• 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!

The State Board of Elections Earns Great Reviews

U have to give hem credit when credit is due. If the review was poor it certainly would be used as evidence.
 
Quote:
----------
Challenges ahead
----------

Indeed.

But credit to them for reigning in what seem to be some overzealous bozos running some local boards.
 
I don't have an opinion of this Howard fellow, I wish him the best in dealing with the rednecks his party has put in charge of the county BOE's. I can't give him much credit for reversing the Pasquotank decision - it was blatantly and completely wrong and violated the plain language of the statute. In fact, I find it telling that he had to justify his decision by throwing in the BS about military personnel, who are protected under a completely different section of the same statute. The fact that he felt he had to throw red meat to the slavering dogs under the table is telling.

Nonetheless, kudos to the state BOE for doing the right thing there.
 
Hard for me to give them credit when they are just reversing absolutely terrible decisions made by the local GOP.
 
PhDeac said:
Chris Rock had a bit on this.

"We let residents vote."

"You supposed to you dumb muthafucka."
Click to expand...

Back to the Voter Suppression Boogeyman, I see.

A) I renew the challenge, gloriously ignored on your part to date, to show me any action that the Board could have actually taken that would have actually denied anyone the right to vote. But by all means, keep up this charade.

B) It's not like there isn't a justiciable issue here. In fact, students are hardly ever treated by their local government as full time residents. If you don't believe me, please try to get in-state tuition at your local state school using your dorm address and the fact that you "moved" to your freshman year dorm. PLEASE let me know how that works out for you. Also, please be prepared to show me that you personally registered your car at your dorm address promptly after changing your "permanent residence" to your freshman year dorm, as required by State law. Temporary residents are treated as temporary residents all the time for a myriad of purposes. Anyone not trying to not see that knows it. I'm not saying I agree with denying this guy a chance to run (I've been very clear on this issue), but for you to pretend that there isn't a good faith argument otherwise is, well, another par on your card. Actually, I'd like you to start pretending that, since that was at least the issue before the SBOE.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Back to the Voter Suppression Boogeyman, I see.

A) I renew the challenge, gloriously ignored on your part to date, to show me any action that the Board could have actually taken that would have actually denied anyone the right to vote. But by all means, keep up this charade.

B) It's not like there isn't a justiciable issue here. In fact, students are hardly ever treated by their local government as full time residents. If you don't believe me, please try to get in-state tuition at your local state school using your dorm address and the fact that you "moved" to your freshman year dorm. PLEASE let me know how that works out for you. Also, please be prepared to show me that you personally registered your car at your dorm address promptly after changing your "permanent residence" to your freshman year dorm, as required by State law. Temporary residents are treated as temporary residents all the time for a myriad of purposes. Anyone not trying to not see that knows it. I'm not saying I agree with denying this guy a chance to run (I've been very clear on this issue), but for you to pretend that there isn't a good faith argument otherwise is, well, another par on your card. Actually, I'd like you to start pretending that, since that was at least the issue before the SBOE.
Click to expand...

Actually, I explained to you why there is a right to vote issue here: http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/16914-Ongoing-NC-GOP-debacle-thread?p=1402172&viewfull=1#post1402172. But continue to gloriously ignore that explanation.

As to #2, there is a North Carolina SCOTUS case, subsequently and expressly enacted into statute by the General Assembly, that expressly states that students can register in the district of their dorm residence, and the fact that their residence in the dorm is somewhat temporary is not relevant to their right to so register. So, actually, I don't see how there is a good faith argument here.
 
Deacon923 said:
Actually, I explained to you why there is a right to vote issue here: http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/16914-Ongoing-NC-GOP-debacle-thread?p=1402172&viewfull=1#post1402172. But continue to gloriously ignore that explanation.

As to #2, there is a North Carolina SCOTUS case, subsequently and expressly enacted into statute by the General Assembly, that expressly states that students can register in the district of their dorm residence, and the fact that their residence in the dorm is somewhat temporary is not relevant to their right to so register. So, actually, I don't see how there is a good faith argument here.
Click to expand...

There was no action that could have resulted in the denial of the right to vote. None. If the Paquotank County Board had won a 5-0 decision against this candidate's right to run for that office, that candidate could have still voted using that address. I'm not sure what else you need to be shown, but okay.

As to #2, if you wish to see the good faith argument, you must first begin with a good faith reading of the law. You haven't quoted the law accurately, so let me quote it to you in full, to wit: "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." N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-57(11).
 
jhmd2000 said:
There was no action that could have resulted in the denial of the right to vote. None. If the Paquotank County Board had won a 5-0 decision against this candidate's right to run for that office, that candidate could have still voted using that address. I'm not sure what else you need to be shown, but okay.

As to #2, if you wish to see the good faith argument, you must first begin with a good faith reading of the law. You haven't quoted the law accurately, so let me quote it to you in full, to wit: "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." N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-57(11).
Click to expand...

As to 1: just because you continue to make disingenuous arguments doesn't mean that the rest of us have ignored your "challenge".

As to 2: You are correct to underline the key provision in the statute, as to intent to return to parent's residence. The person in question in the Pasquotank case had been living and voting in Pasquotank, including summers, since his freshman year. There was nothing in the record to indicate his intent to return home to live after graduation, in fact, all the evidence in the record pointed to the contrary. So, unless your definition of "good faith" is "politically motivated speculation unsupported by any facts", no, I don't see a good faith argument in that case.
 
Temporary residents are treated as temporary residents when they claim they are going to be temporary residents. I would venture a guess that 99 percent of college students don't make any broad proclamations about where they're going to live.
 
Deacon923 said:
As to 1: just because you continue to make disingenuous arguments doesn't mean that the rest of us have ignored your "challenge".

As to 2: You are correct to underline the key provision in the statute, as to intent to return to parent's residence. The person in question in the Pasquotank case had been living and voting in Pasquotank, including summers, since his freshman year. There was nothing in the record to indicate his intent to return home to live after graduation, in fact, all the evidence in the record pointed to the contrary. So, unless your definition of "good faith" is "politically motivated speculation unsupported by any facts", no, I don't see a good faith argument in that case.
Click to expand...

Wait, you mean his right to vote was safe the entire time, and was never challenged by the local Board? If I didn't know better, I would think this was a registration candidacy case after all...
 
PhDeac said:
Chris Rock had a bit on this.


"We let residents vote."

"You supposed to you dumb muthafucka."
Click to expand...


Gotta love the irony of an advocate for a robust welfare state linking to this Youtube clip...
 
jhmd2000 said:
Gotta love the irony of an advocate for a robust welfare state linking to this Youtube clip...
Click to expand...

Because I believe government should help poor parents take care of their kids?
 
PhDeac said:
Because I believe government should help poor parents take care of their kids?
Click to expand...

Displacing the role of the parents isn't helping children. If it helped, their numbers wouldn't be growing, generation over generation. Results > intentions.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Displacing the role of the parents isn't helping children. If it helped, their numbers wouldn't be growing, generation over generation. Results > intentions.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what help means.
 
PhDeac said:
I don't think you know what help means.
Click to expand...

If we can agree that, all things being equal, two parents homes are better than one parent homes, then I'm quite comfortable with my comprehension. At some point, you guys are going to have to put aside the false comfort of your intentions and start actually facing the consequences of your policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top