Voter Supression Law Gets Green Light

Voter Suppression Law Gets Green Light

AP | By M. Biesecker and G. D. Robertson | Posted: 08/08/2014 6:20 pm EDT
Excerpts:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP)- "North Carolina's November election can be held under a new voting law approved by Republican lawmakers, a federal judge ruled Friday. The law is considered one of the toughest in the nation and the groups challenging it say it will suppress minority voter turnout.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied a motion seeking to hold the November vote under old rules, saying the groups failed to show they would suffer "irreparable harm."

"In the absence of the clear showing for preliminary relief required by the law, it is inappropriate for a federal court to enjoin a state law passed by duly-elected representatives," wrote the judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush.

A coalition of groups, including the League of Women Voters and the state NAACP, have filed three lawsuits challenging many changes to voting laws approved by the GOP-controlled state legislature in 2013.

The groups say the changes are designed to suppress turnout at the polls among minorities, the elderly and college students - blocs considered more likely to vote for Democrats.

In a week-long hearing last month, they asked Schroeder to stop implementation of the new law until a trial to determine whether the changes violate the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Schroeder did deny a motion from the state seeking to have the case dismissed, setting the stage for a trial next year.

The law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID, ends same-day registration, trims the period for early voting by a week and ends a popular high school civics program that encouraged students to register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.

Supporters of the measure, including GOP lawmakers and Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, said the law was needed to combat in-person voter fraud, which they said is rampant in the state despite only a handful of confirmed cases in recent years.

The judge could have completely tossed this case if he felt the state's argument had any weight," said Allison Riggs, an attorney representing the League of Women Voters of North Carolina.

The voter ID requirement included in the new law doesn't kick in until the next presidential election in 2016. The law specifically bars elections officials from accepting college IDs, even from state-run universities.

Studies show minority and low-income voters are also more likely to lack a driver's license and have access to secure housing, leading to more frequent changes in addresses. Under the new law, voters will no longer be allowed to cast a provisional ballot if they show up at the wrong precinct.

In criticizing the refusal to halt the law's provisions, state NAACP president the Rev. William Barber said the people who have heard about the photo ID requirement and may not show up to vote "will suffer an irreparable harm."

"The court appears to have lost touch with the fears and rumors that pervade poor communities, and it ignores the long history of voter suppression tricks that take advantage of these fears and rumors," Barber said in a release.

Thirty-four states have passed laws requiring an ID to vote. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania's laws were struck down earlier this year by judges who said they could be a burden to voters.

An appeal of Schroeder's ruling is possible, though the plaintiffs' attorneys would have to confer with their clients before making that decision.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder on Friday denied a motion seeking to hold the November vote under old rules. A coalition of groups, including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, filed suit over more than two dozen changes approved by the GOP-controlled state legislature in 2013.

The groups say the changes are designed to suppress turnout at the polls among minorities, the elderly and college students - blocs considered more likely to vote for Democrats.

Schroeder also denied a state motion seeking to have the case dismissed, setting the stage for the trial."
......

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/08/north-carolina-gop-voting_n_5663422.html
......

IMO: It appears that this is another ultra conservative republican judge that will do anything the republicasn party tells him to do, otherwise he would have agreed with the charges that republicans were seeking to suppress minority, college students, and elderly voting which is unconstitutional in its very basic rights of American citizens.

By trying to keep various elements of our society away from the polls by making it harder for them to actually vote, is an un-American venture that is all too often taken up and agreed with by republican judges. Our Constitution says it is every citizen's right to vote in Amendment XV, again in Amendment XIX, and again in Amendment XXVII.

This should nullify any conservative judge's dismissing, denying, or reinterpreting what our Constitution says. Many states have now dismissed cases for exactly the same alleged "fraud." Only one case of fraud was ever established in a Wisconsin case where it turned out that only one man voted six times for the Wisconsin governor, using other people's names and is declaring "temporary amnesia" in voting so many times.

 

I don't get it, I really don't... How does a person do anything without an ID/DL? Especially when they are free to those who can't afford the small fee the rest of us pay at the DMV/MVA.

It's ironic that DNC's require photo ID before allowing admittance right after screaming racist from the rooftops at Repubs for wanting ID's to vote

 

So let's cut this down a bit to review the decision.

