Dallas-Mavs.com Forums
Old 05-01-2014, 02:03 PM   #1
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Shelby County v. Holder

Here's a primer: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...preme-court-id

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:
States that were previously covered in some part by Section 5 moved quickly after it was invalidated. Within two hours of the Shelby decision, Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that the state's voter identification law—which had previously been blocked by a federal court—would be immediately implemented. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, another Republican, also immediately instated his state's voter ID law. About one month after the Shelby decision, Republicans in North Carolina pushed through a package of extreme voting restrictions, including ending same-day registration, shortening early voting by a week, requiring photo ID, and ending a program that encourages high schoolers to sign up to vote when they turn 18. In October, Virginia purged more than 38,000 names from the voter rolls. Mississippi's Republican secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann, told the Associated Press in November that the state was going to start implementing its voter ID law by the June 2014 elections. (This proposal was undergoing Justice Department review when the Shelby decision came down.) In January, Republican Gov. Rick Scott attempted again (unsuccessfully) to purge noncitizens from Florida's voting rolls, a move he had tried previously in 2012, before being blocked by Section 5. And thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, South Carolina was able to implement a stricter photo identification requirement.

.....And there's been a lot of movement there (at the local level), as well: After Shelby, Jacksonville, Florida, allegedly moved a voting center that had one of the highest African American voter turnouts in the state to a new site that's not near public transportation. In Texas, Galveston County eliminated virtually all of the black- and Latino-held constable and justice positions in the county, a move that was previously blocked under Section 5.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-01-2014 at 02:10 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-01-2014, 03:10 PM   #2
Five-ofan
Diamond Member
 
Five-ofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,818
Five-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond reputeFive-ofan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

You do realize that purging non citizens from voting rolls is a good thing right? If you aren't a citizen you shouldn't get to vote. Further I don't consider requiring an ID to be restricting of voters. Ending same day registration sucks though.
Five-ofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 04:25 PM   #3
ribosoma
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
ribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Message to the Voting Cattle
ribosoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 03:55 PM   #4
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-ofan View Post
You do realize that purging non citizens from voting rolls is a good thing right? If you aren't a citizen you shouldn't get to vote. Further I don't consider requiring an ID to be restricting of voters. Ending same day registration sucks though.
I'm not sure I agree here, even. Not in view of the fact that evidence of non-citizens voting is pretty much non-existent. And not in view of the fact that evidence of eligible voters being incorrectly 'purged' is not at all uncommon. And not in view of the fact that such purges tend to disproportionately affect both young voters and minority voters, in many cases. And not in view of the growing suspicion that such 'reforms' are actually motivated by a desire on the part of Republican-dominated legislatures to reduce Democrat vote turnout, and designed and executed to that end. Writes Jeffrey Toobin in the 01.14.2013 edition of The New Yorker:

Quote:
The purported justification for the changes was to limit in-person voter fraud, but that claim was fraudulent itself, since voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. Mike Turzai, the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, revealed the true intent behind most of the laws last June, when, after the House passed such a measure, he boasted, in a rare moment of candor, “Voter I.D., which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done.” Turzai’s prediction was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that the Pennsylvania law and others like it weren’t pernicious. Obama won in Florida, too, but a recent study by Theodore Allen, an associate professor at Ohio State University, found that, in central Florida alone, long lines, exacerbated by a law that reduced the number of days for early voting, discouraged about fifty thousand people, most of them Democrats, from casting ballots.
Unable to find a direct reference at the moment, but there is another instance of a legislator who was advocating measures making it more difficult for university students to vote in the district where they go to school (despite that being perfectly legal), in which the legislator explicitly states that young people are more likely to be liberal, and thus to vote Democrat, and that therefore such voting restrictions were necessary in order to protect the district for Republicans. (I have personally heard similiar explicit complaints (though by persons at further remove) by citizens in a small-town which is home to a HBCU, where students vote in local elections, and in some cases throw support to a minority candidate who otherwise would not have a chance at being elected.)

