• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court strikes down North Carolina’s voter-ID law

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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 the Justice Department and civil rights groups 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.

Jim Crow has just taken another hit. A Federal Court has concluded that North Carolina's Voter ID Act was designed solely to keep black folks out of the voting booth.

Article is here.
 
"Jim Crow."

Wow, talk about poisoning the well. With bull**** like that right off the bat, there's nowhere for this to go.
 
Jim Crow has just taken another hit. A Federal Court has concluded that North Carolina's Voter ID Act was designed solely to keep black folks out of the voting booth.

Article is here.

Legislators eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. Exactly how does that discriminate against blacks? Are the judges saying that blacks are uniquely so disorganized and stupid that they can't adjust to these changes?
 
Are the judges saying that blacks are uniquely so disorganized and stupid that they can't adjust to these changes?
No, they are saying NC legislators first sought out the mechanisms which African Americans used to register and vote and then passed legislation which disproportionately affected them.

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law.

This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to
DMV-issued photo IDs. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.
Here's why they eliminated the early voting period:
Court said:
The district court found that, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage. Early voting allows any registered voter to complete an absentee application and ballot at the same time, in person, in advance of Election Day. Early voting thus increases opportunities to vote for those who have difficulty getting to their polling place on Election Day. The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012. (trial evidence showing that 60.36% and 64.01% of African Americans voted early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.47% and 49.39% of whites).

In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days. As a result, SL 2013-381 also eliminated one of two “souls-to-the-polls” Sundays in which African American churches provided transportation to voters.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

There's more in that opinion. You can start on page 9 of the PDF. And much like the last time I exposed your post as being ridiculous, I'll just let you know in advance I don't expect you to acknowledge or respond to this post.
 
Jim Crow has just taken another hit. A Federal Court has concluded that North Carolina's Voter ID Act was designed solely to keep black folks out of the voting booth.

Article is here.

I'm not sure if I understand. How do we prevent multiple votes without identification?
 
Jesse Jackson tells blacks that voter ID laws are just to get them to go to the courthouse so white people can arrest them on the spot.

Seriously.
 
Voter ID laws are not "Jim Crow." It's perfectly reasonable to require government validation of identity in order to vote to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of elections. Is buying cigarettes, booze, and many other items also violations of "Jim Crow" out there to keep minorities from consuming products?
 
I'm not sure if I understand. How do we prevent multiple votes without identification?
I posted very relevant information in the post before yours. You should probably consult it.
Jesse Jackson tells blacks that voter ID laws are just to get them to go to the courthouse so white people can arrest them on the spot.

Seriously.
The gentleman doth present a red herring, methinks.
Voter ID laws are not "Jim Crow." It's perfectly reasonable to require government validation of identity in order to vote to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of elections. Is buying cigarettes, booze, and many other items also violations of "Jim Crow" out there to keep minorities from consuming products?
Laws which are deliberately designed to restrict the avenues black people use to vote would be considered Jim Crow though. Wouldn't you think?
 
I'm not sure if I understand. How do we prevent multiple votes without identification?

No, you don't understand.

The reason you don't understand is that you didn't read the article or the decision, so you have precisely no idea what was struck down or why.



Jesse Jackson tells blacks that voter ID laws are just to get them to go to the courthouse so white people can arrest them on the spot.
Seriously.

:doh

Another one...
 
I'm not sure if I understand. How do we prevent multiple votes without identification?

The issue just is NOT whether or not people must be allowed to vote without any identification at all.

If you don't know that, you've read really nothing at all about the issue and why the new laws are controversial or why courts are striking some of them down and forcing changes to others.
 
"Jim Crow."

Wow, talk about poisoning the well. With bull**** like that right off the bat, there's nowhere for this to go.

People think that the Black population is stuck in the 1940s and has no identification.
 
"Jim Crow."

Wow, talk about poisoning the well. With bull**** like that right off the bat, there's nowhere for this to go.

No, it's pretty much close enough to Jim Crow to qualify and there's evidence to prove that. I'd strongly suggest you know what you're talking about before actually talking.

North Carolina's Deliberate Disenfranchisement of Black Voters - The Atlantic

"“Before enacting that 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,” Motz wrote. “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.”"
 
Legislators eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. Exactly how does that discriminate against blacks? Are the judges saying that blacks are uniquely so disorganized and stupid that they can't adjust to these changes?

That is exactly what that means, yes.
 
That is exactly what that means, yes.
I find it amazing how many people are defending the law, despite the evidence the North Carolina legislature blatantly restricted avenues black people used to vote after conducting research to discover them.
 
