Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The SCOTUS got this wrong as usual based on racial discrimination hysteria and disparate impact theory and maybe just plain political activism.
Even if it was true, not saying it is, voter ID had a disparate impact on a race/ethnic protected class, or further even if it was discriminatory (it's not because everyone is required to show ID) that doesn't mean the law should be appealed. At worst, the law was intended to have a disparate impact on Democrat votes. Democrats are not a protected class. Neither is being too poor or irresponsible to have an ID a protected class.
Additionally, the legislator had a good reason to require voter ID, voting fraud. The government can cause a disparate impact and discriminate against a protected class if it has a valid reason. It does it all the time to whites.
"Supreme Court got it wrong", "Even if it was discriminatory" LOL
They had no legitimate reason for requiring voter ID's they needed to make up a solution to an imaginary problem to tilt the scales. You really should read through the facts of the case before you comment.
Using that logic requiring everyone to have a passport isn't discriminatory because everyone has to have one.
"Supreme Court got it wrong", "Even if it was discriminatory" LOL
They had no legitimate reason for requiring voter ID's they needed to make up a solution to an imaginary problem to tilt the scales. You really should read through the facts of the case before you comment.
Using that logic requiring everyone to have a passport isn't discriminatory because everyone has to have one.
The requirement for voting is citizenship. How do we make sure only citizens are the ones voting? Or the person casting the vote, is actually the person that is named as voting?
Buying a gun, the requirement is, one be a person. Yet, there is a government mandated requirement to show ID to verify they are in fact a person?
The requirement for voting is citizenship. How do we make sure only citizens are the ones voting? Or the person casting the vote, is actually the person that is named as voting?
Buying a gun, the requirement is, one be a person. Yet, there is a government mandated requirement to show ID to verify they are in fact a person?
There were verification procedures in every state prior to the sudden rush to voter ID's. proof of residence, bank statement, utility bill, government document,....
There were verification procedures in every state prior to the sudden rush to voter ID's. proof of residence, bank statement, utility bill, government document,....
Are you saying that an EBT statement is a requirement to vote?
There were verification procedures in every state prior to the sudden rush to voter ID's. proof of residence, bank statement, utility bill, government document,....
Which one of those, identify citizenship? Can those be used to purchase a weapon from a government approved seller?
They identify residence, not citizenship.
By striking out to discourage people from voting the net result will be more people voting.
During some primary votes, to discourage minority voters polling places were consolidated in some areas but not others. This meant some voters showed up at the wrong places and faced long lines.
Find out early where you are supposed to vote, or better yet vote by mail.
Another uninformed poster. Nothing to do with conservatives, not that the truth matters to the sheeple
Percentage wise who wants photo ids for voting
repubs 95
ind 83
dems 63
btw NC offered free voter ids, not that you care about what goes on in real life.
After January 1, 2014, you will be able to apply for a free NC identification card to be used for voting. To qualify, you will need to:
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 20 hours ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,755 posts, read 7,558,709 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
First off, we need the HB in order to reconcile the courts opinion, to the law in question. I found it.
I went to the pages of the opinion as you so directed and this is what I read.
pg 13
During the period in which North Carolina jurisdictions
were covered by § 5, African American electoral participation
dramatically improved. In particular, between 2000 and 2012, when the law provided for the voting mechanisms at issue here
and did not require photo ID, African American voter
registration swelled by 51.1%. J.A. 804(1) (compared to an
increase of 15.8% for white voters). African American turnout
similarly surged, from 41.9% in 2000 to 71.5% in 2008 and 68.5%
in 2012. J.A. 1196-97. Not coincidentally, during this period
North Carolina emerged as a swing state in national elections.
pg 14 In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed
a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used. Id. at *9-10, *37, *123, *127, *131. 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.
The State Board shall make the form available at its offices, online,and in each county board of elections office, and that form may be reproduced. A voter may make a request in person or by writing to the county board for the form to request an absentee ballot. The request form for an absentee ballot shall require at least the following information:
(1) The name and address of the residence of the voter.
(2) The name and address of the voter's near relative or verifiable legal guardian if that individual is making the request.
(3) The address of the voter to which the application and absentee ballots are to be mailed if different from the residence address of the voter.
(4) One or more of the following in the order of preference:
a. The number of the voter's North Carolina drivers license issued under
Article 2 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes, including a learner's permit or a provisional license.
b. The number of the voter's special identification card for nonoperators issued under G.S. 20-37.7.c.The last four digits of the applicant's social security number.
(5) The voter's date of birth.
(6) The signature of the voter or of the voter's near relative or verifiable legal guardian if that individual is making the request.
###############
And that is where I stopped, because if the rest of the HB reads the same way, then the racial data that is 'being requested' is the photo ID, or in this case, the DL number ... now if you read (or anyone else reads) the HB and finds on the indicated sections above, where the legislature requested and received racial data, please help me out with that.
Happy Hunting ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Yes African American participation increased up through 2008 prior to HB 589, that is not in question but it is the main thrust of the legislation. They noticed the increase in black voter participation and they also noted the practices of black and minority voters in data they requested, then they passed the legislation.
Did you really expect to find the request for minority voter habits contained right in HB589, even they were smart enough not to be that obvious, besides what would be there reason for even requesting that information. They requested the data in March 2013 and the legislation passed in July 2013, the data indicated that a high percentage of minority voters did not have an ID so the next step was to make it as difficult as possible for them to vote.
The SCOTUS decision based their decision on voter (decrease - increase) turn out of African Americans (race), it was not based on the HB legislature discrimination of African Americans who (to) vote.
The HB is not a raciest bill, in that it identifies the voter, by citizenship, not by race of the citizen ... if you find the HB 589 does that, please point that out within the bill. ( African Americans disproportionately used. Id. at *9-10, *37, *123, *127, *131 )
Or are we all subject to determination of our opinions and views to that of others, rather than ourselves?
The SCOTUS decision based their decision on voter (decrease - increase) turn out of African Americans (race), it was not based on the HB legislature discrimination of African Americans who (to) vote.
Their decision was mostly based on the process by the legislature, black/minority voter participation had been increasing. It was the intention of the legislation not the prior increases.
Quote:
The HB is not a raciest bill, in that it identifies the voter, by citizenship, not by race of the citizen ... if you find the HB 589 does that, please point that out within the bill. ( African Americans disproportionately used. Id. at *9-10, *37, *123, *127, *131 )
Or are we all subject to determination of our opinions and views to that of others, rather than ourselves?
I already indicated the reason for the bill was the demographics requested from the BOE separate and prior to the legislation.
Which one of those, identify citizenship? Can those be used to purchase a weapon from a government approved seller?
They identify residence, not citizenship.
A bank statement or utility bill doesn't prove you are a resident or citizen??
A bank statement or utility bill doesn't prove you are a resident or citizen??
No.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.