NC's voter ID law struck down by Appeals Court

[Knowing]

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.

Carry on.

So if you had to provide ID to get registered to vote, and you're obligated to reregister if your name changes then how is this even a problem?

 

[HomerJS]

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.

Here is their significance, if you want to eliminate their numbers from the vote they will exceed the number of in person fraudulent voters thereby refuting your entire premise.

Now how do you refute this is the reason for these laws...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8


Also we lose more votes from the mishandling of ballots after the vote then in person voter fraud. How many laws have Republicans proposed to fix ballot handling??

Clue, its an easy answer.

 

[Knowing]

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.

Thank you Paratus for the first completely useful post re my inquiry.

I'll will have to read this completely before I respond.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Related question for both sides of the issue. I think its safe to assume nearly all agree we need more people voting for all elections. What is the ratio or legitimate vs fraud that's acceptable.
I'll start.

Any change that allows 3,000 more legitimate votes but also allows 2-3 suspicious votes and 1 confirmed fraudulent vote is alright with me.

 

[brycejones]

Thank you Paratus for the first completely useful post re my inquiry.

I'll will have to read this completely before I respond.

FFS this is just more evidence you've refused to actually read the damn thread. You continue to have the most ironic name.

 

[fskimospy]

So you don't have the math?

You mean you don't have the math? It's your point after all.

 

[Meghan54]

Thank you Paratus for the first completely useful post re my inquiry.

I'll will have to read this completely before I respond.

So what you're saying is you've been talking out your rectal orifice this whole time. Why am I not surprised? It was quite evident to everyone else...wonder why it so long for you to realize this?

 

[Jhhnn]

And more buckshatting, even after being called on it.

The real issue is that Repub efforts are deeply anti-democratic & utterly dishonest. Significant voter fraud is a myth. OTOH, voter suppression is obviously quite real, at least to the federal judiciary.

Obama winning NC in 2008 had to be a frightening & earth shattering event for NC conservatives. It was simply unthinkable, utterly wrong. Their world got turned upside down. When that happens, people turn desperate & can easily cast aside moral compunction entirely which is what happened.

Win or lose, Dems generally have the strength of conviction & belief in democratic principles to want everybody to vote. Everybody who's honestly eligible. The greater the registration & turnout the more accurately an election reflects the will of the people.

It's something everybody should want.

 

[thraashman]

Related question for both sides of the issue. I think its safe to assume nearly all agree we need more people voting for all elections. What is the ratio or legitimate vs fraud that's acceptable.
I'll start.

Any change that allows 3,000 more legitimate votes but also allows 2-3 suspicious votes and 1 confirmed fraudulent vote is alright with me.

When these laws first started popping up a few years back the estimates being put out from studies were that 11% of the voting eligible populace do not have the proper forms of ID. I remember taking that number and comparing it to the number of known fraudulent votes after a massive years long study by the Bush administration and coming up that about 250,000 people would be disenfranchised per every 1 fraudulent vote stopped. I then also found an article with a unproven claim by Republicans of how much actual voter fraud they said was going on, and compared and the number changed to 50,000 voters disenfranchised for every 1 fraudulent vote stopped.

 

[Paratus]

I found the preliminary types of IDs good under voter IDs. What do you think?

:awe:

 

[Fanatical Meat]

When these laws first started popping up a few years back the estimates being put out from studies were that 11% of the voting eligible populace do not have the proper forms of ID. I remember taking that number and comparing it to the number of known fraudulent votes after a massive years long study by the Bush administration and coming up that about 250,000 people would be disenfranchised per every 1 fraudulent vote stopped. I then also found an article with a unproven claim by Republicans of how much actual voter fraud they said was going on, and compared and the number changed to 50,000 voters disenfranchised for every 1 fraudulent vote stopped.

More or less what I'm saying if we get 100k more people casting legitimate votes and in that process there are 50 votes that are fraud isn't it a good trade off?

 

[thraashman]

More or less what I'm saying if we get 100k more people casting legitimate votes and in that process there are 50 votes that are fraud isn't it a good trade off?

Not if you're a conservative. As voter participation increases, the chances of wins for the GOP decreases. So disenfranchisement is beneficial for the GOP. It's not about integrity of the voting process, never was. There isn't a single person in this thread or in this nation that believes that. But people have no issue with repulsive behavior if it benefits their team.

 

[umbrella39]

And more buckshatting, even after being called on it.

The real issue is that Repub efforts are deeply anti-democratic & utterly dishonest. Significant voter fraud is a myth. OTOH, voter suppression is obviously quite real, at least to the federal judiciary.

Obama winning NC in 2008 had to be a frightening & earth shattering event for NC conservatives. It was simply unthinkable, utterly wrong. Their world got turned upside down. When that happens, people turn desperate & can easily cast aside moral compunction entirely which is what happened.

Win or lose, Dems generally have the strength of conviction & belief in democratic principles to want everybody to vote. Everybody who's honestly eligible. The greater the registration & turnout the more accurately an election reflects the will of the people.

It's something everybody should want.

It was SO bad for NC conservatives they decided to set out with intent to do their best to take away the right to vote from blacks.

North Carolina legislators specifically requested data on voting practices by race and then upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registrations in five different ways all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

Again I will ask, why do conservatives hate democracy and want to take away the right to vote from black people (and other minorities for that matter).

As for the fanboys here that love this kind of shit, we now return you to your regularly scheduled deflection…

 

[Paratus]

It was SO bad for NC conservatives they decided to set out with intent to do their best to take away the right to vote from blacks.

North Carolina legislators specifically requested data on voting practices by race and then upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registrations in five different ways all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

Again I will ask, why do conservatives hate democracy and want to take away the right to vote from black people (and other minorities for that matter).

As for the fanboys here that love this kind of shit, we now return you to your regularly scheduled deflection…

This article makes an interesting point that the lower level courts are emboldened a bit by the 4-4 split of SCOTUS on these voter ID laws and strangely the impact of the overruling of the Texas abortion law.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/08/why_courts_are_striking_down_voting_rights_restrictions_right_now.html

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that where a state law burdens a constitutional right, the state must produce evidence supporting its claim that the burden is necessary to further the state’s claimed interests,” Adelman concluded, citing Whole Woman’s Health.

 

[trenchfoot]

Sooner or later what the Repubs are doing to suppress and disenfranchise minorities, the youth and the elderly will become ineffective as the ebb and flow of demographics inexorably work against them.

And the Repubs are only hastening their demise by insisting on deploying such blatantly obvious policies, as the blowback from it will occur with a vengeance. I believe that has already happened in a few state elections, and it only makes sense that more "vengeance voting" will occur in the future.

Being exclusive rather than inclusive has a price to pay, where being exclusive will have these folks eventually excluding themselves from the electoral process in the sense that they will become a fringe group that are ignored and marginalized into obsolescence.

 

[WHAMPOM]

There is only one reason for this voter fraud hysteria, the GOP loses when every one votes.