Obama Administration Will Challenge NC, TX and FL Voter Suppression Laws

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

has there been enough voter fraud to change the outcome of an election? Hell no Rightards,. You got more serious problems like convincing people to vote for Establishment Repubs given they like to nation-build by borrowing money and lots of it.

Voter ‘fraud’ is a myth contrived by the right; it’s a republican article of religious faith that they lose elections because of ‘fraud,’ when in fact there is no evidence of any ‘fraud,’ and republicans lose elections because a majority of voters reject their policies.

Obviously you don't have the slightest clue on this issue. How about you do us a favor and show me a case where voter ID has actually led to this apparent "voter suppression". I'll wait to see if one can, at all, be found.

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

State Democratic Chairwoman Yvette Lewis said an examination of voting records in Maryland and Florida showed that Rosen participated in the 2006 general election and the 2008 primaries in both states.

Maryland and Florida both held gubernatorial and congressional contests in 2006 and presidential primaries in 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination.

Asked by The Sun on Monday if she had voted in both states in the same elections, Rosen said she did not remember how she voted. Asked if she had voted twice in the 2008 presidential primaries, she declined to comment "due to possible litigation."

Wendy Rosen drops challenge to Andy Harris after allegations she voted in two states - Baltimore Sun

 

[birddog]

The libtards tend to squirm when they are forced to confront the Constitution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why is it the libs attack any effort to combat voter fraud?

Hmmmmmmm.............

 

[drivebymedia]

State officials have celebrated the (Supreme Court) ruling as lifting an obsolete relic of the civil rights era that unfairly treated their states differently than other parts of the country

Voting Laws: Eric Holder announces plans to challenge state voting laws.

It's obvious Florida, NC and Texas are once again using obsolete relics of the civil rights era to suppress minority voting rights.

The U.S. Government has lawyers and the money, while these sad redneck states are ready to go bankrupt paying lawyers to defend Unconstitutional laws.

 

[drivebymedia]

North Carolina’s Attack on Voting Rights


A new law rushed through by North Carolina Republicans contains a laundry list of measures brazenly designed to target Democratic voters. Jamelle Bouie on the bill so extreme Hillary Clinton is getting involved.


North Carolina?s Attack on Voting Rights - The Daily Beast

 

[thereisnospoon]

funny how rw'ers are more concerned about stopping people from voting rather than getting people to vote for their party. Maybe because they realize that there are few people left willing to buy what they're selling (AKA- welfare to the rich)

If there so few why would you not be in favor of making sure only eligible voters vote? Why the need to game the system with fake votes if you are in such a lead?

Interesting that the left is sooooo certain that more Democrats will get elected this time around and that Republicans in Congress don't stand a chance, that they are not even willing to guarantee it through any form voter integrity and increased electoral accuracy.

As far as this "voter suppression" in South Carolina, the state has elected a Republican governor by popular vote even before the voter ID law was talked about being implemented. What voter suppression? They don't even have a proven case, no incidence of voter ID ever causing voter suppression. They are crying wolf in hopes if they "formulate" an excuse and say it often enough ... someone will by into it without proof.

In NC, the lawsuits will fly. The NAACP, the ACLU and others have already announced they are developing legal strategies to stop the new law.
Will they prevail? Who knows. Save any type of temporary injunction or restraining order, the law goes into effect 1/1/2016.

 

[thereisnospoon]

has there been enough voter fraud to change the outcome of an election? Hell no Rightards,. You got more serious problems like convincing people to vote for Establishment Repubs given they like to nation-build by borrowing money and lots of it.

No rebuttal, I see.
Just a bunch of rhetoric trying to preserve the narrative.
The idea behind voter ID laws is to preserve the integrity of the vote.
To lock the proverbial barn door BEFORE the horse runs away....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama Regime is lawless and off the rails

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[drivebymedia]

If you don't think your side would lose even with voter ID laws in effect, then why resist it so much?

Because the voter suppression laws being pushed thru Republican State Legislatures are Unconstitutional.


Is why ....


And these dimwits are spending billions of tax payer money for lawyers - to have the Courts tell them as much

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you don't think your side would lose even with voter ID laws in effect, then why resist it so much?

Because the voter suppression laws being pushed thru Republican State Legislatures are Unconstitutional.


Is why ....


And these dimwits are spending billions of tax payer money for lawyers - to have the Courts tell them as much

On the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has ALREADY previously ruled regarding voter ID. The justices found no voter suppression in a state requesting a voter show a form of photo ID in order to vote. The very thought that Voter ID is somehow a form of voter suppression is unproven.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.


The lead opinion assumes petitioners' premise that the voter-identification law "may have imposed a special burden on" some voters, ... but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny.... That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality (as well as adherence to precedent), I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners' premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not "even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting." ... And the State's interests ... are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter."

- Justice Scalia

 

[kaz]

What does Republican efforts to suppress legal voters have to do with illegals voting? You're just trying to divert the topic. Why do you condone voter suppression?

Because the perception is that the votes which are suppressed are democratic votes.

Requiring ID does not suppress the vote. Hell you need ID for so many things claiming they can't get it is the BIG lie.

Liberals are perfectly aware of that. If the issue were really the tiny number of people who don't have ID and would vote, they would just get them to get a free ID, which is available in every State that requires and ID to vote.

