DOJ challenge to NC election law changes - and the NC response

[justabubba]

while i doubt the basis for the NC changes to election law - voter fraud - i see nothing which should be found unreasonable about those legislated changes (brought about by a republican dominated legislature and governor)
what are your thoughts?
the positions of NC and the DOJ will be found below, with links

Attorney General Eric Holder, announcing a Justice Department lawsuit seeking to overturn key parts of North Carolina’s new election law, accused state lawmakers of waging an aggressive, targeted effort to undermine the voting rights of African-Americans and other minorities when they enacted the law last summer.
The challenged provisions in North Carolina include a new requirement (starting in 2016) that voters present photo ID prior to voting, the elimination of same-day registration during early voting, and a reduction in the early voting period from 17 days to 10 days.
The Justice Department is also objecting to a measure that bars the counting of any provisional ballot submitted in a precinct other than the voter’s assigned, home precinct.
“The Justice Department expects to show that the clear and intended effects of these changes would contract the electorate and result in unequal access to participation in the political process on account of race,” Holder said.

... “By restricting access and ease of voter participation, this new law would shrink, rather than expand, access to the franchise,” Holder told reporters. “And it is especially troubling that the law would significantly narrow the early voting window that enabled hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians, including a disproportionally large number of minority voters, to cast ballots during the last election cycle.”
“The state legislature took extremely aggressive steps to curtail the voting rights of African-Americans,” Mr. Holder said at a press conference. “This is an intentional attempt to break a system that was working.”
... “HB 589 was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of African-Americans to vote on account of their race or color,” the lawsuit says in part.The suit adds: “Prior to voting to enact HB 589, members of the North Carolina legislature knew of the disproportionate effect certain changes would have on the ability of African-American voters to participate equally in the franchise.”
Holder was asked about the strength of the Justice Department’s evidence that lawmakers engaged in intentional racial discrimination.
“We believe that there is ample evidence of intent,” he said. The attorney general cited a history of discrimination in North Carolina, a history of racially polarized voting, and the fact that the legislature was aware of the potential impact of the new measures but passed them anyway.

Voter ID: North Carolina law targets minority rights, Eric Holder says - CSMonitor.com

State Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis issued a statement that rejected Holder's argument. "The Obama Justice Department's baseless claims about North Carolina's election reform law are nothing more than an obvious attempt to quash the will of the voters and hinder a hugely popular voter ID requirement," they said."The law was designed to improve consistency, clarity and uniformity at the polls and it brings North Carolina's election system in line with a majority of other states," the two lawmakers said. "We are confident it protects the right of all voters, as required by the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutions."
...
As in those other states, North Carolina Republicans have consistently said that voter ID requirements are needed to combat in-person voter fraud, which they claim is endemic despite any evidence of widespread voting irregularities.
Records show most criminal prosecutions for voter fraud in the state involve absentee ballots, which the new GOP-backed law actually makes easier to obtain and which do not require any sort of ID. State statistics show Republican voters are more likely to cast absentee ballots than Democrats.

Pat McCrory Vows To Fight DOJ Lawsuit Over North Carolina Voter ID Law

so, we now have the NC legislature/governor insisting laws be changed to prevent widespread voter fraud
and the US attorney general opposing that legislation insisting it is biased against those of color

again, i see nothing objectionable in the revised law - except that the ID requirement is not imposed for absentee voters - and certainly see nothing which is biased against blacks or other people of color

i look forward to seeing your views

 

[TheNextEra]

... i see nothing which should be found unreasonable about those legislated changes (brought about by a republican dominated legislature and governor)
what are your thoughts?

again, i see nothing objectionable in the revised law - except that the ID requirement is not imposed for absentee voters - and certainly see nothing which is biased against blacks or other people of color

i look forward to seeing your views

The only odd thing I see is the voter ID law not applying to absentee voters. If the whole purpose of this voter ID is to prevent voter fraud, why wouldn't they make it the same for absentee voters to get a ballot?

