North Carolina VoterID law found to be discriminatory, overturned

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

note:I spoke with a mod prior to posting this to get an OK since it's pretty hot on the heels of a warning to drop a subject in a different thread. I was advised this thread was permissible

U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law
July 29, 20162:04 PM ET
CAMILA DOMONOSKE

A federal appeals court has overturned North Carolina's sweeping voter ID law, ruling that the law was passed with "discriminatory intent" and was designed to impose barriers to block African-Americans from voting.

The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The state is "almost certain" to appeal to the full court or to the U.S. Supreme Court, NPR's Pam Fessler reports.

The law has been controversial ever since it was enacted in 2013 — "right after the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that might have prevented the law from taking effect," as Pam has reported.

"The U.S. Justice Department, the state NAACP and other advocacy groups have been fighting the changes ever since," Pam says. "They say the law discriminates against minorities and is unconstitutional. Among other things, it requires voters to show a photo ID, unless they swear they faced a 'reasonable impediment' trying to get one."

But it did more than just require photo IDs. Michael Tomsic of member station WFAE explained last summer that the law rolled back a series of changes that advocates say expanded African-American voter participation:

"For decades in the state, black voter turnout lagged far behind white turnout. Then, in 2000, state lawmakers opened up an early voting period. In 2005, they said voters could cast ballots outside their assigned precinct. And in 2007, they enabled same-day registration.

"After those changes, attorney Allison Riggs says, black voter registration and turnout surged.

" 'They had their intended effect of evening the playing field in the state, and the Legislature yanked that away,' she says."

The 2013 law cuts early voting by a week, requires voters to vote in their assigned precinct and stops voters from registering and voting on the same day.

This April, a federal judge ruled that the law served a "legitimate state interest" and concluded there was not sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent.

That judge's opinion was hefty — 485 pages, packed with factual findings.

The 4th Circuit wasn't impressed.

"We appreciate and commend the [lower] court on its thoroughness," the panel wrote, but "the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees."

The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" — then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

The appeals court suggested that the motivation was fundamentally political — a Republican legislature attempting to secure its power by blocking votes from a population likely to vote for Democrats.

"Our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group," the ruling reads. It adds:

"But the totality of the circumstances — North Carolina's history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature's knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so — cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used [the 2013 law] to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination."
As Tomsic wrote last year, what ultimately happens with this case might have implications for voting rights across the country.

Earlier this summer, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a voter ID law in Texas had a discriminatory effect — although the judges did not rule on the question of discriminatory intent, returning the case to a lower court for reconsideration of that point.

In the previous thread, it was argued that the counterargument to voterID was that "voterID was racist". This is an argument I never really agreed with. I think voterID as implemented often is discriminatory, but the real thrust is to depress voter turnout for a specific party, and that the racism is incidental.

I still mostly think that but clearly the 4th circuit doesn't agree.

As a side note, if we can stop posting some of the extremely worn boilerplate arguments that always come up in these threads that would be swell - "you need a ID to buy beer lol" sort of ignores the fact that buying beer isn't a constitutionally protected right which should be free of undue infringement.

**d-usa**

I think the court verbalized my thoughts on it pretty well.

- these practices are racially discriminatory
- they target demographics that vote against the people passing these laws
- they target them because they vote against them, not because they are a certain race
- they would be fine with making it easier to have minorities vote as long as they voted Republican
- racially discriminatory practices doesn't mean you are racist, as long as race is not the reason for the practice

I'm mostly amazed at the balls of the legislature and how open they were about the whole thing:

"SCOTUS just took away these protections. Bring us a detailed list of the voting patterns of every single demographic so that we can pass laws that make it harder for those groups to vote against us."

You almost have to be impressed at how little they cared about hiding it.

**OgreChubbs**

What are the 5 ways they dont let black guys vote? I googled it and got some..... Interesting point of views but nothing that compares to are you white or black, if black show up day after voting is done.

I got people saying needing a license or other photo id... But I am pretty sure most black people drive cars aswell and they need id for that, so it seemed more of a hate poor, old people then anything else.

**Prestor Jon**

The constitution doesn't guarantee the right of every citizen to vote. Voting is a state govt issue. The constitution prohibits the federal govt from passing laws that abridge voting rights for certain types of people as specified in amendments 15, 19, 23, 24, 26.

