North Carolina Is The Latest Battleground In The Fight For Voting Rights

[PaintMyHouse]

Fifty years after "Bloody Sunday," the fight for voting rights continues in North Carolina.

After the 2013 Supreme Court decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing jurisdictions to change voting laws without federal oversight, North Carolina passed a bill that placed new restrictions on the voting process. The law requires voters to show government-issued identification at the polls, shortens early voting, ends same-day registration and "increases the number of poll observers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility," according to the LA Times.

Despite the blow to the Voting Rights Act, the NAACP and the civil rights organization Advancement Project are taking on the "voter suppression" using portions of the act that were left intact by the Supreme Court verdict. Jasmyn Richardson, a staff attorney with the Advancement Project, joined HuffPost Live on Monday to discuss the suit.

The North Carolina law targets many "things that a lot of young people, people of color and poor people were using to get people out to vote and to register to vote"and the Advancement Project is challenging it based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th amendments, Richardson explained to host Alyona Minkovski.

North Carolina Is The Latest Battleground In The Fight For Voting Rights

Voter Suppression 101: How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise Millions of Americans

To those who say requiring government-issued identification should not be a problem - what about all the other restrictions on the voting process? Such as: shortens early voting, ends same-day registration and increases the number of poll observers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility. How can anyone honestly deny that these restrictions are designed to restrict voting rights among certain groups of voters - primarily Democrat voters?

If you can prove it only impacts dems you might have a point, if everyone is impacted equally there is nothing discriminatory about it. Same day registration has always been a bad idea, it's an open invitation for fraud.

Wrong.

It has a negative impact on voters who are currently eligible to vote but are prevented from doing so because they cannot acquire the ID necessary to vote through no fault of their own.

The state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote because it 'thinks' the voter 'might' commit 'fraud'; the burden of proof rests with the state to produce the evidence that a given voter is attempting to commit fraud, and absent that evidence the state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote.

What are the reasons they can't get voter ID, be specific.

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

 

[OKTexas]

If you can prove it only impacts dems you might have a point, if everyone is impacted equally there is nothing discriminatory about it. Same day registration has always been a bad idea, it's an open invitation for fraud.

Wrong.

It has a negative impact on voters who are currently eligible to vote but are prevented from doing so because they cannot acquire the ID necessary to vote through no fault of their own.

The state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote because it 'thinks' the voter 'might' commit 'fraud'; the burden of proof rests with the state to produce the evidence that a given voter is attempting to commit fraud, and absent that evidence the state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote.

What are the reasons they can't get voter ID, be specific.

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wrong.

It has a negative impact on voters who are currently eligible to vote but are prevented from doing so because they cannot acquire the ID necessary to vote through no fault of their own.

The state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote because it 'thinks' the voter 'might' commit 'fraud'; the burden of proof rests with the state to produce the evidence that a given voter is attempting to commit fraud, and absent that evidence the state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote.

What are the reasons they can't get voter ID, be specific.

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

 

[OKTexas]

What are the reasons they can't get voter ID, be specific.

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

 

[OKTexas]

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

So their bums when the ruling doesn't go your way and heroes when it does. Cry me a freaking river. What is it you lefties say, it's law of the land now, deal with it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

So their bums when the ruling doesn't go your way and heroes when it does. Cry me a freaking river. What is it you lefties say, it's law of the land now, deal with it.

The court is the court. It's their call, but they are usually behind the times, and wish to be. That doesn't change the motivation for these laws, which soon won't help the GOP at all and therefore they will drop the issue entirely.

 

[OKTexas]

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

So their bums when the ruling doesn't go your way and heroes when it does. Cry me a freaking river. What is it you lefties say, it's law of the land now, deal with it.

The court is the court. It's their call, but they are usually behind the times, and wish to be. That doesn't change the motivation for these laws, which soon won't help the GOP at all and therefore they will drop the issue entirely.

As far as I'm concerned it a moot point already but you lefties keep up the propaganda hoping to influence the low information voters, unfortunately for you not many of those visit message boards.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

So their bums when the ruling doesn't go your way and heroes when it does. Cry me a freaking river. What is it you lefties say, it's law of the land now, deal with it.

