• 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

Of course. The NAACP and other organizations are doing a disservice by bringing out 90 year old women who have never had an ID to say it is about race. It's much bigger than that. It's about eliminating Democrats from the voter rolls and making it harder for them to vote.

And the idea that a student who lives on a college campus 8-12 months of the year isn't a resident is ridiculous. Not only that. It discourages the out of state students we are educating from staying in the state and discourages NC residents from working and creating jobs in college towns.

And that's the point.

It's not ridiculous if that student still has his or her car registered in Florida (or wherever) and has a Florida driver's license. I don't have a problem with college kids voting where they go to school, but they need to be consistent. Some students change their residency to the state/county in which they go to school, some don't. That's fine. But you shouldn't be able to vote in Forsyth County, NC, but pay car registration fees to Orange County, FL (there are other things, but the car registration is the one that always sticks out to me).
 
It's not ridiculous if that student still has his or her car registered in Florida (or wherever) and has a Florida driver's license. I don't have a problem with college kids voting where they go to school, but they need to be consistent. Some students change their residency to the state/county in which they go to school, some don't. That's fine. But you shouldn't be able to vote in Forsyth County, NC, but pay car registration fees to Orange County, FL (there are other things, but the car registration is the one that always sticks out to me).

Sure. But they shouldn't be prevented outright.
 
i don't think any of the current voting legislation in NC prohibits voting by college students or prevents them from registering to vote in their college towns. It just makes it harder through the voter ID bill that doesn't allow state college IDs. I don't think that bit about revoking tax exemptions for parents of college students who register in their college towns went through, either - somebody tell me if I'm wrong.
 
i don't think any of the current voting legislation in NC prohibits voting by college students or prevents them from registering to vote in their college towns. It just makes it harder through the voter ID bill that doesn't allow state college IDs. I don't think that bit about revoking tax exemptions for parents of college students who register in their college towns went through, either - somebody tell me if I'm wrong.

Come on man, don't confuse them with facts. Don't you know that this law makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any person to vote who is non-wealthy, minority, elderly, a student, gay, a hipster, an animal rights activist, a teacher, or suffering from Lupus?
 
i don't think any of the current voting legislation in NC prohibits voting by college students or prevents them from registering to vote in their college towns. It just makes it harder through the voter ID bill that doesn't allow state college IDs. I don't think that bit about revoking tax exemptions for parents of college students who register in their college towns went through, either - somebody tell me if I'm wrong.

I thought there was something in there about out of state students not being able to register.
 
i don't think any of the current voting legislation in NC prohibits voting by college students or prevents them from registering to vote in their college towns. It just makes it harder through the voter ID bill that doesn't allow state college IDs. I don't think that bit about revoking tax exemptions for parents of college students who register in their college towns went through, either - somebody tell me if I'm wrong.

I don't know about that. If the local elections board can say that a student isn't a resident and therefore can't run for office, why shouldn't they be able to say that a student is not a resident and cant vote?
 
To address this specific point, I am totally on board with denying out of state college voters. Local elections are significantly more important than national elections. Having people voting in local elections who are not actually domiciled there skews the system, because they usually do not care about the local results. No reason they cannot and should not vote via absentee ballot in their jurisidiction of actual residence.

I don't have any defense for eliminating days. At the end of the day I think there are still plenty of days to vote so I am not concerned about it with respect to having to accept that in order to get the ID requirement, but I wouldn't have reduced them myself.

:squint:
 
Also vetoes an immigration bill.

This bill is idiotic and puts on display a serious lack of consistency with right wing thinking on immigration.

1) Let's get rid of the illegals, then
2) Let's make it so employers don't have to e-verify workers for up to 9 months

WTF, people? Do you just pass any bill that some donor suggests?
 
This bill is idiotic and puts on display a serious lack of consistency with right wing thinking on immigration.

1) Let's get rid of the illegals, then
2) Let's make it so employers don't have to e-verify workers for up to 9 months

WTF, people? Do you just pass any bill that some donor suggests?

blah, blah, blah illegal minority immigrants bad blah, blah, blah making businesses check would hurt them and make them leave the state blah, blah, blah some mildly racist statement. Think that sort of sums up the thought process behind the bill.
 
I don't know about that. If the local elections board can say that a student isn't a resident and therefore can't run for office, why shouldn't they be able to say that a student is not a resident and cant vote?

I don't believe that the decision in Pasquotank was based on any new law, if anything, it was simply the takeover of county elections boards by Republicans (I think they are appointed by the Governor, so they're now pretty much all run by Pubs I guess). I think the Pasquotank decision may simply be wrong (stunner). Here's a more detailed story on their "legal reasoning": http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/.

NC General Statute 163-57 I believe controls residency for both voting and running for county offices. Here are a couple of meaningful excerpts:

(11) So long as a student intends to make the student's home in the community where the student is physically present for the purpose of attending school while the student is attending school and has no intent to return to the student's former home after graduation, the student may claim the college community as the student's domicile. The student need not also intend to stay in the college community beyond graduation in order to establish domicile there. This subdivision is intended to codify the case law.

And this:

c. In the event that a person's residence is not a traditional residence associated with real property, then the location of the usual sleeping area for that person shall be controlling as to the residency of that person. Residence shall be broadly construed to provide all persons with the opportunity to register and to vote, including stating a mailing address different from residence address.
 
