Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate (1 Viewer)

[Megaton]

So you don't want to discuss the actual problem here, and have resorted to vague insults. 

Copy that.  

43 posts, and we know what you are.  

I was offering constructive criticism.  Blanketly characterizing people you don't know as racist hillbillies and inbred hicks does not serve any purpose.  

 

[massraider]

What we need to get past is all the rhetoric which gets in the way of an intelligent discussion.  

No doubt:

Your analogy kind of sucks

Seems kind of a ridiculous strawman

your rhetoric is pathetic

Way to take the high road, guy.  

Also, here's a fact for you:  Voter ID may be something we need, but the only reason any of them are getting play at all is so they can be used to suppress votes.  So anyonce can have an intelligent discussion about it all they want, it's all theoretical.  Lawmakers aren't worried about voter fraud.  They just aren't.  Voter ID laws that would be bipartisan, and easy have no interest to them.  

HAPPY TO HELP

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

  Do you have a suggestion on how to ensure there is a reasonable level of integrity in voting? 

I've suggested for years that we should simply take a digital photo of every person coming in to vote and link it to the name they voted under.  It wouldn't prevent a voter impersonator from casting a ballot, but it would greatly improve the chances of catching a voter impersonator after the fact.  That seems to me to be a pretty effective deterrent.

 

[Megaton]

Also, here's a fact for you:  Voter ID may be something we need, but the only reason any of them are getting play at all is so they can be used to suppress votes.  So anyonce can have an intelligent discussion about it all they want, it's all theoretical.  Lawmakers aren't worried about voter fraud.  They just aren't.  Voter ID laws that would be bipartisan, and easy have no interest to them.  

It is not a fact.  It is an assertion you are making.  The fact that you use "only" and "all" is a fairly good indication you are wrong.  

 

[Megaton]

I've suggested for years that we should simply take a digital photo of every person coming in to vote and link it to the name they voted under.  It wouldn't prevent a voter impersonator from casting a ballot, but it would greatly improve the chances of catching a voter impersonator after the fact.  That seems to me to be a pretty effective deterrent.

I have no issue with that.  

 

[massraider]

It is not a fact.  It is an assertion you are making.  The fact that you use "only" and "all" is a fairly good indication you are wrong.  

You are right, it is not a fact, only my assertion.  I happen to be correct.

Hey, congratulations for making a post without insulting anyone!

 

[Megaton]

You are right, it is not a fact, only my assertion.  I happen to be correct.

Hey, congratulations for making a post without insulting anyone!

I was discussing the logic of the arguements presented.  If for some reason you twist that and somehow take that personally, I am sorry. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think that some form of trustworthy I.D., widely accepted, is, if not essential, certainly nearly so to function in our society, whether it is to vote, to conduct financial transactions, to obtain services, and to obtain benefits. Setting aside arguments about voter fraud it seems to me it would be incumbent upon us to see that folks can obtain reliable I.D.  How do folks access banking, health care, and receive government benefits without it, how?

I was thinking back.  At one time the ultimate example to show government oppression was the demands by the Gestapo or the Stasi for ones papers.  80 years ago people got on fine, maybe, without I.D., but rather simply with local recognition in their communities. Now we are so mobile, so insulated, that I.D. has become nearly essential.  What that means I do not know, just an observation.

 

[Skoo]

The people who are in support of these voter ID laws are also AGAINST issuing everyone a free state-issued photo ID.

That should tell you all you need to know.

If they were actually worried about voter fraud, they would support free IDs for everyone. But they don't.

And that's because voter fraud has nothing to do with it.

 

[Megaton]

The people who are in support of these voter ID laws are also AGAINST issuing everyone a free state-issued photo ID.

That should tell you all you need to know.

If they were actually worried about voter fraud, they would support free IDs for everyone. But they don't.

And that's because voter fraud has nothing to do with it.

I have advocated ID laws along with issuing free IDs.

 

[Skoo]

I have advocated ID laws along with issuing free IDs.

Maybe I should've been clearer.

The legislators that support voter ID laws are also against issuing free photo IDs.

