Federal appeals court overturns NC election ID law; cites "history of voting discrimination"

[devil21]

The court may as well have just said "because of slavery and racism history" and stop with the thinly veiled "social justice" reason for overturning an otherwise constitutional law. So a state's history is now considered a legal justification to overturn state laws at the federal level. 10th Amendment is almost gone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/north-carolina-voting-restrictions_n_5914634.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000 592



The appeals court ruled that the lower court "failed to adequately consider North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination" and said the new law eliminated "voting mechanisms successful in fostering minority participation."

"The injury to these voters is real and completely irreparable if nothing is done to enjoin this law," the ruling said.

eta: codifying social justice as a legal reasoning.

[Anti Federalist]

At every turn in AmeriKa these days, you are barked at to show "your papers" by various "authorities".

Except to go into a voting booth to further restrict my freedom or take an even larger slice of my labor.

Throw it in the woods...

[devil21]

At every turn in AmeriKa these days, you are barked at to show "your papers" by various "authorities".

Except to go into a voting booth to further restrict my freedom or take an even larger slice of my labor.

Throw it in the woods...

I'd call it ironic if I didn't know it was intentional.

[Antischism]

The only reason for having Voter ID laws is to keep certain demographics from voting. That's why Republicans have been wanting to push for it under the guise of 'concern' that voter fraud is highly prevalent. If their polls showed the opposite and they gained voters without these laws in place, it would be the Dems fighting for Voter ID laws. It's all politics.

[devil21]

The only reason for having Voter ID laws is to keep certain demographics from voting. That's why Republicans have been wanting to push for it under the guise of 'concern' that voter fraud is highly prevalent. If their polls showed the opposite and they gained voters without these laws in place, it would be the Dems fighting for Voter ID laws. It's all politics.

What demographics are those? The dead people?

[asurfaholic]

This is maddening. Its not discrimination for banks to require proof of ID before doing business with customers. Under this logic by the appeals court then any establishment that requires ID is committing racial discrimination.

I would laugh if it wasnt so maddening.

Is anyone going to try to appeal it?

[56ktarget]

Paulite thinking:

Requiring ID to buy guns is fascism
Not requiring ID to vote is fascism

[nobody's_hero]

The Feds will pay for your own phone (with other people's money) with up to 1,000 'free' texts per month, but you shouldn't have a form of ID to vote because that could cause undue hardship and poor minority people can't afford it.

My biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to be much consistency with these rulings. GA revamped it's voter ID laws a while back and I think most of the new changes were approved by the Feds. On the other hand, the Feds don't really care what voting laws you pass in a northern state where apparently no one is racist at all, ever, swear to god.

What's really a pain in the ass is trying to prove you're a U.S. citizen when you try to renew your driver's license in Georgia. You will need:

3 forms of ID, a bank statement, a bill, eye of newt, your firstborn child, a bag of Georgia red clay, be able to sing the lyrics to every Otis Redding song, your family tree dating back to Moses . . . and they don't care if your skin is purple, there's a ridiculous amount of information you have to provide.

Anyways. I don't see how the voting law change in NC equates to racism. It would be different if you didn't have to show ID if you are white, while black folks get carded. People throw out the racism claim too often to be taken seriously anymore.

[Peace&Freedom]

This is maddening. Its not discrimination for banks to require proof of ID before doing business with customers. Under this logic by the appeals court then any establishment that requires ID is committing racial discrimination.

I would laugh if it wasnt so maddening.

Is anyone going to try to appeal it?

Indeed, in the interests of curtailing "your papers please" all around, perhaps we could perform a bit of jujitsu with such rulings, and now file suits in NC against the banks in that state over their ID requirements. Appeal any loss in court to the federal level based on the voting law ruling, and thereby put the government in the position of havng to explain why IDs must be presented in once instance, but not the other. And bring the popcorn.

[Valli6]

Mississippi began requiring voter ID this past June, http://msvoterid.ms.gov/
and during the primary there was an increase in turnout amongst blacks.


Voting Totals Reveal Crucial Boost From Blacks in Thad Cochran’s Victory 7/9/14

...The surge in turnout was clearest in overwhelmingly black precincts; ....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/upshot/voting-totals-reveal-crucial-boost-from-blacks-in-cochrans-victory.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

[jbauer]

The only reason for having Voter ID laws is to keep certain demographics from voting. That's why Republicans have been wanting to push for it under the guise of 'concern' that voter fraud is highly prevalent. If their polls showed the opposite and they gained voters without these laws in place, it would be the Dems fighting for Voter ID laws. It's all politics.

