• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court strikes down North Carolina’s voter-ID law

JasperL said:
The issue just is NOT whether or not people must be allowed to vote without any identification at all.

If you don't know that, you've read really nothing at all about the issue and why the new laws are controversial or why courts are striking some of them down and forcing changes to others.
Click to expand...

The question is with which identification. The article did not say and nobody has answered the question here. So, which types of ID are being used by Blacks that are robust and were to be forbidden? I am really curios.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, it's pretty much close enough to Jim Crow to qualify and there's evidence to prove that. I'd strongly suggest you know what you're talking about before actually talking.

North Carolina's Deliberate Disenfranchisement of Black Voters - The Atlantic

"“Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans,” Motz wrote. “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”"
Click to expand...

The soft bigotry of low expectation ins your post is sickening.
 
OK.....so I just read through the North Carolina S.L. 2013-381 & S.L. 2015-103

I definitely agree with the appeals court decision, but only because it being so close to the election.

The NC Public Assistance card does not have a photo, and that seems to be the main crux?
 
JasperL said:
Again, you should educate yourself on the issue before making ludicrous statements that no one is claiming.

First of all, blacks HAVE "proper ID" as it was defined for the previous few decades. They have the ID required to live their lives, get medical care, benefits when available, rent an apartment, etc. The legislature in NC asked for data on what ID they ALREADY HAVE, figured out which ones are disproportionately used by blacks, and struck those IDs from the list.

It's sort of a big deal that the legislature first asked, "Which IDs are mostly used by blacks", got the answer, then struck those forms of ID off the list. And it probably won't surprise you (well, who knows) that the data on who doesn't have photo ID showed that registered dems without newly approved forms of ID were roughly 176,000 and registered republicans totaled about 67,000. Gosh, shocker! The GOP legislature put in place new rules that disproportionately burdened registered democrats!! I'm sure that was a complete accident and not a carefully designed feature of the new rules! :roll:
Click to expand...

1) What is ludicrous about it? If one says that the new law is discriminatory, then it implies that Blacks cannot handle it as well as Whites. I find that rather a nasty thing to insinuate.
2) I was only inquired which IDs were to be disallowed and which allowed. But nobody actually answered with anything but links to hugely long texts. That is quite offensive, as it is a well known defense used by people that have no answer but want to cause a lot of work. So I read 30 pages of the court ruling that I think was posted by skyfox and unless I missed something later on in the text, the IDs are not listed. This is important though and it is quite inconsequential that IDs are adequate for other purpose or used to be for this one. We all know that the electoral process in the US is less good than it should be and needs change. To agru that change is not good, because it was done the other way for decades past, is disingenuous in this context.
3) Now that might be and the court ruling places this in the forefront of the decision be a valid point. You see, reading the ruling it seemed to me, that it had very little to do with the specifics of the new law, but was justifying striking it down only because the intent seemed to be racially suspect. That is a quite different subject than most of the discussion here it treating.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So, a practice which tends to drive black American voting has been deliberately cut, after research showing it boost black turnout.

That's what.

...I mean, this is a joke right?

A single day of voting is asinine and disproportionately affects, in a negative fashion, those who are poor. We could quibble over how many days voting should be, but a single day is unfair and biased, regardless of which party it affects more.

Ignore for a moment the political side. Do you think it's okay for a legislature to conduct racial research and then alter existing legislation based on this research, all against one side of the research?

Do you think that's okay?
That's not what the court said. I've provided what the court said. Please read it.
Ahh, that's cute.

They aren't even bothering to acknowledge what happened. That's why I can't help but think race is an issue here.
Says the person who won't read or address what actually happened, just so they can post boilerplate arguments.
Read what I posted earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

Says the person that posts a link to a court ruling of 83 pages as an answer to a specific question without giving the answer or even saying which page might be of relevance. THAT is cute.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So you read it and still don't understand the court struck it down because it deliberately targeted the methods used by black people to vote?
Click to expand...

Oh, that the court struck down the law almost only for intent and not for the content is relatively clear on reading the ruling. That is not, however, what the discussion here has mainly focused on.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I think it's cute you would use an argument I'd expect from a fifth grader. "Yes, the stall door was fine when I went in the bathroom alone and yes, it was broken when I left, but you cannot say I actually broke the door".

But, sure...technically your red herring is correct, even if it has no real life validity. If only there was a way I could establish intent...


Oh, wait:


But I'm sure, much like the fifth grader, none of these could possibly suggest intent. After all, like the fifth grader, no one has come outright and said it, correct?
No, I see exactly what's happening. You don't want to care about facts, just engage in useless bickering.