What's more, just logically, I have a hard time believe that 'non-citizens' would risk showing up at a polling place and calling attention to themselves (certainly not in significant numbers) and having to document their addresses. My guess is that 'non-citizens' are more concerned about getting to their jobs and then back home to their families without getting pulled over by police than they are trying to vote in elections in which they are ineligible to vote.

Anecdotally, the only incident of voter fraud that I have heard of being prosecuted lately involved a couple of caucasian Baptist tea-totalers voting against a local option amendment, when they KNEW they were ineligible to vote. The eleciton results were close enough that they got busted when officials were recounting the votes. (Family members turned them in. In-laws!) Other than that, there was the case of a Republican operative having thrown away a large number of voter registrations which had been collected in a pre-dominantly Democratic district. But no, voting by non-citizens has pretty much been shown to be a myth, while the disenfranchisement of eligible voters is not at all uncommon.

In any case, this is a pretty interesting read about alleged voter fraud (http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/d...er%20Fraud.pdf), showing how what self-styled election-fraud reformers try to call 'voter fraud' is acutally more likely to be a clerical error rather than any deliberate attempt to vote illegally or fraudulently.

Beyond that, you have the very recent Wisconsin voter ID case (Frank v. Walker) in which a federal judge struck down a photo-ID law precisely because it unfairly and disproportionately burdened minority voters, and in so finding pointed out that:

Quote:
The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.
Summary article here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...s-none/361403/
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 04:16 PM   #5
jthig32
Lazy Moderator
 
jthig32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
jthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

There's no question that the Voter ID crackdown, while defensible from a pure logic standpoint, it nothing but a paper-thin ploy to reduce voter turnout from voters that aren't wanted.

However, if you think the Democrats are defending this action because they support true democracy, you're insane and naive. Flip the class and political leanings and you'd have the democrats pushing for the Voter ID laws and Republicans railing against them.

It's all a wash of corruption with everyone fighting simply for what benefits them the most.
__________________
Current Mavs Salary outlook (with my own possibly incorrect math and assumptions)

Mavs Net Ratings By Game
(Using BRef.com calculations for possessions, so numbers are slightly different than what you'll see on NBA.com and ESPN.com
jthig32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 05:22 PM   #6
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,309
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
Flip the class and political leanings and you'd have the democrats pushing for the Voter ID laws and Republicans railing against them.
No ad hominem/personal attacks, please. Contribute or don't post -EL

Last edited by EricaLubarsky; 07-06-2014 at 04:42 PM.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 12:55 PM   #7
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
.... Flip the class and political leanings and you'd have the democrats pushing for the Voter ID laws and Republicans railing against them.

It's all a wash of corruption with everyone fighting simply for what benefits them the most.
But this is sort of like saying "And if your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather."

For fifty years, Democrats have been trying to expand voting rights, and make it easier to vote. While during that same time (but particularly during the last 25 years), Republicans have been trying to limit voting rights and make it more difficult for people (particularly minorities) to vote.

This isn't just the normal ebb and flow of which party is on top at any particular moment; these have become defining partisan values.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 07-06-2014 at 12:55 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 05:31 PM   #8
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,309
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Pretty shocking redaction by EL above. All I said was that the comment reflected a dire lack of understanding of either politics or people.

What kind of shop is being run here these days? The directive was to fall in line or not post. What does the posting community look like these days? This kind of boorish behaviour certainly seems like it would limit it.

Last edited by chumdawg; 07-06-2014 at 05:44 PM.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 05:38 PM   #9
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,309
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I'll repeat my comment here:

To thiggy: "I don't think you understand politics. Or people."

If you think that's an attack, then you need to get on over to the kiddy pool, where no one discusses serious things. And get out of this forum.

Last edited by chumdawg; 07-06-2014 at 05:40 PM.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 05:44 PM   #10
EricaLubarsky
Resident misanthrope
 
EricaLubarsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 28,797
EricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
Pretty shocking redaction by EL above. All I said was that the comment reflected a dire lack of understanding of either politics or people.

What kind of shop is being run here these days?
Pretty shocking?

You didn't say the argument lacked understanding. Instead of posting an actual argument, you told another poster that they were clueless.

