• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it is much more efficient to file a federal lawsuit to prevent them from getting a free government i.d. If they had one, we'd all have one less issue to divide ourselves along racial lines. And who wants that?
 
Forget the ID portions for a second, why did the General Assembly pass those laws if not to reduce AA turnout? This is not a rhetorical question, what is the alternative reasoning? And if fraud is their concern why didn't they address absentee ballots?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Forget the ID portions for a second, why did the General Assembly pass those laws if not to reduce AA turnout? This is not a rhetorical question, what is the alternative reasoning? And if fraud is their concern why didn't they address absentee ballots?
Click to expand...

Absentee ballots are mailed to a specific address. I don't have a problem with early voting. A fair compromise would be early, id-required voting. But we can't have fair compromises. No. We need laws and lawsuits to solve these vexing problems.
 
Jamison2Carter said:
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
Click to expand...

This is just shameless.
 
jhmd, it appears to me that Jamison simply quoted from the opinion. How was his post unwise, unfair, and misinformed?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Forget the ID portions for a second, why did the General Assembly pass those laws if not to reduce AA turnout? This is not a rhetorical question, what is the alternative reasoning? And if fraud is their concern why didn't they address absentee ballots?
Click to expand...

Seems kind of silly to me. By eliminating the first week of the early voting (where blacks voted more than whites), doesn't the next week then become the first week of early voting.

If there was an attempt to lower black voting, I would think the effect would be negligible.

There is certainly nothing that indicates that black people who voted in that earliest week would otherwise not vote. It seems likely that the reason for the greater black turnout in that early voter week was more excitement by black voters to get a chance to vote for Obama.

The whole decision seems to lack cogent thought. Even if there was some bad intent (which is certainly not proven), there is nothing that shows there would be a racially biased outcome.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Go see my edit. Again, we don't have any way to measure fraud for in person voting. "Excuse my Sir, but you don't look like FYC. I'm going to need you to step over here."
Click to expand...

Let's just assume for a second that we knew, as fact, that the goal of these new laws was to lower AA turnout. The laws are still exactly the same, do you still disagree with the appeal court's decision.
 
knowell said:
Seems kind of silly to me. By eliminating the first week of the early voting (where blacks voted more than whites), doesn't the next week then become the first week of early voting.

If there was an attempt to lower black voting, I would think the effect would be negligible.

There is certainly nothing that indicates that black people who voted in that earliest week would otherwise not vote. It seems likely that the reason for the greater black turnout in that early voter week was more excitement by black voters to get a chance to vote for Obama.

The whole decision seems to lack cogent thought. Even if there was some bad intent (which is certainly not proven), there is nothing that shows there would be a racially biased outcome.
Click to expand...

Why did they ask for the racial data patterns of voting and then explicitly go after the methods more used by AAs? I mean, what is the alternate reason? No one has given one... other than maybe some bs about logistics?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Why did they ask for the racial data patterns of voting and then explicitly go after the methods more used by AAs? I mean, what is the alternate reason? No one has given one... other than maybe some bs about logistics?
Click to expand...

Was that the only data they asked for? Was that just one of many things they asked for? Why do we even tabulate things like that by race?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Forget the ID portions for a second, why did the General Assembly pass those laws if not to reduce AA turnout? This is not a rhetorical question, what is the alternative reasoning? And if fraud is their concern why didn't they address absentee ballots?
Click to expand...

"This data revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting, same-day registration, and out-of-precinct voting, and disproportionately lacked DMV-issued ID. N.C. State Conf., 2016 WL 1650774, at *148; J.A. 1782-97, 3084-3119. Not only that, it also revealed that African Americans did not disproportionately use absentee voting; whites did. J.A. 1796-97, 3744-47. SL 2013-381 drastically restricted all of these other forms of access to the franchise, but exempted absentee voting from the photo ID requirement. In sum, relying on this racial data, the General Assembly enacted legislation restricting all -- and only -- practices disproportionately used by African Americans."
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Let's just assume for a second that we knew, as fact, that the goal of these new laws was to lower AA turnout. The laws are still exactly the same, do you still disagree with the appeal court's decision.
Click to expand...

The laws themselves are facially neutral (so how effective they would be towards that goal is a matter of speculation, or as I first suggested, a form of racism I believe is displayed by the opponents of the law), but to combat that precedent and on those omnipotent facts, sure. Kick them out.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The laws themselves are facially neutral (so how effective they would be towards that goal is a matter of speculation, or as I first suggested, a form of racism I believe is displayed by the opponents of the law), but to combat that precedent and on those omnipotent facts, sure. Kick them out.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, so the only disagreement is whether the facts of the case point to that conclusion. I agree with the court's determination, and still haven't even heard an alternate explanation.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
I'd agree, so the only disagreement is whether the facts of the case point to that conclusion. I agree with the court's determination, and still haven't even heard an alternate explanation.
Click to expand...

I would say "we" (not you and I, we, but North Carolina-we) are better served by having facially-neutral, common sense safeguards like IDs AND early voting. What I can't figure out is why we can't agree on that.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The laws themselves are facially neutral (so how effective they would be towards that goal is a matter of speculation, or as I first suggested, a form of racism I believe is displayed by the opponents of the law), but to combat that precedent and on those omnipotent facts, sure. Kick them out.
Click to expand...

"In sum, assessment of the Arlington Heights factors requires the conclusion that, at least in part, discriminatory racial intent motivated the enactment of the challenged provisions in SL 2013-381. The district court clearly erred in holding otherwise. In large part, this error resulted from the court’s consideration of each piece of evidence in a vacuum, rather than engaging in the totality of the circumstances analysis required by Arlington Heights. Any individual piece of evidence can seem innocuous when viewed alone, but gains an entirely different meaning when considered in context. Our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group. But the totality of the circumstances -- North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature’s knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so -- cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used SL 2013-381 to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination."

The only part of this I'd really disagree with is where the Court takes care not to accuse members of the NC GOP of being racist pieces of shit. There are some of those, surely, in our legislature.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I would say "we" (not you and I, we, but North Carolina-we) are better served by having facially-neutral, common sense safeguards like IDs AND early voting. What I can't figure out is why we can't agree on that.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say if the ID requirement was the only portion of the law that it would have been fine.
 
Jamison2Carter said:
"In sum, assessment of the Arlington Heights factors requires the conclusion that, at least in part, discriminatory racial intent motivated the enactment of the challenged provisions in SL 2013-381. The district court clearly erred in holding otherwise. In large part, this error resulted from the court’s consideration of each piece of evidence in a vacuum, rather than engaging in the totality of the circumstances analysis required by Arlington Heights. Any individual piece of evidence can seem innocuous when viewed alone, but gains an entirely different meaning when considered in context. Our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group. But the totality of the circumstances -- North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature’s knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so -- cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used SL 2013-381 to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination."

The only part of this I'd really disagree with is where the Court takes care not to accuse members of the NC GOP of being racist pieces of shit. There are some of those, surely, in our legislature.
Click to expand...

Seems like complete BS to me. The increased turnout was most likely related to Barrack Obama being on the ticket. It looks like those making this decision were looking to affirm a preconceived notion of racism. This should be appealed to a more higher (less biased) court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top