NC's voter ID law struck down by Appeals Court

[shira]

Hmm.

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina’s requirement that voters show identification before casting ballots and reinstated an additional week of early voting.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for civil rights groups and the Justice Department that argued the voting law was designed to dampen the growing political clout of African American voters, who participated in record numbers in elections in 2008 and 2012.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel.

The challenge to North Carolina’s law is one of several cases throughout the country seeking to eliminate strict voting rules in place for the first time in the November presidential contest.

Opponents of the law, lead by the state NAACP, asked the three-judge panel to reverse a lower court ruling that upheld the voting rules.

But of course, this decision is an outrage. Republican states are just trying to guarantee the integrity of elections. And to demonstrate just how earnest Republican state legislatures are in pursuing that objective, just look at how many of them are spending vast sums of money to harden their internet-connected voting systems against the well documented threat of hacking by foreign governments.

Oh, wait . . . .

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah! Another win for democracy!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

In none of these cases has the parties proposing the laws demonstrated that they will prevent any voter fraud. They keep being struck down on that argument and yet they will keep trying.

"The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted," Judge DIana Motz wrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. "Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

The court's opinion bluntly described the legislation as a clear effort to suppress the black vote.

"We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history," Motz added.

Ouch

 

[Moonbeam]

"The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted," Judge DIana Motz wrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. "Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

The court's opinion bluntly described the legislation as a clear effort to suppress the black vote.

"We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history," Motz added."

Remind me of the definition of insanity, please. I smell something.

 

[dainthomas]

In none of these cases has the parties proposing the laws demonstrated that they will prevent any voter fraud. They keep being struck down on that argument and yet they will keep trying.



Ouch

It would probably help if anyone could demonstrate that voter fraud exists. Probably the least likely crime ever.

 

[glenn1]

Which again is why I say they need to model Voter ID laws exactly on the Indiana law that was already upheld by SCOTUS. Imperfect as that law is it's still light years ahead of the current state.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Which again is why I say they need to model Voter ID laws exactly on the Indiana law that was already upheld by SCOTUS. Imperfect as that law is it's still light years ahead of the current state.

All they need to do is not be so restrictive in what ID can be used. I've said repeatedly it makes no sense that you can use more methods of identification to get a job and pay taxes than you can use to vote your representation of those taxes.

Here in Canada we have somewhere on the order of 50-60 different items we can use in combination as identification. I don't understand why they have to be so restrictive.

 

[Subyman]

So is this another activist judge? Seems to be a lot of "activist" judges. Or is this simply the correct decision?

 

[glenn1]

All they need to do is not be so restrictive in what ID can be used. I've said repeatedly it makes no sense that you can use more methods of identification to get a job and pay taxes than you can use to vote your representation of those taxes.

Here in Canada we have somewhere on the order of 50-60 different items we can use in combination as identification. I don't understand why they have to be so restrictive.

I don't understand either. There's a reasonable and preferable middle ground between Strict ID and No ID.

 

[dainthomas]

All they need to do is not be so restrictive in what ID can be used. I've said repeatedly it makes no sense that you can use more methods of identification to get a job and pay taxes than you can use to vote your representation of those taxes.

Here in Canada we have somewhere on the order of 50-60 different items we can use in combination as identification. I don't understand why they have to be so restrictive.

A likely answer is that they're racists seeking to disenfranchise citizens of the state under the guise of trying to protect elections from an issue that doesn't exist.

 

[Jhhnn]

Which again is why I say they need to model Voter ID laws exactly on the Indiana law that was already upheld by SCOTUS. Imperfect as that law is it's still light years ahead of the current state.

Please. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. Well, unless the problem is too many citizens voting for somebody else. As we've seen in state after state that's the only problem at hand, at least for Republicans.

 

[glenn1]

Please. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. Well, unless the problem is too many citizens voting for somebody else. As we've seen in state after state that's the only problem at hand, at least for Republicans.

So are Canadians racist also to have a provision like this? I prefer this over the 'one item with address' since stealing a letter out of someone's mailbox is trivially easy unless it's done as a secondary identification to confirm something like an expired photo ID. Which I've already supported being supplied for free to the poor.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Show two pieces of ID with your name and have someone who knows you attest to your address. This person must show proof of identity and address, be registered in the same polling division, and attest for only one person.

 

[DrPizza]

Which again is why I say they need to model Voter ID laws exactly on the Indiana law that was already upheld by SCOTUS. Imperfect as that law is it's still light years ahead of the current state.