If you want to post on a forum that allows personal attacks against other posters then perhaps this isn't the place. I'd also advise that you not fill every thread with attacks on DM.com and DM.com mods. If you have issues, create a thread and bring it up in the DM.com section. Perhaps you can find an agreeable ear there. Calling other people stupid and the mods draconian in the wrong section will not make you many friends and personal insults will be edited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
I'll repeat my comment here:

To thiggy: "I don't think you understand politics. Or people."

If you think that's an attack, then you need to get on over to the kiddy pool, where no one discusses serious things. And get out of this forum.
If you honestly think that telling people that they are dumb is a reasonable argument, then I'd advise you move on. Do not take past failures to moderate as unspoken support for posters that make arguments personal, whether here or in the sports-related sections.

Please take a moment to re-read the community standards found here. http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/faq.ph...q_new_faq_item It's the same thing you agreed with when you first signed up years ago. I'll point you to two particularly applicable community standards:

Quote:
We’re a community with quality standards and we expect our members to make a sincere effort to contribute their thoughts on interesting subjects in a meaningful and respectful manner. Posting messages and otherwise interacting on Dallas-Mavs.com is completely optional; many members often prefer to just read what others have to say. But if you do post, we expect that you’ll be respectful of the time of others by posting meaningfully.
Quote:
Even though we realize that...discussions can get intense, we have zero tolerance for taking an argument... to a personal level

Last edited by EricaLubarsky; 07-06-2014 at 05:51 PM.
EricaLubarsky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 05:51 PM   #11
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,309
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky View Post
Pretty shocking?

You didn't say the argument lacked understanding. Instead of posting an actual argument, you told another poster that they were clueless.

If you want to post on a forum that allows personal attacks against other posters then perhaps this isn't the place. I'd also advise that you not fill every thread with attacks on DM.com and DM.com mods. If you have issues, create a thread and bring it up in the DM.com section. Perhaps you can find an agreeable ear there. Calling other people stupid and the mods draconian in the wrong section will not make you many friends and personal insults will be edited.
You've been warned-- play nice or don't play. Personal attacks are not acceptable on DM.com. -Erica.

Last edited by EricaLubarsky; 07-06-2014 at 05:55 PM.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 10:49 PM   #12
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,236
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I say photograph each voter, coupled with fingerprints, ocular photos, and/or cheek swabs, with all data sent into a central voter database hub for processing. No need to carry anything with you to the polls other than your own behind. As a young minority, I just confirmed I've got one, and I would mind less about this than say... getting VR stripped and irradiated every time I go to the airport, having my emails stored and read by the secret police, or being audited because someone doesn't like me.

Bonus upside: more government jobs, spending, and a new administrative department to secure voting.

Why a photo ID became the hill to die on with all the other crap thrust upon us is beyond me...
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 07-06-2014 at 10:51 PM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 12:05 PM   #13
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
I say photograph each voter, coupled with fingerprints, ocular photos, and/or cheek swabs, with all data sent into a central voter database hub for processing. No need to carry anything with you to the polls other than your own behind. As a young minority, I just confirmed I've got one, and I would mind less about this than say... getting VR stripped and irradiated every time I go to the airport, having my emails stored and read by the secret police, or being audited because someone doesn't like me.

Bonus upside: more government jobs, spending, and a new administrative department to secure voting.

Why a photo ID became the hill to die on with all the other crap thrust upon us is beyond me...
What is a voter? Democrats would like for anyone in the country to be a voter (ergo the immigration open border push AND the push to have no id at all for voting).
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 12:12 PM   #14
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
There's no question that the Voter ID crackdown, while defensible from a pure logic standpoint, it nothing but a paper-thin ploy to reduce voter turnout from voters that aren't wanted.

However, if you think the Democrats are defending this action because they support true democracy, you're insane and naive. Flip the class and political leanings and you'd have the democrats pushing for the Voter ID laws and Republicans railing against them.

It's all a wash of corruption with everyone fighting simply for what benefits them the most.
I fail to see how verifying that a person who is ineligible to vote does NOT vote is not imminently defensible. The only reason that you can argue against it,is if you

1. have a better plan on verification.
2. do not care about verification.
3. Honestly believe there is not and will NEVER be any voting corruption( really??).

