 1 was not necessarily the longest licensed attorney at that time. Can anyone confirm?
My understanding is that the attorney would be assigned a bar number when they filed a document with the district court clerk. I assume there was a secondary method for those who did not file documents. I think this was the method for the first 3000 or so bar numbers and then they were assigned after the bar exam, maybe in the late 80s or early 90s.
This is correct. It is was not alphabetical. It was not based upon date of admission. The first (I am guessing) 3500 were based upon the date that you applied for your number which was the equivalent of paying your dues. That is why there are some attorneys who were older who had higher numbers. Ralph Denton was admitted in 1951 and was SBN 1696. Mark Denton was admitted in 1976 and is SBN 194.
The first year the bar issued license numbers, it issued attorneys their number based on when the attorney (or attorney’s firm) paid their dues for that year. So if you paid early, you got a lower bar number – the later you paid, the higher your bar number…
Ok I’ll stop. Last one. Alex, re today’s title, “What did OBC argue to NSC when they were late with the AG appeal?”
Correct. That’s good for another $1000.
Ranked Voting
“Not everybody has easy access to an ID” said Haseebullah
Poppy cock. The only people without IDs are those here illegally. Even they can obtain an NV ID from DMV. The old song and dance that the poor are disadvantaged is BS, since the poor already have to have ID for welfare benefits such as SNAP and Medicaid or fill a prescription.
“not everyone has an ID” is an argument to solve *that* problem, NOT an argument against voter ID in elections.
Based. That argument is horseshit.
“You don’t need an ID to vote. But you need 17 forms of ID to exercise your second amendment rights”
Let’s balance it out and make the same rules for voting as buying a gun.
Ok, send everyone a gun in the mail.
I can think of several other classes of people (other than “illegals”) who might not have proper ID at any given time. One of the most significantly affected groups would likely be individuals who have recently been evicted from their places of legal residence. In 2023 there were about 85,000 summary evictions filed or reopened in Nevada. This includes about 3,000 per month in Clark County, or about 36,000 per year, i.e., around 10 percent of the entire population of renters in the Valley. The majority of those summary eviction proceedings are granted.
A driver’s license in Nevada must be updated with a new permanent address no later than 30 days after moving, and anyone who has worked with clients dealing with a recent eviction knows or should know that finding a new permanent place to live immediately after an eviction can be challenging to say the least.
The 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections in Nevada were each decided by less than 40,000 votes (about a 3% margin each time). This amount is less than the number of persons evicted yearly in the State.
No permanent residence ≠ No ID.
That’s just silly.
My point is that folks who otherwise clearly reside in Nevada may not be able to easily acquire a new permanent residence following an eviction. Hence, difficulty in obtaining a new driver’s license.
That does not disqualify them from voting.
I agree the wording of the ballot question provides that an ID must be “expired” for no more than four years; and I’ll assume arguendo that a license which doesn’t reflect a current address is not “expired” for voting purposes.
My point is not that they won’t be able to vote with an out-of-date address. The problem will come later, when an allegation is raised that the ID presented – if a driver’s license – likely did not match an individual’s permanent address and thus gives rise to a claim of voter “fraud.” Given the margins for statewide victory, and the likelihood that many persons subject to eviction will present drivers licenses with out-of-date addresses, the incongruity may in turn raise a question about “voter fraud” with enough facial validity to support a challenge to the election results when in reality none exists.
Maybe this wouldn’t seem so problematic to me if Vegas Valley landlords didn’t file about 36,000 eviction proceedings against a renter population of approximately 385,000 on a yearly basis.
Maybe the problem lies not with the landlords . . . but with tenants that are unable or unwilling to pay the rent that they promised to pay when they signed their lease.
GTFOH with that nonsense.
