Felon voting ban is racially motivated and unconstitutional, NC judges rule

[Cope]

Yes, he/it does make that ruling: at pg. 56

"N.C.G.S. § 13-1 Impermissibly Discriminates Against African American People in Intent and Effect and Denies Substantially Equal Voting Power to African American People"

Doesn't it also discriminate against WHITE/HISPANIC/ASIAN felons also then?

 

[Cope]

It might not, but this case did not address that issue.

Ok then to stay on topic.

How does a law that states felons may not vote get applied differently among the different classifications of 'felon'?
It is certainly discriminatory of 'felons', but how is it discriminatory against a race simply because there are MORE felons of a particular race than any other?

 

[Drowning Man]

Ok then to stay on topic.

How does a law that states felons may not vote get applied differently among the different classifications of 'felon'?
It is certainly discriminatory of 'felons', but how is it discriminatory against a race simply because there are MORE felons of a particular race than any other?

Let's say that green haired people are predisposed to have diabetes -- like 90% of the time whereas the rest of the purple, blue, orange, etc, haired people get diabetes only 5% of the time.

The government sets the pricing for insulin. It' sets it at $93,000 a shot.

Is it discriminating against all hair colored people equally in setting the pricing that high even though the law never once mentions green haired people?

 

[Buckeyes85]

Ok then to stay on topic.

How does a law that states felons may not vote get applied differently among the different classifications of 'felon'?
It is certainly discriminatory of 'felons', but how is it discriminatory against a race simply because there are MORE felons of a particular race than any other?

I'd suggest you google something like "theory of disparate impact" and then read the actual opinion.

 

[mrjurrs]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

Excellent. Another pillar of white supremacy starting to teeter.

 

[Cope]

Let's say that green haired people are predisposed to have diabetes -- like 90% of the time whereas the rest of the purple, blue, orange, etc, haired people get diabetes only 5% of the time.

The government sets the pricing for insulin. It' sets it at $93,000 a shot.

Is it discriminating against all hair colored people equally in setting the pricing that high even though the law never once mentions green haired people?

So a certain racial demographic is PREDISPOSED to be felons????

 

[Cope]

I'd suggest you google something like "theory of disparate impact" and then read the actual opinion.

I am sure I could. I was hoping some of the reasonable fellows here could explain to me why it is even a theory?

 

[Deuce]

No, because rape and murder are actual crimes with real victims. However gun control laws and drug laws are victimless crimes and definitely have a disparate impact on minorities.

Also, voting laws!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Under Texas law, felons can possess a firearm five years after they have completed their sentence.

Thankfully, they may only possess a firearm inside their own homes.

Also worth noting, Texas law conflicts with federal law which prohibits ex-felons from possessing/owning any firearm, period.

“Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).”

Loading…

www.atf.gov

 

[Cope]

Thankfully, they may only possess a firearm inside their own homes.

Also worth noting, Texas law conflicts with federal law which prohibits ex-felons from possessing/owning any firearm, period.

“Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).”

Loading…

www.atf.gov

Soon to be challenged I am sure.

 

[Drowning Man]

So a certain racial demographic is PREDISPOSED to be felons????

A certain racial demographic has been systematically impoverished and over policed.

But, at least we have done away with the fiction that you can't create a racist law without explicitly putting in racist language...

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Soon to be challenged I am sure.

The federal law has been on the books for 50+ years. There’s no reason at all to believe it’s going away.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It was in the OP. Click on "Monday's Ruling"

The judges started with a very low bar:

10. Plaintiffs “need not show that discriminatory purpose was the ‘sole[ ]’ or even a ‘primary’ motive for the legislation, just that it was ‘a motivating factor.’” Holmes, 270 N.C. App. at 16–17 (quoting Arlington Heights).

Then accepted the lack of a race-neutral evidence to infer that racism “must have” been the motivation for the law.

