North Carolina is Number One!

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.

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Forar wrote:
Even ignoring the cost, sometimes it's difficult to obtain one (limited hours, limited offices, etc).

Sometimes when certain individuals are feeling less than subtle, you'll find reduced offices and hours in very distinct locales.

Reading between the lines isn't generally all that difficult in those cases.

So are you actually suggesting that getting a free photo ID between now and the next set of large elections (2016) is an unreasonable burden as people simply won't have the time needed? That there are people who will not have a single day off for almost two and a half years?

No, what he is suggesting is that it will impact the next set of large elections as evidenced by the numbers of individuals who utilized early voting. The bill however also did away with a lot more than simply "requiring photo ID".

For example, they removed the currently mandatory high school voter registration drives before any election(whether presidential or local). What happened in regards to this in case you are unaware, is that every year towards the middle of October the school was required to give every student who had turned 18 or would be turning 18 before the elections the paperwork to fill out for voter registration.

Seeing as you need photo ID to drive, buy a drink, show that you qualify for certain State benefits, apply for credit, and/or apply for a job (you have to fill out a W1 form now) I don't accept the premise that a significant amount of voters will be disenfranchised.

I can buy booze and cigarettes with my college issued ID or an out of state driver's license, but cannot vote.

Do you not see where the issue might be here?

**Dreadclaw69**

Forar wrote:
During the days and/or hours that the offices providing ID are open? Maybe not. Doesn't matter. It's still an extra burden placed on the voting public to deal with a non-issue. It is literally making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Quick example from the BMV that is local to me (they issue free ID)

Monday: Closed
Tuesday: 8:30 a.m.-7:00 p.m.
Wednesday: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Thursday: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Friday: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Saturday: 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Sunday: Closed

I managed to get to the BMV to get my license and take my test while I was working one job and my wife (who had to drive me there) was working two jobs. Again, photo ID is required for many other activities rather than just voting, I don't here complaints that it is "an extra burden" for applying for a job or buying alcohol.

Forar wrote:
Why look, option 2 and 3 are nothing like "required Photo ID", as noted in the original post.

Fancy that.

Why look, it is someone sticking his head in the sand and ignoring that his own country has voter ID laws while complaining about the law in North Carolina because it doesn't suit his own argument.

Fancy that

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
No, what he is suggesting is that it will impact the next set of large elections as evidenced by the numbers of individuals who utilized early voting. The bill however also did away with a lot more than simply "requiring photo ID".

For example, they removed the currently mandatory high school voter registration drives before any election(whether presidential or local). What happened in regards to this in case you are unaware, is that every year towards the middle of October the school was required to give every student who had turned 18 or would be turning 18 before the elections the paperwork to fill out for voter registration.

That is quite impressive, given that he made no reference to it whatsoever. You might note that my comments concern the ID requirement, not the early voting portion.

Kanluwen wrote:
I can buy booze and cigarettes with my college issued ID or an out of state driver's license, but cannot vote.

Do you not see where the issue might be here?

You mean you couldn't vote in another State because you aren't a resident in that State and not eligible to vote to begin with? So the issue is preventing the ineligible from voting?

**Shadowseer_Kim**

The only issue with early voting, and I can see to get rid of it, is that it affects future voting via exit polls.

When a lot of "group a" goes and votes early, and some exit polls are released saying "group a" is looking to win this in a landslide, it can and does keep some of "group b" "group c" etc, from going to vote. Because eh whats the point if the election is already won for someone else.

This is mainly a problem with how exit polls are reported more than the exit polls themselves, but the government can not force the media to do it differently due to the constitutional rights.

Voter ID yes.

I would even back a law that only allowed land owners to vote on issues regarding property taxes.

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
No, what he is suggesting is that it will impact the next set of large elections as evidenced by the numbers of individuals who utilized early voting. The bill however also did away with a lot more than simply "requiring photo ID".

For example, they removed the currently mandatory high school voter registration drives before any election(whether presidential or local). What happened in regards to this in case you are unaware, is that every year towards the middle of October the school was required to give every student who had turned 18 or would be turning 18 before the elections the paperwork to fill out for voter registration.