Thats so BS. The cops would have already shot all the poor black people without IDs for resisting while not showing their non-existent IDs. Voter ID does NOT racially profile. If you can't afford an ID then give one to em free of charge.

[libertyjam]

Dem Conn. State Rep Arrested For Allegedly Voting 19 Times

By: Thomas Lifson (The American Thinker)

Democrats and the dominant media assure us that vote fraud doesn’t exist, so we certainly don’t need voter ID, and in fact it would be racist to demand as much proof of identity as is necessary to board an airplane or buy a drink. Nevertheless, a Democrat state representative in Connecticut was arrested for allegedly voting 19 times.

The New Haven Register (hat tip: Weasel Zippers) reports:

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport, was arrested Friday on 19 voting fraud charges.

Ayala, 31, is accused of voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live, the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

According to the Connecticut Post, Ayala’s mother, Santa, was also investigated by the Elections Enforcement Commission. The commission also recommended criminal charges be filed against Santa Ayala, the Democratic registrar of voters in Bridgeport, but none have been filed as of Friday.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/09/30/dem-conn-state-rep-arrested-allegedly-voting-19-times

[Kotin]

The only reason for having Voter ID laws is to keep certain demographics from voting. That's why Republicans have been wanting to push for it under the guise of 'concern' that voter fraud is highly prevalent. If their polls showed the opposite and they gained voters without these laws in place, it would be the Dems fighting for Voter ID laws. It's all politics.

Bullshit... How in hell is having to show ID keeping certain demographics from voting?? What eligible demographics don't have a drivers license?? It's just not logical.

[Keith and stuff]

I'd think the US Supreme Court would rule the law Constitutional.

[Anti Federalist]

Paulite thinking:

Requiring ID to buy guns is fascism
Not requiring ID to vote is fascism

Show me in the Bill of Rights where it says voting is pre-existing right and not subject to government infringement.

I'll wait.

[Antischism]

Lots of people here wanting to create new laws that try to solve a non-existent problem. Great use of taxpayer dollars there. Very fiscally conservative. Let's just go right on ahead and institute a National ID Card. It's not the people voting you have to worry about committing fraud, it's those counting the votes.

Absentee ballots and voter registration account for almost all fraud, something that a voter ID law wouldn't solve. Why aren't they worried about those cases? Furthermore, we already have laws to punish those who commit in-person voter fraud.

Again, what are voter ID laws accomplishing?

[Brett85]

I think it's demeaning to blacks to suggest that they somehow aren't smart enough or aren't capable of providing a photo ID at the polls.

[devil21]

Lots of people here wanting to create new laws that try to solve a non-existent problem. Great use of taxpayer dollars there. Very fiscally conservative. Let's just go right on ahead and institute a National ID Card. It's not the people voting you have to worry about committing fraud, it's those counting the votes.

Absentee ballots and [/b]voter registration[/b] account for almost all fraud, something that a voter ID law wouldn't solve. Why aren't they worried about those cases? Furthermore, we already have laws to punish those who commit in-person voter fraud.

Again, what are voter ID laws accomplishing?

I agree with you that absentee ballots and other similar forms of unaccountable votes are a big problem. I don't understand how you can say voter registration is also a part of fraud but then ask what ID laws accomplish though. Besides, this isn't necessarily about black people voting without ID....it's illegal immigrants that tend to not have IDs much more so than black people but are still being encouraged to vote themselves more of my money (I live in NC), along with a gaping border that IS the Fed's job to secure.

In this instance, the law was passed and is constitutional and there's NO legal justification for a federal court to overturn a state law based on a state's alleged history, instead of overturning based on an actual constitutional problem with the law. For me, at least, I know vote fraud is a big problem but I see the erosion of the 10th to be the bigger issue in the bigger picture.

[Anti Federalist]

Absentee ballots and voter registration account for almost all fraud, something that a voter ID law wouldn't solve.

I can't speak for anyplace else, but in NH you cannot obtain an absentee ballot without showing photo ID.

[Anti Federalist]

Lots of people here wanting to create new laws that try to solve a non-existent problem. Great use of taxpayer dollars there. Very fiscally conservative. Let's just go right on ahead and institute a National ID Card. It's not the people voting you have to worry about committing fraud, it's those counting the votes.

Absentee ballots and voter registration account for almost all fraud, something that a voter ID law wouldn't solve. Why aren't they worried about those cases? Furthermore, we already have laws to punish those who commit in-person voter fraud.

Again, what are voter ID laws accomplishing?

Anything that keeps a single Boobus out of a voting booth and away from my rights and my income, is a good thing.

[Southron]

Can we pretty please have our own laws or are we still under Reconstruction?