 

[justabubba]

The only odd thing I see is the voter ID law not applying to absentee voters. If the whole purpose of this voter ID is to prevent voter fraud, why wouldn't they make it the same for absentee voters to get a ballot?

this seems to be the very item which undermines the republican assertion that the law is intended only to mitigate prospects for voter fraud

 

[Paschendale]

It's a law that infringes on a fundamental right without furthering any legitimate purpose. That is, since there is nearly zero examples of someone showing up at the polls and pretending to be someone else to cast a vote, and there is no evidence to suggest that requiring ID would stop the few instances that do occur, there is no benefit from this law. It only serves to add an extra burden on people to exercise their fundamental right to vote. That's unconstitutional. It would fail a rational basis test. It serves zero beneficial purpose.

 

[justabubba]

It's a law that infringes on a fundamental right without furthering any legitimate purpose.

allowing only those who meet the Constitutional standard to vote seems - to me - to be a very legitimate reason to impose criteria to assure only legal voters cast a valid ballot

That is, since there is nearly zero examples of someone showing up at the polls and pretending to be someone else to cast a vote, and there is no evidence to suggest that requiring ID would stop the few instances that do occur, there is no benefit from this law.

at present, all i must do is show up at a registration site and request a voter registration card. they ask my name and address, then issue the card
nothing about that makes certain that i am who i claim to be. neither does it act to assure i am even a citizen of the locality/state/country
and that tells me there is a huge opportunity for those who should not be eligible to vote to now receive a voter registration card

It only serves to add an extra burden on people to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

it does impose an extra burden. not unlike the one required if i want to open a checking account or drive a car. there is a heightened likelihood that the voter is who he claims to be as with the account holder and the auto driver - but only with the burden imposed
and i would acknowledge, it should be incumbent upon the state to open centers to facilitate the issue of government ID, to overcome the opposition to the reality of the additional burden. that burden should be offset with the state's assistance. problem resolved. valid voters and minor burden to achieve that outcome

That's unconstitutional. It would fail a rational basis test. It serves zero beneficial purpose.

i believe it is more unConstitutional to allow those who are unqualified to now be able to cast a ballot
also believe this should be a nationwide initiative so that the requirements in NC are the same as for those prospective voters in nebraska and nevada

 

[davidtaylorjr]

while i doubt the basis for the NC changes to election law - voter fraud - i see nothing which should be found unreasonable about those legislated changes (brought about by a republican dominated legislature and governor)
what are your thoughts?
the positions of NC and the DOJ will be found below, with links


Voter ID: North Carolina law targets minority rights, Eric Holder says - CSMonitor.com


Pat McCrory Vows To Fight DOJ Lawsuit Over North Carolina Voter ID Law

so, we now have the NC legislature/governor insisting laws be changed to prevent widespread voter fraud
and the US attorney general opposing that legislation insisting it is biased against those of color

again, i see nothing objectionable in the revised law - except that the ID requirement is not imposed for absentee voters - and certainly see nothing which is biased against blacks or other people of color

i look forward to seeing your views

The liberals are afraid of voter id laws BECAUSE they hinder voter fraud.

 

[justabubba]

The liberals are afraid of voter id laws BECAUSE they hinder voter fraud.

in this instance the changes to the voter laws actually promote voter fraud with the absentee ballot - that ballot used disproportionately by republicans
they conveniently eliminated any ID provision for its use

 

[davidtaylorjr]

in this instance the changes to the voter laws actually promote voter fraud with the absentee ballot - that ballot used disproportionately by republicans
they conveniently eliminated any ID provision for its use

And how exactly would you use an ID when voting absentee??? :lamo

 

[Paschendale]

allowing only those who meet the Constitutional standard to vote seems - to me - to be a very legitimate reason to impose criteria to assure only legal voters cast a valid ballot