 

[Megaton]

Maybe I should've been clearer.

The legislators that support voter ID laws are also against issuing free photo IDs.

All of them?    

 

[Megaton]

This becomes an Expected Value analysis. Under no analysis can one arrive at the conclusion that the burden on individuals and all the disenfranchised voters is lower than the in-person voter fraud which is the only thing targeted with these. The gun burden is far far more reasonable in terms of benefits vs costs. In any case proving the reasonableness of the burden will be what these things will be judged against the benefit. We'll never see a state win on this. Most likely they'll never even try.

If you applied the same Expected Value analysis to the gun debate, you could say under no analysis could you concluded that the number of individuals prevented from owning a gun would be lower than the expected number of people injured by the gun.  

 

[Mario Kart]

How do you equate prevent voter fruad with making voting easier?  Obviously any law which attempts to prevent fraud will add some additional process.  The logical debate would be what is the appropriate balance that both ensures that legal citizens are voting only once and at their proper location and making voting accessible for everyone.  If your position is that any barrier is too much, that seems kind of an unreasonable stance to me.  Do you have a suggestion on how to ensure there is a reasonable level of integrity in voting? 

Sure, implement voter ID. Must show ID to vote. Give everyone a year or so to get proper ID. Make voting, nation wide, from 6am-7pm. No national news reports on national elections until all polls close... even Hawaii. Allow 2-week window before election for absentee ballots. Inform the public of these "changes" and be done with it. Instead, there has been systematic ways to keep people from voting rather than encouraging people to vote. Be positive about the process instead of fear this and fear that.

 

[The Commish]

Sure, implement voter ID. Must show ID to vote. Give everyone a year or so to get proper ID. Make voting, nation wide, from 6am-7pm. No national news reports on national elections until all polls close... even Hawaii. Allow 2-week window before election for absentee ballots. Inform the public of these "changes" and be done with it. Instead, there has been systematic ways to keep people from voting rather than encouraging people to vote. Be positive about the process instead of fear this and fear that.

I've never understood why it's limited to a single day either.  Give them 3 days to vote...or a full work week.  Couple that with being able to obtain an ID at the voting place and you've removed 99% of the supposed "issues" either side has with it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/Analysis of Crawford Allegations.pdf

Somewhat dated but pp. 22-23.

But the response is obvious. There's millions of people who don't have them. However they get about their life, they do. But having a photo ID is obviously not essential to their life.

Which is why my post said not essential, but seeming nearly so.  I get that some folks, you say millions and I am in no position to dispute that, routinely go about their business without I.D.  I wonder how, or perhaps more precisely why, though I do not doubt it.  It just seems a hard path to chose.  

I do think that if law abiding citizens want an I.D. we ought to find ways to make that happen.  Having to jump through a lot of hoops to produce documents that should be in another government office, or to clear up clerical mistakes made by the government, well I think that ought to be on the government. 

 

[Mario Kart]

I've never understood why it's limited to a single day either.  Give them 3 days to vote...or a full work week.  Couple that with being able to obtain an ID at the voting place and you've removed 99% of the supposed "issues" either side has with it.

Also, businesses need to allow their employees to vote. A store doesn't open until 9am on Tuesday... great... open at noon that day and inform all employees should use this time to go vote. Make the morning an all voting morning around the country. Sure, some places may be "hurt" by two-three hours of being closed, but voter turnout should be higher than ever, in theory. Republicans are keeping in this archaic form of "one-day-must-vote." Well, 250 years ago, that was much easier to do. They want Democracy to be great yet try everything to keep it from greatness. Just weird.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yep, let's all think about what policies we can enact, to prevent a problem that hasn't materialized, and ignore racist voter suppression actually happening. 

It isnt racist. 

 

[massraider]

It isnt racist. 

You're right.  If it was poor white folks not voting their way, they'd figure out a way to not allow guys named Travis and Randy to vote.  

They are suppressing the vote, because they don't like the way the vote might go.  

They aren't racist (well, actually we don't know that, do we?).  What they are are thieves.  

