I'd have to give that some thought.
Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread
- Thread starter BeachBumDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I'd have to give that some thought.
Fuck Your Couch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,795
- Reaction score
- 1,220
Yeah, it's a real stretch to think that lawmakers would enact laws to help themselves retain power. Like imagine if districts could be re-shaped by those in power to help enhance the probability to maintain majorities.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
Using the term "common sense" is really pointless as it's completely subjective.
I think it's "common sense" that gay people should be allowed to be married and have all the same rights as straight people---a lot of people disagree with that.
I think evolution is "common sense", but 49% of Republicans don't believe in it.
I think climate change is "common sense", but a lot of people don't.
So the solution to help this epidemic-in-hiding is:
a) mail them a piece of plastic at no cost to them, that they can use in nearly every other aspect of adult life, for eight cents plus a government-rate stamp; solving this and a host of other problems for a decade of their life,
b) engineer a federal lawsuit to ensure that this law is thrown out (and that they stay afflicted).
Seems legit.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
I'm really asking. Say I'm a 26 year old who has never had an ID, and don't have my birth certificate. How do I get my ID/how long does it take?
I have no idea how that process works.
If it were as easy as getting the government to "mail a piece of plastic" I think it would be a different story.
Fuck Your Couch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,795
- Reaction score
- 1,220
Solution to what?
Jamison2Carter
Active member
From the 4th Circuit's Opinion
"Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law. Id. at *136-38. This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Id. The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A. 2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess. Id.; J.A. 3653, 2115, 2292."
"The district court found that, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage. Id. at *136-37. Early voting allows any registered voter to complete an absentee application and ballot at the same time, in person, in advance of Election Day. Id. at *4-5. Early voting thus increases opportunities to vote for those who have difficulty getting to their polling place on Election Day. The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012. Id. at *136-38; see also id. at *48 n.74 (trial evidence showing that 60.36% and 64.01% of African Americans voted early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.47% and 49.39% of whites). In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting. Id. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days. Id. at *15, *136. As a result, SL 2013-381 also eliminated one of two “souls-to-the-polls” Sundays in which African American churches provided transportation to voters. Id. at *55."
"The district court found that legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants. Id. at *137. Prior to SL 2013-381, same-day registration allowed eligible North Carolinians to register in person at an early voting site at the same time as casting their ballots. Id. at *6. Same-day registration provided opportunities for those as yet unable to register, as well as those who had ended up in the “incomplete registration queue” after previously attempting to register. Id. at *65. Same-day registration also provided an easy avenue to re-register for those who moved frequently, and allowed those with low literacy skills or other difficulty completing a registration form to receive personal assistance from poll workers. See id. The legislature’s racial data demonstrated that, as the district court found, “it is indisputable that African American voters disproportionately used [same-day registration] when it was available.” Id. at *61. The district court further found that African American registration applications constituted a disproportionate percentage of the incomplete registration queue. Id. at *65. And the court found that African Americans “are more likely to move between counties,” and thus “are more likely to need to re-register.” Id. As evidenced by the types of errors that placed many African American applications in the incomplete queue, id. at *65, *123 & n.26, in-person assistance likely would disproportionately benefit African Americans."
"Legislators additionally requested a racial breakdown of provisional voting, including out-of-precinct voting. Id. at *136-37. Out-of-precinct voting required the Board of Elections in each county to count the provisional ballot of an Election Day voter who appeared at the wrong precinct, but in the correct county, for all of the ballot items for which the voter was eligible to vote. Id. at *5-6. This provision assisted those who moved frequently, or who mistook a voting site as being in their correct precinct. The district court found that the racial data revealed that African Americans disproportionately voted provisionally. Id. at *137. In fact, the General Assembly that had originally enacted the out-of-precinct voting legislation had specifically found that “of those registered voters who happened to vote provisional ballots outside their resident precincts” in 2004, “a disproportionately high percentage were African American.” Id. at *138. With SL 2013-381, the General Assembly altogether eliminated out-of-precinct voting. Id. at *15."
"African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration. Id. at *69. Preregistration permitted 16- and 17-year-olds, when obtaining driver’s licenses or attending mandatory high school registration drives, to identify themselves and indicate their intent to vote. Id. at *7, *68. This allowed County Boards of Elections to verify eligibility and automatically register eligible citizens once they reached eighteen. Id. at *7. Although preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it. Id. at *15, *69.3 The district court found that not only did SL 2013-381 eliminate or restrict these voting mechanisms used disproportionately by African Americans, and require IDs that African Americans disproportionately lacked, but also that African Americans were more likely to “experience socioeconomic factors that may hinder their political participation.” Id. at *89. This is so, the district court explained, because in North Carolina, African Americans are “disproportionately likely to move, be poor, less educated, have less access to transportation, and experience poor health.” Id. at *89. Nevertheless, over protest by many legislators and members of the public, the General Assembly quickly ratified SL 2013-381 by strict party-line votes. Id. at *9-13. The Governor, who was of the same political party as the party that controlled the General Assembly, promptly signed the bill into law on August 12, 2013. Id. at *13."
This is just utterly despicable by the NC GOP
"Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law. Id. at *136-38. This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Id. The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A. 2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess. Id.; J.A. 3653, 2115, 2292."