51. There was no independent justification or race-neutral explanation for retaining the rule from 1877 that denied the franchise to individuals after release from incarceration in the 1971 and 1973 amendments to section 13-1. 8/16/21 Trial Tr. 148:10-18. That provision was added back without explanation.
52. As Legislative Defendants acknowledged at trial, racism against African Americans remained rife in North Carolina, including in the General Assembly, in the 1970s. There were 3 African American legislators and 167 White ones. PX-56 ¶ 10. Many of the White legislators openly held racist views. Id. Legislators used racial slurs to refer to then-Reps. Johnson, Frye, and Michaux. Id.

It is ridiculous to imply that racism of “many” prevented 3 black legislators from being unable to convince 167 white legislators to change the (nearly 100 year old) law.

Using that “logic”, any law passed (or kept intact?) by the “racist” legislature of NC could be said to have some racist intent. After all, it was clear that “many” NC legislators were, at least in part, motivated by racism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thankfully, they may only possess a firearm inside their own homes.

Also worth noting, Texas law conflicts with federal law which prohibits ex-felons from possessing/owning any firearm, period.

“Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).”

Loading…

www.atf.gov

State law conflicting with federal law is not that unusual. Marijuana is federally banned, but legal in some states. Normal magazines are legal under federal law (and sold by FFL dealers), yet illegal in some states for being deemed ‘high capacity’.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ok then to stay on topic.

How does a law that states felons may not vote get applied differently among the different classifications of 'felon'?
It is certainly discriminatory of 'felons', but how is it discriminatory against a race simply because there are MORE felons of a particular race than any other?

See post #38.

 

[reflechissez]

I also would be interested in how something is unconstitutional simply because it has disparate impact?
Murders?
Rapes?
Violent Crime in general, all have 'disparate impact', does that make them unconstitutional?

What are you even arguing about?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

State law conflicting with federal law is not that unusual. Marijuana is federally banned, but legal in some states. Normal magazines are legal under federal law (and sold by FFL dealers), yet illegal in some states for being deemed ‘high capacity’.

I’m aware of contradicting laws. As you know, no doubt, federal laws trump state laws wherever there is conflict.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I am sure I could. I was hoping some of the reasonable fellows here could explain to me why it is even a theory?

You want a short/sweet answer to a question that does not lend itself to one.
Google is still your best option. The other would be go to law school, study con law to get a good foundation, then review the opinion of this judge, including the cases he cites in the opinion. By then, I promise all of your questions will be answered. You still may not agree with the concept, but you will understand the basis for it.

Good luck.

 

[element94]

If you had to choose, what would you rather have, felons being able to vote or the President colluding with the enemy?

 

[Vadinho]

A certain racial demographic has been systematically impoverished and over policed.

But, at least we have done away with the fiction that you can't create a racist law without explicitly putting in racist language...

Exactly. Notice how one never reads of a nark squad invading a frat house on Friday nights with guns blazing to catch little rich white boys doing ecstasy, coke or shrooms.

 

[Integrityrespec]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

What makes it racist? Is it because more crime is committed by minorities? That's not racist that's facts.

 

[Michael Cole]

OK.
Just as long as they cant legally own guns.

States with reasonable laws and that differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies, sure. The country is wising up on recreational marijuana, but even though Alabama legalized medical use, there are still felony possession laws on the books for recreational use.

No reason to keep guns from pot smokers.

 

[BlueTex]

What makes it racist? Is it because more crime is committed by minorities? That's not racist that's facts.

You are welcome to read the judges reasoning on page 25 of the ruling..

Loading…

s3.documentcloud.org

 

[Cope]

You want a short/sweet answer to a question that does not lend itself to one.
Google is still your best option. The other would be go to law school, study con law to get a good foundation, then review the opinion of this judge, including the cases he cites in the opinion. By then, I promise all of your questions will be answered. You still may not agree with the concept, but you will understand the basis for it.

Good luck.

I get the concept (even with out the law school!), but it fails the common sense test. I was hoping someone who understands and agrees with the stance could argue for its behalf in a way that doesn't assume things not in evidence?

 

[Cope]

Exactly. Notice how one never reads of a nark squad invading a frat house on Friday nights with guns blazing to catch little rich white boys doing ecstasy, coke or shrooms.

It might have to do with the fact that those frat boys aren't busy shooting up other frat houses?