NC's voter ID law struck down by Appeals Court

[Knowing]

"African Americans" is an insufficient descriptor. So is "people with public assistance cards" which is all I got from the article.

 

[Jhhnn]

"African Americans" is an insufficient descriptor. So is "people with public assistance cards" which is all I got from the article.

So is it untrue that the court found the description entirely adequate? What makes you a special snowflake, other than the ability to be deliberately obtuse?

 

[Knowing]

So is it untrue that the court found the description entirely adequate? What makes you a special snowflake, other than the ability to be deliberately obtuse?

Oh ffs,

I'm not arguing with the court unless the court has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than post on anand as Jhhnn.

I want to know what kind of individual is unduly burdened by a requirement to provide ID. This is so simple and yet by inquiring I'm apparently endorsing the actions of the Jim Crow south. This of course is ignoring that Jim Crow is in no way germane to the conversation of who specifically and accurately was allegedly targeted but you felt it necessary to being up multiple times so I felt the need to address it.

Can you answer the question, yes or no?

 

[brycejones]

Oh ffs,

I'm not arguing with the court unless the court has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than post on anand as Jhhnn.

I want to know what kind of individual is unduly burdened by a requirement to provide ID. This is so simple and yet by inquiring I'm apparently endorsing the actions of the Jim Crow south. This of course is ignoring that Jim Crow is in no way germane to the conversation of who specifically and accurately was allegedly targeted but you felt it necessary to being up multiple times so I felt the need to address it.

Can you answer the question, yes or no?

Ffs read the thread there are several examples.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh ffs,

I'm not arguing with the court unless the court has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than post on anand as Jhhnn.

I want to know what kind of individual is unduly burdened by a requirement to provide ID. This is so simple and yet by inquiring I'm apparently endorsing the actions of the Jim Crow south. This of course is ignoring that Jim Crow is in no way germane to the conversation of who specifically and accurately was allegedly targeted but you felt it necessary to being up multiple times so I felt the need to address it.

Can you answer the question, yes or no?

if you're not arguing with the decision of the court, what are you arguing with?

What kind of people? Probably a lot of people you described derisively as "dirt scratchers" earlier in this thread.

The court made it perfectly clear that the voter ID law was, in fact, simply a redux of the methods & rationale of Jim Crow. So you can take your pick- denounce the return of Jim Crow or support it. That's the simple part.

 

[Knowing]

if you're not arguing with the decision of the court, what are you arguing with?

What kind of people? Probably a lot of people you described derisively as "dirt scratchers" earlier in this thread.

The court made it perfectly clear that the voter ID law was, in fact, simply a redux of the methods & rationale of Jim Crow. So you can take your pick- denounce the return of Jim Crow or support it. That's the simple part.

I'm not.

"A lot" is also not descriptive. There's no shame in being poor, even "dirt scratching poor."

You're clearly not reconciling what I'm typing with what ever is going on in your upstairs. Neither of us is gaining anything from what you seem to think is an argument - which, in hindsight, I really should have taken as a clue that my question won't be answered.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh ffs,

I'm not arguing with the court unless the court has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than post on anand as Jhhnn.

I want to know what kind of individual is unduly burdened by a requirement to provide ID. This is so simple and yet by inquiring I'm apparently endorsing the actions of the Jim Crow south. This of course is ignoring that Jim Crow is in no way germane to the conversation of who specifically and accurately was allegedly targeted but you felt it necessary to being up multiple times so I felt the need to address it.

Can you answer the question, yes or no?

You mean can he do an in depth analysis of Voters who could be harmed by such a law detailing what their burden is and why requiring an ID would be unnecessarily difficult for them to obtain one? Sure, have the feds cut me a six figure check and I'll have that research to you in a few years.

 

[Knowing]

You mean can he do an in depth analysis of Voters who could be harmed by such a law detailing what their burden is and why requiring an ID would be unnecessarily difficult for them to obtain one? Sure, have the feds cut me a six figure check and I'll have that research to you in a few years.

I don't need depth and it seems like the research has already been done.

At least you tried.

 

[fskimospy]

North Carolina right?

http://www.wral.com/state-elections-officials-seek-tighter-security/13533579/

35,000 votes would have swung the election in 2008.

Statistics 101 would tell you that at a minimum, barring any other form of clerical error or anything else, that the vast majority of those 35,000 are in fact two separate people with the same name and the same date of birth. It is not an even remotely uncommon occurrence. Using this as proof of voter fraud is just not understanding math.

It's very telling that even two years after that report came out that to the best of my knowledge the state has not confirmed a single solitary case of double voting, much less 35,000. I wonder what's taking so long?

 

[Knowing]

Statistics 101 would tell you that at a minimum, barring any other form of clerical error or anything else, that the vast majority of those 35,000 are in fact two separate people with the same name and the same date of birth. It is not an even remotely uncommon occurrence. Using this as proof of voter fraud is just not understanding math.