"The district court found that, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage. Id. at *136-37. Early voting allows any registered voter to complete an absentee application and ballot at the same time, in person, in advance of Election Day. Id. at *4-5. Early voting thus increases opportunities to vote for those who have difficulty getting to their polling place on Election Day. The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012. Id. at *136-38; see also id. at *48 n.74 (trial evidence showing that 60.36% and 64.01% of African Americans voted early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.47% and 49.39% of whites). In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting. Id. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days. Id. at *15, *136. As a result, SL 2013-381 also eliminated one of two “souls-to-the-polls” Sundays in which African American churches provided transportation to voters. Id. at *55."
"The district court found that legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants. Id. at *137. Prior to SL 2013-381, same-day registration allowed eligible North Carolinians to register in person at an early voting site at the same time as casting their ballots. Id. at *6. Same-day registration provided opportunities for those as yet unable to register, as well as those who had ended up in the “incomplete registration queue” after previously attempting to register. Id. at *65. Same-day registration also provided an easy avenue to re-register for those who moved frequently, and allowed those with low literacy skills or other difficulty completing a registration form to receive personal assistance from poll workers. See id. The legislature’s racial data demonstrated that, as the district court found, “it is indisputable that African American voters disproportionately used [same-day registration] when it was available.” Id. at *61. The district court further found that African American registration applications constituted a disproportionate percentage of the incomplete registration queue. Id. at *65. And the court found that African Americans “are more likely to move between counties,” and thus “are more likely to need to re-register.” Id. As evidenced by the types of errors that placed many African American applications in the incomplete queue, id. at *65, *123 & n.26, in-person assistance likely would disproportionately benefit African Americans."
"Legislators additionally requested a racial breakdown of provisional voting, including out-of-precinct voting. Id. at *136-37. Out-of-precinct voting required the Board of Elections in each county to count the provisional ballot of an Election Day voter who appeared at the wrong precinct, but in the correct county, for all of the ballot items for which the voter was eligible to vote. Id. at *5-6. This provision assisted those who moved frequently, or who mistook a voting site as being in their correct precinct. The district court found that the racial data revealed that African Americans disproportionately voted provisionally. Id. at *137. In fact, the General Assembly that had originally enacted the out-of-precinct voting legislation had specifically found that “of those registered voters who happened to vote provisional ballots outside their resident precincts” in 2004, “a disproportionately high percentage were African American.” Id. at *138. With SL 2013-381, the General Assembly altogether eliminated out-of-precinct voting. Id. at *15."
"African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration. Id. at *69. Preregistration permitted 16- and 17-year-olds, when obtaining driver’s licenses or attending mandatory high school registration drives, to identify themselves and indicate their intent to vote. Id. at *7, *68. This allowed County Boards of Elections to verify eligibility and automatically register eligible citizens once they reached eighteen. Id. at *7. Although preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it. Id. at *15, *69.3 The district court found that not only did SL 2013-381 eliminate or restrict these voting mechanisms used disproportionately by African Americans, and require IDs that African Americans disproportionately lacked, but also that African Americans were more likely to “experience socioeconomic factors that may hinder their political participation.” Id. at *89. This is so, the district court explained, because in North Carolina, African Americans are “disproportionately likely to move, be poor, less educated, have less access to transportation, and experience poor health.” Id. at *89. Nevertheless, over protest by many legislators and members of the public, the General Assembly quickly ratified SL 2013-381 by strict party-line votes. Id. at *9-13. The Governor, who was of the same political party as the party that controlled the General Assembly, promptly signed the bill into law on August 12, 2013. Id. at *13."
This is just utterly despicable by the NC GOP
Are the IDs free for everyone? If the answer is any one person has to pay for the ID, it's the very definition of a poll tax.
If you don't pay this fee, you can't vote. That's a poll tax.
I'll take Red Herring for 2,000, Alex.
I don't think the problem exists in 2016. I can't imagine a single person who exists in America in 2016 that doesn't have an i.d. but if by any chance there are even ten, then they clearly can have mailed deliver to them that would solve it.
Eight cents * 10 people + 49 cent stamp * 10 people.
Non-problem solved.
It's not a red herring at all. If you have to pay a fee to vote, it's a poll tax.
Fuck Your Couch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,795
- Reaction score
- 1,220
Gonna steal some of 923's thunder and post an Atlantic article: North Carolina's Deliberate Disenfranchisement of Black Voters
Since we only keep talking about the ID portion of the law:
Since we only keep talking about the ID portion of the law:
Last edited:
It is common sense to have a picture identification in 2016 in America.
Don't worry. JMHD has graciously donated $12.00 to cover the entire problem for all 10 of the people who wish to vote but do not have an ID or the wherewithal or common sense necessary to get an ID.
JMHD will pay the poll tax for all with just a little "walking around" money.
Jamison2Carter
Active member
I'm not sure I can promise to be any of those things. But in fairness to me - I've been here since the beginning.
Again, people keep using this new meaning for "disenfranchising". I don't think it means what they think it means.
Fuck Your Couch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,795
- Reaction score
- 1,220
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
PROVE IT! (you can't use your join date as evidence)