The reason they resist ID is because they know that fraud is far higher then that. Getting everyone who can vote and ID would cost them the fraud votes, that is what they are protecting. They're fooling no one.

 

[kaz]

If you don't think your side would lose even with voter ID laws in effect, then why resist it so much?

Because the voter suppression laws being pushed thru Republican State Legislatures are Unconstitutional.


Is why ....


And these dimwits are spending billions of tax payer money for lawyers - to have the Courts tell them as much

Unconstitutional of course meaning, not liked by liberals. Because there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents States from requiring an ID. And don't go to poll tax. While it's a lame argument even if there were a fee, there isn't, sorry Charlie. Every State that requires an ID to vote provides a free ID.

 

[Defiant1]

State officials have celebrated the (Supreme Court) ruling as lifting an obsolete relic of the civil rights era that unfairly treated their states differently than other parts of the country

Voting Laws: Eric Holder announces plans to challenge state voting laws.

It's obvious Florida, NC and Texas are once again using obsolete relics of the civil rights era to suppress minority voting rights.

The U.S. Government has lawyers and the money, while these sad redneck states are ready to go bankrupt paying lawyers to defend Unconstitutional laws.

Please cite the Florida law that suppresses minority voting rights.

In the spirit of transparency I must disclose that I am a Certified Elections Official in the State of Florida.

 

[drivebymedia]

State officials have celebrated the (Supreme Court) ruling as lifting an obsolete relic of the civil rights era that unfairly treated their states differently than other parts of the country

Voting Laws: Eric Holder announces plans to challenge state voting laws.

It's obvious Florida, NC and Texas are once again using obsolete relics of the civil rights era to suppress minority voting rights.

The U.S. Government has lawyers and the money, while these sad redneck states are ready to go bankrupt paying lawyers to defend Unconstitutional laws.

Please cite the Florida law that suppresses minority voting rights.

In the spirit of transparency I must disclose that I am a Certified Elections Official in the State of Florida.

In the spirit of transparency, you are well qualified to cite the Florida law that suppresses minority voting rights, as well as the FL driver license renewal instructions.

But in the spirit of opaqueness, I will leave it to Eric Holder to cite specifically, those tenets of the Florida law that suppress minority voting rights.

 

[drivebymedia]

The justices found no voter suppression in a state requesting a voter show a form of photo ID in order to vote

Fortunately, the Constitution is not the simple one-page document tea baggers hope for!

The Courts will now rule on the Constitutionality of the obstructions to obtaining a voter ID that FL, TX and NC have made into law

 

[drivebymedia]

Will they prevail? Who knows

What is certain, is the tax payers in FL, TX and NC will be forced by their Republican State Legislatures to spend billions on hot shot lawyers - chasing phantom ideologies.

 

[Defiant1]

State officials have celebrated the (Supreme Court) ruling as lifting an obsolete relic of the civil rights era that unfairly treated their states differently than other parts of the country

Voting Laws: Eric Holder announces plans to challenge state voting laws.

It's obvious Florida, NC and Texas are once again using obsolete relics of the civil rights era to suppress minority voting rights.

The U.S. Government has lawyers and the money, while these sad redneck states are ready to go bankrupt paying lawyers to defend Unconstitutional laws.

Please cite the Florida law that suppresses minority voting rights.

In the spirit of transparency I must disclose that I am a Certified Elections Official in the State of Florida.

In the spirit of transparency, you are well qualified to cite the Florida law that suppresses minority voting rights, as well as the FL driver license renewal instructions.

But in the spirit of opaqueness, I will leave it to Eric Holder to cite specifically, those tenets of the Florida law that suppress minority voting rights.

The Florida Voter ID law was passed in 2003. Pre-clearance was in effect at that time. It was approved by the DOJ for Florida pre-clearance counties. I doubt Holder is going to attempt to overturn long existing law.

He is challenging laws since pre-clearance has been struck down. There are no Florida laws that suppress minority voting.

The ability for Early Voting hours, days, and sites to be expanded was passed this session. Does that suppress minorities?

 

[drivebymedia]

The Florida Voter ID law was passed in 2003.

You have not pointed out those laws recently passed in Florida that suppress minority voting.

But I really want you to post Instructions for renewal of the Florida Drivers License - which as you know, may or may not be used as voter ID in Florida.

The people at the tax collector's office could not explain many of the requirements of the notice.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

the "Right" to cast illegal ballots is what she is wanting to keep.

I think you should have to have 4 forms of photo ID in addition to a U.S. passport, an affadavit signed by a notary and witnessed by 3 people, and a blood test to confirm your sobriety before you are allowed to vote - and if you disagree with me that means you want people to cast illegal votes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you don't think your side would lose even with voter ID laws in effect, then why resist it so much?

Because the voter suppression laws being pushed thru Republican State Legislatures are Unconstitutional.


Is why ....


And these dimwits are spending billions of tax payer money for lawyers - to have the Courts tell them as much

On the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has ALREADY previously ruled regarding voter ID. The justices found no voter suppression in a state requesting a voter show a form of photo ID in order to vote. The very thought that Voter ID is somehow a form of voter suppression is unproven.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.


The lead opinion assumes petitioners' premise that the voter-identification law "may have imposed a special burden on" some voters, ... but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny.... That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality (as well as adherence to precedent), I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners' premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not "even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting." ... And the State's interests ... are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter."

- Justice Scalia

And that should end this thread...