Father demands illiterate Obama voting daughter be removed from rolls

[itshappening]

Cecil Pearson isn’t getting any help from legislators in North Carolina in his effort to remove his illiterate, developmentally disabled daughter from the electoral register, more than a month after officials at her group home helped her vote for President Barack Obama.

Pearson told The Daily Caller his daughter, Darlene Pearson, “should have been purged from the voting rolls along time ago,” noting that he has contacted several elected officials about the issue, including North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan.

“Kay Hagan said she couldn’t help me. … She couldn’t do anything about it,” Pearson said in a phone interview with TheDC on Thursday. “It was a nice way of telling me she didn’t want to get involved.”

...

Under North Carolina law, his daughter, who functions cognitively at the level of a seven-year-old, is permitted to vote.

“The child has been a group home for 20 years and has never mentioned voting, and then the night before the election, the administrator of the group home holds a round table with my daughter to see who’s registered to vote,” he said.

Pearson called the round table “a crash course” and said the administrator told his daughter “who Obama was and what he stood for, and it was driven in their heads.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/06/father-demands-legislators-to-remove-developmentally-disabled-daughter-from-voting-rolls/#ixzz2ENsVRJ00

[Confederate]

According to NC law, she's eligible:


In order to register to vote in North Carolina, you must sign a voter declaration that attests that:

You are a U.S. citizen and have been a resident or North Carolina and the county where you live for at least 30 days before the election
You will be at least 18 years old by the next general election
You are not registered to vote and will not vote in any other county or state
Your citizenship rights have been restored (if previously convicted of a felony)

There's nothing about mental competency.
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-55.html

[belian78]

Sickening.

[angelatc]

So if you have a mentally disabled child, be sure to use him/her to vote your way, or else the liberals will.

[Confederate]

So if you have a mentally disabled child, be sure to use him/her to vote your way, or else the liberals will.

You can thank the Americans with Disabilities Act for that.

[belian78]

So if you have a mentally disabled child, be sure to use him/her to vote your way, or else the liberals will.
Some may think me a bad person but those in this girl's circumstance, that will mentally be children no matter how old they physically grow, should not be able to register to vote.

[presence]

This is a very state-by-state issue and each defines voting rights differently for "incompetents"

keywords search: mental disabilities handicapped voting rights

[sailingaway]

I think this should be more about going after the group home for abuse of a fiduciary duty and position of confidence than about her voting. It is obvious that developmentally disabled people vote all the time. Having someone in a position of authority and trust manipulate you into voting is the egregious action, here.

[presence]

Some may think me a bad person but those in this girl's circumstance, that will mentally be children no matter how old they physically grow, should not be able to register to vote.

I don't think you a "bad person" but that does create a very gray area for defining a "bad voter".

[Confederate]

This is a very state-by-state issue and each defines voting rights differently for "incompetents"

keywords search: mental disabilities handicapped voting rights

Two problems with that:

1) Archaic language such as "idiots" is used in most state constitutions and statutes
2) In almost all cases, you must be adjudicated mentally incompetent to be precluded from voting, so until a court decides you can't vote you can vote.

[belian78]

I think this should be more about going after the group home for abuse of a fiduciary duty and position of confidence than about her voting. It is obvious that developmentally disabled people vote all the time. Having someone in a position of authority and trust manipulate you into voting is the egregious action, here.
That's what I meant by sickening. And it would have been the same had it been them making the vote for Romney.

[heavenlyboy34]

Some may think me a bad person but those in this girl's circumstance, that will mentally be children no matter how old they physically grow, should not be able to register to vote.
I agree. I would go further though, and say that anyone who wants to vote should pass a competency test including at least basic civics, U.S. history, and economics. Flame me if you wish.

[angelatc]

Some may think me a bad person but those in this girl's circumstance, that will mentally be children no matter how old they physically grow, should not be able to register to vote.

I am very leery of allowing the government to start drawing those lines, though.

