NC sued over voter ID laws

[ConnorEl]

What this is is proof the Republicans have succeeded in making people think voter ID is the central cause of why anyone is upset with the law instead of the laundry list of other outrageous nonsense.

So you're saying the WSJ Editorial Board was duped?

Right.

Quote:
----------
...If the laws were about voter identification, then it would focus on assuring that the person appearing at the polls is, in fact, the person who is registered to vote. A number of valid forms of identification would do that job. For example, a photo identification card from a state university confirms that identity.

But lawmakers weren’t content with confirming identity. They wanted to make it very difficult for certain groups to vote, and in the case of students they did so by denying us of a UNC-issued photo identification card. Only a limited number of cards will work...

New elections law also eliminates same-day voter registration during early voting, and cuts back on early voting in general.
----------

 

[HeavyPetter]

The fraud argument is so weak, tired, and intellectually lazy. In 2008, the President had a close election (in NC) with Senator McCain. He won by 13,962 votes. What are the chances that either party could manufacture 14,000 fraudulent, in-person, votes? In 2012, NC-7 was the most closely contested race in the state- Rep. McIntyre won by only 657 votes. Do you really think any group could figure out a way to have 600 (or for that matter, 100 or 200) people go to the polls, pretend to be other voters, and not get caught at all? Really? And if so, none of these crooks would ever get caught for another crime and offer up this fraud as a way to get immunity?

Its fucking asinine. And it tends to make me think the folks pushing for it have less than pure motives. Because otherwise, small government conservatives wouldn't want to unnecessarily spend taxpayer money, would they?

Yeah, but it could make a difference in a local election for riverkeeper or something.

And the now outlawed straight party voting would have put a major dent in Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan's election chances.

 

[RJKarl]

There is a much greater chance of absentee voting being compromised. I think you should have to have a cop with yo uas you vote absentee so you prove that you are the person who actually voted.

 

[WFFaithful]

There is a much greater chance of absentee voting being compromised. I think you should have to have a cop with yo uas you vote absentee so you prove that you are the person who actually voted.

I wonder why Republicans didn't do anything to correct the massive amounts of fraud in absentee voting?

2012 early voting in NC: 47.6% Dem, 31.5% Pub

2012 absentee voting in NC: 66.5% Pub, 32.3% Dem

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Its fucking asinine. And it tends to make me think the folks pushing for it have less than pure motives.

That same argument can be flipped just as easily. What is fucking asinine is that before this law we had absolutely no - zero, zilch, nada - requirement that someone exercising what we believe to be the most important right in our democracy even attempt to validate that he is who he claims to be. People need IDs to get into movies, drive a car, get into many government buildings, literally hundreds of other routine daily activities that nobody blinks an eye at .... yet none is needed to vote. If I want to exercise another protected freedom and buy a gun, I have to go get an ID first. People may complain about background checks, but nobody complains about having to go to the DMV or other state agency to get an ID card. I have to go get health insurance for me and my employees, but nobody needs ot go get ID. How fucking ridiculous is that? It makes absolutely no sense that in this day and age we should not expect that individuals obtain identification once in their life. It is the absolute minimum that can be expected of somebody to participate in society. And it tends to make me think that the folks opposing it have less than pure motives.

 

[RJKarl]

There's a huge difference. Tens of thousands of crimes of all levels that directly harm other people DO happen because of people with guns.

There is definitive evidence of this.

Just be honest and say you support the classist, racist, ageist program to suppress voting in the US. If you believe it's anything else you're either lying to yourself or lying to us,

 

[RJKarl]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

As of the date of that publication, there were over 340,000 gun related crimes in the past year of records. Show 1/100 of 1% of that number of voter impersonation cases during the 2012 election.

 

[Deacon923]

That same argument can be flipped just as easily. What is fucking asinine is that before this law we had absolutely no - zero, zilch, nada - requirement that someone exercising what we believe to be the most important right in our democracy even attempt to validate that he is who he claims to be. People need IDs to get into movies, drive a car, get into many government buildings, literally hundreds of other routine daily activities that nobody blinks an eye at .... yet none is needed to vote. If I want to exercise another protected freedom and buy a gun, I have to go get an ID first. People may complain about background checks, but nobody complains about having to go to the DMV or other state agency to get an ID card. I have to go get health insurance for me and my employees, but nobody needs ot go get ID. How fucking ridiculous is that? It makes absolutely no sense that in this day and age we should not expect that individuals obtain identification once in their life. It is the absolute minimum that can be expected of somebody to participate in society. And it tends to make me think that the folks opposing it have less than pure motives.

and yet, somehow, the republic has survived just fine without voter ID all these years. Oh wait, we elected Obama president, so I guess that constitutes a threat to the republic in your eyes.