Only legal voters ARE casting a ballot already. That's the point. No one needs to make certain that you are who you say you are when you vote. People don't actually show up to cast fake votes. It simply doesn't happen often enough to warrant any attention. It would be like instituting checkpoints on every highway to search for a certain kind of lobster that isn't legal in the US. There just aren't enough of them to merit getting in people's way to stop that from happening. Unlike, as you say, forgeries and fraud against a bank, which happens a lot, or people driving without a license. That happens a lot. It is entirely worthwhile to attempt to stop that crime.

i believe it is more unConstitutional to allow those who are unqualified to now be able to cast a ballot

What you believe doesn't matter, but that's not the issue here. No one who is unqualified to vote IS casting a ballot (or at least not enough to matter). So, the problem is already solved. There's no need to infringe on anyone's right. What you want is already happening, and there's no need for extra rules that won't make it happen any more.

 

[justabubba]

And how exactly would you use an ID when voting absentee??? :lamo

many ways
one would be to attach a copy of the valid voter registration card to the absentee ballot
the card is to now be issued only upon proof of ID using government issued ID
so, the ballot, attached to the absentee ballot, should allow us to conclude a legitimate ballot was cast

 

[justabubba]

Only legal voters ARE casting a ballot already. That's the point.

i disagree. there is no mechanism in place to identify those ineligible voters who are now voting illegally
how do we know that joe smith, who received his voter registration card and voted without government issued ID, voted illegally?
how any joe smiths voted illegally? no one knows
but with the new laws - excepting the gaping absentee voter ballot loophole - we will know that those who voted were who they said they were and were citizens

No one needs to make certain that you are who you say you are when you vote. People don't actually show up to cast fake votes. It simply doesn't happen often enough to warrant any attention. It would be like instituting checkpoints on every highway to search for a certain kind of lobster that isn't legal in the US. There just aren't enough of them to merit getting in people's way to stop that from happening.

we have a growing illegal immigrant population. some are friends of my kids; those who came to the USA as children with their parents. they feel like they are Americans. and they vote like Americans. which tells me we have a huge credibility gap regarding our previous voter registration laws. especially considering the numbers who vote illegally among the miniscule number of people i know

Unlike, as you say, forgeries and fraud against a bank, which happens a lot, or people driving without a license. That happens a lot. It is entirely worthwhile to attempt to stop that crime.

and i would present that the number of fraudulent voters is substantial - if undocumented. we can eradicate that very possibility with some very reasonable changes

What you believe doesn't matter, but that's not the issue here.

well it maters to me as it forms my opinions and influences my political stances and votes

No one who is unqualified to vote IS casting a ballot (or at least not enough to matter). So, the problem is already solved. There's no need to infringe on anyone's right. What you want is already happening, and there's no need for extra rules that won't make it happen any more.

you can not prove to me that illegal voters are not voting. you cannot prove a negative. however, my personal experiences tell me this is a substantial issue, one (almost) properly addressed by the state's new voter registration/voting laws

 

[Paschendale]

i disagree. there is no mechanism in place to identify those ineligible voters who are now voting illegally
how do we know that joe smith, who received his voter registration card and voted without government issued ID, voted illegally?
how any joe smiths voted illegally? no one knows

you can not prove to me that illegal voters are not voting. you cannot prove a negative.

We do not infringe on people's fundamental rights because of a problem that we do not know is happening. Get the information, then we'll see if there's a problem. What you believe or agree with or your personal anecdotes tell you doesn't matter. Get the facts. Do studies. Contrary to what you say, there are records of who votes and they do ask questions at the poll. They just don't turn you away if you're missing a driver's license. We're not going to chop up people's constitutional rights without evidence that there is even a problem to solve. Get the evidence, then we'll talk. We do not pass laws because we can't prove to you that there is no problem. You must prove that there is a problem.