I hear ya loud and clear 2:59. I guess you haven’t read the following:
“Las Vegas households now need to make at least $69,810 annually to be able to afford rent in the valley, which is above the median household income, according to a new report from Zillow”
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/housing/how-much-do-las-vegas-residents-need-to-make-to-afford-rent-3001608/ (Feb 2024)
“In Southern Nevada, ‘7 of the 10 most common occupations do not earn the income needed to afford rent for a studio apartment’ while in Reno ‘6 of the 10 most common occupations do not earn the income needed to afford rent for a studio apartment,” according to the report.'”
https://nevadacurrent.com/2022/06/10/nvs-most-common-jobs-rarely-pay-enough-to-pay-the-rent-unlv-research-shows/ (June 2022)
But sure, I guess it’s possible that the majority of the 385,000-odd renters in the Valley who face a rental affordability crisis are all just moral degenerates.
https://nevadacurrent.com/2022/06/10/nvs-most-common-jobs-rarely-pay-enough-to-pay-the-rent-unlv-research-shows/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/housing/how-much-do-las-vegas-residents-need-to-make-to-afford-rent-3001608/
Of course there are some deadbeat tenants; I worked for a small landlord in college, I saw them up close. But didn’t the Current conclude a few years ago that 7 out of the 10 most common jobs in the Valley couldn’t afford to rent a studio apartment? Didn’t Zillow recently find that the income needed to reasonably rent in Vegas exceeded the local median income? There’s been plenty of reporting on how rent has increased higher than wage growth in recent years, and I’m pretty sure these structural factors could explain a decent chunk of the evictions that ultimately occur in the Valley. IMO placing the moral imperative for evictions entirely on tenants when landlords are the ones performing background checks and setting term rental rates seems a bit one-sided.
But as it relates to the voter ID initiative, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether landlords or tenants are to blame for the astronomical number of evictions in the Valley. Because if the scale of evictions and resulting voter displacement might in and of itself serve as a facially plausible basis for challenging election results after a voter ID system is implemented, IMO that’s reason enough to question whether that ballot initiative, as written, will create more problems than it solves.
Still nonsense.
Of course its one sided. Landlords own, pay for, maintain and rent out the properties. Tenants, if they do not make enough money need to rent somewhere that they can afford.
Vis a vis the ID initiative and compliance with “current address” requirements, this argument is a red herring at best. That law can easily be challenged in context and fixed by the legislature or the courts, it matters not. But, don’t think for a second that any of us buy your attempts to humanize the issue, when the perils of NOT passing such a law are so much more onerous.
What exactly are the “perils” of not passing the law? About a third of the country doesn’t have voter ID laws at all, and the last Presidential election was called the safest in history according to the government experts tasked with overseeing it.
Comparing those states with no voter ID requirement against common state-by-state quality of life metrics is pretty telling. It turns out that many of the states which hazard the “perils” of not requiring voter ID consistently dominate the top 10 spots for quality of life nationwide. So all of those unvetted voters in those states must be getting something right.
There is nothing more reliable than a government investigating itself
“safest in history”
🤪🤪
You speak like a certain presidential candidate. 350 words to say exactly nothing.
0-43. Rudy, Fox “News,” billons in civil judgments, hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants in prison, but you keep telling yourselves JFK Jr.’s going to raise up from the dead to prove the election was stolen.
GTFOH with that trash. Again with the Maddow drivel. Just stop already. Because I know that you will be deathly silent about a week from now. . . .
Silent about what? Not a SINGLE election result from 2020 being overturned? Not a SINGLE election lawsuit won by Trump or his supporters Not a SINGLE dead son of an ex-president has risen from the dead to save the election? I’ll keep squawkin buddy, best believe that.
Anyone who has spent five minutes in eviction court in the past two years is chuckling, including defense counsel.
Presuming everything you said is valid, why shouldn’t landlords expect rent to be paid to them as agreed and on time? Even when tenants don’t pay rent, the landlord’s mortgage payments are still due.
“The old song and dance that the poor are disadvantaged is BS” gets my vote for dumbest thing I’ve seen on this already toxic wasteland of a blog.
Poverty is a theatrical bit for our amusement!
Poverty’s no disgrace, but ’tis a great inconvenience.
Athar is awesome!!!
one party wants to make this a “sanctuary” city so more VOTERS can invade ……no i.d. required……
Weird how trumpers claim voter fraud when trump loses, but they’re oddly silent when republicans win on down ballot votes IN THE SAME ELECTION.
What do you think Kamala’ers are going to say next week?
You’re not a serious person.
Weird thing is, we don’t call ourselves Kamala-ers and no one else (except you) does. Progressives have yet to follow a candidate based on personality alone. We ain’t in that cult. That’s y’all’s thing. We’re just voting for the candidate who doesn’t want to be a dictator on the first day or any other day.