The court is the court. It's their call, but they are usually behind the times, and wish to be. That doesn't change the motivation for these laws, which soon won't help the GOP at all and therefore they will drop the issue entirely.

As far as I'm concerned it a moot point already but you lefties keep up the propaganda hoping to influence the low information voters, unfortunately for you not many of those visit message boards.

No one is being influenced, it isn't up for a vote. The courts are making the call, one way or another. And the issue soon will be moot as those voters without ID are dying off and these laws are not going to help the GOP win so they will die on the vine shortly.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court says differently, take it up with them.

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

So their bums when the ruling doesn't go your way and heroes when it does. Cry me a freaking river. What is it you lefties say, it's law of the land now, deal with it.

The court is the court. It's their call, but they are usually behind the times, and wish to be. That doesn't change the motivation for these laws, which soon won't help the GOP at all and therefore they will drop the issue entirely.

As far as I'm concerned it a moot point already but you lefties keep up the propaganda hoping to influence the low information voters, unfortunately for you not many of those visit message boards.

No one is being influenced, it isn't up for a vote. The courts are making the call, one way or another. And the issue soon will be moot as those voters without ID are dying off and these laws are not going to help the GOP win so they will die on the vine shortly.

Pure propaganda, carry on, you are dismissed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The courts have. And the SC let it pass, to see what happens. That is their way.

So their bums when the ruling doesn't go your way and heroes when it does. Cry me a freaking river. What is it you lefties say, it's law of the land now, deal with it.

The court is the court. It's their call, but they are usually behind the times, and wish to be. That doesn't change the motivation for these laws, which soon won't help the GOP at all and therefore they will drop the issue entirely.

As far as I'm concerned it a moot point already but you lefties keep up the propaganda hoping to influence the low information voters, unfortunately for you not many of those visit message boards.

No one is being influenced, it isn't up for a vote. The courts are making the call, one way or another. And the issue soon will be moot as those voters without ID are dying off and these laws are not going to help the GOP win so they will die on the vine shortly.

Pure propaganda, carry on, you are dismissed.

That's nothing like propaganda. The courts had said the same, as well as the GOP. These laws are not about making the vote more fair, they are about making it less so, and that won't last long. No matter where you look, the demographics are against the party of Whitey.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Fifty years after "Bloody Sunday," the fight for voting rights continues in North Carolina.

After the 2013 Supreme Court decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing jurisdictions to change voting laws without federal oversight, North Carolina passed a bill that placed new restrictions on the voting process. The law requires voters to show government-issued identification at the polls, shortens early voting, ends same-day registration and "increases the number of poll observers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility," according to the LA Times.

Despite the blow to the Voting Rights Act, the NAACP and the civil rights organization Advancement Project are taking on the "voter suppression" using portions of the act that were left intact by the Supreme Court verdict. Jasmyn Richardson, a staff attorney with the Advancement Project, joined HuffPost Live on Monday to discuss the suit.

The North Carolina law targets many "things that a lot of young people, people of color and poor people were using to get people out to vote and to register to vote"and the Advancement Project is challenging it based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th amendments, Richardson explained to host Alyona Minkovski.

North Carolina Is The Latest Battleground In The Fight For Voting Rights

Voter Suppression 101: How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise Millions of Americans

To those who say requiring government-issued identification should not be a problem - what about all the other restrictions on the voting process? Such as: shortens early voting, ends same-day registration and increases the number of poll observers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility. How can anyone honestly deny that these restrictions are designed to restrict voting rights among certain groups of voters - primarily Democrat voters?

We support the right of people who can't vote to vote.

 

[guno]

Fifty years after "Bloody Sunday," the fight for voting rights continues in North Carolina.

After the 2013 Supreme Court decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing jurisdictions to change voting laws without federal oversight, North Carolina passed a bill that placed new restrictions on the voting process. The law requires voters to show government-issued identification at the polls, shortens early voting, ends same-day registration and "increases the number of poll observers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility," according to the LA Times.