You asked him how, in a thread where the court struck down the voting law, how "the right" was trying to restrict voting rights. I had already answered that question, which is why I told you to read my post earlier in the thread.

You act like it's some great mystery as to how someone would think "the right" would be trying to restrict voting rights...in a thread in which a court struck down a law which restricted voting rights, a law which is passed primarily by the party who considers themselves "the right".

Again, I AM really good at this. Perhaps you ought to spend more time reading what I've posted and less time being snarky or engaging in partisan bickering.
Click to expand...

I think it's "cute" that you reduce my correct statement that those two pieces of information do not establish racist intent without more to an absurd argument I did not make, you quote where I actually said they may have acted with racist intent yet proceed as though I had definitely argued that they did not do so, and then you "refute" this strawman you attribute to me by doing what I said in the first place, by providing more.

So, you pretty much say I'm wrong and confirm what I said.

Nice work, champ.
 
eohrnberger said:
Fine.

I'm reacting to the BS reasons for constantly killing voter ID laws in general. I don't know the North Carolina law in any specifics.
Click to expand...

Then why the hell are you opening your mouth in a thread about the specifics of the North Carolina law?
 
joG said:
1) What is ludicrous about it? If one says that the new law is discriminatory, then it implies that Blacks cannot handle it as well as Whites. I find that rather a nasty thing to insinuate.
Click to expand...

Make 300,000 poor whites get new ID and some share of them won't. Has nothing to do with "cannot handle it as well" but "this group that we targeted has to jump through new hoops and we know some WILL DEFINITELY FAIL."

2) I was only inquired which IDs were to be disallowed and which allowed. But nobody actually answered with anything but links to hugely long texts. That is quite offensive, as it is a well known defense used by people that have no answer but want to cause a lot of work. So I read 30 pages of the court ruling that I think was posted by skyfox and unless I missed something later on in the text, the IDs are not listed. This is important though and it is quite inconsequential that IDs are adequate for other purpose or used to be for this one. We all know that the electoral process in the US is less good than it should be and needs change. To agru that change is not good, because it was done the other way for decades past, is disingenuous in this context.
Click to expand...

You didn't pose that question in the post I responded to. And it's not "inconsequential" that IDs are acceptable for many purposes and used to be accepted for voting but are not now. Or if you think it's critical that only the right forms of ID are accepted, then please, present the data on the fraud rate of people allowed to use their college photo ID issued by a state college, their work ID with photo, their SS card, a W-2 form, an electric bill? If those shouldn't be allowed because they facilitate impersonation fraud at the polls, then show us the data on the rate of impersonation fraud at the polls that will be prevented by the new rules? Of course NC couldn't identify even ONE case of impersonation fraud in the past decade, so it's unclear how to improve the fraud rate from 0.0, but I'd accept data from any state.

And we don't "all know" that the electoral process is less good than it should be. If we know it it can be demonstrated with evidence. What is your evidence to back up this claim?

Finally, no one much less the appeals court is arguing that the change "is not good" because it was done this way in the past. The changes NC made are not good because the legislature deliberately targeted black voters.

3) Now that might be and the court ruling places this in the forefront of the decision be a valid point. You see, reading the ruling it seemed to me, that it had very little to do with the specifics of the new law, but was justifying striking it down only because the intent seemed to be racially suspect. That is a quite different subject than most of the discussion here it treating.
Click to expand...

Don't know what to say - that the legislature deliberately targeted blacks has been pretty much THE point through the entire thread.

But, yes, the rules as changed (except for perhaps the list of acceptable IDs which is very short compared to the rest of the country) are in place elsewhere with no issues. The problem is NC legislators are pretty hilariously stupid and requested voting data by RACE, then used that data to make changes in which every change negatively affected blacks, and they ignored the one change recommended by the NC election people, to address absentee voting, which would negatively affect whites but is where ALL the actual known voter fraud has taken place. So you really can't get any more dumb and transparent than that.
 
joG said:
Sadly, that is exactly the impression I am getting.
Click to expand...

OK, if that's your impression, how about some data. We are discussing NC voting in this thread, so please show me ANY data that indicates NC had a problem with non-citizens voting, impersonation fraud, that these new rules will fix.

This will be a long wait because you have none, so on what objective facts are you basing your impression?
 
Renae said:
The soft bigotry of low expectation ins your post is sickening.
Click to expand...

LOL, so the white legislature requesting data by race, then tailoring the new changes to disproportionately affect blacks is FINE! Pointing that out is 'soft bigotry' and sickening. Got it..... wait, WTF??
 