You can't vote unless you're on the voter rolls. To register to vote you must provide your name and residence and then provide that same information to be issued a ballot at your polling place. Whether I provide my name and address verbally or show some kind of ID that has my name and residence on it I still have to provide the information to get a ballot. If the state decides that it's no longer prudent to trust everyone at their word when they verbally provide their name and address to get a ballot I don't see how that is racist as the requirement of ID that shows the name and address listed on the voter rolls applies to everyone equally. I don't think states have amassed convincing evidence that people showing up to vote are lying and casting fraudulent ballots to justify requiring ID but I don't agree with the court's claim that such a requirement is racist.

**OgreChubbs**

I am starting to think alot of this stuff is people just stoking fires for no reason, police shootings voter needing pics ect.... Something feels off like someone just wants something to happen for a good show. The news stations where at their most popular during the iraq war... Maybe they are trying to start another inter house war.

Like there was two black cops who shot a 6 year old boy to death after his father ran and said they are trying to kill me, no news. And lets face ot if you know anything stupid people always act by what they see rather then find out the truth.

Jaws is a good example of this read the book the shark is a smart murdering monster no one cares they make a movie dumb people see it go sharks bad get em.....

**d-usa**

OgreChubbs wrote:
What are the 5 ways they dont let black guys vote? I googled it and got some..... Interesting point of views but nothing that compares to are you white or black, if black show up day after voting is done.

I got people saying needing a license or other photo id... But I am pretty sure most black people drive cars aswell and they need id for that, so it seemed more of a hate poor, old people then anything else.

This is from memory, so it's not complete and might be wrong:

- early voting
- weekend voting
- same day registration
- out of district voting
- ID requirement in general, more specifically which IDs count and which don't.

These practices were used heavily by minority voters who voted democrat, and by restricting them they affected minority voters more than non-minority voters. They kept other practices that would have affected voters voting for them.

Republican voters: expired IDs for elderly, concealed carry cards, military IDs, mail-in votes were okay.
Democratic voters: school IDs, out of state IDs were not okay.

I basically did the same thing that the legislature did a few years ago, and looked up the results for the election by each demographic, and every group affected by this voted heavily democrat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I am starting to think alot of this stuff is people just stoking fires for no reason, police shootings voter needing pics ect.... Something feels off like someone just wants something to happen for a good show. The news stations where at their most popular during the iraq war... Maybe they are trying to start another inter house war.

Like there was two black cops who shot a 6 year old boy to death after his father ran and said they are trying to kill me, no news. And lets face ot if you know anything stupid people always act by what they see rather then find out the truth.

Jaws is a good example of this read the book the shark is a smart murdering monster no one cares they make a movie dumb people see it go sharks bad get em.....

This has nothing to do with anything, so maybe we can stay on topic rather than going off the rails by post #5?

**whembly**

What it boils down to is whether or not people believe a certain group of voters can or cannot follow new rules.

**Jihadin**

What a WASTE. I still maintain that we (every damn state) update their voter register books. YEARLY. If we can send Census workers out to collect data then we can damn well send Voter Register Rep's out to clear up and update the Books!

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
What a WASTE. I still maintain that we (every damn state) update their voter register books. YEARLY. If we can send Census workers out to collect data then we can damn well send Voter Register Rep's out to clear up and update the Books!

What do you mean by this - like outreach to register voters, or what?

**Chongara**

Voter ID law discriminatory? Well I am just shocked, next you'll be telling me water is wet.

**d-usa**

Chongara wrote:
Voter ID law discriminatory? Well I am just shocked, next you'll be telling me water is wet.

To be fair, I think in this case it's not "just" the voter ID part of the law, but the totality of all the actions and changes in the laws that lead to the decision.

**ZergSmasher**

Requiring voters to have valid ID is NOT racist or discriminatory in any way. Anyone can get an ID, no matter what color/sex/orientation/etc. they are, AFAIK. Now, if they only demanded ID from black people or some crazy gak like that, now THAT would be racist. Ultimately, by not requiring ID to vote you are opening a path to all kinds of fraud (such as people voting multiple times, voting using a dead person's name, etc.).

I'm genuinely curious as to why everyone thinks requiring ID is racist. What am I missing?

**Ustrello**

ZergSmasher wrote:
Requiring voters to have valid ID is NOT racist or discriminatory in any way. Anyone can get an ID, no matter what color/sex/orientation/etc. they are, AFAIK. Now, if they only demanded ID from black people or some crazy gak like that, now THAT would be racist. Ultimately, by not requiring ID to vote you are opening a path to all kinds of fraud (such as people voting multiple times, voting using a dead person's name, etc.).