I agree 100% with RJs last post. We all know the score here, including the pubs that voted for it. You can lie to yourself in big words if you want, but that doesn't make it less of a lie.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Even though I think it's perfectly legit to require an ID to vote since you need an ID to do about anything of substance in life, I can't for the life of me figure out how limiting early voting is a VRA violation.

 

[DeaconSig]

That same argument can be flipped just as easily. What is fucking asinine is that before this law we had absolutely no - zero, zilch, nada - requirement that someone exercising what we believe to be the most important right in our democracy even attempt to validate that he is who he claims to be. People need IDs to get into movies, drive a car, get into many government buildings, literally hundreds of other routine daily activities that nobody blinks an eye at .... yet none is needed to vote. If I want to exercise another protected freedom and buy a gun, I have to go get an ID first. People may complain about background checks, but nobody complains about having to go to the DMV or other state agency to get an ID card. I have to go get health insurance for me and my employees, but nobody needs ot go get ID. How fucking ridiculous is that? It makes absolutely no sense that in this day and age we should not expect that individuals obtain identification once in their life. It is the absolute minimum that can be expected of somebody to participate in society. And it tends to make me think that the folks opposing it have less than pure motives.

Hungover during Con Law, were we?

 

[Wakeforest22890]

That same argument can be flipped just as easily. What is fucking asinine is that before this law we had absolutely no - zero, zilch, nada - requirement that someone exercising what we believe to be the most important right in our democracy even attempt to validate that he is who he claims to be. People need IDs to get into movies, drive a car, get into many government buildings, literally hundreds of other routine daily activities that nobody blinks an eye at .... yet none is needed to vote. If I want to exercise another protected freedom and buy a gun, I have to go get an ID first. People may complain about background checks, but nobody complains about having to go to the DMV or other state agency to get an ID card. I have to go get health insurance for me and my employees, but nobody needs ot go get ID. How fucking ridiculous is that? It makes absolutely no sense that in this day and age we should not expect that individuals obtain identification once in their life. It is the absolute minimum that can be expected of somebody to participate in society. And it tends to make me think that the folks opposing it have less than pure motives.

Dude.....dude. I agree with the general thought that you should have an ID to vote, but the reason that it is NOT required is pretty obvious given our history, especially if you went to law school.

 

[RJKarl]

Even though I think it's perfectly legit to require an ID to vote since you need an ID to do about anything of substance in life, I can't for the life of me figure out how limiting early voting is a VRA violation.

A much larger portion of black and Hispanic voters vote early. the ONLY for cutting the hours and days is to suppress the minority vote.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

and yet, somehow, the republic has survived just fine without voter ID all these years. Oh wait, we elected Obama president, so I guess that constitutes a threat to the republic in your eyes.

I agree 100% with RJs last post. We all know the score here, including the pubs that voted for it. You can lie to yourself in big words if you want, but that doesn't make it less of a lie.

There is plenty of closed-door tape of Pubs discussing the real reason they want voter ID laws. I'll let you guess.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Hungover during Con Law, were we?

Con Law is for suckers. I'll sum it up in one sentence: Supreme Court Justices choose their personally desired outcome and manipulate prior precedent to justify that outcome, instead of letting precedent drive the outcome.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

and yet, somehow, the republic has survived just fine without voter ID all these years. Oh wait, we elected Obama president, so I guess that constitutes a threat to the republic in your eyes.

I agree 100% with RJs last post. We all know the score here, including the pubs that voted for it. You can lie to yourself in big words if you want, but that doesn't make it less of a lie.

The republic has survived just fine without mandated health insurance for all these years as well. So I guess there is no need for it.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

A much larger portion of black and Hispanic voters vote early. the ONLY for cutting the hours and days is to suppress the minority vote.

So, was their vote suppressed prior to the existence of early voting?

 

[Deacon923]

So, was their vote suppressed prior to the existence of early voting?

yeah, but back then they just used literacy tests.

 

[RJKarl]

So, was their vote suppressed prior to the existence of early voting?

Yes..as 923 said and by many other methods.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

yeah, but back then they just used literacy tests.

Not talking about slave and Jim Crow days. The Democrats would've never been rid of those had they had their way.

I'm saying there is nothing to suggest minority vote was suppressed due to the absence of early voting. Therefore, there is no reason to challenge the absence of early voting. Nor is there some right to early voting. You have the right to vote, nothing more, nothing less. You don't have the right to take two weeks to get your lazy ass to a polling place.

The voter ID challenge I can at least understand, even though I think it's a stupid challenge as well.

 

[RJKarl]

"The Democrats would've never been rid of those had they had their way."

When you admit that the Democrats of those days became Republicans?