Discussion
  • Read More
    Promnight Dumpster Baby FireBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:53pm

    What is ironic is that the legislature probably did NOT intend to discriminate on the basis of race. They intended to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation, and black people tend to vote for democrats. If blacks voted predominantly for Republicans, just watch, they would pass a law giving each black person TWO votes and justify it as reparations or something. The racism is just incidental to the real motivation, winning elections.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Mike BowersPromnight Dumpster Baby Fire
      7/29/16 1:55pm

      See, I used to think the same thing, but then I read this ruling:

      The day after Shelby County v. Holder (the ruling that invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act), the North Carolina legislature requested racial data on a number of voting practices. This was at a time African American voting turnout was virtually identical to white turnout. They found the following:

      -African Americans most commonly lacked IDs issued by the DMV, even if they had other government issued forms of ID. Once the legislature had this information, they amended their bill to accept ONLY DMV-issued ID.

      -African Americans also disproportionately used early voting in 2008 and 2012 (64% compared to 44% of whites). After this information was obtained, early voting was shortened from 17 days to 10 in the final bill.

      -African Americans also disproportionately used same-day registration, as it also allowed for in-person assistance for those who needed it. This was eliminated.

      -African Americans also disproportionately used provisional ballots, in cases where they went to the wrong polling station. Out-of-precinct voting was eliminated.

      -African Americans were also more likely to pre-register at 16 or 17, when getting a driver’s license for example. And although pre-registration increased voter turnout, it was eliminated.

      This is so blatant, it’s amazing.

      TL;DR: NC asked for racial data on a bunch of voting mechanisms and then eliminated the ones that blacks used significantly more than whites.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Masshole JamesPromnight Dumpster Baby Fire
      7/29/16 1:56pm

      The old timey Southern Democrats passed poll taxes and used beatings and intimidation to keep African Americans from voting Republican. Modern day Southern Republicans use these kinds of laws to do the same thing, but this time to keep African Americans from voting democratic. I guess the lesson here is that the South sucks.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Quasar FunkBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:50pm

    Holy shit, I don’t even know how to react to good news anymore.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      handmadeproteinshakeQuasar Funk
      7/29/16 1:53pm

      Sit back, it’ll turn sour. 100 days before the election, gives them enough time to come up with a different law with the same affect.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      opiumsmabytchQuasar Funk
      7/29/16 1:56pm

      Have a beer.

      It’s my go-to for everything nowadays

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    NicoBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 3:27pm

    As sh*tty as I know voter ID laws to wind up being in practice, I'm still a little surprised every time I don't have to show ID to vote. I'm so used to needing it for absolutely everything it actually feels weird not needing it for that.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      OurDaisyNico
      7/29/16 3:42pm

      I always have mine out. Force of habit

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      NicoOurDaisy
      7/29/16 4:03pm

      It's disorienting! But, if voter ID laws ever come to my town (it's NY, so that won't happen) I have 4 forms of photo ID (5 if you count the one that isn't gov't issued), COME AT ME BRO!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GrumpyEagleBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:57pm

    I'm glad the rising tide of Voter ID laws is starting to get a good "hell no" from the Court. The ridiculousness of the checking procedures (is this one OK? how about this? can I show this one?) has turned every election I've recently voted in into a commercial for crazy pills. At one recent one, they closed the polling place in my neighborhood and made everybody report to one at the village hall, so there was a massive roadblock as everybody waited for the ancient poll workers to squint at and debate every damn ID. What was weird was that I could use my passport as an ID - yes, it's an official government document, but it doesn't show my address so that kind of makes it useless as a means of checking whether you should be voting there, right?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LizzieMaeGrumpyEagle
      7/29/16 2:28pm

      I used my passport as ID to vote in the primary this spring and thought the lack-of-address thing was really strange. My all-time most bizarre ID story though: I grew up in NJ and at some point lost my driver’s license. I went to the DMV to get a duplicate but I was maybe 18 so I didn’t have much in the way of ID. The DMV staff told me to go home and get my high school year book. I shit you not, in 1990's NJ that was a valid form of identication.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PoodletimeGrumpyEagle
      7/29/16 2:45pm

      Oh, Geez. That’s appaling.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ARP2Brendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:58pm

    Let’s run through them all....