 

[RCon]

If the only other option is voter suppression, masked as an attempt to prevent voter fraud, then the answer is: do nothing.

Why is this the only other option?

 

[massraider]

Why is this the only other option?

In my opinion:

This is the only other option, because a reasonable system for voter ID, I don't believe that any legislator is interested in spending money on a problem that essentially does not exist.  

I believe that legislators who have nefarious intentions, are very interested in voter ID laws, that are really voting suppression laws.  

If there was an option where some bipartisan group thought they should get out in front of voter ID before it became an issue, and made an ID law that made sense, sign me up.  But I am discussing reality, and I don't realistically see that happening.  

So, in the abstract, it's not the only option.  Of course it's not.  In the real world, everyone is trying to intelligently discuss voter ID, in a thread about a law that was designed to suppress voters.  

Why is it that everyone keeps bringing it back to voter ID, when it really has very little to do with this attempt to silence part of the population? 

 

[Megaton]

Saving 100 nickels isn't as good as saving one $10 bill. Magnitude of harm. Number of people affected.

How many people getting gun licenses is worth 1 guy dying. How many per dead president.

Suppose we found out that about 5,000 snowbirds from New York who voted there, also submitted absentee ballot votes for GW Bush in 2000 in Florida.  Bush lied, people died.  Trillions spent.   Amiright?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The people who are in support of these voter ID laws are also AGAINST issuing everyone a free state-issued photo ID.

That should tell you all you need to know.

If they were actually worried about voter fraud, they would support free IDs for everyone. But they don't.

And that's because voter fraud has nothing to do with it.

That doesn't tell you anything. Supporting free ID's for everybody is the same as supporting a tax increase. People that currently pay for ID's would now get ID's for free. There are a lot of freaking IDs out there. Pretty much every contributing member of society. 

I think this really comes down to a few things. The biggest factor for most people is which way do they lean politically.

1.If you vote democrat, good chance you are against voter ID.

2. If you vote republican, good chance you support it.

3. Then you will have your matthias and tobias types that oppose it because they view voting as a fundamental right and anything that stops even one person from being able to vote is a crime against humanity. (I think these guys both actually fall into #1, but perhaps they truly are that concerned)

4. People that view having an ID as necessary to be a functioning citizen in our society so they simply don't care about voter suppression regarding this topic and find the concept kind of laughable. It isn't even a blip on the list of things they care about. So to them it becomes a logical conclusion to require you to prove who you are to vote, kind of like how you have to show ID for so many trivial things in this world, you know like to get your race bib to run the local church 5k or to buy allergy medication over the counter. 

5. People that swear they only care about election integrity and would support free IDs for everybody, etc etc.

I fall into #4. I think having to show ID to vote just makes too much sense. I wouldn't even blink if asked to do so. Most people wouldn't. The motivations of sleezy politicians simply don't matter to me since they are all sleezy politicians with crappy personal motives.   

 

[parasaurolophus]

You're right.  If it was poor white folks not voting their way, they'd figure out a way to not allow guys named Travis and Randy to vote.  

They are suppressing the vote, because they don't like the way the vote might go.  

They aren't racist (well, actually we don't know that, do we?).  What they are are thieves.  

All politicians. 

 

[Skoo]

I'll tell you a much bigger problem with the voting process that seems absurd: The distribution of voting locations/booths.

I live in the suburbs. I have never in my life waited for more than 2 minutes to vote.

Meanwhile, every single election, people in major cities wait for hours in lines to vote. How many people give up after waiting two hours? How many decide to not even try after seeing the lines?

At the very least, Presidential elections should be a national holiday, so people have time to wait if they need to.

 

[Skoo]

That doesn't tell you anything. Supporting free ID's for everybody is the same as supporting a tax increase. People that currently pay for ID's would now get ID's for free. There are a lot of freaking IDs out there. Pretty much every contributing member of society. 

I think this really comes down to a few things. The biggest factor for most people is which way do they lean politically.

1.If you vote democrat, good chance you are against voter ID.