It's very telling that even two years after that report came out that to the best of my knowledge the state has not confirmed a single solitary case of double voting, much less 35,000. I wonder what's taking so long?

I'm familiar with the birthday attack. The best of your knowledge that they haven't found a case tells me nothing in a vacuum. It isn't proof of fraud, it's proof that there could be fraud and that fraud could be great enough to change an election.

 

[HomerJS]

Oh ffs,

I'm not arguing with the court unless the court has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than post on anand as Jhhnn.

I want to know what kind of individual is unduly burdened by a requirement to provide ID. This is so simple and yet by inquiring I'm apparently endorsing the actions of the Jim Crow south. This of course is ignoring that Jim Crow is in no way germane to the conversation of who specifically and accurately was allegedly targeted but you felt it necessary to being up multiple times so I felt the need to address it.

Can you answer the question, yes or no?

Can you answer when in person voter fraud is statistically zero why we need these voter ID laws?

Can you answer why in every court case lawyers are unable to show that in person voter fraud exists to any degree that would warrant new laws?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm familiar with the birthday attack. The best of your knowledge that they haven't found a case tells me nothing in a vacuum. It isn't proof of fraud, it's proof that there could be fraud and that fraud could be great enough to change an election.

By 'birthday attack' you mean 'telling people how math works', right? Statistically from the evidence you have presented the probability of that being the case where it would change the election is effectively zero. Anyone who has worked with large databases can tell you matching on name and DOB will give you dupes all the time.

As for it being 'proof there could be fraud' not only is that a hilariously weak argument, it is no more proof of that than the ability to steal mail existing. If there are literally tens of thousands of supposed cases it should be extraordinarily easy to find one where it happened, especially with a state motivated to justify its irrational laws.

That's basically the lowest bar for evidence that could possibly exist. How come they can't meet it?

 

[Knowing]

By 'birthday attack' you mean 'telling people how math works', right? Statistically from the evidence you have presented the probability of that being the case where it would change the election is effectively zero. Anyone who has worked with large databases can tell you matching on name and DOB will give you dupes all the time.

As for it being 'proof there could be fraud' not only is that a hilariously weak argument, it is no more proof of that than the ability to steal mail existing. If there are literally tens of thousands of supposed cases it should be extraordinarily easy to find one where it happened, especially with a state motivated to justify its irrational laws.

That's basically the lowest bar for evidence that could possibly exist. How come they can't meet it?

If you're going to lecture me on math, why don't you present the math? If you knew what I meant by birthday attack (or even googled it), you wouldn't have to strawman.

 

[Knowing]

Can you answer when in person voter fraud is statistically zero why we need these voter ID laws?

Can you answer why in every court case lawyers are unable to show that in person voter fraud exists to any degree that would warrant new laws?

For the same reason we need laws about the shoulder thing that goes up, the pox on our landscape that is a child's lemonade stand, and the law enforcement need to prevent sidewalk chalk from desecrating a person's own property. "There oughta be a law" has gone full dummy and I don't want to be left off the bandwagon.

There's no need for evidence when we have an emotional appeal.

(Half a day later and still no one has told me who these people are, or where I can find information about them)

 

[brycejones]

For the same reason we need laws about the shoulder thing that goes up, the pox on our landscape that is a child's lemonade stand, and the law enforcement need to prevent sidewalk chalk from desecrating a person's own property. "There oughta be a law" has gone full dummy and I don't want to be left off the bandwagon.

There's no need for evidence when we have an emotional appeal.

(Half a day later and still no one has told me who these people are, or where I can find information about them)

Did you ever read the thread? Hint, take a look at post 44.

 

[Knowing]

Did you ever read the thread? Hint, take a look at post 44.

So old people who don't have their paperwork in order and use cash for everything? How significant is thus population and why are they exempt from suffering in the same infernal lines as the rest of us? California's voter registration page says you're supposed to renew your voter registration when your name changes so their public records really should reflect their married names.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm familiar with the birthday attack. The best of your knowledge that they haven't found a case tells me nothing in a vacuum. It isn't proof of fraud, it's proof that there could be fraud and that fraud could be great enough to change an election.

It's not a vacuum. The context is crying wolf election after election. The context is that all the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" depends on shallow bullshit interpretation of the numbers & simply doesn't pan out, ever. The proof is that your link is 2 years old & that there's no follow up on the allegations. If Repubs had proof rather than innuendo they'd be waving it around like Old Glory on the 4th of July.

The only thing that does pan out is proof of the dogged intent of Repubs to disenfranchise non-friendly voting groups & to discourage voting in general. With enough hoops to jump through, only zealots will vote & Repubs have plenty of those-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

 

[Knowing]

It's not a vacuum. The context is crying wolf election after election. The context is that all the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" depends on shallow bullshit interpretation of the numbers & simply doesn't pan out, ever. The proof is that your link is 2 years old & that there's no follow up on the allegations. If Repubs had proof rather than innuendo they'd be waving it around like Old Glory on the 4th of July.

