some Florida bathrooms to be closed during elections.

Post Reply New Topic

The more people that vote, the less likely it is that Republicans will win that election. In a number of red states, they've gone to great lengths to make sure voters who are likely to vote Democratic won't be able to vote for one reason or another.

As an Irony Nazi, I'd like to point out the irony of a person on the Autistic Spectrum rolling his eyes at aid for those with disabilities.

I think the example of disability nazi that zer0netgain gave was descriptive enough of what the term is meant to imply.

As they say around here,"Speak of the Devil and up he pops."

Okay, children, end the nonsense now.



This isn't about voter suppression. It's about not every polling place being 100% handicap accessible (in every way...including bathrooms). Polling locations are often based on what is available. As the article CLEARLY STATES, some are exempt from ADA requirements, and that they don't have handicap-accessible bathrooms (regardless of if the place next door does and would let voters use their facilities), this opens the county to lawsuits (justified or frivolous) from people who want to take issue with this.

Clearly, the smarter move is to move polling places without compliant facilities to nearby locations that DO have them, but that could be a big job that can't be done before the next election.

I've seen these "disability Nazis" cost places money over threats of litigation for NOT providing accommodations for the disabled....even though nobody requested them. Even in Tennessee, a community college began planting the seed for a theater department by hosting a one-act play (all funded by one of the teachers...no school funding), and some jerk called and threatened to sue if they didn't have an ASL interpreter for the deaf available. She paid out of her pocket to hire an interpreter and NOBODY with a hearing impairment showed up for the ONE NIGHT ONLY performance.

Blame an overtly litigious society for this one, not the Democrats or Republicans.

/\ I think it's already been adequately pointed out that this was not about voter suppression.

This is only an excerpt from the actual article. As stated, it has nothing whatsoever do do with singling out democrats in a democrat rich district. It's a matter of accessibility and privately owned polling locations. However, I can see the disability nazis (note the callously bold use of repugnant terminology) demanding that only handicapped accessible locations be utilized as polling locations, further limiting the number of available polling locations and no doubt having the effect being labeled as voter suppression.

Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp

"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.

Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,

where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.

The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."

Read again:

I'll spell it out:
If it's a privately owned building and not necessarily designed or intended for public use, as many polling locations are, then it's obviously not about cheap-skates.
If I own a building that the supervisor of elections deems usable as a polling location and offers to rent it from me for a few days, the monkey is not on my back to dig into my pockets and pay to make the shitter handicap accessible.
In this case we're talking about Metro Dade County (a huge densely populated area) with over 500 polling locations. Put 2 and 2 together will ya....

It's still pretty hard to swallow that they're inconveniencing vulnerable voters just to evade a rule for handicap access. And I'm not buying it. As far as I'm concerned, this is still a means of voter intimidation and suppression hidden beneath the pretext of avoiding shelling out cash for equal access to the sh*tter.

^^^
Conservatives can't live in liberal areas? I tend to think business people who rent out such properties would tend to be more conservative than most others in said area.

So what are you saying?
1. They should only rent from liberal owners?
2. They are only renting from conservative co-conspirators that have secretly agreed to lock the restrooms just to "suppress" the voters in that district?

Get a grip.