Mr Person said:
I'm starting to notice a pattern here: every single post that ridicules the ruling was clearly typed up in complete ignorance of what portions of the law the court actually struck down.
Click to expand...

Are voters going to have to show ID to vote in the 2016 North Carolina Presidential election?
 
joG said:
It did not look as though it answered the question, really.
Click to expand...
It is an accurate response to your post, within the frame of the thread. You obviously didn't bother to read what the court said, instead just trotted out rhetoric.
joG said:
Says the person that posts a link to a court ruling of 83 pages as an answer to a specific question without giving the answer or even saying which page might be of relevance. THAT is cute.
Click to expand...
I literally quoted the parts of the document which were relevant. Your post here reeks of dishonesty, most likely because your original question was asked absent any knowledge of the actual court decision and, rather than educating yourself, you chose to simply regurgitate talking points unrelated to the specific case, even though you quoted the OP who was clearly discussing the specific case.

You trying to deflect from the fact you didn't know what you were talking about by trying to misrepresent the post I made and the context in which I made is cute. Actually, no, it reeks of dishonesty, as I said.
joG said:
Oh, that the court struck down the law almost only for intent and not for the content is relatively clear on reading the ruling. That is not, however, what the discussion here has mainly focused on.
Click to expand...
That is most definitely what this discussion here is about. Just because some people are trying to engage in red herrings by rehashing an argument using mindless rhetoric doesn't change the fact the discussion in this thread is most definitely about why this law was thrown out.
Harshaw said:
I think it's "cute" that you reduce my correct statement that those two pieces of information do not establish racist intent
Click to expand...
As I said, it's an argument I'd expect of a fifth grader. In reality, any reasonable person interested in honest discourse would not see the connection, as well as the various other connections mentioned in the ruling (such as the timing of the changes coming after the Supreme Court case), as anything other than a slam dunk example of clear intent to discriminate.

you quote where I actually said they may have acted with racist intent yet proceed as though I had definitely argued that they did not do so
Click to expand...
I never once claimed you had a position on the merits of the case. No, I showed you evidence of racist intent, which you erroneously claimed was not presented by the court. I even said "technically" you are correct, much as a fifth grader is correct that I couldn't prove he broke the stall door. Then, in mocking your position, I said, "If only there was a way I could establish intent..." and then proceeded to do just that.

and then you "refute" this strawman you attribute to me by doing what I said in the first place, by providing more.
Click to expand...
I didn't attribute anything to you, only knocked down your fifth grade like argument that the court didn't show intent by providing you (even more) evidence of intent.

So, you pretty much say I'm wrong
Click to expand...
You are wrong. You also resorted to an elementary school caliber of technicality in response to my initial post which showed why the court struck down the law.

Nice work, champ.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm always available to point out the errors and absurdities in other people's posts, as I've done here for you.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It is an accurate response to your post, within the frame of the thread. You obviously didn't bother to read what the court said, instead just trotted out rhetoric.
I literally quoted the parts of the document which were relevant. Your post here reeks of dishonesty, most likely because your original question was asked absent any knowledge of the actual court decision and, rather than educating yourself, you chose to simply regurgitate talking points unrelated to the specific case, even though you quoted the OP who was clearly discussing the specific case.

You trying to deflect from the fact you didn't know what you were talking about by trying to misrepresent the post I made and the context in which I made is cute. Actually, no, it reeks of dishonesty, as I said.
That is most definitely what this discussion here is about. Just because some people are trying to engage in red herrings by rehashing an argument using mindless rhetoric doesn't change the fact the discussion in this thread is most definitely about why this law was thrown out.
As I said, it's an argument I'd expect of a fifth grader. In reality, any reasonable person interested in honest discourse would not see the connection, as well as the various other connections mentioned in the ruling (such as the timing of the changes coming after the Supreme Court case), as anything other than a slam dunk example of clear intent to discriminate.

I never once claimed you had a position on the merits of the case. No, I showed you evidence of racist intent, which you erroneously claimed was not presented by the court. I even said "technically" you are correct, much as a fifth grader is correct that I couldn't prove he broke the stall door. Then, in mocking your position, I said, "If only there was a way I could establish intent..." and then proceeded to do just that.

I didn't attribute anything to you, only knocked down your fifth grade like argument that the court didn't show intent by providing you (even more) evidence of intent.

You are wrong. You also resorted to an elementary school caliber of technicality in response to my initial post which showed why the court struck down the law.

Thanks. I'm always available to point out the errors and absurdities in other people's posts, as I've done here for you.
Click to expand...

