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

[Slyfox696]

I saw that part. So what?

So, a practice which tends to drive black American voting has been deliberately cut, after research showing it boost black turnout.

That's what.

Since when is it appropriate for churches to involve themselves so openly in politics like this.

...I mean, this is a joke right?

Why don't we make voting a year long experience? 10 days is plenty. In fact its too much. for 200 years we survived with voting taking place on a single day. Now we need 3 weeks because blacks cant find their way to the polls? Not buying it.

A single day of voting is asinine and disproportionately affects, in a negative fashion, those who are poor. We could quibble over how many days voting should be, but a single day is unfair and biased, regardless of which party it affects more.

That's what I figured. I will dismiss this ruling the same way the left would dismiss an opposite ruling had it been made by three Bush appointees.

Ignore for a moment the political side. Do you think it's okay for a legislature to conduct racial research and then alter existing legislation based on this research, all against one side of the research?

Do you think that's okay?

So requiring someone to show identification is somehow disenfranchising them from voting?

That's not what the court said. I've provided what the court said. Please read it.

I find it enormously impolite to think African Americans cannot handle getting proper identification. Of course, we could do it like they do in the third world and color the fingers of those that have voted purple. But that seems rather sad, if this is true.

Ahh, that's cute.

I'm starting to notice a pattern here: every single post that ridicules the ruling was clearly typed up in complete ignorance of what portions of the law the court actually struck down.

They aren't even bothering to acknowledge what happened. That's why I can't help but think race is an issue here.

It seems hardly credible that the people cannot handle that level of complexity.

Says the person who won't read or address what actually happened, just so they can post boilerplate arguments.

How are voting rights being restricted?

Read what I posted earlier in the thread.

 

[joG]

No, people don't think that at all.

From Slyfox's citation from the decision:

I read that and find it depressing that this should stop people voting. Do you know, what identification was to be rejected?

 

[Slyfox696]

I read that and find it depressing that this should stop people voting.

So you read it and still don't understand the court struck it down because it deliberately targeted the methods used by black people to vote?

 

[danarhea]

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 respectfully disagree with you on this one. The Republican legislature requested and received statistical data showing which parts of the North Carolina voting laws affected which voters, based on race. They then used this data to pass legislation which affected black voters. This is what the court determined. And yes, Jim Crow was designed to stop blacks from voting. Back then it was poll taxes and intelligence tests. Today, it is with laws which surgically remove black voters from the rolls, as stated by the Appeals Court. Yes, this is Jim Crow.

 

[joG]

So, a practice which tends to drive black American voting has been deliberately cut, after research showing it boost black turnout.

That's what.

...I mean, this is a joke right?

A single day of voting is asinine and disproportionately affects, in a negative fashion, those who are poor. We could quibble over how many days voting should be, but a single day is unfair and biased, regardless of which party it affects more.

Ignore for a moment the political side. Do you think it's okay for a legislature to conduct racial research and then alter existing legislation based on this research, all against one side of the research?

Do you think that's okay?
That's not what the court said. I've provided what the court said. Please read it.
Ahh, that's cute.

They aren't even bothering to acknowledge what happened. That's why I can't help but think race is an issue here.
Says the person who won't read what actually happened.
Read what I posted earlier in the thread.

I thought I had mentioned having read the article. But since you are so much into this, can you say which photo id the African Americans had and were to be disallowed?

 

[joG]

So you read it and still don't understand the court struck it down because it deliberately targeted the methods used by black people to vote?

That sounded to me to be an assumption by someone that wants to make an issue of it. Possibly to rile the black voters and increase hate. I personally think it rather horrible to assume that Black Americans can't handle it, while Whites can.

 

[Slyfox696]

I thought I had mentioned having read the article. But since you are so much into this, can you say which photo id the African Americans had and were to be disallowed?

A) Irrelevant, because the court struck it down based on the intent of the law.
B)

the change in accepted photo IDs is of particular note: the new ID provision retained only those types of photo ID disproportionately held by whites and excluded those
disproportionately held by African Americans. The district court specifically found that “the removal of public assistance IDs” in particular was “suspect,” because “a reasonable legislator [would be] aware of the socioeconomic disparities endured by African Americans [and] could have surmised that African Americans would be more likely to possess this form of ID.”