 

[justabubba]

We do not infringe on people's fundamental rights because of a problem that we do not know is happening. Get the information, then we'll see if there's a problem. What you believe or agree with or your personal anecdotes tell you doesn't matter. Get the facts. Do studies. Contrary to what you say, there are records of who votes and they do ask questions at the poll. They just don't turn you away if you're missing a driver's license. We're not going to chop up people's constitutional rights without evidence that there is even a problem to solve. Get the evidence, then we'll talk. We do not pass laws because we can't prove to you that there is no problem. You must prove that there is a problem.

no one's rights will be abridged
they will only have to have a sate issued ID to exercise them
not unlike having a permit to own a gun, to exercise that right

 

[iliveonramen]

And how exactly would you use an ID when voting absentee??? :lamo

Why do you think someone who would supposedly show up multiple times at a polling place in order to vote and commit fraud wouldn't just have a ton of absentee ballots sent to them? I thought this is about people stealing elections? Why on earth do you have provisions to so supposedly prevent illegally voting on the least likely way someone would illegally vote and do nothing concerning absentee ballots?

 

[justabubba]

Why do you think someone who would supposedly show up multiple times at a polling place in order to vote and commit fraud wouldn't just have a ton of absentee ballots sent to them? I thought this is about people stealing elections? Why on earth do you have provisions to so supposedly prevent illegally voting on the least likely way someone would illegally vote and do nothing concerning absentee ballots?

in NC i believe the lawmakers want it to remain a loophole because republicans vote absentee ballot more than demos; hopefully, the DOJ interest in the new laws may result in such positive change

 

[iliveonramen]

in NC i believe the lawmakers want it to remain a loophole because republicans vote absentee ballot more than demos; hopefully, the DOJ interest in the new laws may result in such positive change

Of course...because it's not about voting integrity...it's about creating additional hurdles for specific people.

If you look at voting fraud cases primarily the bigger one's they've generally included absentee ballots.

 

[Born Free]

It's a law that infringes on a fundamental right without furthering any legitimate purpose. That is, since there is nearly zero examples of someone showing up at the polls and pretending to be someone else to cast a vote, and there is no evidence to suggest that requiring ID would stop the few instances that do occur, there is no benefit from this law. It only serves to add an extra burden on people to exercise their fundamental right to vote. That's unconstitutional. It would fail a rational basis test. It serves zero beneficial purpose.

Which is it? There is no evidence or there are a few instances that do occur? Let me see if I understand this correctly, there is no evidence of murder in this country, so no reason to have a police force chasing the few murders that do occur. Hope your not one of the victims.

 

[Born Free]

Of course...because it's not about voting integrity...it's about creating additional hurdles for specific people.

If you look at voting fraud cases primarily the bigger one's they've generally included absentee ballots.

It's not about the integrity of a person getting on a plane, it's not about the integrity of a person to have an ID to get a drivers license. It's all about creating additional hurdles for specific people that want to fly or drive a car, or get into any secure building etc etc etc. How about getting rid of any hurdle for any and all people to do anything they want to do?

 

[Born Free]

We do not infringe on people's fundamental rights because of a problem that we do not know is happening. Get the information, then we'll see if there's a problem. What you believe or agree with or your personal anecdotes tell you doesn't matter. Get the facts. Do studies. Contrary to what you say, there are records of who votes and they do ask questions at the poll. They just don't turn you away if you're missing a driver's license. We're not going to chop up people's constitutional rights without evidence that there is even a problem to solve. Get the evidence, then we'll talk. We do not pass laws because we can't prove to you that there is no problem. You must prove that there is a problem.

Do you know how many people vote that as supposed to be dead? There are plenty of records of dead people voting, or let me put is this way dead people are voting by the hand of the living. All on record.

 

[Paschendale]

Which is it? There is no evidence or there are a few instances that do occur? Let me see if I understand this correctly, there is no evidence of murder in this country, so no reason to have a police force chasing the few murders that do occur. Hope your not one of the victims.

