Posts
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.
