• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

knowell said:
Intent is always difficult to ascertain and easy to surmise.
Click to expand...

So enacting a law that disenfranchises black voters is fine as long as it's not overtly intended to do so?
 
knowell said:
Intent is always difficult to ascertain and easy to surmise.
Click to expand...

Once again, it's somewhat easier to ascertain when they hit "with clinical precision" the reasons that disproportionately impacted African-Americans.

Does intent even matter here? If a really, really bad law is put into place and it's found out afterwards that it disproportionately impacts any one group, it's still going to be overturned, regardless of whether lawmakers meant to be discriminatory or not.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
So we are clear, it's not JUST that they "don't have ID's". It's that ID's don't match birth certificates, married names have changed, addresses have changed.

To simplify it down to "well anybody can get an ID" is disingenuous in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. I think we can all manage this act of heroism. This entire issue is the latest in an eternal, industrial quest for persecution.
 
PhDeac said:
So enacting a law that disenfranchises black voters is fine as long as it's not overtly intended to do so?
Click to expand...

The problem is getting rid of popular black voting methods like provisional voting is pretty overt. Why would the state have a problem with provisional voting?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Yes, and they probably wouldn't have had a voter ID law overturned if the law didn't include multiple other provisions that seemed to have no purpose other that to reduce AA turnout.
Click to expand...

Well if black folks would just vote Republican half the time, they would not get targeted, now would they? So whose fault is it now?
 
I don't think the legislature was trying to be racist. I think they were attempting to disenfranchise voters who tend to vote Democrat.

If they were really concerned about just having a form of ID to vote then they wouldn't have cut time off of early voting, removed same-day voting, etc.
 
knowell said:
Intent is always difficult to ascertain and easy to surmise.
Click to expand...

Well, respectfully, I don't think it was that hard here. There was no increase in absentee restrictions, despite the fact that those have the biggest potential for fraud, because whites use absentee ballots at a higher rate than blacks.

We're never going to be in a situation any more where the legislature flat out says it intends to discriminate. But that doesn't mean that there can't be intent
 
jhmd2000 said:
Headline: "Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Voter I.D. Law"

I feel like this was yet another solvable problem that didn't need to turn into a "us" versus "them" racial divide.
Click to expand...

I agree. It wouldn't have been us vs. them if they'd made a well-funded push to make IDs available free and easily to everyone who wanted one while not rolling back access to early voting, same-day registration, etc.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I know this is absolute heresy, but laws that encourage people to get things that will actually help them in society aren't always pernicious raciosm. Who is so busy going back and forth to work that they don't have time to get a free document (that is essential in getting to and from work, for the 99.999% of us that don't live on the Charlotte light rail line)?
Click to expand...

Setting aside the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the law itself, do you think the intentions of the law's drafters were pure?

I mean, we can admit that (again, whether or not the law itself is constitutionally permissible), the fact it came up after the largest amount of African-Americans ever voted in a national election was not just coincidence, right?

I don't' disagree with the desire to get poor people of any ethnicity tools that allow them to better cope with the world in 2016 and beyond. But its a little hard to believe that the post-hoc rationalizations used to justify the law are completely genuine (at least coming from anybody other that you, jh- we know you have the best interest of humankind in your heart at all times), given when it all of a sudden became an issue. I dont' remember voter id being a huge problem in 2004, for example.
 
PhDeac said:
So enacting a law that disenfranchises black voters is fine as long as it's not overtly intended to do so?
Click to expand...

By disenfranchise, do you mean "has to get an ID" or the more traditional meaning of "is not allowed to vote".
 
I don't think we should put into place voter ID laws l, you should be able to show up with absolutely nothing and be able to vote. However to vote you must pass a test, said test will consist of the same questions asked to those applying for citizenship. Additionally there will be a matching section where policies must be matched to the candidate that supports them. After passing you may vote after failing you can vote but it won't count, you will never know if you fail so you can feel good in your safe space. If you can't tell me what the three branches of government are and can't match policies of who you are supposedly voting for then get the fuck out with the right to vote.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Respectfully disagree. I think we can all manage this act of heroism. This entire issue is the latest in an eternal, industrial quest for persecution.
Click to expand...

Once again, I think that everybody should have an ID to vote. It's just the truth that not everybody can get an ID with the same amount of ease. An hour off of work for me or you is very different than an hour off for somebody who relies heavily on a tight budget.
 
PhDeac said:
So enacting a law that disenfranchises black voters is fine as long as it's not overtly intended to do so?
Click to expand...

Under the Constitution, the answer to this is a clear YES. Maybe you would be surprised to know this.

The Voting Rights Act has provisions for discriminatory effects
 
Really there is no justification for voting restrictions. Voter fraud is so so so so so rare that you are always going to prevent more eligible voters from voting than you are going to prevent fraudulent votes
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
I don't think we should put into place voter ID laws l, you should be able to show up with absolutely nothing and be able to vote. However to vote you must pass a test, said test will consist of the same questions asked to those applying for citizenship. Additionally there will be a matching section where policies must be matched to the candidate that supports them. After passing you may vote after failing you can vote but it won't count, you will never know if you fail so you can feel good in your safe space. If you can't tell me what the three branches of government are and can't match policies of who you are supposedly voting for then get the fuck out with the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Would hurt Trump. Might have hurt Obama as well.
 
MysteryMen said:
Really there is no justification for voting restrictions. Voter fraud is so so so so so rare that you are always going to prevent more eligible voters from voting than you are going to prevent fraudulent votes
Click to expand...

How would you know this if there is no ID required? If no one is checking, how do we know how much fraud is going on?
 
Googling isn't helping me much, does anyone have or know what evidence proved that the lawmakers obtained data on voting practices by race?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Yes, and they probably wouldn't have had a voter ID law overturned if the law didn't include multiple other provisions that seemed to have no purpose other that to reduce AA turnout.
Click to expand...

Again, if you're ignoring costs, logistics, security, unnecessary redundancy and construct a narrative where only AA voters are incapable of getting a day off to vote, sure. Then...no other reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top