If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   SCOTUS: "Nobody would try to strip voting rights if we strike the Voting Rights Act." North Carolina: "Challenge accepted"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 350
    More: Scary, Voting Rights Act, U.S. Supreme Court, North Carolina, challenge accepted, suffrages, public financing  
•       •       •

7465 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2013 at 3:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-23 12:32:02 PM
For Freedom?

Seriously. Thanks for illustrating exactly why we put things like this in place.

I get it. Folks are worried that poor people and young people will vote, and swing things away from the power base that you've erected, and seeking to limit their say in things is the easiest way to keep things the way they are. From gerrymandering to limiting the number of voters, to outright preventing votes to count because they have the wrong name, or come from the wrong district. The harder thing is to get them to vote for you, and I understand that some of the things that you want to do actually impair these folks from living in a way that is remotely comfortable, but maybe you might want to start thinking about more than just your own class, and try representing the majority. Just a thought.
 
2013-07-23 12:41:25 PM
So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?
 
2013-07-23 12:43:46 PM
NC Republicans are trying to punish folks for voting for the blah guy.
 
2013-07-23 12:44:51 PM
So vote Republican!
 
2013-07-23 01:06:00 PM
The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?
 
2013-07-23 01:14:58 PM
If you can't win reliably, then cheat.
 
2013-07-23 01:59:05 PM
You know, there are some actions which restrict voting which I genuinely do think can be argued from a position of sincere concern for democracy. I think voter ID is one of these things - I don't agree with voter ID, but I understand why some people genuinely think its a good idea and an important way to support democratic legitimacy.

But these changes? Reducing early voting and abolishing same-day registration? No. There's just nothing legitimate there. It's purely the move of an asshole. I mean, there's no other justification AT ALL.
 
2013-07-23 02:00:59 PM

Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?


I see we have an opening-day challenge to the law
 
2013-07-23 02:02:38 PM

reillan: Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?

I see we have an opening-day challenge to the law


I don't see how its not a blatant violation of the 26th amendment
 
2013-07-23 02:04:23 PM

Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?


Quiet, Citizen. You weren't supposed to notice that.
 
2013-07-23 02:05:31 PM
Demographics in North Carolina are rapidly changing as more Yankees and Latinos move in. Raleigh and Charlotte and their suburbs are fairly cosmopolitan now.
 
2013-07-23 02:06:32 PM
Disenfranchisement: what true democracy is all about. It's what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.

/because they were slave owning, entitled land owners.
 
2013-07-23 02:07:24 PM
www.portero.com

Poor Liz and Dick.
 
2013-07-23 02:08:03 PM
Oh FFS. Wrong thread. Sorry.
 
2013-07-23 02:14:44 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


MAybe that congress is so dysfunctional it can't even pass a farm bill?

I remember a time when conservatives felt judicial restraint meant letting the legislature act irrationally, so long as it was within the bounds of constitutional authority. The VRA passed the senate most recently 98 to 0. It was re-enacted, IIRC, 5 times in the last 40 years without any challenge to its constitutionality. What changed?

Other than a bunch of radical right wing judicial activists taking over the court, that is.
 
2013-07-23 02:16:34 PM

vernonFL: Oh FFS. Wrong thread. Sorry.


There is no such thing as a wrong thread for them tittays.

I mean damn.
 
2013-07-23 02:20:55 PM

DamnYankees: reillan: Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?

I see we have an opening-day challenge to the law

I don't see how its not a blatant violation of the 26th amendment



It's not.  In North Carolina (as elsewhere), you can "register" to vote only if you will be 18 on or before the next general election - so, if you turn 18 on election day, you can "register" prior to election day, and show up and vote (apparently, you can even vote in the primary before you turn 18, so long as it is a primary for a general election that occurs on or after you turn 18).  Pre-registration is something different - it means that if you are 16 or 17, you can pre-register to vote even if you will not be 18 by the next general election (obviously - no 16 year old will ever be 18 by the next general election), and you automatically become registered upon turning 18.  Repealing pre-registration would eliminate this option, but would not affect the ability of a 17-year old to register for an election that occurs on or after his 18th birthday.
 
2013-07-23 02:25:51 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


Shhhhh with your logic and facts, we're outraged over here.

Seriously though, I would love the see the voting rights act reimplemented and expanded to cover all 50 states. Good for the goose is good for the gander and all of that....
 
2013-07-23 02:37:15 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


Because this Congress won't? If anything, they'll use it as an excuse to try and undo a century's worth of accrued voter protections, just like NC is doing?

/ native North Carolinian
// ashamed of that status this year, for the first time in my life
 
2013-07-23 02:39:40 PM
Ah, North Carolina, proudly proclaiming to the rest of the nation that they don't give a flying fark about voting rights as long as it means their guys win.
 