Constitution-ers; Rule of Law-ers; Democratic Republic-ers; Non-cult-ers; aka, the Sane Reasonable People.
You sure as fuck are not following her for her policies. . . . . 🤣
Luckily, most of us don’t give a shit what you think about how or why we we prefer Trump. But I promise you its policy related, circa 2019. Keep up with the MSNBC talking points.
Psssst. Your communist is showing.
I don’t follow her and I don’t watch MSNBC, but good try. And who calls anyone a communist anymore? Psssst. Your boomer is showing and the fun thing about boomers is that every day there are fewer and fewer of them. Bye Felicia.
Sorry, you already outed yourself with the “we don’t call ourselves . . .”.
And the boomer label isn’t the burn you think it is.
Comfortably, Gen X here. Govern your conduct accordingly.
Govern my conduct accordingly? What’re you going to do? Drop another sick burn on an anonymous blog. Woooo how spooky. And how TF did I “out” myself? So weird. Hahahahaha
Hold on . . . let me remove my tongue from my cheek.
Read my comment again and you will see how you outed yourself as a K lover.
Access for Marginalized Groups: Critics argue that voter ID laws can disproportionately affect low-income individuals, the elderly, and minorities, who may have more difficulty obtaining the required IDs. This raises concerns about potential disenfranchisement of certain voter groups.
Potential Impact on Voter Turnout: Research has shown that strict voter ID laws can lead to lower voter turnout, particularly in communities that may find the process of obtaining an ID burdensome due to factors like travel costs, limited access to ID-issuing offices, or lost wages from time taken off work.
Questionable Necessity: Fraud prevention is often cited as the primary reason for implementing voter ID laws. However, many studies indicate that in-person voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Critics argue that the laws might not address a problem significant enough to warrant restrictions that could affect legitimate voters
Look! The CNP guy is back.
“Critics”
“Research”
“Studies”
“Critics”
All of these = Bullshit and have no basis in either fact or science.
For everyone’s sake, hopefully the NVSC decision is a minor detail. But, how can a non-postmarked ballot even *show up* at a counting facility 3 days after election day? Would this be a mail-in ballot that someone drops into a mailbox next Tuesday at 11:55pm? Barring some brazenly obvious shenanigans, we have to presume the number of “non-postmarked ballots received 3 days after election day” would be no more than 100-200 total? Right? Or are we missing something?
No postmark, no count. Its that simple. USPS postmarks EVERYTHING and if postage isnt sufficient, they sure as shit let you know.
well no postage is necessary on ballots, so that can’t be a reason. Again, what’s a valid reason one of these would even show up not-postmarked 3 days after the election?
Not a valid reason, but a possibility.
The USPS will stamp everything that goes through its system, postage or no postage.
Ballot harvesting. Someone goes door to door, say in a retirement community, and says “Hi sweetie, The election was yesterday, but I can help your vote to count. Do you need help with your ballot?”, and collects a bushel basket full on the day after the election, then dumps them at the post office after hours.
Postage ≠ postmark
Which
IS
Required.
Yes, because the USPS has never made a mistake, and no one has ever had a package/letter say it was delivered and it really wasn’t… I don’t give a lot of credit to most, if not all, government agencies.
fair point 11:45am. I guess the only way this is an issue is if “non-postmarked ballots 3 days after election day” are 10x or 20x higher than past elections. We shall see.
Nor true. I have received multiple items delivered by the US mail that were missing a postmark where there should have been one. Not saying I agree with the ruling, but it is simply false to assert that the USPS postmarks everything.
Answer to your first question is “shenanigans”.
Shenanigans. One of my favorite activities.
How can it show up. By the unions and other organizations submitting ballots and stuffing the ballot box. This is what they did in 2022 and 2020. How many votes do we need-let’s find some mail ins. What happened with election day being an election day instead it is a month and weeks after.
Please keep repeating debunked lies about previous elections. FFS…
great point 12:59pm. It’s likely that the number of ballots impacted by this ruling is a couple hundred. Obviously, if there are 25,000 “unmarked ballots received 3 days after election day,” there is perhaps some shenanigans going on. But, until then, it’s likely much ado over 200-500 total ballots.