[Antischism]

I agree with you that absentee ballots and other similar forms of unaccountable votes are a big problem. I don't understand how you can say voter registration is also a part of fraud but then ask what ID laws accomplish though. Besides, this isn't necessarily about black people voting without ID....it's illegal immigrants that tend to not have IDs much more so than black people but are still being encouraged to vote themselves more of my money (I live in NC), along with a gaping border that IS the Fed's job to secure.

In this instance, the law was passed and is constitutional and there's NO legal justification for a federal court to overturn a state law based on a state's alleged history, instead of overturning based on an actual constitutional problem with the law. For me, at least, I know vote fraud is a big problem but I see the erosion of the 10th to be the bigger issue in the bigger picture.

Because in-person voter fraud (which voter ID laws are specifically targeting) is very rare and we already have laws to punish those who impersonate. It's silly to think this type of fraud would be commonplace anyway when there are better, much more discreet ways of committing fraud. The actual forms of fraud that are problematic aren't going to get addressed with these voter ID laws. The only thing this actively does is ensure (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2422596) certain people (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification) are disenfranchised. If they truly want to pass voter ID laws because they're afraid of fraud (they're not), they would seek to provide these people with easier methods of obtaining valid identification. It's little more than a way of ensuring they get a couple of extra percentages in the polls. All politics.

[FloralScent]

Can we pretty please have our own laws or are we still under Reconstruction?

What do you think?

[Antischism]

Anything that keeps a single Boobus out of a voting booth and away from my rights and my income, is a good thing.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

We've been at this for how long now? It feels like with each election cycle, we simply sink deeper into the pits of hell.

[Southron]

What do you think?

Reconstruction now,
reconstruction tomorrow and
reconstruction forever?

[specsaregood]

Bullshit... How in hell is having to show ID keeping certain demographics from voting?? What eligible demographics don't have a drivers license?? It's just not logical.

Lot of people don't have a drivers license. A lot of people who have never driven a car, let alone owned one as they are too poor. But yes, they can still get a state ID, and I think many states will issue those for free if you are too poor to afford one.

[phill4paul]

It's all well and good until an I.D. is not enough. Biometric will be all the rage when cards are not enough. Hell, N.C. is on their full way towards hooking in to Real I.D. anyway. Fugging Republicans. I helped them break a firm hold on Democratic leadership and for it I got..this..Amendment One...gerrymandering of a liberty candidate... and...nothing.

It's the vote counters. Doesn't matter the voters.

[devil21]

Because in-person voter fraud (which voter ID laws are specifically targeting) is very rare and we already have laws to punish those who impersonate. It's silly to think this type of fraud would be commonplace anyway when there are better, much more discreet ways of committing fraud. The actual forms of fraud that are problematic aren't going to get addressed with these voter ID laws. The only thing this actively does is ensure (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2422596) certain people (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification) are disenfranchised. If they truly want to pass voter ID laws because they're afraid of fraud (they're not), they would seek to provide these people with easier methods of obtaining valid identification. It's little more than a way of ensuring they get a couple of extra percentages in the polls. All politics.

We disagree but you are entitled to your opinion as to why the law was passed in the first place but that's not where my main concern is. A state's history is not a legal justification to overturn a state law at the federal level, absent any constitutional issue. That's what this ruling appears to be. Political, not constitutional.

[RonPaulMall]

Paulite thinking:

Requiring ID to buy guns is fascism
Not requiring ID to vote is fascism

Buying a gun is a voluntary commercial transaction. There is no reason for a person to show ID and no authority for the state to demand it. Voting is the process of getting a certain group of people who live within a certain geographical area to cast a single vote in order to elect officials. There is a valid reason to show ID to ensure the integrity of the vote, and since the state are the ones putting on the dog and pony show they have every right to ask you for said ID.

Voting is fascism, but if you are going to have elections, you might as well run them properly.

[RonPaulMall]

I think it's demeaning to blacks to suggest that they somehow aren't smart enough or aren't capable of providing a photo ID at the polls.

Especially since liberal supported laws require blacks to show an ID to travel, open a bank account, get a post office box, collect welfare, and about a hundred other things far more vital and important to life than voting. The galling hypocrisy of the thing is why this is such a potent issue among conservatives. I was in NC last primary season and believe me, this is an issue almost all conservatives get riled up about.

No, we shouldn't need to show ID to vote. Ideally, we shouldn't be voting at all. But in a world where Democrat politicians gleefully require you to show ID for practically every damn thing that needs to be done in your life, the wailing on the left about having to show your ID in a voter booth is just maddening for the average conservative.