What hurt the Indiana case was that they were unable to present anyone whose right to vote had been hindered by the law, thus they lacked that crucial piece of evidence. These other cases used someone who lost the ability to vote as a result of the law. While it was a 6-3 decision, without Scalia, at first glance, looks to be 5-3; yet because the new cases at the SC would have "victims" of such a law, you're probably looking at 4-4, thus they won't overturn the lower court rulings that it's unconstitutional.

 

[Jhhnn]

All they need to do is not be so restrictive in what ID can be used. I've said repeatedly it makes no sense that you can use more methods of identification to get a job and pay taxes than you can use to vote your representation of those taxes.

Here in Canada we have somewhere on the order of 50-60 different items we can use in combination as identification. I don't understand why they have to be so restrictive.

Because their arguments are dishonest start to finish.

First, show us the fraud. Then we'll have something honest & real to talk about. Until then, it's bullshit obfuscating other goals entirely.

 

[glenn1]

What hurt the Indiana case was that they were unable to present anyone whose right to vote had been hindered by the law, thus they lacked that crucial piece of evidence. These other cases used someone who lost the ability to vote as a result of the law. While it was a 6-3 decision, without Scalia, at first glance, looks to be 5-3; yet because the new cases at the SC would have "victims" of such a law, you're probably looking at 4-4, thus they won't overturn the lower court rulings that it's unconstitutional.

I don't think you would have victims either since Indiana both provided free IDs and allowed for a failsafe where someone could sign an affidavit.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think you would have victims either since Indiana both provided free IDs and allowed for a failsafe where someone could sign an affidavit.

I have no problem with the Indiana voter ID law. But there is a reason why Republicans aren't pushing for similar laws despite that being the typical M.O. of Republicans (using passed laws as the basis for pushing similar laws in other states. Ie abortion restriction laws), do you want to guess what that reason is?

 

[Jhhnn]

So are Canadians racist also to have a provision like this? I prefer this over the 'one item with address' since stealing a letter out of someone's mailbox is trivially easy unless it's done as a secondary identification to confirm something like an expired photo ID. Which I've already supported being supplied for free to the poor.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Show me the fraud.

 

[brianmanahan]

i never understand this

how could someone NOT have some form of id?

 

[glenn1]

I have no problem with the Indiana voter ID law. But there is a reason why Republicans aren't pushing for similar laws despite that being the typical M.O. of Republicans (using passed laws as the basis for pushing similar laws in other states. Ie abortion restriction laws), do you want to guess what that reason is?

I can think of lots and many of them aren't good ones. Which is why I've supported something like the Indiana law instead. And honestly that should be coupled with a range of solutions to address other forms of fraud also, including absentee and people voting in multiple jurisdictions although the feds would probably need to be involved with the last one.

 

[Ackmed]

i never understand this

how could someone NOT have some form of id?

I don't understand either. A state issued ID is useful for so many things, and a requirement for many others. I had to have an ID to carry a gun, but not to vote apparently. Both are rights too.

 

[OutHouse]

i never understand this

how could someone NOT have some form of id?

this.

 

[brycejones]

i never understand this

how could someone NOT have some form of id?

I don't understand either. A state issued ID is useful for so many things, and a requirement for many others. I had to have an ID to carry a gun, but not to vote apparently. Both are rights too.

this.

Have you guys been dodging the threads on this subject for the last couple of years? This question has been addressed over and over again.

 

[ElFenix]

i never understand this

how could someone NOT have some form of id?

per the district court's fact finding, approximately 600,000 otherwise eligible voters in texas don't have 1 of the 7 forms of ID allowed under texas's now-stricken voter ID law.

so, even though it is unimaginable in our modern lives how someone could not have one of the required forms, it's rather common (about 1 in 20).

 

[Ackmed]

Have you guys been dodging the threads on this subject for the last couple of years? This question has been addressed over and over again.

I've replied to a thread about this before, got called a racist, bigot and other names. Sorry if I don't visit this site every day.

I still don't see a reason not to have an ID. The excuses of can't take time from work, don't have transportation don't cut it for me, etc. When there is a will there is a way. Gotta take time to go vote, so why not take the time to get an ID. An ID is VERY useful and mandatory for many things in life. I'm flying Sunday, guess what I will use for that? An ID. If you're a legal citizen I really can't see a valid excuse or reason to not have one, they're so beneficial.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

It would probably help if anyone could demonstrate that voter fraud exists.

Just because your people are not looking for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/

On the upside of the DOJ not enforcing the law like they're supposed to a lot of corrupt white Republicans will now be able to get away with stuffing ballot boxes, losing the cast ballots of minorities, and having white people vote over and over for white Republican candidates.

Oh...what was that? You mean you don't like vote fraud when it's YOUR candidates getting fucked? :awe: