America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by dstieger. 23 replies replies.
North Carolina governor signs extensive Voter ID law
Abrignac Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,329
North Carolina governor signs extensive Voter ID law

By Aaron Blake, Published: August 12 at 2:35 pmE-mail the writer

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) on Monday signed into law one of the nation’s most wide-ranging Voter ID laws.

The move is likely to touch off a major court battle over voting rights, and the Justice Department is weighing a challenge to the new law, which is the first to pass since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.

The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration.

Democrats and minority groups have been fighting against the changes, arguing that they represent an effort to suppress the minority vote and the youth vote, along with reducing Democrats’ advantage in early voting. They point out that there is little documented evidence of voter fraud.

Republicans say that the efforts are necessary to combat such fraud and that shortening the window for early voting will save the state money. They also note that, while the North Carolina law makes many changes to how the state conducts its elections, most of its major proposals — specifically, Voter ID and ending same-day registration — bring it in line with many other states. More than three-fifths of states currently have some kind of Voter ID law, and even more have no same-day registration. Not all states allow in-person early voting.

“While some will try to make this seem to be controversial, the simple reality is that requiring voters to provide a photo ID when they vote is a common-sense idea,” McCrory said in a statement. “This new law brings our state in line with a healthy majority of other states throughout the country. This common-sense safeguard is commonplace.”

A spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association said McCrory’s “cynical” move will come back to haunt him.

“When he ran for governor, Pat McCrory pretended to be a moderate pragmatist,” the spokesman, Danny Kanner, said. “Today, he proved that he’s just another cynical, ultra-conservative ideologue intent on disenfranchising voters who might not be inclined to vote Republican.”

While there is significant resistance to Voter ID laws on the left, polls generally show the American people support them by large margins. Recent North Carolina polls and a Washington Post poll last year showed nearly three-quarters support requiring voters to show photo ID.

The Post poll also showed, though, that Americans are split when it comes to whether it’s more important to fight voter suppression or to combat voter fraud. And while Voter ID polls popularly, the bill covers much more than that.

Several similar efforts have passed in recent years in other states with Republican-controlled state legislatures and GOP governors, but North Carolina’s has drawn a particularly high degree of backlash from the left, given how far-reaching and all-inclusive the new law is.

The Justice Department has suggested it will fight the new law, which comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. States like North Carolina are no longer required to obtain preclearance from the Justice Department for such changes after the Court struck down the formula used for determining which states and jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression require preclearance.

The Justice Department is also looking to challenge a new Voter ID law in Texas and has also fought against a new Voter ID law in Florida.

The other big change in the law — a reduction in the number of early-voting days — could diminish Democrats’ historical advantage in early voting, which accounted for more than half of ballots cast in North Carolina last year.

But Republicans note that the law still requires the same number of hours of early voting — just over a smaller period of time. County election officials can either extend hours on a given day or provide more early voting locations.

Other provisions in the new North Carolina law would prohibit paid voter registration drives, end straight-ticket voting (in which a voter can vote for all candidates of one party by voting just once — another area in which Democrats benefit) and loosening restrictions on poll watchers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility.

The state legislature gave the law final approval in late July.

The changes come as the state has fallen under Republican control for the first time in more than a century. North Carolina’s state legislature went Republican for the first time since Reconstruction after the 2010 election. McCrory then won in 2012, becoming the state’s first Republican governor since the early 1990s.

McCrory also recently signed an extensive new abortion restrictions law – another move that has earned him significant opposition from the political left.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/12/north-carolina-governor-signs-extensive-voter-id-law/



The first comment after the article:
gwiiiwrote:
3:06 AM CDT
If you are too stupid to get a photo ID, you are too stupid to vote.
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
They don't want to have to document fake votes.
DadZilla3 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Abrignac wrote:
Democrats and minority groups have been fighting against the changes, arguing that they represent an effort to suppress the minority vote and the youth vote, along with reducing Democrats’ advantage in early voting. They point out that there is little documented evidence of voter fraud.

Democrats pointing out that there is little evidence of voter fraud is like foxes pointing out that there is little evidence of chicken thievery.
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,564
Abrignac wrote:


The first comment after the article:
gwiiiwrote:
3:06 AM CDT
If you are too stupid to get a photo ID, you are too stupid to vote.



Laugh
Calipso Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 03-26-2009
Posts: 187
The governor is doing a good job. Along with signing NC House Bill 937, this bill is just as important.

Why can't people who vote show id's? Voting is supposed to be taken seriously. Democrats hate it because "undocumented democrats" (IE: illegals) can't vote without an ID.
SMIB Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-02-2013
Posts: 66
Racist cracker.......
dubleuhb Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Thats cracka round here.
Calipso Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 03-26-2009
Posts: 187
SMIB wrote:
Racist cracker.......


My ass.

Eat it.
cacman Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Abrignac wrote:
If you are too stupid to get a photo ID, you are too stupid to vote.