2. If you vote republican, good chance you support it.

3. Then you will have your matthias and tobias types that oppose it because they view voting as a fundamental right and anything that stops even one person from being able to vote is a crime against humanity. (I think these guys both actually fall into #1, but perhaps they truly are that concerned)

4. People that view having an ID as necessary to be a functioning citizen in our society so they simply don't care about voter suppression regarding this topic and find the concept kind of laughable. It isn't even a blip on the list of things they care about. So to them it becomes a logical conclusion to require you to prove who you are to vote, kind of like how you have to show ID for so many trivial things in this world, you know like to get your race bib to run the local church 5k or to buy allergy medication over the counter. 

5. People that swear they only care about election integrity and would support free IDs for everybody, etc etc.

I fall into #4. I think having to show ID to vote just makes too much sense. I wouldn't even blink if asked to do so. Most people wouldn't. The motivations of sleezy politicians simply don't matter to me since they are all sleezy politicians with crappy personal motives.   

Regarding the bolded, it's the United States Constitution that considers voting a fundamental right, not a few guys on some message board.

The fact that this needs to be pointed out is kind of disturbing.

 

[massraider]

All politicians. 

You really refuse to address the voter suppression that took place, huh?  

You picked out one word I used, to make a point that it wasn't a racist law.  A minor point, because really, a racist law that was disguised could look exactly like this one. 

Then, I concede that point, and you deflect again, making the pointless point that all politicians are thieves.  

Let me ask you:  Do you feel poor black people should be allowed to vote?  Let's say they have a valid state-issued ID.  

If you think they should be allowed to vote, don't you think this is a travesty, and these legislators should lose their jobs?  I mean, I know all politicians are theives, but I'm talking about these ones, the thieves attempting to fix elections in their state (not all politicians by the way).

 

[Megaton]

So we should tighten the rules on absentee ballots? Certainly something to consider. Unless you think Voter ID requirements would prevent someone from voting as themselves.

Should have to have ID's to vote either in person or absentee.  Most states do not allow you to hold driver's licences in two states.  So yes, ID requirements could prevent people from voting in multiple states/locations.  

 

[jonessed]

You really refuse to address the voter suppression that took place, huh?  

You picked out one word I used, to make a point that it wasn't a racist law.  A minor point, because really, a racist law that was disguised could look exactly like this one. 

Then, I concede that point, and you deflect again, making the pointless point that all politicians are thieves.  

Let me ask you:  Do you feel poor black people should be allowed to vote?  Let's say they have a valid state-issued ID.  

If you think they should be allowed to vote, don't you think this is a travesty, and these legislators should lose their jobs?  I mean, I know all politicians are theives, but I'm talking about these ones, the thieves attempting to fix elections in their state (not all politicians by the way).

I don't see pre-registration or early voting as a right.

If the people of the state want to punish their politicians for believing the same then that's an option they always have.

 

[massraider]

I don't see pre-registration or early voting as a right.

If the people of the state want to punish their politicians for believing the same then that's an option they always have.

What option is that?

VOTING THEM OUT OF OFFICE??

Yeah, maybe they don't have that option, depending on which voter suppression law has been passed, disguised as a voter ID law.  

Do ou see any problem with pre-registration?  Any issue you have with early voting?  Any reason voting shouldn't be as accessible to as many Americans as possible?

 

[Megaton]

6. People who think that "protecting" 1 person from voting as someone else is a negative when it prevents hundreds of thousands of other people from voting.

I do believe that for people in 4 who don't pay any attention to this, this requirement would make sense. Because it's only once you get past the rhetoric and to the actual fact that this becomes obviously and inescapably absurd, pernicious, and blatantly intentionally disenfranchisng to achieve a specific political outcome to stop people who won't be voting you from voting at all.

Since we have millions of people who are illegals, or non-documented if you perfer, and millions who are registered in multiple states, the realitive proportions you represent are not very accurate.  If it only a small percent (probably around 1% from the few instances where someone investigated it), there are still many thousands of intances in every election of people voting either multiple times or people voting who are not eligible to.   

 

[parasaurolophus]

You really refuse to address the voter suppression that took place, huh?  