The Pasquotank decision is most likely wrong under that statute, but you can bet the GOP Boards of Election in all the other hick towns with college campuses were paying attention.
 
Not the restrictions themselves, just the concept that there are necessary procedural requirements associated with both constitutionally protected rights, and those procedural requirements may be an inconvenience for an extremely small portion of the population to exercise their rights. But you don't simply eliminate the need for those requirements just to avoid the inconvenience for that small portion of the population.

Lets go through this step by step

1. NC enacts legislation throughout the years in regards to accommodating voters, so that more people can participate in the election process.
2. ?
3. NC enacts legislation which restricts the voting process, restrictions which repeal previous legislation


Now I ask you for the dozenth time, how does that in any way relate to the legislation regarding gun purchase? The reasoning behind those legislations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The process to buy a gun is purposefully difficult because it's a fucking dangerous weapon. It makes me mad that you need this spelled out for you like a child. It shouldn't require this much work to explain such a mind numbingly simple concept.
 
Lets go through this step by step

1. NC enacts legislation throughout the years in regards to accommodating voters, so that more people can participate in the election process.
2. ?
3. NC enacts legislation which restricts the voting process, restrictions which repeal previous legislation


Now I ask you for the dozenth time, how does that in any way relate to the legislation regarding gun purchase? The reasoning behind those legislations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The process to buy a gun is purposefully difficult because it's a fucking dangerous weapon. It makes me mad that you need this spelled out for you like a child. It shouldn't require this much work to explain such a mind numbingly simple concept.

Dude, no offense, but you are a fucking idiot. First, your steps are completely wrong with respect to voter IDs. NC never enated any legislation throughout the years saying that nobody has to show IDs to vote; they never enacted any legislation on it either way. So this is not an expansion by legislation followed by a retraction by legislation; this is the first go-round of legislation and that is simply establishing a procedure.

As to how it relates to gun purchases, it is pretty damn easy to see how they relate. Both are Constitutionally protected rights. For gun ownership, it is in society's best interest that the person desiring to purchase the gun is who he says he is. Similarly, for voting, it is in society's best interest that the person desiring to vote is who he says he is. So now let's look at the applicable procedures for each person to prove that he is who he says he is:

1. Gun purchase.

Rifles/shotguns: (Get this, it will blow your mind) You have to show ID. Don't have ID, no gun. Want to get ID? You go to the DMV and get it, on your time and your dime (wild concept, I know).

Handguns: Obtain an aplication from the sheriff's department. Complete the form, have it notarized, return to the sheriff's department M-F from 8:30-4:30 to submit the application and have your ID checked (again, if you don't have ID, you have to go get some). Then you wait 3-5 days for the application to be processed. Then you return to the sheriff's office in person, show ID again, and pay the applicable fee, in cash, per application. So, to recap, we have (1) at least 2 in-person visits during restricted business hours; (2) ID required; and (3) pay a fee (in addition to any fee needed to acquire the necessary ID). And nobody really has a problem with any of that.

2. Voting. Show up at poll. Pick a name of any precinct resident and say "I am __________". Ideally, that person is you, but really it could be anybody who hasn't voted yet and is still on the rolls. For example, my neighbor who died 7 years ago but whose name I see every time I show up to vote. That's it.

So, one guaranteed Constitutional right requires 3 explicit "inconveniences". After years of having none of those inconveniences, the other similarly guaranteed Constitutional right now requires only one of those exact same inconveniences. So why is that one inconvenience (which, again, is exactly the same as is required for the other Constitutional right) such a problem for you?
 
Last edited:
Dude, no offense, but you are a fucking idiot. First, your steps are completely wrong with respect to voter IDs. NC never enated any legislation throughout the years saying that nobody has to show IDs to vote; they never enacted any legislation on it either way. So this is not an expansion by legislation followed by a retraction by legislation; this is the first go-round of legislation and that is simply establishing a procedure.

pretty sure he was referring to more ways for those in high school to register and expanding voting sites and early voting times that were then retracted.
 
Is this dude seriously bringing up voter id's again? It must be tough having such an infinitesimally small piece of ground to stand on, and trying to defend a whole football field of regressive, idiotic legislation.

No one, besides you and maybe RJ, is talking about voter id's on this thread. We don't need to hear for the umpteenth time about how people should have id's to vote. We get it. Just admit you can't defend the rest of the bill. McCrory didn't, couldn't, and neither can you. Earlier you said you weren't trying to defend it, but you've tried your damndest since.
 
Last edited:
Is this dude seriously bringing up voter id's again? It must be tough having such an infinitesimally small piece of ground to stand on, and trying to defend a whole football field of regressive, idiotic legislation.

No one, besides you and maybe RJ, is talking about voter id's on this thread. We don't need to hear for the umpteenth time about how people should have id's to vote. We get it. Just admit you can't defend the rest of the bill. McCrory didn't, couldn't, and neither can you. Earlier you said you weren't trying to defend it, but you've tried your damndest since.

I'm not, I'm defending the voter ID and that's it. If you are not talking about voter ID then why do you keep quoting my posts?
 
pretty sure he was referring to more ways for those in high school to register and expanding voting sites and early voting times that were then retracted.

Then why did he quote my post which was specifically about voter IDs?
 
Back
Top