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.
ONCE AGAIN, y'all are focused one ONE part that was struck down. But no one is defending the other FOUR parts. Having all five of those voting requirements together is what caused the Court to strike it down.
Other states have implemented parts and it hasn't been struck down.
And once again, I personally don't think the Republicans are being racist. I think they are trying to inhibit people who traditionally vote for Democrats.
I have focused on those other aspects. I pointed that out in 2014, with those laws in effect, black turnout was up big time from 2010 , and it was twice as high as white turnout.
You say these laws are all voter suppressiion, yet black turnout increased in 2014. this fact completely undermines your assertion. i also pointed out there are stats bot blue and red all over the country that have these laws. Democrats complain about the early voting periord going from 17 to 10 days in NC and say it is racist, but NY and Hawaii and other stats have no early voting at all. 10 days plus election day is more than enough time for people to vote. early voting costs money and reducing the length of it by 7 days saves money.
These 3 judges talk about racism in NC's past history but what they don't mention is racism and Jim Crow laws were implemented by the Democrat party, and all 3 of them are Democrats. So they are incredibly trying to say that somehow the GOP is passing laws that racist because the Democrat party passed racist laws back in the day. they want to hang their own party's racist history around the GOP's neck.
if we used the logic in their ruling and applied it to every law, any law that has greater non compliance by black people vs white people is racist and the law must be overturned. so for example, if black people violate state and federal gun laws at a higher percentage than white people, that means we shouldn't have gun laws.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 08-01-2016 at 01:14 PM..
Despite you using this very obviously biased source, I'll bite. I try to stay away from using sources that don't cite statistics or that have a clear bias, although, I am liberal. I rarely cite HuffPo, MSNBC, or Raw Report because the slant is too obvious to be credible. When I do, I link to the page where the statistical information was retrieved from such as a university press or government website. Were this scenario a part of a study where a control group was utilized, it had taken place in various polling locations across the state, and was conducted on bipartisan basis. Then it might hold some validity. But, the agenda is pretty clear with this one. One recorded incident of election malfeasance isn't enough to prove widespread election abuses.
My opinions are based in more than anecdotal evidence; measurable empirical evidence only. To that end, I decided to do a little digging. I found the WS Journal article cited in this video. It conveniently omitted a very important fact about that incident at the DMV. At the time of license issue, they were illegal, but currently most are now legal. The article states:
Nearly 10,000 names on the rolls are tagged by the DMV as "legally present," according to elections and transportation officials. But that doesn’t mean that all 10,000 are ineligible to vote at this time. These are license holders who were not U.S. citizens when they got a license. They may have been green-card holders, foreign workers or foreign students, for example.
Most have become U.S. citizens since getting a license, according to an estimate by elections officials based on a sample of the overall list.
Earlier this month, State Board of Elections officials sampled about 1,600 of the 10,000 names, Lawson said. They cross-checked the names against a U.S. Department of Homeland Security database, known as SAVE, and found that 94 percent of those 1,600 are in fact U.S. citizens, Lawson said.
They are eligible to vote.
Some may still show up on the DMV database as legally present – not a U.S. citizen – because there is no requirement for a person with a driver’s license to get a new license – which would update the DMV database – when he or she becomes a U.S. citizen, according to Mike Charbonneau, a DMV spokesman.
Still, if 94 percent are U.S. citizens, then 6 percent are ineligible. If that percentage holds against the whole list of nearly 10,000 names, then about 600 people on the voter rolls would be ineligible to vote.
Despite you using this very obviously biased source, I'll bite. I try to stay away from using sources that don't cite statistics or that have a clear bias, although, I am liberal. I rarely cite HuffPo, MSNBC, or Raw Report because the slant is too obvious to be credible. When I do, I link to the page where the statistical information was retrieved from such as a university press or government website. Were this scenario a part of a study where a control group was utilized, it had taken place in various polling locations across the state, and was conducted on bipartisan basis. Then it might hold some validity. But, the agenda is pretty clear with this one. One recorded incident of election malfeasance isn't enough to prove widespread election abuses.
My opinions are based in more than anecdotal evidence; measurable empirical evidence only. To that end, I decided to do a little digging. I found the WS Journal article cited in this video. It conveniently omitted a very important fact about that incident at the DMV. At the time of license issue, they were illegal, but currently most are now legal.
I appreciate your carefulness in what information you perpetuate.
Let's set aside the fact that the issue hasn't been tested or studied enough to prove whether significant levels of fraud has occurred or not and just look at the underlying concept.
Do we need to have tomes of proof that a system is abused before instituting measures that preventpotential abuse?
I find the whole "intent" argument, especially when they say the District court "focused on the trees and not the forest" rather unsettling.
That said, it seems pretty clear that what they did was, freed from previous "preclearance" restrictions, say... "Oh, the black people generally use alternative ID's? Ok, they're out. And they like the first 7 days of absentee voting? Scratch those too." etc....
I appreciate your carefulness in what information you perpetuate.
Let's set aside the fact that the issue hasn't been tested or studied enough to prove whether significant levels of fraud has occurred or not and just look at the underlying concept.
Do we need to have tomes of proof that a system is abused before instituting measures that preventpotential abuse?
The ultimate question that must be answered is whether the law in and of itself causes more problems than it solves!
Do we need to institute measures that prevent legit people from voting, in attempt to "stop" voter fraud?
Of the two following choices, I rather have voter fraud than preventing an eligible voter from exercising their constitutional right.
I can't argue with that. When in doubt, err on the side of freedom.
I still don't think this ruling will hold up. As far as the court is concerned, it just shouldn't matter what the intent was, only the legality of the law itself. Most states have ID requirements and no early voting. It's been challenged time and again across the country. This seems to be more of a political statement than a true, long-lasting legal standard.
Hypothetically, what's to stop someone from looking up registered voters in their area, seeing they haven't voted in decades and heading to their poll? I imagine it would be super simple to organize a group of people to take several of these names at various polls and wreak havoc on local elections.
You could rent a couple vans, give each person a name and address at each poll station, head to each one all together as a group and hit ten or so locations a day. With ten early voting days you could net upwards of 1,000 votes per van. Target just the tossup precincts and we're talking significant potential shenanigans. Heck, even Presidential elections have been close in the past. Given the right funding, you could probably even pay a decent hourly wage.
Yeah right! If that were the standard, most laws would go away. Especially drug laws and the current tax code.
In some states they already have! But we all know that in terms of moral progress, North Carolina is in the rear relative to those states!
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.
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.