[belian78]

I agree. I would go further though, and say that anyone who wants to vote should pass a competency test including at least basic civics, U.S. history, and economics. Flame me if you wish.
I completely agree. If you can't be bothered to learn what our political system is all about, why it is that way, and how it works.. Why should you have ANY say in the people voted into that system?

[belian78]

I am very leery of allowing the government to start drawing those lines, though.
Oh the lines would have to be very solid and defined for darn sure, but I share your mistrust I assure you.

[erowe1]

This is one of the problems with voting. Nobody, no matter who they are, should have a right to vote for someone to be a ruler over other people.

[erowe1]

I agree. I would go further though, and say that anyone who wants to vote should pass a competency test including at least basic civics, U.S. history, and economics. Flame me if you wish.

That's what that crash course at the group home was. How's that working out for you?

[erowe1]

I think this should be more about going after the group home for abuse of a fiduciary duty and position of confidence than about her voting. It is obvious that developmentally disabled people vote all the time. Having someone in a position of authority and trust manipulate you into voting is the egregious action, here.

I agree 100%.

[Lindsey]

She's the ideal voter, why would they want to remove her from the rolls.


<---Going to Hell

[Confederate]

I agree. I would go further though, and say that anyone who wants to vote should pass a competency test including at least basic civics, U.S. history, and economics. Flame me if you wish.

The only test should be owning land.

[Tod]

The only test should be owning land.

I think the founders were onto something there....

[erowe1]

The only test should be owning land.

How does one go about owning land?

[Confederate]

How does one go about owning land?

Inherit or buy it.

[John F Kennedy III]

Some may think me a bad person but those in this girl's circumstance, that will mentally be children no matter how old they physically grow, should not be able to register to vote.

If there's heat to be taken on this then I'll share it. I agree.

Doesn't really bode well for the other 90+million that actually knew what they were doing and STILL VOTED FOR OBAMA OR ROMNEY!

[thoughtomator]

Inherit or buy it.

Impossible in the US today. Only the government owns land now. It may grant you some limited rights, but if you don't pay .gov what .gov wants it will exercise its real ownership rights.

When they restore alloidal title, you'll be able to own land again.

[John F Kennedy III]

I don't think you a "bad person" but that does create a very gray area for defining a "bad voter".

True. Just look at my previous post. She voted the same way as over 90 million people, Obama (D) or Obama (R)

[John F Kennedy III]

I agree. I would go further though, and say that anyone who wants to vote should pass a competency test including at least basic civics, U.S. history, and economics. Flame me if you wish.

Love it.

[erowe1]

Inherit or buy it.

I bought mine from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone, and so on. But did the person I bought it from have a right to sell it to me? If so, how did they get that right? From buying it from someone else? Did that someone else have the right to sell it, and so on? Where did this right to sell land come from?

[heavenlyboy34]

The only test should be owning land.
Why? Landowners aren't the only ones with a stake in the outcome of a major political change-by a long shot. Hell, if only landowners vote, they could vote in such a way that keeps the landless permanently politically indentured and unable to gain landownership. Special privileges for access to the political system doesn't work out well for most people-see the American Fascist model we're stuck with today.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am very leery of allowing the government to start drawing those lines, though. Hence the usefulness of testing. It's no more intrusive or Big Brother-y than testing for a driver's license.

[erowe1]

Hence the usefulness of testing. It's no more intrusive or Big Brother-y than testing for a driver's license.

You're talking about a law that doesn't exist and saying how harmless it would be if it did exist. Usually when people do that they turn out wrong.

[AuH20]

Why? Landowners aren't the only ones with a stake in the outcome of a major political change-by a long shot. Hell, if only landowners vote, they could vote in such a way that keeps the landless permanently politically indentured and unable to gain landownership. Special privileges for access to the political system doesn't work out well for most people-see the American Fascist model we're stuck with today.

With no skin in the game, a moral hazard is being encouraged. This is where we are today as a society. One faction can live at the expense of others, with no serious repurcussions for the those doing the exploiting. Property ownership changes the dynamics of this disturbing trend completely.