2013-07-23 02:40:29 PM

Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?


Let's not forget the photo ID requirement. I got my NC drivers license last Saturday. I also registered to vote. i have my voter registration card but no photo ID. That will come in the mail at a later date. If there were an election tomorrow how am I to vote? And don't give me that provisional ballot non-sense, it's a lovely excuse to drop my vote in the trash.
 
2013-07-23 02:40:30 PM

Elegy: HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?

Shhhhh with your logic and facts, we're outraged over here.

Seriously though, I would love the see the voting rights act reimplemented and expanded to cover all 50 states. Good for the goose is good for the gander and all of that....



The Voting Rights Act does cover all 50 states.  The "pre-clearance" provisions only cover(ed) some of those states, because Congress determined (as was its prerogative under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, at least until the Court stripped that authority away) that certain jurisdictions had a history and pattern of disenfranchisement that warranted extra scrutiny before new voting regulations were enacted.
 
2013-07-23 02:48:27 PM
WTF?

. . .

I mean, WTF?  Are they utterly insane?  Is America not supposed to be a government by, for and of the people?  Idiots!
 
2013-07-23 02:53:36 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


All a state had to do under the Voting Rights Act to remove itself from the watch list was avoid infringing the rights of their citizens to vote for 10 years.  What's wrong with that?

/oh, right, these states are all still on the list and still trying to fark with voter's rights.  Duh.
 
2013-07-23 03:03:07 PM

propasaurus: NC Republicans are trying to punish folks for voting for the blah guy.

 
2013-07-23 03:07:36 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


What member of Congress would willingly vote for a bill that outright declares their constituents to be racists?
 
2013-07-23 03:10:25 PM

vernonFL: Oh FFS. Wrong thread. Sorry.


Liz Taylor's bewbs are always a welcome sight.
 
2013-07-23 03:10:26 PM
Your attempts to rig the vote will not counter act demographics, and will make your reckoning that much more powerful. No mercy shall be shown.
 
2013-07-23 03:10:36 PM
Moral Monday arrest demographics: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/page/12663400/

What's 'amusing' is that of those arrested protesting the republican general assemble during these since April, the large majority of them are old and white.

Here's the story about last night's protest
 
2013-07-23 03:10:45 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


There was no real Constitutional imperative for them to do that, and they knew goddamn well that congress wasn't going to come up with anything that will pass.
 
2013-07-23 03:11:05 PM

Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?


Exactly.  Young people, by and large, are liberal and anti-authoritarian, so they can't be allowed to vote.
 
2013-07-23 03:12:46 PM

reillan: Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?

I see we have an opening-day challenge to the law


All you need is the right 17 year old to file suit on behalf of, and maybe in 5-10 years you might get these provisions struck down
 
2013-07-23 03:13:14 PM

Elegy: HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?

Shhhhh with your logic and facts, we're outraged over here.

Seriously though, I would love the see the voting rights act reimplemented and expanded to cover all 50 states. Good for the goose is good for the gander and all of that....


Can you actually point to a pattern of actual disenfranchisement in part or all of the other 50 states, bearing in mind that losing is not disenfranchisement?
 
2013-07-23 03:13:23 PM
Encyclopedia Brown reference?  Really?

That makes me feel old for some reason.
 
2013-07-23 03:15:01 PM

HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?


The Act provided a test that allowed covered jurisdictions to "bail out" of the Act by simply proving that they no longer were engaged in illegitimate vote suppression. Many did just that in several states.

There was no need to devise a new test since all covered areas had a simple way out.
 
2013-07-23 03:15:13 PM
Didn't about a half dozen states announce, on the day of the decision, that they were going to implement laws that were previously struck down by the Voting Rights Act?

That right there is proof that it shouldn't have happened.
 
2013-07-23 03:15:29 PM
I'm sure the fark constitutional scholars will be here right away to talk about how the Second Ammendment was meant to fight this tyranny. Right?
 
2013-07-23 03:15:38 PM
I'm still waiting for some state to just make it official and outlaw "the Democrat [sic] Party".  NC might be the one to do it.
 
2013-07-23 03:17:27 PM
How long after this bill passes will they slash funding to any and all offices (in certain neighborhoods) that provide picture ID cards?
 
2013-07-23 03:18:13 PM

HotWingConspiracy: HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?

There was no real Constitutional imperative for them to do that, and they knew goddamn well that congress wasn't going to come up with anything that will pass.


