- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 18,233
- Reaction score
- 15,861
- Location
- veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Federal judge upholds voter ID law in North Carolina
While everyone was worrying about where North Carolinians would pee, this federal court ruling went relatively unnoticed.
For those that care and would like to read it, here's a link to the actual ruling - https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/NC-voter-ID-opinion.pdf
The judge rips apart the Obama Administration's, and all the private sector plaintiff's, arguments against, and accusations regarding racial discrimination of, the voter ID law and the other changes that the law made. It's a very interesting read.
Here's a few quick examples:
I could go on, but you should get the point by now. Plus, I don't want to spoil the fun of reading the judge absolutely dismember the arguments that we have heard for years as to why voter ID laws are discriminatory and disenfranchise voters.
Have fun - I did.
While everyone was worrying about where North Carolinians would pee, this federal court ruling went relatively unnoticed.
A federal judge upheld a North Carolina law on Monday that requires voters to show certain forms of photo identification at the polls, in a key victory for Republicans in a presidential election year who say the law is needed to prevent fraud.
The case tested a central piece of broad voting restrictions passed after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that North Carolina and other states with a history of discrimination no longer needed federal approval for voting law changes affecting minorities.
In siding with Republican Governor Pat McCrory and other state officials in dismissing challenges to the law, U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder in Winston-Salem wrote in a 485-page ruling that North Carolina "has provided legitimate state interests for its voter-ID requirement and electoral system."
In sum, plaintiffs have failed to show that any North Carolinian who wishes to vote faces anything other than the 'usual burdens of voting,'" Schroeder wrote.
[...]
For those that care and would like to read it, here's a link to the actual ruling - https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/NC-voter-ID-opinion.pdf
The judge rips apart the Obama Administration's, and all the private sector plaintiff's, arguments against, and accusations regarding racial discrimination of, the voter ID law and the other changes that the law made. It's a very interesting read.
Here's a few quick examples:
Plaintiffs have characterized the bill as a “monster voter suppression law,” focusing on the fact that it emerged at fifty-seven pages. However, in truth, most of HB 589’s changes – some forty-two of the fifty-seven pages (74%) - have gone unchallenged in this case. Page 21
Meanwhile, while the mandate and preliminary injunction were stayed by the Supreme Court, North Carolina held its 2014 general election, the third election under SL 2013-381. Compared to the last comparable midterm general election, 2010, voter participation increased: among registered white voters, it increased from 45.7% to 46.8%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 40.4% to 42.2%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 19.9% to 20.5%. (Def. Ex. 309 at 66.) Not only did African American turnout increase more than other groups in 2014 with SL 2013-381 in place, but that general election saw the smallest white-African American turnout disparity in any midterm election from 2002 to 2014. Page 48
At trial, Plaintiffs featured Nadia Cohen, who could have pre-registered but was unable to do so because of SL 2013-381. Even without pre-registration, Ms. Cohen could have registered long before the 2014 general election, given that she turned eighteen before that election. She did not register for the 2014 general election because no one told her to do so and because, in her words, “honestly, voting is not my top priority throughout the year.” (Doc. 331 at 173.) At the time of trial she was enrolled to start college at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the fall of 2015. The elimination of pre-registration did not cause Ms. Cohen to be unable to vote in 2014. Page 188
I could go on, but you should get the point by now. Plus, I don't want to spoil the fun of reading the judge absolutely dismember the arguments that we have heard for years as to why voter ID laws are discriminatory and disenfranchise voters.
Have fun - I did.