NC's voter ID law struck down by Appeals Court

[Sunburn74]

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.

I think much of the recent social conservatist laws passed by the grand old party are solutions without problems, mostly designed to whip up and rally their base.

Its also strange to me that a court rules the law to be racist and you don't have an immediate outcry from the people passing it about "how did this happen where we passed a racist law?!". I remember once I wrote a paper and had someone review it. They told me "hey there is some borderline racist stuff in here you may want to take a look at " and when they pointed it out I was so shocked that it was so obvious that it WAS borderline racist (at the very least inconsiderate). I didn't sleep for a week after that. Its funny, you'd think a bunch of judges telling state legislators "hey this is completely and blatantly racist" would result in some sort of introspection, though I somehow doubt that will actually happen.

 

[glenn1]

Well good news. In person voter fraud has been completely licked without the added cost of new IDs.

Since you support all vectors of fraud reduction why don't you write to your representatives and suggest they support robust open source security code for voting machines and new checks and security for mail in ballets.

Like blue states are lining up to do the things you pointed out?

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

It's my theory that the lack of comprehension is a direct result of the callouses on your knuckles.

 

[ivwshane]

Like blue states are lining up to do the things you pointed out?

What's that? Fighting an imaginary problem? Why would they be wasting time on that?

 

[DrDoug]

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.

Does this quote from the ruling help?

Before enacting the law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State only offered meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State's true motivation. Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.

It's clear that the changes were all about maintaining conservative power and control in North Carolina in the face of a growing AA demographic. What's really disgusting is that the governor and conservative legislators are attacking the justices on the appeals court as Democrats, as if we're supposed to accept or dismiss judicial decisions based on the political leanings of that particular court.

Well, at least they didn't call the judges Mexicans...

 

[pete6032]

If you spent your entire life growing up in middle class suburban America the there are a lot of things you don't understand. That doesn't mean that problems don't exist.

Imagine your mom is a drug addict and you don't know who your father is. You have moved across states several times in your life and have no stability whatsoever. Half the time you are homeless or your mom is out on a bender. As a teenager you need to get an ID but no one even remembers where you were born so you can't get a birth certificate.

 

[Paratus]

Like blue states are lining up to do the things you pointed out?

Oh my bad. I thought you were interested in supporting all vectors to reduce voter fraud.

If you are relying on blue states to show you the way, well good news, none are pursuing in person voter fraud since that problem is solved.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh my bad. I thought you were interested in supporting all vectors to reduce voter fraud.

If you are relying on blue states to show you the way, well good news, none are pursuing in person voter fraud since that problem is solved.

It is always interesting that conservatives are so interested in preventing voter fraud except for the places it actually happens. Mail in ballots are exponentially more prone to voter fraud than in person voting, but conservatives do nothing in that respect because they believe mail in ballots skew Republican.

This is, and always has been, an attempt to suppress voting for unfavorable constituencies.

 

[Art&Science]

Why the difference in expectations? I find this fascinating.

White person doesn't have an ID - They're a fringe element, a crazy conservative, just making people's jobs harder.

Anyone else doesn't have an ID - They're disenfranchised, being systemically harassed and discriminated against.

So are we just holding white people to a higher standard? Like saying, "Hey, Whitey McWhitester - you NEED to have an ID, you know that. Come on now, it's not like you're one of those... I mean, they don't need to have an ID... our expectations are lower for those people."

 

[brycejones]

Why the difference in expectations? I find this fascinating.

White person doesn't have an ID - They're a fringe element, a crazy conservative, just making people's jobs harder.

Anyone else doesn't have an ID - They're disenfranchised, being systemically harassed and discriminated against.

So are we just holding white people to a higher standard? Like saying, "Hey, Whitey McWhitester - you NEED to have an ID, you know that. Come on now, it's not like you're one of those... I mean, they don't need to have an ID... our expectations are lower for those people."

Who has been making that argument? Or do you need to clean up your straw?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think much of the recent social conservatist laws passed by the grand old party are solutions without problems, mostly designed to whip up and rally their base.

Its also strange to me that a court rules the law to be racist and you don't have an immediate outcry from the people passing it about "how did this happen where we passed a racist law?!". I remember once I wrote a paper and had someone review it. They told me "hey there is some borderline racist stuff in here you may want to take a look at " and when they pointed it out I was so shocked that it was so obvious that it WAS borderline racist (at the very least inconsiderate). I didn't sleep for a week after that. Its funny, you'd think a bunch of judges telling state legislators "hey this is completely and blatantly racist" would result in some sort of introspection, though I somehow doubt that will actually happen.