No, you don't seem to understand this correctly. There were, during the last decade, only a few dozen cases of this sort of in person pretending to be someone else to vote. That's it. There is no evidence of a widespread problem. And in those few cases, there is no evidence to suggest that implementing an ID checking law would have stopped them.

Do you know how many people vote that as supposed to be dead? There are plenty of records of dead people voting, or let me put is this way dead people are voting by the hand of the living. All on record.

Very few votes are cast for dead people. A lot of dead people are registered to vote. People often don't get taken off the list and remain registered after death. But no one shows up to cast their votes. Because they're dead. And there are enough records kept to find out if someone did try to cast a vote for one of these dead people. As I said, there's only a handful of these sorts of false votes all across the country. It's a tiny problem that does not require an overreaching solution.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Only legal voters ARE casting a ballot already. That's the point. No one needs to make certain that you are who you say you are when you vote. People don't actually show up to cast fake votes. It simply doesn't happen often enough to warrant any attention. It would be like instituting checkpoints on every highway to search for a certain kind of lobster that isn't legal in the US. There just aren't enough of them to merit getting in people's way to stop that from happening. Unlike, as you say, forgeries and fraud against a bank, which happens a lot, or people driving without a license. That happens a lot. It is entirely worthwhile to attempt to stop that crime.

How do you know this? There is NO way in which to check if this occurs or not. So claiming that there is no evidence when there is no way to get evidence is disingenous.

 

[Paschendale]

How do you know this? There is NO way in which to check if this occurs or not. So claiming that there is no evidence when there is no way to get evidence is disingenous.

Where do you get this weird notion that there is no record keeping of voting? Of course there is. They just don't turn people away for not having a driver's license on them. They still ask who you are, and make sure you're at the right location. And they make a note of it if there's anything weird going on. And in the current system, a lot of polling places do ask for ID, but again, they don't turn you away if you don't have it. They just flag you for double checking later. And then they double check.

But if that doesn't satisfy you, you should be clamoring for some means to check. You should be demanding evidence. But you don't. You just assume that there is a widespread problem, admittedly without evidence, and demand that people's rights be infringed to maybe solve it. If it turns out that there is a serious problem with people impersonating other people to vote, then pretty much everyone will agree with solving that problem. That's not a partisan issue. But your side just proclaims that there is a problem. Get the evidence, and then there won't be a debate about this. And if you just say that there is no way to get the evidence, then we absolutely won't be simply assuming it's there. We do not make laws that infringe on people's fundamental rights based on assumptions.

 

[Born Free]

No, you don't seem to understand this correctly. There were, during the last decade, only a few dozen cases of this sort of in person pretending to be someone else to vote. That's it. There is no evidence of a widespread problem. And in those few cases, there is no evidence to suggest that implementing an ID checking law would have stopped them.

Key words, "few dozen cases" those are the ones they know about. But we have no idea of how many times it happens that we don't know about.

Very few votes are cast for dead people. A lot of dead people are registered to vote. People often don't get taken off the list and remain registered after death. But no one shows up to cast their votes. Because they're dead. And there are enough records kept to find out if someone did try to cast a vote for one of these dead people. As I said, there's only a handful of these sorts of false votes all across the country. It's a tiny problem that does not require an overreaching solution.

Key words "Very few votes are cast for dead people", but we have no idea of how many times it happens that we don't know about.

 

[Paschendale]

Key words, "few dozen cases" those are the ones they know about. But we have no idea of how many times it happens that we don't know about.

Key words "Very few votes are cast for dead people", but we have no idea of how many times it happens that we don't know about.

Then get an idea. Then we'll talk about a solution.

 

[Wiseone]

The liberals are afraid of voter id laws BECAUSE they hinder voter fraud.

All I read was "No you're wrong BECAUSE I say so." Come on man, on simple post quality bubba beat you pretty handily here.