That is quite impressive, given that he made no reference to it whatsoever. You might note that my comments concern the ID requirement, not the early voting portion.

And you might note that my comments are about this law, which is not simply "Present an ID".

Now, an individual who actually has a driver's license (16 and 17 year olds) but is unable to vote will not be able to vote as the "Voter Preregistration" is being repealed.
Right now in NC if you get a driver's license, you are put into the voter rolls when you turn 18 without you having to go through the process of registering to vote.
If you do not get a driver's license(which is possible as licenses are commonly tied to grades here in NC), there would be voter registration drives done every year before the timeframe for elections to get anyone who recently turned 18 or would be turning 18 by the time for elections to get registered--without those individuals having to miss classes.

BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES ARE BEING REPEALED AS PART OF THIS LAW.

Kanluwen wrote:
I can buy booze and cigarettes with my college issued ID or an out of state driver's license, but cannot vote.

Do you not see where the issue might be here?

You mean you couldn't vote in another State because you aren't a resident in that State and not eligible to vote to begin with? So the issue is preventing the ineligible from voting?

Christ you are as obnoxious as Whembly.

I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.

Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?

**djones520**

Well, you have 3 years to get that corrected.

At which point your college ID would probably no longer be valid anyways (just a supposition).

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Well, you have 3 years to get that corrected.

At which point your college ID would probably no longer be valid anyways (just a supposition).

You are right. I will not be affected by it in 3 years.

However anyone else who finds themselves in the same position as myself will find themselves in that position.
Given that online courses fill up the day registration does, I would posit that it might be quite a few people.

**djones520**

And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.

Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

djones520 wrote:
And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.

This is also how I feel about people who can not be bothered to register themselves to vote. It is a relatively easy process and does not take much time at all, the forms tend to be available at the DMV, county elections office, post office, etc etc etc.

**Peregrine**

Ok, NC politics 101:

Up until 2010 NC has been a solid blue state at the state level. Not because we're especially liberal, but because the democrats have dominated local/state politics and built a huge incumbent's advantage.

In 2010 the republican party used high turnout for the national elections to win the NC legislature, but the governor was still a democrat and vetoed the worst of their agenda.

In 2012 we got a republican governor (the incumbent decided not to run after two years of hell from the legislature) and since then the republicans have been busy running down the list of every republican fantasy law. New abortion restrictions, cuts to unemployment benefits/education/etc, and redistricting and new election rules designed to protect the current republican majority against the inevitable backlash. This bill is part of that protection, every one of those changes targets a group that, in NC, tends to vote for democrats.

This bill is especially controversial because the governor accidentally admitted, after promising to sign it, that he hadn't even read the bill. Our governor is little more than a rubber stamp for the republican party platform.

djones520 wrote:
Well, you have 3 years to get that corrected.

Yes, people right now have three years. But new people will be becoming eligible to vote, people will forget or not hear about the new requirements, etc. Which is exactly what the republicans are hoping for, they want to make it as difficult as possible to vote if you're one of the groups that tends to vote democrat. Remember, elections are already fairly close to 50/50, even small changes in turnout can swing states/districts.

And, as has been said, the new ID requirements are only part of it. That alone could be explained by something other than malicious intent, but the whole package is a blatant attempt to keep themselves in power by preventing democrats from voting.

**whembly**

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
The only issue with early voting, and I can see to get rid of it, is that it affects future voting via exit polls.

When a lot of "group a" goes and votes early, and some exit polls are released saying "group a" is looking to win this in a landslide, it can and does keep some of "group b" "group c" etc, from going to vote. Because eh whats the point if the election is already won for someone else.

This is mainly a problem with how exit polls are reported more than the exit polls themselves, but the government can not force the media to do it differently due to the constitutional rights.

Voter ID yes.

Yeah... I'd agree that's a problem.. but, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I doubt this causes any "discouragment" activity on day of voting.

I would even back a law that only allowed land owners to vote on issues regarding property taxes.

Now that I would be against. Not everyone owns property... but, everyone in some fashion is impacted by property tax (even if you don't actually directly own property).

Now... countering the meme that there are no (or miniscule) voting problems... here's a few link that makes you go hmmmmmm:

#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.