At what point are you going to admit the law deserved to be struck down?

That sounded to me to be an assumption by someone that wants to make an issue of it.

It's not an assumption, the court literally used those words:

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

And they provide evidence to support their statement. It's not an assumption.

I personally think it rather horrible to assume that Black Americans can't handle it, while Whites can

The court said nothing about that. They said the legislature deliberately restricted methods of voting and registration used disproportionately by black people.

Are you sure you actually read what I posted?

 

[Fenton]

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 was Obama's DOJs argument. That blacks, I guess because of the color of their skin were too dumb to get a voter Id

Justice Department Expert Witness: Blacks 'Less Sophisticated Voters' - Breitbart

 

[Moon]

So, a practice which tends to drive black American voting has been deliberately cut, after research showing it boost black turnout.

That's what.

...I mean, this is a joke right?

A single day of voting is asinine and disproportionately affects, in a negative fashion, those who are poor. We could quibble over how many days voting should be, but a single day is unfair and biased, regardless of which party it affects more.

Ignore for a moment the political side. Do you think it's okay for a legislature to conduct racial research and then alter existing legislation based on this research, all against one side of the research?

Do you think that's okay?
That's not what the court said. I've provided what the court said. Please read it.
Ahh, that's cute.

They aren't even bothering to acknowledge what happened. That's why I can't help but think race is an issue here.
Says the person who won't read or address what actually happened, just so they can post boilerplate arguments.
Read what I posted earlier in the thread.

Didn't realize your were the spokesmodel for notquiteright.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

Well my "kneejerk" reaction to this is GOOD!!!!!!

But with that being said I have to admit that I do not know the actual NC law, it may have been a fine law or it may have been a terrible one that is in fact used to try and stop certain people from voting.

So ill state what I always state in voter ID law threads

I fully support voter ID laws 100% IF the law is about Voter ID . . .thats it.
The problem is typically theres lots of extras added or done at the same time.

Make the law JUST about voter ID and the super vast majority of the country supports it.

Make the ID free and readily available at government facilities or mobile units including the polling place and that it can be done same day (with proper steps just like my drivers license). Also make other forms of valid ID acceptable. State ID, drivers license, military ID passport etc.

thats it, end of law and just about everybody supports it.

as soon as the ID costs money, is hard to get or isn't and isnt easily accessible, or only one form of ID is acceptable then most people rightfully reject it.

but it doesnt stop there, at least those things still deal with ID . . .

the other things that get nonsensical bills quickly rejected or thrown out is because many change::

voting days and times
eliminate early voting, sunday voting, restrict absentee voting
change rules for student, military and elder voting
close down voting places or move them, redraw lines etc etc
none of that crap has anything to do with voter ID so again people rightfully and logically reject it.

Make the VOTER ID law about . . .wait for it . . . .VOTER ID and typically it passes right through.

Very simple solution to a basically non problem . . .
Calling it Jim Crow is over the top but its no surprass at all that people see it for what it is . . .an attempt to control votes in a certain direction. . .if it wasnt it would just be about ID . . the majority of times its not. . .

also let me repeat, im not familiar with the NC law so I don't know if it was about ID or the extra garbage that should be thrown out.

 

[Slyfox696]

Didn't realize your were the spokesmodel for notquiteright.

I didn't realize you weren't interested in discussing the facts of the case. :shrug:

 

[Hatuey]

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.

There is nothing racially neutral about figuring out how people of a particular group vote, and then drafting laws to restrict them from continuing to vote in that manner.

 

[Harshaw]

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.

Requesting the racial breakdown ahead of the legislation is not evidence that they enacted the legislation with racist intent.

 

[eohrnberger]

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.

Yeah, like we really don't care who votes in our elections anymore. Whether they have the right to or not.
Legal Immigrant, Illegal Immigrant, Citizen, non-Citizen, it's all the same. All are welcome.
:roll:

 

[Slyfox696]

Requesting the racial breakdown ahead of the legislation is not evidence that they enacted the legislation with racist intent.

No, it was the fact that...

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.

...which means it was enacted with intent to disproportionately affect black voting. Unless you're going to make the ridiculous argument, "meh, it was just a coincidence". :roll:

 

[Moon]

I didn't realize you weren't interested in discussing the facts of the case. :shrug:

I'm interested in one person's comment about how the law restricted voting rights. If you feel qualified to speak for that person, go for it.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm interested in one person's comment about how the law restricted voting rights.

So you're not interested in facts, just engaging in useless partisan bickering. Got it.

 

[Patrickt]

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.

Wow! Three Democrat judges find against honest elections. That's a shock.

 

[nota bene]

I'm never going to understand why requiring an ID to vote is such an onerous thing for some. I don't want any group of voters to have an undue burden, but it's one person/one vote and about making sure an individual voter is who he/she says he/she is.

 

[Slyfox696]

Wow! Three Democrat judges find against honest elections. That's a shock.

That's not what they found. I provided direct quotes from what they found. If you would care to read it, it's very early in the thread, within the first five posts, I believe.

 

[Harshaw]

No, it was the fact that...

...which means it was enacted with intent to disproportionately affect black voting. Unless you're going to make the ridiculous argument, "meh, it was just a coincidence". :roll:

No, that's just the leap of inference that's being taken. It's taking two pieces of information out of thousands and drawing the conclusions that you wish to draw.

They MAY have done it with racist intent. But the information which the court cites does not establish that they did.

 

[Moon]

So you're not interested in facts, just engaging in useless partisan bickering. Got it.

You rally aren't very good at this, are you?

A poster stated a position. This being a discussion board (at least in theory) I asked a question to find out why that person stated that opinion.

You jump right in thinking you're the final arbiter of what is allowable discussion and what is just partisan bickering.

So, are you qualified to speak for the reasoning behind notquiteright's opinion, or are you still teetering atop your little soapbox? If you are qualified to speak for notquiteright, then please provide some background on the original statement made by that poster.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm never going to understand why requiring an ID to vote is such an onerous thing for some. I don't want any group of voters to have an undue burden, but it's one person/one vote and about making sure an individual voter is who he/she says he/she is.

Do you understand why deliberately attacking multiple ways black people register and vote is not right? Do you find doing racial research to discover the voting tendencies of a race and then legislating against it to be not fair?

 

[Fletch]

So, a practice which tends to drive black American voting has been deliberately cut, after research showing it boost black turnout.

I'm sorry, is it the responsibility of government to ensure that black churches have plenty of time to conduct their get out the vote drives? No, it is not. Maybe two 'soul to poll' sundays is not enough to get black liberals to the polls. Maybe a third or fourth sunday should be added. Reducing the time from 17 to 10 days is perfectly reasonable. The courts position on this is asinine.

...I mean, this is a joke right?

You and the courts are specifically advocating that more time be given to black churches to get out the vote. That should not be a factor in any decision.

A single day of voting is asinine and disproportionately affects, in a negative fashion, those who are poor.

That too, is bull****. A single day voting is a burden for the working class, if anybody, but too bad. Somehow we managed for two hundred years. Anyone unable to get to the polls in a 14 hour period probably isn't all that motivated to vote in the first place.

We could quibble over how many days voting should be, but a single day is unfair and biased, regardless of which party it affects more.

Total crap. A single day is not biased in any way.

Ignore for a moment the political side. Do you think it's okay for a legislature to conduct racial research and then alter existing legislation based on this research, all against one side of the research?

No, I don't approve of that if that is what happened.

They aren't even bothering to acknowledge what happened. That's why I can't help but think race is an issue here.

Race is an issue here--for race obsessed liberals. The left knows they can count on the black vote to unthinkingly pull the lever for their candidates every two years, so they do everything in their power to drag the unmotivated to the polls.

 

[Hatuey]

I'm never going to understand why requiring an ID to vote is such an onerous thing for some. I don't want any group of voters to have an undue burden, but it's one person/one vote and about making sure an individual voter is who he/she says he/she is.

Requiring ID wasn't the issue here. It was how they went about it and how the allowable IDs were chosen.