The mere fact that a large majority of the citizenry believe that verification of voting bonafides is needed to ensure integrity of elections (recall JFK and chicago meme for example) means that it should be taken seriously. If nothing but to make sure elections are still peaceful endeavors.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2016, 07:06 AM   #15
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Courts not looking favorably on state legislatures' attempts to suppress minorities' voting rights. Decisions in Texas, Kansas, and Wisconsin found voter-ID requirements unconstitutional, and last week's decision on North Carolina's voter-ID law concluded actual evidence of intent to discriminate against minorities.

Quote:
Friday was a very good day for voting rights

By Charles Kuffner on August 1, 2016 at 5:29 AM


The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory is nothing short of a beat down. The court does not simply tear apart major provisions of the law, it catches state lawmakers at the center of a conspiracy to disenfranchise black voters, and it calls them out onto the carpet for it. By the time the court is done scraping the bloody mass of what was once North Carolina’s attempts to justify this law off the floor, the state’s leadership has been thoroughly shamed.

The court’s opinion — primarily written by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, a Clinton appointee — is rooted in an important understanding of how race and partisanship interact in states like North Carolina with large minority populations.

As Judge Motz lays out the facts of this case, it’s hard not to come away with the conclusion that North Carolina’s lawmakers wanted to get caught engaging in unlawfully racial discrimination. Just one day after the Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively eliminating federal supervision that could have halted this voter suppression law before it ever took effect, “a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an ‘omnibus’ election law.”

Before enacting that law, moreover, “the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.” After receiving that data, “the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.” Indeed, this data appears to have guided the state’s lawmakers in drafting a law that would have maximal impact on African-Americans.

The law did not simply contain a voter ID provision. Rather “the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans” while simultaneously retaining “only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.” (Although, in fairness, this provision was later watered down.)

The legislature’s data on racial voting patterns showed that “African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting,” and so “the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting.” The data showed that “African American voters disproportionately used [same-day registration] when it was available,” and so same-day registration was cut as well. The law also eliminated out-of-precinct voting, which “required the Board of Elections in each county to count the provisional ballot of an Election Day voter who appeared at the wrong precinct, but in the correct county, for all of the ballot items for which the voter was eligible to vote.” African-Americans, meanwhile, were especially likely to take advantage of this practice.

Yet for all these changes, the lawmakers exempted absentee voting from the law’s new voter ID restriction, and it did so after discovering “that African Americans did not disproportionately use absentee voting; whites did.” Thus, as Motz summarizes the facts of the case, “the General Assembly enacted legislation restricting all — and only — practices disproportionately used by African Americans.”
Wonkblog adds on:

Most strikingly, the judges point to a “smoking gun” in North Carolina’s justification for the law, proving discriminatory intent. The state argued in court that “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic,” and said it did away with Sunday voting as a result.

“Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race — specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise,” the judges write in their decision.

This is about as clear-cut an indictment of the discriminatory underpinnings of voter-ID laws as you’ll find anywhere. Studies have already shown a significant link between support for voter ID and racial discrimination, among both lawmakers and white voters in general.

“Faced with this record,” the federal court concludes, “we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”

...North Carolina can ask for an en banc review, where the makeup of the full Fourth Circuit is unlikely to favor them, and they can appeal to SCOTUS, where they are unlikely to get five votes. This ruling opens the door to North Carolina being put back under federal oversight – that is, preclearance – for changes to election laws there, but it did not require it. That may yet come, as may also happen with Texas once the district court here reviews the Fifth Circuit voter ID ruling. (On that note, the hearing on how to mitigate Texas’ voter ID law is now set for August 10.) For now, this pernicious law, which was at least as bad as Texas’, has been thrown out. That would be reason enough to celebrate, but we also got good rulings in Wisconsin and Kansas, too. It’s clear to me that what we need is a constitutional amendment affirming that anyone who is eighteen, a citizen, and not currently under a felony conviction, has the right to vote and that any law that abridges that right is illegal. There are a lot of things on the progressive to-do list right now, but that one needs to be up there.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.