"Voter fraud" merely establishes plausible deniability for actions they know are racist. They have no qualms about being racist, only about being accurately perceived as such. It's Jim Crow as a female impersonator.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Hmmm just heard NC did studies to find out why their 2000 enacted new voter registration process and early voter changes increased to voters so much. Part of the study revealed what locations & what races benefitted most from the changes. Not that in itself is unreasonable but they targeted most of the new rules to make it harder for (new) processes mostly used by Blacks & Latinos. From that study, now its suspicious.

 

[Art&Science]

Who has been making that argument? Or do you need to clean up your straw?

That IS the argument. Voter ID laws affect non-whites because they won't have an ID to vote or won't take the time to register to vote. These laws have been called racist from the beginning because whites somehow have IDs and have registered, and non-whites haven't. That has been the entire argument from day 1. Don't be stupid.

I find it interesting that whites are expected to have registered and have an ID, while this expectation is non present for non-whites. The proof is in the argument, people expect more from whites and less from non-whites. Why?

 

[Paratus]

Why the difference in expectations? I find this fascinating.

White person doesn't have an ID - They're a fringe element, a crazy conservative, just making people's jobs harder.

Anyone else doesn't have an ID - They're disenfranchised, being systemically harassed and discriminated against.

So are we just holding white people to a higher standard? Like saying, "Hey, Whitey McWhitester - you NEED to have an ID, you know that. Come on now, it's not like you're one of those... I mean, they don't need to have an ID... our expectations are lower for those people."

But people are able to ID themselves. Every person who registered to vote before these laws went into effect IDed themselves.

It's only special flowers like yourself and the politicians who want to enact these laws that want hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens to get special IDs so you can feel "safe" voting.

So why should we all be held to a more expensive standard that does nothing but disenfranchise your fellow citizen just for you Svnla.

Care to explain? (and I know it'll be hard for you but try to do it without making it about race... People might get the wrong idea about you )

 

[pete6032]

That IS the argument. Voter ID laws affect non-whites because they won't have an ID to vote or won't take the time to register to vote. These laws have been called racist from the beginning because whites somehow have IDs and have registered, and non-whites haven't. That has been the entire argument from day 1. Don't be stupid.

I find it interesting that whites are expected to have registered and have an ID, while this expectation is non present for non-whites. The proof is in the argument, people expect more from whites and less from non-whites. Why?

Voter ID laws affect anyone without an identification. The problem with the law is that it disproportionately affects racial minorities. As a country, we need to be aware of the impact of laws on groups of people that have been disenfranchised in the past so that we do not make the same moral mistakes again.

 

[Jhhnn]

That IS the argument. Voter ID laws affect non-whites because they won't have an ID to vote or won't take the time to register to vote. These laws have been called racist from the beginning because whites somehow have IDs and have registered, and non-whites haven't. That has been the entire argument from day 1. Don't be stupid.

I find it interesting that whites are expected to have registered and have an ID, while this expectation is non present for non-whites. The proof is in the argument, people expect more from whites and less from non-whites. Why?

Please. Voter ID laws have a disproportionate effect on poor people in general. As a group, minorities are poorer than whites particularly in places like NC.

Expectations? The one you offer is precisely that employed by the NC legislature. They used data based on race to create the law they wanted. They said "Hey, this would hurt blacks more than whites, so let's do it."

 

[Jhhnn]

Voter ID laws affect anyone without an identification. The problem with the law is that it disproportionately affects racial minorities. As a country, we need to be aware of the impact of laws on groups of people that have been disenfranchised in the past so that we do not make the same moral mistakes again.

One man's moral mistake is another man's desirable outcome. None of this is accidental at all.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That IS the argument. Voter ID laws affect non-whites because they won't have an ID to vote or won't take the time to register to vote. These laws have been called racist from the beginning because whites somehow have IDs and have registered, and non-whites haven't. That has been the entire argument from day 1. Don't be stupid.

I find it interesting that whites are expected to have registered and have an ID, while this expectation is non present for non-whites. The proof is in the argument, people expect more from whites and less from non-whites. Why?