Dude. I said they MAY have acted with racist intent, but to establish that they did, there needed to be more than what had been presented in the thread so far. You call that a "fifth-grade argument," and then proceeded to say "YOU'RE WRONG! HERE'S MORE!!!!!"

That's what happened. Why you can't, or refuse to, see this is really not my problem.
 
Slyfox696 said:
What is it with you people and red herrings? No, the point here is that the early voting period was being used strongly by black people to go to the polls. You asked how a reduction of seven days can hurt black people voting, and I showed you how. And when we have evidence the legislature deliberately targeted methods used by black people to vote, that's why it was struck down.

This isn't hard. Quit trying to distract from the fact this law was racist in nature.

No, your attempt to defend a law created with racial discrimination by picking at one subsection of the ruling, and ignoring the validity of the subsection, as its intent is what is asinine.

No, I was mocking you for your apparent suggestion that churches haven't been involved in politics previously.

No, it's not. It's 100% true.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Your entire argument against extended voting periods is "so what if it burdens the poor people and makes it harder for them to have a vote, it's the way we've always done things".

Seriously, that argument is utter ridiculousness.

Of course it is. People have jobs. People have children. Some precincts require standing in line for hours to vote because of the number of people trying to vote. Taking off a day of work is a much greater burden on poor people than middle class or upper class citizens.

You could not be more wrong on this. And, quite frankly, you haven't presented a single valid argument against it, except "but, but...we've always made it harder for poor people to vote! Why change now?"

That is exactly what happened. I've already provided the text which shows that.

I'm pretty certain it wasn't liberals who requested racial voting habits and passed legislation which changed voting and registration in five different ways, all to the negative of black people. I'm pretty certain it wasn't liberals who claimed it was to combat voter fraud, while being unable to prove a single case of fraud the legislation would actually address and deliberately leaving intact rules which HAVE shown evidence of fraud, a method of voting which just so happens to be used more by white people than black.

No, race is an issue here and it's not because of anything done by liberals. The issue here is the North Carolina legislature specifically requested data which showed methods of registration and voting used disproportionately by black citizens and then legislated against them. And anyone who supports the legislation, despite the obvious intent of it, is every bit as despicable as those who passed it.

So, tell me...you claim you would not approve if race was a factor here. The court opinion showed clear evidence that it was. So do you agree then this legislation deserved to be thrown out?

I already have. It was in my first post of this thread, which quoted the court on how the legislature deliberately attacked the multiple ways black people register and vote. It has to do with how they first gathered racial voting habits and then legislated against them. It talked about how the legislation was altered after the Supreme Court case to become even more draconian in its efforts to restrict the voting of black people.

It's in the court opinion. I posted a link to it in my first post, which was in the first five of the thread, I believe.
No, that's not what I or the court said. Would I be asking too much if I asked you to actually read what you respond to or should I just accept you have no interest in honest discussion? I mean, I directly quoted and responded to you explaining what the court said, but you ignored it (like I said you would), just like you ignored my question about aid to Israel.

So, is it too much to ask you to respond honestly or not?
Click to expand...

Disagreement with a judge's opinion does not equal dishonesty. I say again, what they are really saying, what you agree to, is that blacks are too stupid to adjust to the changes.
 
joG said:
It did not look as though it answered the question, really.

And yes, I think increasingly that this is an ideological decision that whips up support for liberals by stoking the hate among the Blacks. And I think that it is being overprotective to the póint of insult to imply that Blacks cannot manage the process. It is quite typical of the civil rights movement having run its course and where it is now overshooting and thrashing about to save itself. It is part of the problem that is holding the African American population back.
Click to expand...

Right, and requesting voting patterns by race and then clearly targeting blacks in an effort to depress their voting participation isn't "stoking the hate" at all. It's just fine and dandy!

Sheesh, it's amazing you can't hear how silly your argument really is.
 
LowDown said:
Disagreement with a judge's opinion does not equal dishonesty. I say again, what they are really saying, what you agree to, is that blacks are too stupid to adjust to the changes.
Click to expand...

It's interesting you're not making any effort at all to address the actual ruling and why they ruled as they did, which is that the legislature got data on race, then targeted black voting patterns. That would take some effort to address because it's not defensible. What's easy is ignoring the actual issue at hand, and instead attacking a straw man, like the bolded.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude. I said they MAY have acted with racist intent, but to establish that they did, there needed to be more than what had been presented in the thread so far.
Click to expand...
That is NOT what you said. Here's what you actually said:
Harshaw said:
They MAY have done it with racist intent. But the information which the court cites does not establish that they did.
Click to expand...