Despite the blow to the Voting Rights Act, the NAACP and the civil rights organization Advancement Project are taking on the "voter suppression" using portions of the act that were left intact by the Supreme Court verdict. Jasmyn Richardson, a staff attorney with the Advancement Project, joined HuffPost Live on Monday to discuss the suit.



The North Carolina law targets many "things that a lot of young people, people of color and poor people were using to get people out to vote and to register to vote"and the Advancement Project is challenging it based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th amendments, Richardson explained to host Alyona Minkovski.

North Carolina Is The Latest Battleground In The Fight For Voting Rights

Voter Suppression 101: How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise Millions of Americans

To those who say requiring government-issued identification should not be a problem - what about all the other restrictions on the voting process? Such as: shortens early voting, ends same-day registration and increases the number of poll observers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility. How can anyone honestly deny that these restrictions are designed to restrict voting rights among certain groups of voters - primarily Democrat voters?

Yes a lot of work to do here in NC to put these neo confederate crackers down like the rabid vermin like they are are. In the end they will lose like their ancestors did in the civil war and in the civil rights movement 50 years ago, What we are seeing is the last gasp an last attempt of these "people" as they Know their time is up in America

 

[AmericanFirst]

If you can prove it only impacts dems you might have a point, if everyone is impacted equally there is nothing discriminatory about it. Same day registration has always been a bad idea, it's an open invitation for fraud.

Wrong.

It has a negative impact on voters who are currently eligible to vote but are prevented from doing so because they cannot acquire the ID necessary to vote through no fault of their own.

The state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote because it 'thinks' the voter 'might' commit 'fraud'; the burden of proof rests with the state to produce the evidence that a given voter is attempting to commit fraud, and absent that evidence the state cannot deny a citizen his right to vote.

What are the reasons they can't get voter ID, be specific.

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

You are thinking of dimwits, they are the ones who don't like a fair vote.

 

[FJO]

No one is restricting any legal citizen the right to vote. That is liberal spin. What some are, and all should be requiring, is proof you are who you say you are. No one is bitching about anyone asking for ID when you use a credit card, or showing proof of your age.
This is another one of those "stupid Americans" ploys to convince Americans that providing proof when voting is tantamount to denying you your right to vote.
The reason this regime wants you to attack this system is so all of the illegals that have no right to determine the outcome of our elections, can indeed determine the outcome of our elections.

Exactly!

What boggles a sober mind is that the leftist crybabies claim and take for granted that the voter id law would suppresses Democrat votes because people who are too dumb to get an ID to vote are all Democrats.

What boggles a sober mind even more is that the people who are so callously and insultingly taken for granted by the Democrats, still vote 90+% Democrat.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest voting rights violation in North Carolina is gerrymandering

 

[Seawytch]

The biggest voting rights violation in North Carolina is gerrymandering

That's a problem country wide...except in a few places where citizens do the redistricting. Of course, that could end with a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[FJO]

What are the reasons they can't get voter ID, be specific.

No papers, no money to get them, and no easy access to where they issue IDs.

If they have the money for cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV and liquor they can afford their needed paperwork. It's all about priorities.

So you believe, but the courts say different. Why are you so afraid to have a fair vote, is it because you won't win?

Seriously, you think allowing people who refuse to prove their eligibility to vote is fair, REALLY? LMAO

Voting is a right. Photo ID is just a good idea. Rights come before ideas.

Voting is a right of a CITIZEN. In order to vote you must prove that you are a CITIZEN.
Photo ID is a good idea, with which you can prove that you ARE a citizen and eligible to vote. If you were smart enough to get a voter ID card, you probably are smart enough not to vote Democrat.
There is your explanation for all bitching and complaining and whining from the Left.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest voting rights violation in North Carolina is gerrymandering

That's a problem country wide...except in a few places where citizens do the redistricting. Of course, that could end with a SCOTUS ruling.

Hope it does but doubt if the Supreme Court has the balls

Setting district lines should be taken away from the politicians

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol. Except.....voters aren't being suppressed. Poor little Tonto.