I'm genuinely curious as to why everyone thinks requiring ID is racist. What am I missing?

Besides the copious amounts of evidence that these laws unfairly target poor minorities or the fact that voter fraud is less than a percent of a percent that is linked over and over again everytime this comes up?

**Kilkrazy**

ZergSmasher wrote:
Requiring voters to have valid ID is NOT racist or discriminatory in any way. Anyone can get an ID, no matter what color/sex/orientation/etc. they are, AFAIK. Now, if they only demanded ID from black people or some crazy gak like that, now THAT would be racist. Ultimately, by not requiring ID to vote you are opening a path to all kinds of fraud (such as people voting multiple times, voting using a dead person's name, etc.).

I'm genuinely curious as to why everyone thinks requiring ID is racist. What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that everything you have said has been shown by reliable research studies to be wrong.

**Ouze**

ZergSmasher wrote:
I'm genuinely curious as to why everyone thinks requiring ID is racist. What am I missing?

The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" — then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

**Breotan**

Ustrello wrote:
Besides the copious amounts of evidence that these laws unfairly target poor minorities

Didn't we just have that study in the other thread showing voter turnout wasn't suppressed and that minorities still wound up being registered anyway? If Voter ID laws in general are designed to "target" minorities (North Carolina aside), wouldn't there be some mechanism in the law to actually affect minorities in a detrimental way?

While I accept that North Carolina had clear racist intent (they're a real blight on the Republican brand) that doesn't mean the other States with similar laws do. I'd expect North Carolina to try and reintroduce Jim Crow laws if they could. Those so-called Republicans need to be broomed.

**Peregrine**

Yeah, anyone saying "that isn't racist" clearly doesn't understand NC politics. This was a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in buying the NC state legislature (along with redrawing the districts, which also got struck down by the courts) by trying to reduce turnout among groups that lean democrat. There was nothing subtle about it, they stopped just short of letting the KKK hold a "keep the

s from voting" rally at the capitol building.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I appreciate the USA is a federal system with each state responsible for voting and elections, but when it comes to voting ID, regestering to etc etc

I don't know why you guys just don't copy our system our one of the good European systems that you guys probably helped design after WW2!

Honestly, voting ID, what the feth is that?

In all my years of voting, I've never needed voting ID. I turn up at the local town hall, walk in, give them my name and address and away I go. Obviously it helps that it's the same old guy that's been doing it for years, but voting ID?

In the space of 18 months, we've had two major referendums, and a knife-edge general election, and they all passed without a hitch, and the results were declared pretty quickly, and the levels of fraud were so minute as to be insignificant...

**Breotan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In all my years of voting, I've never needed voting ID. I turn up at the local town hall, walk in, give them my name and address and away I go.

I'm reading the UK's voter registration process on Wikipedia and... I'm shocked at how convoluted it is. It reads like it's done on the honor system, except that someone can object to a specific registration, also the ERO can require identification/proof of citizenship or not depending on if it's raining, foggy weather, or he stubbed his toe on the door frame.

Back to North Carolina: ignoring the legal questions surrounding secession, is it possible for the 49 non-KKK loving States to kick NC out of the union?

**Kilkrazy**

It used to be that the head of household had to fill in the registration form every October to keep the electoral register updated. The UK has now moved to individual registration. The register is updated every month and you can register online. However the October letter is still sent out as a check.

It all sounds a bit old fashioned, like our reliance on paper ballots and a pencil tied to the polling booth with a piece of string.

But it works, and everyone knows you shouldn't go mucking around with the old ways.

The point is that fraudulent voting is a completely useless crime on an individual level. You risk a prison sentence and gain nothing. The main problem with the UK system is postal voting fraud which began when Blair ignored warnings that his proposed changes to the postal vote system would facilitate fraud.

**LordofHats**

Ustrello wrote:
ZergSmasher wrote:
Requiring voters to have valid ID is NOT racist or discriminatory in any way. Anyone can get an ID, no matter what color/sex/orientation/etc. they are, AFAIK. Now, if they only demanded ID from black people or some crazy gak like that, now THAT would be racist. Ultimately, by not requiring ID to vote you are opening a path to all kinds of fraud (such as people voting multiple times, voting using a dead person's name, etc.).

I'm genuinely curious as to why everyone thinks requiring ID is racist. What am I missing?