[56ktarget]

Show me in the Bill of Rights where it says voting is pre-existing right and not subject to government infringement.

I'll wait.

Neither are guns. For most of our history the 2nd amendment was not interpreted as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

Oops, didn't fit into the Paulite talking point.

[56ktarget]

Anything that keeps a single Boobus out of a voting booth and away from my rights and my income, is a good thing.
There you go folks. The real reason Paulites want voter id laws. Not because they want to eliminate the (nonexistent) fraud, but because they want to suppress the Democratic vote.

[asurfaholic]

There you go folks. The real reason Paulites want voter id laws. Not because they want to eliminate the (nonexistent) fraud, but because they want to suppress the Democratic vote.

Lol you got it allll figured out, dont you.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

if they require a photo id the only thing in my mind they need to do to make it non-discriminatory is to have no cost associated with obtaining a simple id.

[Peace&Freedom]

Neither are guns. For most of our history the 2nd amendment was not interpreted as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

Oops, didn't fit into the Paulite talking point.

More like it doesn't fit most of our history. "The right of the people" can hardly be re-spun to mean anything other than it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, despite furious efforts of the gun controllers to reprogram us on the history:

In the initial phase, those demanding a bill of rights protecting free speech or any other right could not muster a majority in any convention. However, the Pennsylvania Minority proposed that “the people have a right to bear arms” to defend themselves, the state, and the United States, as well as for hunting. In the Massachusetts convention, Samuel Adams proposed that “peaceable citizens” have a right to keep “their own arms.” Finally, the New Hampshire convention became the first to propose a bill of rights, including that “Congress shall never disarm any citizen” unless in rebellion.

In Virginia’s convention, Patrick Henry argued “that every man be armed,” and George Mason drafted a declaration of rights, including a guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms...The Second Amendment was interpreted, as Federalist Tench Coxe expressed it, to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear “their private arms.” The Senate rejected restricting the right to bear arms to “the common defense” and also rejected a proposed state power to maintain a militia....The proposed Bill of Rights was then considered for adoption by the states. No record exists of any criticism of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” although the militia clause was taken to task for not actually doing anything.”

http://www.independent.org/publications/books/summary.asp?id=72

[devil21]

Add Wisconsin and Texas to the list of state voter ID laws overturned by the Feds right before the mid-terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday evening stopped officials in Wisconsin from requiring voters there to provide photo identification before casting their ballots in the coming election.

Three of the court’s more conservative members dissented, saying they would have allowed officials to require identification.

Around the same time, a federal trial court in Texas struck down that state’s ID law, saying it put a disproportionate burden on minority voters. more at link

[mad cow]

Around the same time, a federal trial court in Texas struck down that state’s ID law, saying it put a disproportionate burden on minority voters. more at link

But what about minority smokers and drinkers who just want a Swisher Sweet and a 40? :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

if they require a photo id the only thing in my mind they need to do to make it non-discriminatory is to have no cost associated with obtaining a simple id.

We include free photo ID. And the ID part of the law was never blocked, only the same-day registration. And the overturning was just reversed by SCOTUS, so the entire law is intact again. And we gave voters 3 years to acquire their free IDs. And every single Primary and General election from the law's passage until it's requirement in 2016, every single voter is handed a list of accepted IDs and asked if they will be capable of complying by 2016, and if not they are given instructions on how to acquire their free ID.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://abc11.com/politics/opponents-unhappy-with-court-ruling-on-nc-voter-id-law/343745/

Thursday, October 09, 2014 04:51PM
RALEIGH (WTVD) -- The fallout continues after a US Supreme Court decision on key parts of North Carolina's new voting law.

The high court decided Wednesday to block a federal appeals court ruling from taking effect. It means that same-day voter registration won't be allowed during early voting, as well as out-of-precinct voting in next month's election.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/parts-of-north-carolina-law-limiting-vote-are-restored-by-justices.html?_r=0

A trial judge declined to block the law, but a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last week that the restrictions on same-day registration and counting out-of-precinct votes should be suspended.

The appeals court let stand parts of the law that imposed new voter identification requirements, cut off a week of early voting, kept polling places closed on the Saturday before the election and disallowed preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds in high schools. Justice Ginsburg said all of those measures “likely would not have survived” scrutiny under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a brief, unsigned order reinstating provisions of a North Carolina voting law that bar same-day registration and counting votes cast in the wrong precinct. A federal appeals court had blocked the provisions, saying they disproportionately harmed black voters.

[Lucille]

WI and TX too. A memo must have been circulated.

http://reason.com/24-7/2014/10/10/supreme-court-wisconsins-voter-id-law-on


The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month's elections.

