Offline
Federal judge upholds controversial North Carolina voter ID law
RALEIGH, N.C. – Lawsuits challenging changes to North Carolina's election law failed to show it hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise political power, a federal judge ruled Monday in dismissing the cases.U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder ruled against the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina NAACP chapter and named voters.
They sued alleging the law was passed to discriminate against poor and minority voters in violation of the Constitution and U.S. Voting Rights Act.While North Carolina had a sordid history of freezing black voters out of the political process, the plaintiffs didn't show that the law hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise electoral politics, Schroeder said.The plaintiffs "failed to show that such disparities will have materially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercise the electoral franchise" as a result of the 2013 state law, Schroeder wrote.
That argument was made more difficult after black voter turnout increased in 2014, he wrote."There is significant, shameful past discrimination. In North Carolina's recent history, however, certainly for the last quarter century, there is little official discrimination to consider," Schroeder wrote.The law's most public feature is that it requires voters who appear in person to cast ballots to show an accepted form of photo identification like a driver's license, a passport or a military ID. The law also eliminated same-day voter registration and ended out-of-precinct voting. The number of early-voting days was cut while the early-voting hours available stayed stable.Same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional voting will end after the June 7 primary elections for North Carolina's congressional seats.
Much of the discussion during the trial focused on whether voter fraud exists in North Carolina. That was one of the arguments lawmakers used in including the photo ID requirement, which took effect during last month's primary elections. Advocates who filed the lawsuits condemned the decision."This is just one step in a legal battle that is going to continue in the courts," said Penda Hair, an attorney representing the NAACP. The law "targets the provisions that once made North Carolina among the states with the highest turnout in the nation. This progress was especially clear among African-American and Latino voters, who came to rely on measures like early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional ballots to ensure their voices were heard.Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican seeking re-election this year, focused on the voter ID provision of the law in praising the ruling. McCrory was a defendant in one of the lawsuits."Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote," McCrory said in a prepared statement.
Offline
Since the voter fraud stuff has been pretty well debunked, what's the deal with trying to make voting more difficult? I get that low voter turnout favors one tribe over another, but I didn't think democracy was supposed to work that way.
Offline
I don't understand how having to show a drivers license or a state Id card is a hardship to keep someone from voting?
I have been going to the same Dr for 20 years but each time I have an appointment I have to show two things.
My ID and my insurance card? When I fly I have to show ID. When I go to the bank I have to show ID?
At times when using a credit card they ask for ID.
My point is today to function you need ID so why is it a hardship to show ID to vote? The states with voter ID laws will give free ID cards if necessary. Why don't people have ID today?
Offline
It's just the notion that one has to prove who they are in order to vote. For me, it goes back to my early days as a VA resident when I refused to pay the state's discriminatory Poll Tax in order to vote, period. Within a few years the feds struck down that law for federal elections, allowing residents to vote in federal elections sans a poll tax payment. Any requirement that even minimally stands in the way of one exercising their constitutional right to vote in any election has to be unconstitutional and I'll bet we haven't heard the last of this case.
Offline
Some nationwide standardizing is in order. Some states accept one form of ID, while other states do not. Student ID's are accepted in some areas, for example, while not accepted in others. Anyone have info about how other countries handle this? Driving a car or flying, for instance, are privileges. Voting is a right.
I'd like to know more about voting in other democratic nations. Evidently, all that was needed in Iraq was a thumb print and we cheered ............ remember that?
Anyway, I found this observation by an historian who has examined this issue:
The US has something almost unique in that it has over 50 different sets of standards for voting, registration, ID requirements, polling practices, notification, etc. The result of such a maze of laws is what you'd expect, suppressed or discouraged turnout.
Last edited by Just Fred (4/26/2016 9:34 am)
Offline
It unfortunately smacks of just one more example of an emotional issue that has no real purpose other then to whip up the base. Every time this is looked into, there has been NO real issue with voter fraud causing any disturbance in the outcome of elections.
There are SO MANY important things that need done in this nation and we keep diddling away our time on issues like this. Sad.
Last edited by tennyson (4/26/2016 10:10 am)
Offline
Again how does showing ID stop someone from voting? It does not!
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
Again how does showing ID stop someone from voting? It does not!
A solution to a problem that is not a problem. Our legislators seem to excel at that !