#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.

#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.

#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…

It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.
Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.

#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.

#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.

#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.

#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.

#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.

#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.

#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.

#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.

#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.

#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.

#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.

#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.

#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…

“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”

#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state…

The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?
This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.
Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.
One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!
She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.
We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.

#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.

#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.

#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…

Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.

Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.

You can get a drivers liscence at age 16. A US passport at age 16. A state photo id (free) at any age. All three of the above, including other forms of ID are acceptable.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.

Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.

You can get a drivers license at age 16. A US passport at age 16. A state photo id (free) at any age. All three of the above, including other forms of ID are acceptable.

I am quite aware of this.

But what you are not grasping is that AS OF RIGHT NOW, voter preregistration of 16 and 17 year olds(which was done primarily when they received their licenses) is gone.
So if you get your ID now, that's fine and dandy. You will still have to register to vote.

If your birthday is within 25 days of the election, you will NOT be voting. It takes 3 weeks here in NC to get everything filed out.
You also will not be able to register and vote the day of the elections--again, something commonly done by 18 year olds.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Now... countering the meme that there are no (or miniscule) voting problems... here's a few link that makes you go hmmmmmm:

Sigh. Back to quoting tinfoil hat sources I see...

For example:

#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.

Why consider the obvious explanation that requiring photo ID is typically a conservative issue, so states that require photo ID probably have conservative majorities that implemented it, when you can put on the tinfoil hat and assume that all the other states are rigging the election?

And I suppose we'll also ignore any cases where republican candidates won 99% of the vote in a particular precinct, or people complained about things that favored republicans. After all, it's easier to establish a trend of "bias" if you only look at one side.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.

Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.

You can get a drivers license at age 16. A US passport at age 16. A state photo id (free) at any age. All three of the above, including other forms of ID are acceptable.

I am quite aware of this.

But what you are not grasping is that AS OF RIGHT NOW, voter preregistration of 16 and 17 year olds(which was done primarily when they received their licenses) is gone.
So if you get your ID now, that's fine and dandy. You will still have to register to vote.

If your birthday is within 25 days of the election, you will NOT be voting. It takes 3 weeks here in NC to get everything filed out.
You also will not be able to register and vote the day of the elections--again, something commonly done by 18 year olds.

So, they got rid of provisional ballots too?

If so, then yeah, that's sort of shady...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Now... countering the meme that there are no (or miniscule) voting problems... here's a few link that makes you go hmmmmmm:

Sigh. Back to quoting tinfoil hat sources I see...

For example:

#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.

Why consider the obvious explanation that requiring photo ID is typically a conservative issue, so states that require photo ID probably have conservative majorities that implemented it, when you can put on the tinfoil hat and assume that all the other states are rigging the election?

And I suppose we'll also ignore any cases where republican candidates won 99% of the vote in a particular precinct, or people complained about things that favored republicans. After all, it's easier to establish a trend of "bias" if you only look at one side.

Again... what's so bad about forcing more rigorous voting requirement with respect to having a valid sort of ID? Especially when most of us need those same IDs in order to fething FUNCTION in our society?

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
whembly wrote:
So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?

That's always been my question - especially when so many States will also issue them for little to no cost.

Because people are lazy.

Blows my mind. People in Afghanistan face down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and every other whack nut you can find in that part of the world to vote. The 2010 elections were crazy with how many planes we had in the air providing as much protection as we could. They also do a form of voter ID there, with the ink on the finger.

Yet people here in the US bitch about having to spend 45 minutes at the DMV to do it. *rolls eyes*

Hey in our defense the DMV really is the second ring of Hell.

**d-usa**

Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.

-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote
(56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).

-Making it hard for young people to vote:
Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)

-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats
-Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)

-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans
-Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)

-Making it harder for poor people to vote
-Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)

-Eliminated Straight Party Voting
(55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)

-Left absentee voting intact.
(66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)

But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.

Source dump:

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=69
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/42923/114645/Web01/en/summary.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Again... what's so bad about forcing more rigorous voting requirement with respect to having a valid sort of ID? Especially when most of us need those same IDs in order to fething FUNCTION in our society?