I'm still yet to find the equal sovereignty principle anywhere in the Constitution. As Justice Emeritus Stevens pointed out, the original Constitution didn't even subscribe to that principle since it granted slave-owning states the voting power of three-fifths of their slaves while denying those slaves the right to vote.
 
2013-07-23 03:18:27 PM

bulldg4life: How long after this bill passes will they slash funding to any and all offices (in certain neighborhoods) that provide picture ID cards?


They did that yesterday: http://www.wral.com/mccrory-signs-tax-bill/12694172/
 
2013-07-23 03:18:45 PM
Republicans currently hold strong majorities in both legislative houses and control the governorship, leaving Democrats with little recourse to block HB 589. In the last few weeks, Republicans have passed conservative legislation on a range of issues, from a major anti-choice bill to tax cuts for the rich paid for by the poor.

Well, there's your problem.

People in these states need to learn sooner or later that these are the consequences of voting for Republicans.  Or maybe these are the consequences the people actually want, in which case they deserve what they get.

People can cry all they want about gerrymandering now, but where were the Democratic voters in 2010 to combat the Republican wave in the statehouses and prevent the GOP-directed redistricting in the first place?
 
2013-07-23 03:19:09 PM
Every single day these goons are taking us on another 50 years back in time.
 
2013-07-23 03:19:35 PM

Sgt Otter: So 17 year olds can't pre-register before they turn 18, and you can't register the day of the election.

So if your 18th birthday is the day of the election, there's no way you can legally vote?


In the opposite direction, the Illinois governor recently signed a bill that allows 17-year olds to vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the time of the general election.

I had never thought of that idea, but I kind of like it.
 
2013-07-23 03:20:54 PM

Doc Daneeka: People can cry all they want about gerrymandering now, but where were the Democratic voters in 2010 to combat the Republican wave in the statehouses and prevent the GOP-directed redistricting in the first place?


www.senate.leg.state.mn.us
 
2013-07-23 03:22:32 PM

gilgigamesh: HoustonNick: The reason the law was PARTIALLY stuck down was the test was using data from 40+ years ago.  The Court told Congress to come up with a new test using recent data.  What's wrong with that?

MAybe that congress is so dysfunctional it can't even pass a farm bill?

I remember a time when conservatives felt judicial restraint meant letting the legislature act irrationally, so long as it was within the bounds of constitutional authority. The VRA passed the senate most recently 98 to 0. It was re-enacted, IIRC, 5 times in the last 40 years without any challenge to its constitutionality. What changed?

Other than a bunch of radical right wing judicial activists taking over the court, that is.


Just because Congress continued to do something wrong out of laziness doesn't give them a free pass.  The fact that OH, IA, WI & PA could do all sorts of shady stuff while Georgia couldn't move a polling place 10 feet w/o out asking Holder for permission; means that part of the law was broken and discriminatory.  The only thing the court did wrong is choosing which side to make everyone follow until Congress actually did something.
 
2013-07-23 03:23:10 PM

DamnYankees: You know, there are some actions which restrict voting which I genuinely do think can be argued from a position of sincere concern for democracy. I think voter ID is one of these things - I don't agree with voter ID, but I understand why some people genuinely think its a good idea and an important way to support democratic legitimacy.

But these changes? Reducing early voting and abolishing same-day registration? No. There's just nothing legitimate there. It's purely the move of an asshole. I mean, there's no other justification AT ALL.


All of this.  Reducing days you can vote, reducing places you can vote, and reducing the ability of young people to vote is completely counter to everything voting should be about.  If you want to "speak for the people" then, by FSM, you should have more that 50-60% turnout.
 
2013-07-23 03:24:41 PM
These guys don't wait around, republican scotus guts protections, republican legislators rush to take advantage before the ink is even dry. You gotta give them credit there... democrats would never have the balls/lack of shame to do the same kind of thing.
 
2013-07-23 03:24:52 PM

SphericalTime: WTF?

. . .

I mean, WTF?  Are they utterly insane?  Is America not supposed to be a government by, for and of the people?  Idiots!


"It's goverment by, for, & of our people not your people."

The Republicans should watch out since 2nd Amendment solutions is not just Rebulican platform.
 
2013-07-23 03:26:49 PM
Let's see... gotta vote in your district.  You mean, like where I live?
Cutting early voting by a week.  You mean, like we used to do, actually vote on election day?
Eliminating same day registration.  So?  If voting was so important to you, why didn't you register earlier?  It's not like its difficult anymore, after Motor/Voter passed.  Just woke up and realized today's election day, and you'd just been putting registration off?
Increasing poll observers - in my experience, not a bad thing at all.

And, given the balanced writing of the article, I'm not inclined to give any credence to any of its claims without actually looking at the bill, and anything the bill purports to affect.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report