[Tod]

I bought mine from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone, and so on. But did the person I bought it from have a right to sell it to me? If so, how did they get that right? From buying it from someone else? Did that someone else have the right to sell it, and so on? Where did this right to sell land come from?

At some point in time, someone came to own it by possessing it. Possessing it may have included fighting someone else for it, or it may have included working it and living on it. In some cases, the method of acquisition was surely questionable but in other case, not so much. For example, Manhattan Island was purchased from the indians in 1626. Presumably the indians owned it by discovering it and possessing it, although there may well have been some fights among them for possession of it.

[erowe1]

At some point in time, someone came to own it by possessing it. Possessing it may have included fighting someone else for it, or it may have included working it and living on it. In some cases, the method of acquisition was surely questionable but in other case, not so much. For example, Manhattan Island was purchased from the indians in 1626. Presumably the indians owned it by discovering it and possessing it, although there may well have been some fights among them for possession of it.

My hunch is that possessing it really came about by some decree of the same government that gets to decide who a land owner is when it comes to letting people vote for someone to hold office in that government.

[Smart3]

I don't have a problem with her voting. What I'm concerned about is how she was almost forced to vote for Obama.

[parocks]

GOTV

[erowe1]

GOTV

I would like to see a GOOTV drive. Get out of the vote.

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually, the North Carolina State Constitution has a provision that WOULD HAVE BEEN effective for stopping this:


ARTICLE VI
SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE

Sec. 4. Qualification for registration.
Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language.

But the liberal FedGov banned all enforcement of this provision as being a "literary test" on account of how it allegedly discriminates against minorities.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't have a problem with her voting. What I'm concerned about is how she was almost forced to vote for Obama.

I'm with you there!

It's possible that someone could introduce a bill adding coercion and manipulation of the mentally incapacitated to the list of characteristics of voter fraud.

hmmm...

wonder who would have the courage to introduce such a bill...

[heavenlyboy34]

With no skin in the game, a moral hazard is being encouraged. This is where we are today as a society. One faction can live at the expense of others, with no serious repurcussions for the those doing the exploiting. Property ownership changes the dynamics of this disturbing trend completely.
Point taken, but the land ownership requirement is a de facto poll tax. That used to be frowned upon by Constitutionalists, AFAIK. Passing a voter's test is the more reasonable alternative because it would be administered in a manner similar to a driver's or operator's license. Plus, the land owner can still be totally ignorant of anything relevant to civics (as polls and high school/college test scores in recent decades indicate).

[GunnyFreedom]

Point taken, but the land ownership requirement is a de facto poll tax. That used to be frowned upon by Constitutionalists, AFAIK. Passing a voter's test is the more reasonable alternative because it would be administered in a manner similar to a driver's or operator's license. Plus, the land owner can still be totally ignorant of anything relevant to civics (as polls and high school/college test scores in recent decades indicate).

FedGov would never let a state get away with that, as they (wrongly) claim that it's discrimination against minorities, and specifically that it disenfranchises black voters. I, for one, find that extraordinarily insulting that 'the official government line' is that "black voters aren't as smart." After all, if civics, literacy, or constitution tests specifically disenfranchise minorities, particularly black voters, then it follows that they officially consider those voters less intelligent.

I am a caucasian male, and I am extremely offended by that inference.

[kathy88]

My hunch is that possessing it really came about by some decree of the same government that gets to decide who a land owner is when it comes to letting people vote for someone to hold office in that government.

Pretty much. I am in the title business. All title comes at once time from the State. The patents for every piece of land in PA, for example are in Harrisburg archives. A patent was usually thousands of acres. Then at the local courthouses you can dig all the way back to the patent numbers, although you can't get copies of them locally. In PA the patents were then broken up into warrants - usually about 990 acres each. A big landowner around here was a William Bingham. (Binghamton NY) (Bingham, Maine). So when I'm doing land research, if I find a deed with a "Bingham lot number" it's gold, because they kept excellent maps. He died in the early 1800s and his estate was not settled until 1960 something. They just closed his land office here in my hometown in the 1980s.