Because the requirement is blatantly targeted at groups that tend to vote for a certain party. This has nothing to do with increasing the security of elections, that's just an excuse to "justify" changing the rules so that the incumbents stay in power. Again, look at the context of the rule, not just the words.

**rubiksnoob**

Peregrine wrote:
Again, look at the context of the rule, not just the words.

But. . . that would make sense.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Again... what's so bad about forcing more rigorous voting requirement with respect to having a valid sort of ID? Especially when most of us need those same IDs in order to fething FUNCTION in our society?

Because the requirement is blatantly targeted at groups that tend to vote for a certain party. This has nothing to do with increasing the security of elections, that's just an excuse to "justify" changing the rules so that the incumbents stay in power. Again, look at the context of the rule, not just the words.

THen vote them out and change it.

States has always managed the what/how folks can vote.

To me, this is no different than the incumbents going through redistricting plans.

Also, don't get your painties bunched up... there are several Voter ID cases going to the SC that (I believe) will be ruled on next session. If I was a betting man... I'd bet they'd rule that these Voter ID acts be unconstitutional.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.

-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote
(56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?

-Making it hard for young people to vote:
Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)
I would like to find a copy of the actual bill before anymore judgement is passed on this. Michigan doesn't allow pre-registration either, but it still allows for those who turn 18 by the date of the election to register 30 days before hand.

-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats
-Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)
Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.

-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans
-Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)
See above

-Making it harder for poor people to vote
-Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)
Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.

-Eliminated Straight Party Voting
(55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)
God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.

-Left absentee voting intact.
(66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)
And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?

But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.

Source dump:

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=69
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/42923/114645/Web01/en/summary.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

**Kanluwen**

State photo ID might be free and remain free, but it requires going to the DMV to have it done...and I am going to be absolutely blunt about this:

Public transportation here in NC is practically nonexistent. There is a bus system but it might as well not exist outside of downtown Raleigh, Durham, or Cary.

**Jihadin**

Out of curious Kan....do you have a driver license?

**LoneLictor**

djones, you're ignoring the trend as a whole. Notice how the bill targets those demographics who vote against republicans, but not those who vote for them. Its not a coincidence that republican legislators are writing laws to 'help' republicans vote.

Of course, democrats do it too. Its just smart politics.

**Kanluwen**

Jihadin wrote:
Out of curious Kan....do you have a driver license?

I do not.

I live at home and take online courses. I have no car, nor do I have a burning need for one as I generally can get a ride to and from anywhere I need to go with a friend who lives in my neighborhood.

When I first started college I was living on campus, and had no need for driving--nor the ability to really do so either as freshmen could not have vehicles on campus.

Long story short; I've never really had the need for a license and have been able to utilize my college ID for most everything that individuals here on Dakka say are "requirements for having a driver's license or state ID".

**Peregrine**

djones520 wrote:
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?

The point is that there's a double standard here. Special accommodations are granted to a group that leans republican, while groups that lean democrat are told to just deal with it and get their IDs. The inconsistency shows that it's not really about security (otherwise everyone would need to show an ID, old or not), it's about making it harder for the "wrong" people to vote.

Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.

Taken in isolation, sure. Make early voting more efficient so you get the same turnout with lower costs. But as part of a pattern this is pretty clearly an attempt to have fewer democrats voting.

See above

Except this is blatantly an obstacle, not cost savings. If it's really about cost savings they could cut the early voting period but have sundays available during that more limited period. The only reason to remove sunday voting is because it is used by groups that overwhelmingly vote democrat.

Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.

It's not just the cost of the ID, they're hoping that poor people (who vote democrat) are less likely to be able to get time off work, arrange bus schedules to get to the government office and back, etc, and just give up. Will it stop everyone? Of course not. But will it stop some people? Sure, and it all adds up.

God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.

But look at it the other way: what exactly is the problem with allowing straight-ticket voting? How is anyone being harmed by it? The answer of course is that more democrats than republicans use it, and the republicans hope that removing it will swing some of the "less important" races in their favor.

And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?

