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.

How about you stop playing this "let's examine the issue" garbage and admit that this is a nonsense bill enacted by a Republican legislature aimed at disenfranchising those who do not vote for them?

Isn't the most important thing "how it feels" anyway?

At least that used to be the source of protest against a lot of thigs involving stuff done by democrats.

"It just FEELS wrong!"

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the most important thing "how it feels" anyway?

At least that used to be the source of protest against a lot of thigs involving stuff done by democrats.

"It just FEELS wrong!"

heh... touche.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
How about you stop playing this "let's examine the issue" garbage and admit that this is a nonsense bill enacted by a Republican legislature aimed at disenfranchising those who do not vote for them?

Well how 'bout you show credible evidence that this'll will disenfranchise the voters? Or, you know... give it a shot to see what the impact will be in '14.

This SAME criticism was espoused in Georgia when they did practically the same thing, see my previous posts earlier. What was found was that MORE voters from those "at risk" demographic voted than ever before.

Are saying NC and GA are THAT different?

Okay, okay... the Tarheals ain't nuthing like the Bulldogs.

D-Usa has posted a HUGE slew of evidence.

The fact that you chose not to read or feel that it is not true does not make it any less true.

And for that matter, what happens in one state which did not enact the same set of rules within their bill is not relevant to the conversation because the bills are not the same.

 Kanluwen wrote:
D-Usa has posted a HUGE slew of evidence.

The fact that you chose not to read or feel that it is not true does not make it any less true.

And for that matter, what happens in one state which did not enact the same set of rules within their bill is not relevant to the conversation because the bills are not the same.

Right... well then, keep up with the Republican bashing.

Go back to your conspiracies about Benghazi.

Enjoy this, as it shoots your whole Georgia comparison apart.
Another NPR article. Of course it is NPR, that bastion of Liberal ideology and mischief!

 whembly wrote:
As to the other stuff, how 'bout we look at the rate of voter participation during the mid-term compared to the other mid-terms (ie, '10 and '06). I'm sure someone will be doing that analysis like they did with GA.

Or we could just look at NC politics where anyone who actually lives here knows perfectly well what's going on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As to the other stuff, how 'bout we look at the rate of voter participation during the mid-term compared to the other mid-terms (ie, '10 and '06). I'm sure someone will be doing that analysis like they did with GA.

Or we could just look at NC politics where anyone who actually lives here knows perfectly well what's going on.

Alrighty then...

This will be decided in court. *shrug* Good luck. (<--- mean that sincerely)

For those who actually want to read the bill, here you go.
SL2013-381

Here is a particular part that I find emblematic of the mindset behind this bill:

"§ 163‑87. Challenges allowed on day of primary or election.

On the day of a primary or election, at the time a registered voter offers to vote, any other registered voter of the precinct may exercise the right of challenge, and when he the voter does so may enter the voting enclosure to make the challenge, but he the voter shall retire therefrom as soon as the challenge is heard.

On the day of a primary or election, any other registered voter of the precinct may challenge a person for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) One or more of the reasons listed in G.S. 163‑85(c).

(2) That the person has already voted in that primary or election.

(3) Repealed by Session Laws 2009‑541, s. 16.1(b), effective August 28, 2009.

(4) If the challenge is made with respect to voting in a partisan primary, that the person is a registered voter of another political party.

(5) Except as provided in G.S. 163‑166.13(d) and G.S. 163‑166.14, the voter does not present photo identification in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13.

The chief judge, judge, or assistant appointed under G.S. 163‑41 or 163‑42 may enter challenges under this section against voters in the precinct for which appointed regardless of the place of residence of the chief judge, judge, or assistant.

If a person is challenged under this subsection, and the challenge is sustained under G.S. 163‑85(c)(3), the voter may still transfer his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) if eligible under that section, and the registration shall not be cancelled under G.S. 163‑90.2(a) if the transfer is made. A person who has transferred his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) may be challenged at the precinct to which the registration is being transferred."

 Kanluwen wrote:
For those who actually want to read the bill, here you go.
SL2013-381

Here is a particular part that I find emblematic of the mindset behind this bill:

"§ 163‑87. Challenges allowed on day of primary or election.

On the day of a primary or election, at the time a registered voter offers to vote, any other registered voter of the precinct may exercise the right of challenge, and when he the voter does so may enter the voting enclosure to make the challenge, but he the voter shall retire therefrom as soon as the challenge is heard.

On the day of a primary or election, any other registered voter of the precinct may challenge a person for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) One or more of the reasons listed in G.S. 163‑85(c).

(2) That the person has already voted in that primary or election.

(3) Repealed by Session Laws 2009‑541, s. 16.1(b), effective August 28, 2009.

(4) If the challenge is made with respect to voting in a partisan primary, that the person is a registered voter of another political party.

(5) Except as provided in G.S. 163‑166.13(d) and G.S. 163‑166.14, the voter does not present photo identification in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13.

The chief judge, judge, or assistant appointed under G.S. 163‑41 or 163‑42 may enter challenges under this section against voters in the precinct for which appointed regardless of the place of residence of the chief judge, judge, or assistant.

If a person is challenged under this subsection, and the challenge is sustained under G.S. 163‑85(c)(3), the voter may still transfer his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) if eligible under that section, and the registration shall not be cancelled under G.S. 163‑90.2(a) if the transfer is made. A person who has transferred his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) may be challenged at the precinct to which the registration is being transferred."

So, reading through the bill, this was the section regarding preregistration.

