Four months after the patients of Coalinga State Hospital doomed a 1-cent sales tax needed to maintain police and fire staffing in the city, the California State Assembly is weighing a change to state voting law that would limit sexually violent predators’ voting rights. Full Article
Related
Assembly Bill to Disenfranchise Coalinga Patients
So, they use these detained citizens to increase their population count and thus reap benefits, yet they then seek to disenfranchise these very same people because they didn’t vote they way they wanted them to.
You can’t make this crap up!
It is appalling that this Assemblyman Arambula chooses to take away even more rights of these patients/prisoners citizens. City of Coalinga should honor these citizens for bringing in revenue into their little town as appose to asking for a recall of votes. Disenfranchised folks in this country don’t stand a chance, do they?
How many times can “predator” be used in a single article? Upon release, do they become people?
The last few lines got me thinking its a trailer park boys kinda town. The lost money because Kmart shut down and they aren’t making money from the weed they are growing yet.
They got their priorities all jacked.
They do this all the time, when they cannot win change the rules of the game as is done to all RCs nearly every year.
Let’s go ahead and exclude immigrants as well since they obviously vote by their foreign values. And we can’t forget the black community since their “hood” values are different from American. Then each state can exclude republicans or democrats, based on what is needed. Hell, lets just eliminate voting all together and just trust our leaders know what they’re doing.
The problem I see with confronting the polluticians (spelled correctly!) is that by either calling their offices, or emailing them, you must give so much personal info that they can retaliate and make your life difficult.
Actually, AB 2839 misstates the current election law in regards to a residence and domicile. They are not the same thing.
Current law-
[Except as provided in this article, if a person has more than
one residence and that person has not physically resided at any one of the residences within the immediate preceding year, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that those residences in which he or she has not so resided within the immediate preceding year are merely residences and not his or her domicile.]
Those Coalinga “patients” who have been held captive at that hospital for more than a year must consider that place their domicile.
This law will most likely be struck down if passed and challenged.
What the difference between concentration camp and Coalinga State Hospital ?