Effectively then the only thing this will do is "ends same-day registration, trims the period for early voting by a week and ends a popular high school civics program that encouraged students to register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays" because the "voter ID" requirement won't exist until 2016 (if it's not struck down by the Court next year).

None of these have anything to do with voter impersonation at the polls that, according to GOP lawmakers and Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, is the purpose of the law even though they can't document a problem with voter impersonation at the polls in North Carolina.

Now, would someone please explain to me the purpose of this law if it isn't about suppression of the vote by citizens in N Carolina?

 

Wow, they have over two years to get an I.D. what a burden to put on people. Can't register before they are 18? Can't vote before your 18, so what's the big deal. They want to vote the same day they register? They can't do it days or months before? Is there anyone in the state that isn't allowed to vote by absentee ballot? Where you can vote in your own home. Where they can vote weeks ahead of time if they wish. Where the state even provides postage for your ballot and the most work you have to do is walk it to the mailbox.

 

Oh, I believe your opinion is dead on target about this particular judge:

On January 9, 2007, Schroeder was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ..

Given the politics of the Bush administrations, you can bet your last bippy that this judge, like almost every other, was fully vetted for his fealty to Republican orthodoxy.

 

Answer my question about absentee balloting. If a person registers at the MVD department, how do they get his name on the list of eligible voters in his district on the same day?

 

The picture ID presents a problem for Obama voters that could limit how many times they vote.

 

Can you go to the wrong voting district and vote now? I can't.

 

"U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder on Friday denied a motion seeking to hold the November vote under old rules."

This seems to conflict with the reporter's statement in his article that says the new voter ID requirement will not take effect until 2016. What am I missing? Isn't this the crux of the voter ID law?

"The voter ID requirement included in the new law doesn't kick in until the next presidential election in 2016."

 

Yep and another thing. You can't even apply for all the free gedunk the Obama administration via the Dem Party leadership hands out unless . . . you have a valid I.D. So these objections are B.S., but they serve to give the Dem Party leadership something to do while all their Hopes for Change continue to spiral down the toilet under the worst president of either party for the last fifty years. Way to go there Dem Party voters!

 

they don't drive and they're old

[video=youtube;ks-4YRZWaNY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks-4YRZWaNY[/video]

 

Is the state banning people from voting at the age of 18 if they have properly registered and the registered voter's identity verified successfully, which usually takes days or weeks to do? No. Will they deny any legal US citizen a government ID card? No. Have they given voters enough time to prepare for the 2016 election? I'd say so. There is no way this law can be seen as voter suppression unless you are trying to make this into a political fight. And I'm sure Democrats wouldn't try something like that.

 

So how do they make it to the polls on Election Day?

 

It's already under appeal and will be overturned.

 

you don't understand the history of voter suppression in the south

take a wild guess

 

Democrats were picking up people and taking them to register and vote before. Hell they were even picking up people living on the street and under bridges and taking them in to vote. What's wrong with the elderly being able to call volunteers to take them to get an ID and then vote by absentee ballot? How do the poor and old Republicans do it? I don't hear them complaining.

 

Ok.

The same way they would get to the DMV to have their picture taken.

 

you have to have a birth certificate or something similar, to get a driver's license

mims may not have a birth certificate

viviette applewhite tried to get an id for years and was repeatedly turned away

 

Will the law allow vote suppressors to bring baseball bats to the voter precincts to intimidate voters? No. This law has absolutely nothing to do with what took place years ago. Time to move on and stop using that as an excuse.

 

you're just confirming my assertion

 

They have over two years to get one. My father was born at home and had to get one before he could draw Social Security. He had to find someone still alive to vouch he was born when and where he stated. The elderly have to have ID to get Social Security.

 

Even black Obama voters can get a birth certificate if they try hard enough.

Voting is a privilege not a right.

 

Birth certificates can be gotten from the hospital where you were born. If you weren't born in a hospital, then I suggest getting a signed affidavit as proof you were born in the US. We live in the US, not a third world country. These documents are not that difficult to obtain unless you are not a legal citizen of the US.

 

voting is a constitutional right

that wasn't long enough for viviette applewhite

she tried for years and couldn't get an id until she got a lawyer, that brought suit against the state

there was a time in history, when babies were born at home and worked in the field, most of their lives

some of the ones that lived near the end of that era, are still alive today

 

Driving is a privilege. Voting is a right. Just so you know.