PART 12. ELIMINATION OF PREREGISTRATION

SECTION 12.1.(a) G.S. 163‑82.1(d) is repealed.

SECTION 12.1.(b) G.S. 163‑82.3(a)(5) is repealed.

SECTION 12.1.(c) G.S. 163‑82.4(d) reads as rewritten:

"(d) Citizenship and Age Questions. – Voter registration application forms shall include all of the following:

(1) The following question and statement:

a. "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is or is not a citizen of the United States.

b. "If you checked 'no' in response to this question, do not submit this form."

(2) The following questions question and statement:

a. "Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant will be 18 years of age or older on election day.

b. "Are you at least 16 years of age and understand that you must be 18 years of age on or before election day to vote?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is at least 16 years of age and understands that the applicant must be at least 18 years of age or older by election day to vote.

c. "If you checked 'no' in response to both of these questions, this question, do not submit this form."

Part B of 2 has been lined through, meaning it is no longer valid. Part A though is, which means that a person who is turning 18 on the day of the election can still register to vote. What they have eliminated is the ability for people to register to vote for an election that may be 2 elections down the road. So, I don't see the issue here.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?

So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?

Because an measure is not onerous is not a positive reason to bring it in. You need to show that it is efficient and effective in correcting a problem. There is no credible evidence that requiring people to wear a top hat when voting is onerous -- does that make it a good thing to do?

Actually, though, there is a lot of credible evidence that requiring a valid ID is onerous. There are numerous examples of types of ID are not available, or not acceptable, for instance everyone doesn't have a driving licence, or a passport; they cost money to acquire and are non-essential items. University registration cards would not be acceptable, and so on.

The right wing answer to this is to set up an expensive state bureaucracy to validate and issue photo IDs to everyone. The UK photo ID card that was trialled cost about $60 per head.

e-verify which is a federal phone call, and free takes about 1-2 minutes to verify someones social security number, and a social security number and card are free as long as you have your birth certificate are entitled to one. The cost for basic state photo ID, non drivers license, is around what $15? and good for 4 - 10 years depending on your state.

And you need ID for most basic things in our society.

So the DMV could use e-verify like so many employers do, and the ID could be used for voting.

Does not seem too harsh a setup. Certainly not the $60 per that is the UK ID.

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

Nothing, if it came with a program to ensure that everyone who presently lacked sufficient ID would be provided with such.

But it doesn't, and instead what we're looking at is a bill that is going to prevent some people from voting, while solving a problem that doesn't exist.

I mean, anyone who can't understand the actual, real reason this bill is being passed - to reduce the Democratic turnout - is just kidding themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's only when they're caught that you'd see 'em... you can google-fu that... but it's waaay more than 26 cases.
This is Cincinnati all by itself...

7 big examples...

Your first article states - "The board started with 80 suspicious cases and now is down to 19. Officials say the majority of the cases turned out to be simple misunderstandings." I don't think that's exactly the evidence you were hoping for.

Your second article is about as weak. The first, a stunt from notorious conservative troll and all around fethwit James O'Keefe attempting voter fraud only works if we stop looking at what actually happens in the world, and only consider how the world works inside the brain of James O'Keefe's. Sure, if the world operated according to the childish notions of O'Keefe there'd be a problem, but it doesn't, and the reality is that anyone with the power to manipulate voting on a relevant scale has much better ways of getting what they want than a ballot box. The rest are anecdotes, most of which amount to a handful of votes, with one actual, real incident that changed an election (Kennedy) that wouldn't have been prevented by voter ID anyway.


Seriously, there is no evidence of voter fraud. There are simply much, much better ways to game the system to help your side win. Such as setting up the electoral rules to make it harder for the other side to vote - ie voter ID laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I'm just countering against the idea that "for all intents and purpose, does not exist" idea.

The standard isn't 'does not exist'. You have a country of 300 million, demanding the total eradication of dodgy votes is impossible.

The standard is 'exists on such a low number that it is almost impossible to influence an election', which, given there's a number of cases in the low hundreds each election, is more than met.

At which point, introducing a law that will prevent some voters from taking part, while doing nothing but solve a problem that we know doesn't exist... should be seen for what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
e-verify which is a federal phone call, and free takes about 1-2 minutes to verify someones social security number, and a social security number and card are free as long as you have your birth certificate are entitled to one. The cost for basic state photo ID, non drivers license, is around what $15? and good for 4 - 10 years depending on your state.

And you need ID for most basic things in our society.

So the DMV could use e-verify like so many employers do, and the ID could be used for voting.

Does not seem too harsh a setup. Certainly not the $60 per that is the UK ID.

Here's the big white elephant in this argument that neither side wants to admit - a significant number of poor people are pretty damn lazy, and fairly disorganised.

The left won't admit that because that's kind of the exact opposite of how the left likes to see things, and the right won't admit it because it means admitting that no matter how easy you make ID, a not insignificant number of people will not make that new standard.

And sure, you can say 'well if they're too lazy to bother doing that then they shouldn't get to vote' but that's not how it works. To be able to vote you need to be over 18 and have a heartbeat, no more, whether you're an organised, informed person who knows they have to have idea or not isn't a decent restriction. Anything that restricts that is going against the system you're supposed to believe in. And there might be situations where restrictions are necessary - if voter fraud was common then ID laws would be a necessary restriction.

Except, of course, there's pretty much bugger all voter fraud, and so all we're looking at is something that will stop some number of people voting who should be legally entitled to vote.