In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state's voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general's office said it would appeal.

Both Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.

[HOLLYWOOD]

We include free photo ID. And the ID part of the law was never blocked, only the same-day registration. And the overturning was just reversed by SCOTUS, so the entire law is intact again. And we gave voters 3 years to acquire their free IDs. And every single Primary and General election from the law's passage until it's requirement in 2016, every single voter is handed a list of accepted IDs and asked if they will be capable of complying by 2016, and if not they are given instructions on how to acquire their free ID.

Wow, how accommodating for all people... political fraud hates it when you treat everyone the same. Amazes me what government requires(interferes/controls/mandates) when going about your everyday lives in private, whether it be; traveling, working, learning, partying, banking, investing, shopping, etc...tons of laws requiring ID, sometimes 2 or more forms of it, but if you want to vote in the public government system, no photo ID required. The absurdity of the Federal courts just blanketed ruling against states' ID laws, indicates, they don't want the people to take control over their government.


LOL... the SCOTUS voter ID ruling is like them ruling, 'Black people cannot work for White people below latitude 36°30′, because their was slavery 150 years ago.' This is all about the Marxist masters staying in power by giving fraud across the country to the 'Useful Idiots' aka Socialists.

[Keith and stuff]

WI and TX too. A memo must have been circulated.

http://reason.com/24-7/2014/10/10/supreme-court-wisconsins-voter-id-law-on

I heard in TX, you have to pay for the ID (a poll tax), unlike in NC. Is that true. In TX, you also have to have your photo and all 10 finger prints entered into the state criminal database to get a government ID. Unfortunately, NC has a government photo ID database that police access :( So it would seem that in TX, the freedom position would be to be against a voter ID requirement for 2 to 3 good reasons.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/17/say-cheese-some-states-put-drivers-license-photos-in-facial-recognition-database-for-law-enforcement-use/

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/facial-recognition_3.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

I've lived in NC almost all my life and never gave them my fingerprints. ???

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow, how accommodating for all people... political fraud hates it when you treat everyone the same. Amazes me what government requires(interferes/controls/mandates) when going about your everyday lives in private, whether it be; traveling, working, learning, partying, banking, investing, shopping, etc...tons of laws requiring ID, sometimes 2 or more forms of it, but if you want to vote in the public government system, no photo ID required. The absurdity of the Federal courts just blanketed ruling against states' ID laws, indicates, they don't want the people to take control over their government.


LOL... the SCOTUS voter ID ruling is like them ruling, 'Black people cannot work for White people below latitude 36°30′, because their was slavery 150 years ago.' This is all about the Marxist masters staying in power by giving fraud across the country to the 'Useful Idiots' aka Socialists.
Yeah, it's totally over the top bent over backwards accommodating, which is one reason it's so annoying to hear libdems whining about disenfranchisement. Bovine. Feces.

[Keith and stuff]

I've lived in NC almost all my life and never gave them my fingerprints. ???
+Rep

You are correct. I edited my reply. NC has a government ID database that police are allowed to access. So, IMO, requiring ID to vote would be a violation of your right not to be in a state photo criminal database, when have committed no crime. I consider it a 4th Amendment issue. I'm sure many people would disagree.

[Christian Liberty]

There you go folks. The real reason Paulites want voter id laws. Not because they want to eliminate the (nonexistent) fraud, but because they want to suppress the Democratic vote.

This isn't inherently bad.

Mr. A wants to stop Mr. B from doing what he wants with his own life. Mr. B wants to be left alone.

And liberals pretend like these claims are morally and ethically equal. They aren't.

[Carlybee]

We may be screwed on the governor race in Texas. They'll be bussing in half of Mexico to vote for Wendy Davis. The Federal judge who overturned the voter ID law is conveniently Hispanic.


On Thursday, US District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ruled the Texas law "creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose".




However you can bet if Dems wanted it..it would be hunky dory.

[Carlybee]

There you go folks. The real reason Paulites want voter id laws. Not because they want to eliminate the (nonexistent) fraud, but because they want to suppress the Democratic vote.


No, just want to keep them from cheating like they always do.

[Keith and stuff]

We may be screwed on the governor race in Texas. They'll be bussing in half of Mexico to vote for Wendy Davis. The Federal judge who overturned the voter ID law is conveniently Hispanic.

However you can bet if Dems wanted it..it would be hunky dory.
Texas doesn't have same day registration, right? How are people bused if they had to register ahead of time? 2 bus trips?

[Carlybee]

Texas doesn't have same day registration, right? How are people bused if the had to register ahead of time? 2 bus trips?

I was being facetious :/


3205