But they have no problem getting an ID so they can purchase alcohol.
TMCTLT Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
I LIKE this guy ALOT.....to MR. McCrory Beer
dpnewell Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Here's what's going to happen. States that past these laws, are going to have far fewer Democrat votes. Not because the poor will be disenfranchised, as we've been told by the propagandists, but because Dems won't be able to vote half a dozen times. Also because illegals, criminals and the dead will no longer be able to vote Democrat.

Of course the Dems and the media will point to the lower Dem vote as proof that these laws are racist, and keep the poor from voting. After the propaganda is repeated ad nauseam, these laws will be overturned, and the Dem's base will go back to their illegal voting.
Brewha Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Perhaps we should all just rely on Rush to tell us what is racist . . . .
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
I love Geddy Lee......
dpnewell Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Perhaps we should all just rely on Rush to tell us what is racist . . . .


Contrary to your prejudices of me, I do not watch Fox, nor do I listen to talk radio. I personally think that Limbaugh is a overpaid blowhard, with an ego to match, and his babblings are not worth a second of my time . The fact is, I get most of my news from the Alphabet Networks. The difference being, unlike the majority of those who blindly obey and vote "D", I have the cognizant ability to discern propaganda and bullchit when I hear it.
DadZilla3 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Brewha wrote:
Perhaps we should all just rely on Rush to tell us what is racist . . . .

No way. Far better if we should all just rely on Al, Jesse, and Barak to tell us what is racist.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dpnewell wrote:
Here's what's going to happen. States that past these laws, are going to have far fewer Democrat votes. Not because the poor will be disenfranchised, as we've been told by the propagandists, but because Dems won't be able to vote half a dozen times. Also because illegals, criminals and the dead will no longer be able to vote Democrat.

Of course the Dems and the media will point to the lower Dem vote as proof that these laws are racist, and keep the poor from voting. After the propaganda is repeated ad nauseam, these laws will be overturned, and the Dem's base will go back to their illegal voting.


Has this happened yet?

I'm actually interested if any states had voter id laws in effect last major election, and what the actual numbers showed. Both sides accuse the other of cheating wildly, but these are always baseless accusations. No one has evidence of the dead voting, or of people voting multiple times, showing any significant numbers.

Of course, a decrease in dem votes would cause the dems to scream that it's because of voter id laws keeping people away, and reps will scream that it's because it's stopping voter fraud... etc etc etc. But what if there is simply a decrease in turnout overall, rep and dem? Wouldn't that support the dem claim that it is disenfranchising voters?
dstieger Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this one. The GOP, who generally claims to want LESS government interference in our lives, wants to solve a problem that nobody has proven exists with more laws and greater government intrusion. Sounds more like a party that's lost its way as much as anything.
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Does anyone know somebody that doesn't have an ID?

Here in Massachusetts, a conservative vote is virtually equivalent to a no-vote. Yet I vote. Because it's the right thing to do, and because we are told that EVERY vote counts.
And if that's true, then we should take this very simple measure to prevent even ONE case of fraud that would in essence cancel out a legitimate vote.



Calipso Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 03-26-2009
Posts: 187
tailgater wrote:
Does anyone know somebody that doesn't have an ID?

Here in Massachusetts, a conservative vote is virtually equivalent to a no-vote. Yet I vote. Because it's the right thing to do, and because we are told that EVERY vote counts.
And if that's true, then we should take this very simple measure to prevent even ONE case of fraud that would in essence cancel out a legitimate vote.





One of the many reasons I'm leaving Massachusetts for a second time to NC.
dpnewell Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
victor809 wrote:
Has this happened yet?

I'm actually interested if any states had voter id laws in effect last major election, and what the actual numbers showed. Both sides accuse the other of cheating wildly, but these are always baseless accusations. No one has evidence of the dead voting, or of people voting multiple times, showing any significant numbers.

Of course, a decrease in dem votes would cause the dems to scream that it's because of voter id laws keeping people away, and reps will scream that it's because it's stopping voter fraud... etc etc etc. But what if there is simply a decrease in turnout overall, rep and dem? Wouldn't that support the dem claim that it is disenfranchising voters?


The only Voter ID law that I currently know of is PA. The courts have put the law in limbo for the past 2 elections, so no one knows what effect it would have. Once again, the courts have put it "on hold" for the upcoming fall elections.

BTW, you do realize that my post was just an assumption, right? From what I see, a probable scenario, but I'm not claiming it to be fact.
dpnewell Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Calipso wrote:
One of the many reasons I'm leaving Massachusetts for a second time to NC.


Cool, dude. We recently purchased a home near Mt. Airy, NC. I hope to leave Jersey for good by next spring. We've been spending 3 - 4 months a year in NC for the past 5 years. That State, and the folks who live there, is a breath of fresh air, compared to the over regulated, over taxed, hell hole we're leaving.
SMIB Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-02-2013
Posts: 66
Calipso wrote:
My ass.

Eat it.


No, Capt. Nemrod.....I was being facetious..........

Afterall, that's how the Liberal Pukes would respond to mandatory ID's.
dstieger Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/16/212664895/in-rural-n-c-new-voter-id-law-awakens-some-old-fears

Interesting piece on NPR the other day. Not a world that I'm very familiar with - Found the stories rather fascinating.
Users browsing this topic
Guest