“debunked”
🙄
Right right right. It’s so much more likely that those evil unions and other organizations are engaging in a criminal conspiracy that involves themselves and the poll workers (who are accepting mail-in ballots from someone other than the post office) instead of the postal service missing the postmarks for ::checks notes:: 26 ballots in the Primary.
Herndon’s concurrence and analysis of the statute makes sense. The majority’s interpretation does not. Pickering is just guano-crazy.
. . . . . again
Pickering is probably the sharpest justice we have on the Court and was the only one who would stand up to Big Bad Jim.
Mail in ballots, drop off ballots, and early voting are a bunch of guano. I say scrap it. There should be in person voting only on the first Tuesday in November from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. And yes, bring your valid government issued id.
Why do you hate the overseas military?
Why do you hate the elderly and the disabled?
Why do you hate Natives who live on tribal lands far from a poll site?
I agree, why do you “have” the disabled ?
I agree. And I’m important. I have many leather bound books.
And my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
FFS, make it a Federal and State Holiday.
@2:11 as a veteran who could only vote via mail in ballots while on active duty, I cannot emphasize exactly how far off you can fuck. I sure as hell did not raise my right hand so dumbasses like you could take away my rights.
Calling Bullshit. Vets have ALWAYS been able to vote absentee and that won’t change. Stop gaslighting, lyin ass.
Thanks to UOCAVA, deployed military can vote online in Nevada with EASE. Of course, not all military have ready and able access to the interwebs, but it’s an option. 2:11 would happily strip that access away in favor of “single day, paper only, hand counted” BS propaganda.
(EASE also extends to the disabled and tribal folks, which I am very much in favor of. Over 3,300 EASE ballots have been returned for this election)
Did you actually read 2:11’s comment? You’re the gaslighter lyin’ ass.
Just read the election case. The majority’s opinion is by far one of the worst reasoned opinions I have ever read in my life. Embarrassing!
I want a new job that doesn’t require 1900 billable hours, gives me at least 2 weeks/10 days of vacation, and does something positive for the world. Any suggestions?
Go work for a small litigation firm.
Hang a shingle.
Go govt. . . .
Not many other options.
Go work for Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada. They are hiring CAP attorneys. The best position in their firm. Providing a voice to a child in need. Plus they pay full health insurance, paid time off, maternity/paternity leave. Great place to work, unless you’re a supervisor (then your hours are long).
I appreciate this and do CAP cases pro bono. Its a tough 40 if you allow the cases to get you down. The squalor that these kids often were in and the damage done to children takes an emotional toll. I can only do 1 or 2 at a time. But kudos to those of you who can do this full time
Plenty of other options in other departments – in particular, directing attorney for consumer dept. They are looking for someone with litigation experience who can grow the complex litigation realm. https://lacsn.org/careers
Realistically, how much do the attorney positions pay? What’s the top end? I have never been able to find out about this. Salary is never listed in their job listings. The attorneys there do great work but I’m not sure how they make their bills.
“their firm”
Off topic for the day, but wondering if someone can confirm some random Nevada attorney trivia. I am aware that back in the day, attorneys were not provided a bar number, and then at some point the Bar decided that attorneys should be assigned a bar number. Question: how were those initial bar numbers assigned? I thought I had been told that the initial batch was assigned alphabetically to those who were already licensed attorneys, rather than in order of when they had become licensed. In other words, whoever got Bar No. 1 was not necessarily the longest licensed attorney at that time. Can anyone confirm?
My understanding is that the attorney would be assigned a bar number when they filed a document with the district court clerk. I assume there was a secondary method for those who did not file documents. I think this was the method for the first 3000 or so bar numbers and then they were assigned after the bar exam, maybe in the late 80s or early 90s.
This is correct. It is was not alphabetical. It was not based upon date of admission. The first (I am guessing) 3500 were based upon the date that you applied for your number which was the equivalent of paying your dues. That is why there are some attorneys who were older who had higher numbers. Ralph Denton was admitted in 1951 and was SBN 1696. Mark Denton was admitted in 1976 and is SBN 194.
The first year the bar issued license numbers, it issued attorneys their number based on when the attorney (or attorney’s firm) paid their dues for that year. So if you paid early, you got a lower bar number – the later you paid, the higher your bar number…