I'll agree to disagree on how much voter fraud happens and I'm ok with showing am ID however the ID needs to be free and minimal effort to obtain. Closing all registry's near all poor people and making them travel for hours when wealthy whites don't travel more than 30 minutes is wrong

If you want these laws pay up and open more registries plus hire more people to staff them and don't close them right before an election.

 

[sontakke]

I heard Wisconsin one got shot down too or is that an old news?

 

[Paratus]

I heard Wisconsin one got shot down too or is that an old news?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2480670

Wisconsin Texas and Michigan. And now NC.

 

[glenn1]

Oh my bad. I thought you were interested in supporting all vectors to reduce voter fraud.

If you are relying on blue states to show you the way, well good news, none are pursuing in person voter fraud since that problem is solved.

I already stated my support for reducing those other vectors even before you brought them up, that's exactly why I quoted my earlier post in that response you quoted. I was calling you out for taking the Republican approach on Obamacare of talking about the flaws of the law to advocate for its repeal but having no interest in fixing those other flaws you cited. I was calling your bluff on the red herring of the other vectors. You don't care about fixing them, you just want to use them as a club to bash Voter ID.

We should address problems with absentee voters. We should fix problems with physical security of voting equipment. We should fix problems with voting in multiple precincts. And we should fix problems with inadequate standards to identify voters. We should do each and every one of those things and do them EVEN IF we didn't or couldn't do the other ones.

 

[Paratus]

I already stated my support for reducing those other vectors even before you brought them up, that's exactly why I quoted my earlier post in that response you quoted. I was calling you out for taking the Republican approach on Obamacare of talking about the flaws of the law to advocate for its repeal but having no interest in fixing those other flaws you cited. I was calling your bluff on the red herring of the other vectors. You don't care about fixing them, you just want to use them as a club to bash Voter ID.

We should address problems with absentee voters. We should fix problems with physical security of voting equipment. We should fix problems with voting in multiple precincts. And we should fix problems with inadequate standards to identify voters. We should do each and every one of those things and do them EVEN IF we didn't or couldn't do the other ones.

Of course I'm bashing Voter ID. As implemented in these 4 states it fails on every conceivable level.

• It "solves" a problem that isn't shown to exist
• As a solution to maintaining the legitimacy of the vote it would disenfranchise somewhere around 24 million currently legitimate votes per fraudulent vote - delegitimizing the vote in the process.
• For all this it costs money - even SCOTUS approved IN suffers this cost

If Obamacare in an effort to increase coverage and lower costs reduced coverage 1000x and increased cost 1000x then I would be for repealing it too.

 

[shira]

Already addressed your points in other posts like post 19 that you chose not to quote. We should address all vectors for fraud including those you mentioned and more robust voter identification should be among them.

YOU have addressed this, and good for you. But my post was pointing out that although Republican legislatures continually claim that their purpose in passing voter ID laws is to protect the integrity of elections, that claim is belied by their lack of action on much more serious - and non-partisan - threats to the integrity of elections.

 

[shira]

I think much of the recent social conservatist laws passed by the grand old party are solutions without problems, mostly designed to whip up and rally their base.

Its also strange to me that a court rules the law to be racist and you don't have an immediate outcry from the people passing it about "how did this happen where we passed a racist law?!". I remember once I wrote a paper and had someone review it. They told me "hey there is some borderline racist stuff in here you may want to take a look at " and when they pointed it out I was so shocked that it was so obvious that it WAS borderline racist (at the very least inconsiderate). I didn't sleep for a week after that. Its funny, you'd think a bunch of judges telling state legislators "hey this is completely and blatantly racist" would result in some sort of introspection, though I somehow doubt that will actually happen.

But you see, voter ID laws are not racist. White legislators like black people just fine (so how can they be racist?); they just don't want them to vote.

 

[kage69]

It is always interesting that conservatives are so interested in preventing voter fraud except for the places it actually happens.

This.

Hey all you 'protect the integrity of the vote' people, where are you with ghost voting?

*crickets*

Where have you been on false positives regarding voter list purges?

*crickets*

Where have you been on making voting machines secure and leave a paper trail?

*crickets*

Where have you been on preventing election fraud committed by state officials?

*crickets*


Grats GOP sheep, you're as hypocritical and willfully obtuse as you are uninformed. *golf clap*