Maybe they should be required to come home to vote? Or maybe there should be more ID requirements to ensure that the ballots haven't been tampered with, mailed in by someone else, etc? Maybe you should have to get your ballot notarized and sent in through a special system where ballots are only collected on one day at each military base just like normal voting hours?

And yes, those are ridiculous requirements. The point here is that nobody is talking about improving "security" with military voting because military voting already favors republicans.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
State photo ID might be free and remain free, but it requires going to the DMV to have it done...and I am going to be absolutely blunt about this:

Public transportation here in NC is practically nonexistent. There is a bus system but it might as well not exist outside of downtown Raleigh, Durham, or Cary.

I never understood this argument. Unless you’re living in New Mexico or the Permian Basin, in which case you are already in Hell, how can you physically go vote if you can’t physically get an ID?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Out of curious Kan....do you have a driver license?

I do not.

I live at home and take online courses. I have no car, nor do I have a burning need for one as I generally can get a ride to and from anywhere I need to go with a friend who lives in my neighborhood.

When I first started college I was living on campus, and had no need for driving--nor the ability to really do so either as freshmen could not have vehicles on campus.

Long story short; I've never really had the need for a license and have been able to utilize my college ID for most everything that individuals here on Dakka say are "requirements for having a driver's license or state ID".

gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
And you might note that my comments are about this law, which is not simply "Present an ID".

Now, an individual who actually has a driver's license (16 and 17 year olds) but is unable to vote will not be able to vote as the "Voter Preregistration" is being repealed.
Right now in NC if you get a driver's license, you are put into the voter rolls when you turn 18 without you having to go through the process of registering to vote.
If you do not get a driver's license(which is possible as licenses are commonly tied to grades here in NC), there would be voter registration drives done every year before the timeframe for elections to get anyone who recently turned 18 or would be turning 18 by the time for elections to get registered--without those individuals having to miss classes.

BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES ARE BEING REPEALED AS PART OF THIS LAW.

I only said I was in favour of voter ID. And voter drives don't already take place?

Kanluwen wrote:
Christ you are as obnoxious as Whembly.

I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.

Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?

Throwing mud just because we disagree with you? Throwing up barriers to a discussion doesn't help (and ironically, you are complaining about alleged barriers to voting)
Stop talking about "RIGHT NOW". That is a strawman and you know it. I, and many others here, are talking about a more than reasonable time to implement this law to prevent as much voter disenfranchisement as possible.

Frazzled - have an exalt

**Alfndrate**

Kan, I thought you had a state ID, but the UPS guy wouldn't accept it, or did you mean that your college ID wasn't accepted?

I do have 1 question though that I must not have seen answered. Is Provisional Voting still okay in your state? If not, then this is a major problem. If it's still a thing, then those 18 yr olds that "leveled up" within 25 days prior to the election would still be able to vote provisionally.

Also unless your college ID had a date of birth on it, Idk how it could be used to buy booze and cigarettes. Like this is the college ID from my uni:

It has my name, my picture, and my student ID number, which could be used to obtain my date of birth, but other than that it has no way of letting on that I'm old enough to buy booze or smokes.

Does NC have a free state ID thing? I see on the interwebz that state IDs are 10 bucks. Ohio they're 8.50, and DMVs are fething everywhere (there are at least 5 within 15 minutes of drive time, at least 2 of them are on main bus routes).

There is a lot of shadiness with this bill, but the voter ID law just doesn't seem to be a big deal, but like I said in our PM, it's probably because I already live in a state where some form of identification is required.

**Easy E**

Forar wrote:
It's in the news now because the USSC recently ruled on pertinent legislation. At least one state was so excited they started the wheels in motion a mere 2 hours after the decision was passed down. Make no mistake, somewhere, someone will try this far closer to an election specifically because it's not easy to do.

Also, doesn't ignore the fact that it is an expense that will disenfranchise some, because they cannot get the time off work, or they are living on such a tight budget that a day off and $20-50-whatever is more than they can afford. Thus, poll tax.

Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.

They already did in Pennsylvania... I think it was. Just befor ethe last election the GOP controlled state legislature rammed something through, and the Governor was on record as stating that this should help Romney get elected.

I wish I could remember the guys name so I could link it.