I find it amazing how many people are defending the law, despite the evidence the North Carolina legislature blatantly restricted avenues black people used to vote after conducting research to discover them.

I find it amazing that people are delusionally claiming that somehow racially neutral standards are somehow magically discriminatory.

Wait, no I don't. I find this sort of blatant deception par for the course in modern American identity politics.
 
People think that the Black population is stuck in the 1940s and has no identification.

No, people don't think that at all.

From Slyfox's citation from the decision:

This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to
DMV-issued photo IDs. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.
 
I find it amazing how many people are defending the law, despite the evidence the North Carolina legislature blatantly restricted avenues black people used to vote after conducting research to discover them.

Some people only see what they want to see.
 
I find it amazing that people are delusionally claiming that somehow racially neutral standards are somehow magically discriminatory.
That's not what the court found. Are you ignorant of what the court found or are you just choosing to ignore it? If it's ignorance, I'll happily post what they found again. If you're just choosing to ignore it, I can only assume other, more sinister, motives.
Some people only see what they want to see.
I hate to throw around the "racist" label. It's a highly offensive term and gets used way too often. But when people are trying to defend a state legislature conducting racial research and using said research to deliberately restrict the voting habits of black people, it's hard to see any other reasonable explanation.
 
No, they are saying NC legislators first sought out the mechanisms which African Americans used to register and vote and then passed legislation which disproportionately affected them.


Here's why they eliminated the early voting period:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

There's more in that opinion. You can start on page 9 of the PDF. And much like the last time I exposed your post as being ridiculous, I'll just let you know in advance I don't expect you to acknowledge or respond to this post.

I take issue with the courts reasoning on this part: "In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days." By shortening it from 17 to 10 days, wouldn't blacks still tend to vote in the first seven days of early voting and, thus, be unaffected by this part of the law? So it seems. Seventeen days of early voting is absurd, so is ten, frankly.

Do you know the political makeup of this court?
 
That's not what the court found. Are you ignorant of what the court found or are you just choosing to ignore it? If it's ignorance, I'll happily post what they found again. If you're just choosing to ignore it, I can only assume other, more sinister, motives.

Speaking of sinister motives, lots of courts "find" lots of things. Take this "finding," for example, which I assume they "found" lodged up one of the relevant judidical staff members' rectums.

It's patently ridiculous to claim that universal standards are discriminatory.
 
I find it amazing that people are delusionally claiming that somehow racially neutral standards are somehow magically discriminatory.

Wait, no I don't. I find this sort of blatant deception par for the course in modern American identity politics.

Except your premise is wrong - the court found the new standards were not racially neutral. But if you'd like, you can comment on the findings of fact in the case and tell us why after getting data on the ID used by blacks versus whites, a policy change to strike IDs used disproportionately by blacks is racially neutral.
 
I take issue with the courts reasoning on this part: "In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days." By shortening it from 17 to 10 days, wouldn't blacks still tend to vote in the first seven days of early voting and, thus, be unaffected by this part of the law? So it seems. Seventeen days of early voting is absurd, so is ten, frankly.
You're taking only one small part of the case and ignoring other parts of it. However, to address this particular part, you should read more:

After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days. As a result, SL 2013-381 also eliminated one of two “souls-to-the-polls” Sundays in which African American churches provided transportation to voters.

I mean, it was literally the very next sentence.

Do you know the political makeup of this court?
All Democrats, one appointed by Bill Clinton and the other two by Barack Obama, if I'm not mistaken.

What does that have to do with the legislature conducting racial research and restricting voting on things which disproportionately affect black Americans?
Speaking of sinister motives, lots of courts "find" lots of things. Take this "finding," for example, which I assume they "found" lodged up one of the relevant judidical staff members' rectums.

It's patently ridiculous to claim that universal standards are discriminatory.
You're not addressing what the court said. Why is that? Why are you ignoring the NC conducting racial research and then altering legislation based on the research to restrict voting? In other words, why are you talking about a bunch of red herrings and not the actual case itself?
 
I'm not sure if I understand. How do we prevent multiple votes without identification?

You don't, that's what Dems count on.
 
I find it amazing that people are delusionally claiming that somehow racially neutral standards are somehow magically discriminatory.

Wait, no I don't. I find this sort of blatant deception par for the course in modern American identity politics.

I find it amazing that you'd feel compelled to dishonestly claim they were racially neutral, when evidence has been presented that conclusively demonstrates that they were not, and purposefully so.
 
Back
Top Bottom