Why would you not tell the truth about your own words, when I can so easily go back and repost them? And yes, the difference between what the court said and what was said in the thread is incredibly important in this discussion and how I've replied to you.

You call that a "fifth-grade argument,"
Click to expand...
No, what I call a fifth grade argument is you claiming that specifically requesting data by race and then legislating against a particular race (especially after the Supreme Court decision) isn't evidence of a racist intent. Ignoring for a moment you likely meant to use the word "proof" rather than "evidence" (which is how I took it, as it is EASILY evidence), the only way you cannot realistically say it is evidence/proof of racist intent is to, as I said earlier, suggest "meh, it must have just been a coincidence".

and then proceeded to say "YOU'RE WRONG! HERE'S MORE!!!!!"
Click to expand...
You were wrong because the court most certainly did provide plenty of evidence of intent. Just because you were ignorant to the information doesn't make you any less wrong. :shrug:
LowDown said:
Disagreement with a judge's opinion does not equal dishonesty. I say again, what they are really saying, what you agree to, is that blacks are too stupid to adjust to the changes.
Click to expand...
No, but blatantly misrepresenting what the judges or I have said, so you can repeat a fairly racist claim, is most certainly dishonest.

The judges never said black people are too stupid to adjust to changes. The judges said the legislature deliberately and specifically legislated against black people to make it harder for them to vote.

The dishonest part is when you continue to ignore that in order to make a racist claim that black people are stupid.
 
Kobie said:
It's like you're TRYING to be as dishonest as possible.

POOR people have more limited access to ID than NOT POOR people. Minorities are DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR.
Click to expand...

So, it isn't just black folks, yes?
 
apdst said:
So, it isn't just black folks, yes?
Click to expand...
In this case, it was though. They found numerous methods black people disproportionately use to vote and then restricted them, even while not a method which has shown evidence of voter fraud, but a method which is predominately used by white people.
 
Slyfox696 said:
That is NOT what you said. Here's what you actually said:


Why would you not tell the truth about your own words, when I can so easily go back and repost them? And yes, the difference between what the court said and what was said in the thread is incredibly important in this discussion and how I've replied to you.

No, what I call a fifth grade argument is you claiming that specifically requesting data by race and then legislating against a particular race (especially after the Supreme Court decision) isn't evidence of a racist intent. Ignoring for a moment you likely meant to use the word "proof" rather than "evidence" (which is how I took it, as it is EASILY evidence), the only way you cannot realistically say it is evidence/proof of racist intent is to, as I said earlier, suggest "meh, it must have just been a coincidence".

You were wrong because the court most certainly did provide plenty of evidence of intent. Just because you were ignorant to the information doesn't make you any less wrong. :shrug:
No, but blatantly misrepresenting what the judges or I have said, so you can repeat a fairly racist claim, is most certainly dishonest.

The judges never said black people are too stupid to adjust to changes. The judges said the legislature deliberately and specifically legislated against black people to make it harder for them to vote.

The dishonest part is when you continue to ignore that in order to make a racist claim that black people are stupid.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you continue to insist that a judge's opinion is established fact. It's not. They are saying that changes were made in the voting laws and that their expectation of blacks is that blacks are not able to adjust to those changes. That is the whole basis for concluding that the law is discriminatory. Ipso facto, they are saying that blacks are too stupid, lazy, or whatever, to adjust to those changes.

I'm sorry, but there's just no getting away from that aspect of the decision.
 
JasperL said:
OK, if that's your impression, how about some data. We are discussing NC voting in this thread, so please show me ANY data that indicates NC had a problem with non-citizens voting, impersonation fraud, that these new rules will fix.

This will be a long wait because you have none, so on what objective facts are you basing your impression?
Click to expand...

How would you know if people not eligible to vote are voting?
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, but you continue to insist that a judge's opinion is established fact.
Click to expand...
No, what IS fact is that the legislature requested voting data by race and then passed legislation which only restricted methods of voting/registration used predominately by black people. THAT is a fact.

They are saying that changes were made in the voting laws and that their expectation of blacks is that blacks are not able to adjust to those changes.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what they said. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true.

That is the whole basis for concluding that the law is discriminatory.
Click to expand...
No, their basis for concluding it is discriminatory is that it only targeted methods used predominately by black people, after conducting research into racial voting habits.

Why do you continue to post things which are provably false?

I'm sorry, but there's just no getting away from that aspect of the decision.
Click to expand...
Only if one is a liar. Only a liar could posit that the judges claimed black people are stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom