Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Why did California and other States "Deter" Disabled Voters from voting in the Presidential Election?

 


 

The below (2016) Election Stats speak for themselves and you ask yourself how are States including, California, able to interfere with "Disabled Voters" fundamental rights? 

 

Because, no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.”    The principle of equal protection is a fundamental right, that applies to "Disabled Voters," because, at its core, equal protection laws  also protects "Disabled Voters," who are  protected class members from arbitrary discrimination at the hands of States, inclusive (“CALIFORNIA”).

 

(2016) STATES THAT “DETERRED” DISABLED OR PERSONS ILL FROM VOTING

AT WHAT PERCENTAGE % did each state perform during (2016) Election?

(2016) CITED SOURCES –

 

DATA RESERACHED BY:

 

MIT.EDU

ALABAMA

22.29%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AL&year=2016

ALASKA

12.19%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AK&year=2016

ARIZONA

8.29%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AZ&year=2016

ARKANSAS*

20.19%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AR&year=2016

CALIFORNIA

11.56%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=CA&year=2016

COLORADO

7.06%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=CO&year=2016

CONNECTICUT*

20.21%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=CT&year=2016

DELAWARE

17.92%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=DE&year=2016

FLORIDA

13.16%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=FL&year=2016

GEORGIA

14.85%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=GA&year=2016

HAWAII

10%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=HI&year=2016

IDAHO*

11.97%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=ID&year=2018

ILLINOIS

12.52%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=IL&year=2018

INDIANA

17.44%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=IN&year=2016

IOWA*

9.00%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=IA&year=2016

KANSAS

13.78%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=KS&year=2016

KENTUCKY

16.85%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=KY&year=2016

LOUISIANA*

18.31%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=LA&year=2016

MAINE

14.26%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=ME&year=2016

MARYLAND

16.13%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MD&year=2016

MASSACHUSETTS*

19.43%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MA&year=2016

Michigan

13.58%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MI&year=2016

MISSISSIPPI*

18.74%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MS&year=2016

MISSOURI*

17.09%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MO&year=2016

MONTANA

8.46%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MT&year=2016

NEBRASKA*

10.42%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NE&year=2016

NEVADA*

12.05%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NV&year=2016

NEW HAMPSHIRE

15.51%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NH&year=2016

NEW JERSEY

16.54%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NJ&year=2016

NEW MEXICO*

14.92%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NM&year=2016

NEW YORK

14.65%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NY&year=2016

NORTH CAROLINA

16.48%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NC&year=2016

NORTH DAKOTA*

10.07%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=ND&year=2016

OHIO*

12.38%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=OH&year=2016

OKLAHOMA*

15.39%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=OK&year=2016

OREGON*

8.96%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=OR&year=2016

PENNSYLVANIA*

15.44%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=PA&year=2016

RHODE ISLAND*

18.51%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=RI&year=2016

SOUTH CAROLINA

17.46

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=SC&year=2016

SOUTH DAKOTA

10.00%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=SD&year=2016

TENNESSEE

14.36%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=TN&year=2016

TEXAS

11.84%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=TX&year=2016

UTAH*

12.13%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=UT&year=2016

VERMONT*

7.33%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=VT&year=2016

VIRGINIA*

16.85%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=VA&year=2016

WASHINGTON*

3.42%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WA&year=2016

WEST VIRGINIA*

21.79%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WV&year=2016

WISCONSIN

15.93%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WI&year=2016

WYOMING

7.84%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WY&year=2016

 

Source: MIT.EDU

Stat Table: 11/25/20, Wednesday 

 Pending (2020) Stats for comparison.