Besides the copious amounts of evidence that these laws unfairly target poor minorities or the fact that voter fraud is less than a percent of a percent that is linked over and over again everytime this comes up?

It's almost like we've already had this thread, and the same old tired nonsense arguments, and the same should really be common sense by now pointing out that the nonsense is nonsense, followed by a repeat of the exact same pattern X weeks later when it is once again pointed out and supported by evidence that the nonsense is nonsense. I'm sure X weeks from now, there will be yet another thread where the same posters decry all those bad people who "can't follow the rules" and "voter fraud", having learned absolutely nothing from the previous experience.

At least we know we're consistent eh?

**SemperMortis**

Requiring someone to provide a valid ID before voting is not racist.

I love this picture because it really highlights how the democrats fight with hypocrisy.

Furthermore, getting rid of same day registration and voting is just common sense. Why this disproportionately effects minorities is a mystery to me, yes NC asked for the information and decided that it targeted minorities more, but would it have been racist if it hit white people harder? no.

To the OP

As a side note, if we can stop posting some of the extremely worn boilerplate arguments that always come up in these threads that would be swell - "you need a ID to buy beer lol" sort of ignores the fact that buying beer isn't a constitutionally protected right which should be free of undue infringement.

I am required to provide a valid ID when I purchase a firearm which is a constitutionally protected right, so why is voting a special case?

**LordofHats**

And how many of those things are Constitutional rights? One? Two if we want to stretch it?

If you write a law to purposefully strip people of their ability to vote (openly stated numerous times by the people who wrote the law to be why they did it), and the people stripped of the ability to vote are predominantly of one race (white or black), then yes. It is racist.

It's been gone over dozens of times on this board, so I don't know why we bother. It's like every other gun thread, or any thread about US politics. One side will put up the same nonsense arguments it always puts up, the otherside will point out how they are wrong, and the nonsense side will just plug its fingers in its ears going " nah nah nah nah."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
I am required to provide a valid ID when I purchase a firearm which is a constitutionally protected right, so why is voting a special case?

Technically, purchasing firearms isn't constitutionally protected. bearing them is, and by extension purchasing gets peripheral protection as an integral aspect of bearing.

So really, if we wanted to be hyper technical about it, nothing listed is a Constitutional right, as if buying a gun and voting for the people making the laws that govern your day to day life were remotely on the same level of significance in a democratic process.

**Dreadwinter**

SemperMortis wrote:
Requiring someone to provide a valid ID before voting is not racist.

I love this picture because it really highlights how the democrats fight with hypocrisy.

I question the validity of anything posted from a website named Politifake.org.

You got any evidence to back up your claims other than a silly picture full of non-constitutional rights type things? Or are you going the Newt route and saying feelings are facts?

**SemperMortis**

Dreadwinter wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Requiring someone to provide a valid ID before voting is not racist.

I love this picture because it really highlights how the democrats fight with hypocrisy.

I question the validity of anything posted from a website named Politifake.org.

You got any evidence to back up your claims other than a silly picture full of non-constitutional rights type things? Or are you going the Newt route and saying feelings are facts?

I'll just go off common sense, I know that is a stretch for a lot of people with left leaning feelings but I will just ask them to take a moment of time and attempt to do some of the things on that list without a valid ID and see how far they get. I am sorry I don't have time to go find the law that requires you to show ID before buying a firearm, or the numerous rules about showing ID for school, cars, hospital visits, boarding airplanes and other wonderful things that the public/private sector feel the need to get ID for.

And to you Lord Of Hats, your argument is terrible. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to purchase firearms? Well by that logic then the right to vote doesn't mean the right to vote without an ID.

Regardless I do agree with you that nobody here is going to change their minds. The left will still think any law is racist that requires people to provide ID for voting. And the right will still think the left is ridiculous for not requiring an ID to choose our NATIONAL leaders but do require one to purchase a firearm.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
ZergSmasher wrote:
I'm genuinely curious as to why everyone thinks requiring ID is racist. What am I missing?

The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" — then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

While I believe that having ID to vote is a reasonable measure to ensure that only those eligible to vote may do so to protect the foundation of our democracy, if legislation was passed that was specifically designed to disenfranchise minorities then that does not protect the foundation of our democracy.

**A Town Called Malus**

Why should people require an ID to vote? They are already required to be on the electoral roll or whatever aren't they?

**Kilkrazy**

I don't see any point in continuing this thread.