You picked out one word I used, to make a point that it wasn't a racist law.  A minor point, because really, a racist law that was disguised could look exactly like this one. 

Then, I concede that point, and you deflect again, making the pointless point that all politicians are thieves.  

Let me ask you:  Do you feel poor black people should be allowed to vote?  Let's say they have a valid state-issued ID.  

If you think they should be allowed to vote, don't you think this is a travesty, and these legislators should lose their jobs?  I mean, I know all politicians are theives, but I'm talking about these ones, the thieves attempting to fix elections in their state (not all politicians by the way).

You already know my answer to this. If they can show ID that is government backed or approved, no problem. Basically as long as the ID has some safeguards that make it harder to forge than just taking a digital photo and laminating at kinko's.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also, little known fact. People who you don't think of as productive members of society also have constitutional rights.

If I go to the sporting goods store do I have to show ID to buy a gun? 

 

[tdoss]

Couldn't agree more.

This law,  of course, had a lot more than just ID regulations in it.

Oh, absolutely...that law can kiss my @zz.

I'm saying both sides need to just compromise and find the solution.

But yelling "RACISM" all the damn time just kills the discussion.

We honestly get nowhere...everyone gets defensive...goes into their fighting holes and work towards a stalemate.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Oh, absolutely...that law can kiss my @zz.

I'm saying both sides need to just compromise and find the solution.

But yelling "RACISM" all the damn time just kills the discussion.

We honestly get nowhere...everyone gets defensive...goes into their fighting holes and work towards a stalemate.

Again, you're assuming the problem is "fraud".  No one's really trying to solve "fraud" or they'd do something like you suggest.  The fact that there are all kinds of things that could be done to stop "fraud" without disenfranchising anyone, but none of those solutions ever gets proposed or implemented should tell you something.  As should the fact that all of these new laws to prevent "fraud" are loaded with things that specifically target Democratic voters (students, the poor, minorities, etc).

 

[tdoss]

Again, you're assuming the problem is "fraud".  No one's really trying to solve "fraud" or they'd do something like you suggest.  The fact that there are all kinds of things that could be done to stop "fraud" without disenfranchising anyone, but none of those solutions ever gets proposed or implemented should tell you something.  As should the fact that all of these new laws to prevent "fraud" are loaded with things that specifically target Democratic voters (students, the poor, minorities, etc).

I get what you're saying but why not step across the aisle and find a compromise?

Instead, RACISM!

And we're off...

If I'm a Democratic delegate and a Republican brought this to the floor...I'd call his bluff on fraud and work for a solution...instead of questioning his intentions.

Say, "Fine...let's work together to find a solution...i.e. Election Day as a National Holiday, free ID's to all American Citizens and setup a plan to get everyone those ID's.  If you agree to those points...we'll all back your play here.  If not, then I don't think we have to question your motives with this nonsense."

 

[renesauz]

What if you don't want ID? Isn't that your right as an American to not have an ID? And isn't voting also a right? 

Of all the arguments, both for and against, that have ever been made regarding voter ID, this is far and away the most ridiculous.

 

[renesauz]

This is the part i cant get beyond. My bank asked me for ID the other day when I was making a deposit. New policy for cash deposits above $1000. Just so many things in life you need one for. All the dems bring up their little old grandmas that never needed one or the dirt poor( oh wait they actually had ID's but were being used to demonstrate some other point). Perhaps if they spent more time focusing on getting these people more involved in the world to where they would need an ID this wouldn't be an issue. 

I simply refuse to believe that prior to knowing any stats about the makeup of these voters if you had asked democrats and republicans alike, "Do you think you should have to show ID in order to vote," the vast majority of people wouldn't give it a second thought and say yes. Especially people that have bank accounts, have a job, have been to a bar, own a home or a car, etc etc. Democrats only start getting opposed to it when they realize it may keep some democrats from voting. If it kept republicans from voting they wouldn't give a hoot. 

Even as someone who leans Democrat I agree with this.

I also think there's a solution if everyone's willing to listen. We can make it easier/free to get an ID.