    1. I don’t mind a voter ID law. Some states have them, but they’re very broad in nature. They accept library cards, student IDs, utility bills, etc.

    2. It’s when they require a specific type of photo ID and don’t make that ID or “source” documents free or easy to get, where I have a significant problem. Some states will make the ID free, but make it hard to get or charge for source documents, to say nothing of transportation. Some states have ID buses, but then you need an internet connection to find the schedule, and then get off work and/or get transportation to get there.

    3. Republican states are actively trying to reduce early voting. Some states even tried to have early voting hours longer in white areas, compared to black areas.

    4. All states should accept provisional ballots for those that don’t have ID or insufficient ID.

    5. Voter fraud isn’t much of a problem (note voter registration fraud and voter fraud are two very different things). So, it’s a solution in search of a problem

    6. No illegal immigrants don’t vote in large numbers in elections. They’re trying to stay under the radar, and voting doesn’t exactly help that.

    ...did I cover all them?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      FreshlyShavenARP2
      7/29/16 2:01pm

      Why should we accept ANY law that makes it harder to vote when there’s no legitimate problem which they solve?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Becky With the Bad GradesARP2
      7/29/16 2:17pm

      Great take. It’s not so much that it’s a wrong or illegitimate legislative initiaitve; I’d even argue that a state is entitled to have safeguards in place to limit voter fraud even if the evidence isn’t strong that it occurs in significant amounts.

      It’s how it’s done that’s offensive, however. Want to know who is registering to vote and trying to vote? Fine. But, you can’t place onerous hurdles in the way of people that are trying to vote—-in an election year no less.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    festivusaziliBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 2:08pm

    Hey Dems: time to enact a new Section 5 to the Voting Rights Act that includes all states rather than just those with historic discrimination. 3 years of disenfranchisement because we haven’t acted. Get your shit together.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Orlandu7festivusazili
      7/29/16 2:15pm

      Democrats do not control either house of Congress. If you want them to enact things, start voting in midterms.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      festivusaziliOrlandu7
      7/29/16 2:23pm

      I do. But what I am asking for is not in their party platform. They have some weak sauce language about “restoring the full power of the Voting Rights Act,” which would mean re-enacting the old version of Section 5 that only covered some (read: former Confederate) states. And they haven’t made it an issue in the media.

      Shaming Republicans with the failure to re-enact a key provision of the most important piece of legislation from the Civil Rights Era, and making it clear that it protects all citizens rather than just an attempt to punish red states, would be a powerful tactic. They have chosen not to attempt it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    HopalongNealCassidyBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:47pm

    everything is coming up milhouse

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ideasleepfuriouslyHopalongNealCassidy
      7/29/16 1:54pm

      Today, it’s coming up Carl

      GIF
      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Noble RenardBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:58pm

    It’s a fantastic decision, and a great guide for others who are challenging these laws. It’s especially powerful because the lower court agreed that the law imposed a lot of disproportionate burdens on African-Americans but said that in the end that wasn’t enough to show discriminatory intent. The Fourth Circuit’s response to that was great:

    In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      neoplatonicThe Noble Renard
      7/29/16 2:14pm

      Also this!

      Using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics. A state legislature acting on such a motivation engages intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    XrdsAlumBrendan O'Connor
    7/29/16 1:54pm

    Well the laws sure weren’t enacted with the intent of stopping voter fraud, given that the problem is essentially non-existent.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RobocopBrendan O'Connor
      7/29/16 2:12pm

      So it’s discriminatory to require a photo ID to vote? I think it’s discriminatory to require proof of insurance to drive. Or having to wear shoes on my robo-feet in order to grab a big gulp.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        FritzKekichRobocop
        7/29/16 2:21pm

        So I’m guessing an 85 page opinion with no pictures is about 84 pages too long for you to read?

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Ugh_ew_leaveRobocop
        7/29/16 2:50pm

        Not just a photo ID. A DMV issued ID. Voter fraud is non existent in America as is, so imposing new legislation to stop a problem that doesn't exist is pointless—especially when that legislation disproportionately creates barriers for certain citizens

        Reply
        <