The only thing that does pan out is proof of the dogged intent of Repubs to disenfranchise non-friendly voting groups & to discourage voting in general. With enough hoops to jump through, only zealots will vote & Repubs have plenty of those-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

Thank you for sharing that youtube video with me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you ever read the thread? Hint, take a look at post 44.

Meh. What he's doing now is buckshatting- dodging & duh-verting into pointless questions to control the conversation.

 

[brycejones]

So old people who don't have their paperwork in order and use cash for everything? How significant is thus population and why are they exempt from suffering in the same infernal lines as the rest of us? California's voter registration page says you're supposed to renew your voter registration when your name changes so their public records really should reflect their married names.

Goal posts moved. Do your own research at this point.

 

[Knowing]

Goal posts moved. Do your own research at this point.

That's what the last person who made the exact same claim said. I wouldn't have asked if I knew the information was readily available in the thread.

The Democrats are saying that this is a vast right wing conspiracy to stop Democrats from voting, and in this case I agree with them. However, I also don't see how a requirement to provide ID is an unreasonable burden. It's a burden that the rest of everyone bears every day.

 

[fskimospy]

If you're going to lecture me on math, why don't you present the math? If you knew what I meant by birthday attack (or even googled it), you wouldn't have to strawman.

If you even googled what a straw man was you wouldn't have tried to say that. It's a simple statement of how probability works. If you understood that you wouldn't have tried to make such a stupid argument.

All that aside, no shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim, show how that your results aren't just random. Alternatively, show us a bunch of cases where in person voter fraud is an issue. Considering you have literally tens of thousands of supposed cases this should be super easy. Take your time.

 

[Knowing]

If you even googled what a straw man was you wouldn't have tried to say that. It's a simple statement of how probability works. If you understood that you wouldn't have tried to make such a stupid argument.

All that aside, no shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim, show how that your results aren't just random. Alternatively, show us a bunch of cases where in person voter fraud is an issue. Considering you have literally tens of thousands of supposed cases this should be super easy. Take your time.

So you don't have the math?

 

[nickqt]

That's what the last person who made the exact same claim said. I wouldn't have asked if I knew the information was readily available in the thread.

The Democrats are saying that this is a vast right wing conspiracy to stop Democrats from voting, and in this case I agree with them. However, I also don't see how a requirement to provide ID is an unreasonable burden. It's a burden that the rest of everyone bears every day.

Hint:

You had to provide ID to get registered to vote to begin with.

Protip:

The people stealing your government aren't poor and voting 3000 times across the district. The people stealing your government write laws that benefit themselves and then hand it, along with money, to a legislator to bring up for a vote on the floor.

Carry on.

 

[Paratus]

So old people who don't have their paperwork in order and use cash for everything? How significant is thus population and why are they exempt from suffering in the same infernal lines as the rest of us? California's voter registration page says you're supposed to renew your voter registration when your name changes so their public records really should reflect their married names.

In Texas it's 4.5% of registered voters or 600,000+ Citizens. More than enough to change the outcome of a moderately close election.

Although Haynes hints that Texas legislators may have passed SB 14 with the discriminatory intent to hamper minorities’ voting rights, she rests her opinion on the fact that SB 14 obviously has a discriminatory impact on minorities. That impact is severe: 608,470 registered voters, or 4.5 percent of all registered voters in Texas, lack the necessary ID to vote; Hispanic registered voters are 195 percent more likely than whites to lack ID; and black registered voters are a stunning 305 percent more likely than whites not to hold ID necessary to vote under SB 14.

Moreover, SB 14 “disproportionately impacts the poor, who are disproportionately minorities.” For instance, the ruling notes, 21.4 percent of eligible voters earning less than $20,000 per year lack the necessary ID, as opposed to 2.6 percent of voters earning between $100,000 and $150,000 per year. The poor are also “less likely to own vehicles and are therefore more likely to rely on public transportation. As a result, the poor are less likely to have a driver’s license and face greater obstacles in obtaining photo identification.” And Haynes pointed out that hundreds of thousands of voters in Texas would face round-trip travel times of 90 minutes or more just to get a state ID. “Of eligible voters without access to a vehicle, a large percentage faced trips of three hours or more,” she added.

One consequence of the Fifth Circuit’s previous decision to let SB 14 take effect while it considered the law’s legality is that the court now has evidence of the law’s discriminatory impact. Haynes fills her opinion with painful stories of voters—mostly poor minorities—who went to Herculean lengths to obtain the necessary ID, failed due to “an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the required underlying documentation,” and were consequently turned away at the polls. States are permitted to prevent voter fraud, Haynes concludes—but they do not get “a free pass to enact needlessly burdensome laws with impermissible racially discriminatory impacts.” The lower court must now craft a remedy to fix the law’s legal infirmities.