 

[RandyDB]

Of all the arguments, both for and against, that have ever been made regarding voter ID, this is far and away the most ridiculous.

until there is a constitutionally valid law requiring an ID to vote he is correct.

 

[renesauz]

until there is a constitutionally valid law requiring an ID to vote he is correct.

 

[Megaton]

until there is a constitutionally valid law requiring an ID to vote he is correct.

23 states have voter ID laws.  Are those unconstitutional?   Someone better tell those states.  There is even a voter ID law at the federal level.  Several of these states have been challenged in court.  In most cases portions of the law were overturned, but still the laws are in place

 

[parasaurolophus]

6. People who think that "protecting" 1 person from voting as someone else is a negative when it prevents hundreds of thousands of other people from voting.

I do believe that for people in 4 who don't pay any attention to this, this requirement would make sense. Because it's only once you get past the rhetoric and to the actual fact that this becomes obviously and inescapably absurd, pernicious, and blatantly intentionally disenfranchisng to achieve a specific political outcome to stop people who won't be voting you from voting at all.

It might mean they have to get an ID, but it doesnt prevent anything. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also, little known fact. People who you don't think of as productive members of society also have constitutional rights.

Do you think reporters are required to show ID to gain access at certain events? 

 

[massraider]

Oh, absolutely...that law can kiss my @zz.

I'm saying both sides need to just compromise and find the solution.

But yelling "RACISM" all the damn time just kills the discussion.

We honestly get nowhere...everyone gets defensive...goes into their fighting holes and work towards a stalemate.

If the NC legislators tore up the bill, and tried to make a racist one, it would look exactly the same.

The idea that their motives were not racist, that they had other reasons to suppress the black vote, why would they matter to a black person?

The result is the same.

This is complaining about cracked China on the  Titanic.

 

[tdoss]

Part of being the, "reasonable guy" is internalizing the facts. You're not being the reasonable guy here. 

These laws aren't motivated by racism. That's entirely besides the point. It's motivated to win elections by throwing out the votes of people who would vote against you. Race is used as a proxy because Obama won the black vote 93% to 6%. And Hillary leads the black vote right now 87% to 4% according to the last Fox News poll. But if those %ages were flipped these laws would look entirely different. 

You're thinking it through way less than the parties you're accusing of acting reactionary. The Republicans aren't trying to be racist here. They're trying to win elections that they can't win by everybody voting. And acting as if this is just a problem of people talking past each other is silly. These legislatures know exactly what they're doing. And so does everybody else. Well, most everybody else. We still have a few of you who think this is some sort of genuine concern of theirs.

Listen man...you might want to stop talking out of your @zz when it comes to me.

The only thing I've said about this particular piece of legislature is that it can kiss my @zz.

I'm talking about the ID issue and if anyone came up with some legislature that's supposed to address it.

So stop trying to act like I'm some proponent of this bill or blinded by its intentions.

 

[Megaton]

Do you know what thread you're posting in?

Do you know how federal courts work? 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Listen man...you might want to stop talking out of your @zz when it comes to me.

The only thing I've said about this particular piece of legislature is that it can kiss my @zz.

I'm talking about the ID issue and if anyone came up with some legislature that's supposed to address it.

So stop trying to act like I'm some proponent of this bill or blinded by its intentions.

You're talking past each other.  Legislators aren't going to "be reasonable" on this issue and "work to find a solution" as you say because neither side is remotely interested in the integrity of elections or any or the other rhetoric that surrounds the issue. Both sides recognize the changing demographics of the voting pool. Democrats react to this trend by forming platforms that essentially buy those votes. Republicans react by altering the election process to suppress turnout. The motivations are plain as day, but the public debate always strays off course into irrelevant and misguided red herrings like how long the wait is at your dmv or whether 12 dead people voted in a primary somewhere. 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

These aren't being passed for election integrity. They don't care about it.

 

[massraider]

''I don't want to talk about voter suppression happening.  I want to talk about voter fraud that might possibly happen someday.''

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Oregon just passed a law that automatically registers anyone that gets a drivers license or other ID and sends them a ballot before every election.