# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 494
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9861 "2016-08-04T14:15:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t know the specific date. [According to the appeals court](http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf): > > Also: Yes. But: > [@](#): > > On March 12, 2013, the legislative process for SL 2013-381 > began, with the North Carolina House Committee on Elections, > chaired by Republican Representative David R. Lewis, holding > public hearings on voter ID. (See Pl. Ex. 127.) (Quoting the district court’s memorandum opinion, NAACP v. McCrory, USDC Mid Dist NC 1:13CV658 2014) The data requests you mention all happened subsequent to that date: > [@](#): > > On June 25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby > County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), declaring the formula > used to determine the § 5 covered jurisdictions, 52 U.S.C. > § 10303(b) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b)), to be unconstitutional. > The next day, Senator Thomas Apodaca, Republican Chairman of the > Rules Committee, publicly stated, “I think we’ll have an omnibus > bill coming out” and words to the effect that the Senate would > move ahead with the “full bill.” (Pl. Exs. 81, 714.) The events averted to by the appeals court then occurred, with data calls for voting information. Case closed, according to you. But you, and the court of appeals, do not recount this finding of fact: > [@](#): > > In 2012, Republicans gained control of the governorship and, > in 2013, control of both houses. After more than a century since > controlling all offices, they renewed attempts to change North > Carolina’s election administration. In 2013, several bills were > introduced to reduce the early-voting period, eliminate SDR, and > alter other procedures. See, e.g., H.B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb., > Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating SDR and enhancing observer > rights); S.B. 428, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) > (eliminating a week of early voting and SDR); S.B. 666, 2013 Gen. > Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early > voting, weekend voting hours, and SDR); S.B. 721, 2013 Gen. > Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (implementing voter ID and reducing > early voting to six days); H.B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. > (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting, Sunday voting, > SDR, and straight-ticket voting). All of those bills happened before the data call requests you find so odious. In other words, you invite me to conclude that because D follows C, C caused D. In this case, however, you never mention A or B, which ALSO preceded D. To help you, in chronological order: A = GOP gains control of all branches of government B = legislators propose limiting certain kinds of voting C = legislators request specific election data D = legislators pass law limiting certain kinds of voting You, and the appeals court, recite only the facts which support your preferred conclusion. I assume you are not equally appalled to learn that when the Democrats controlled North Carolina in 1999, they passed, in a near complete party-line vote, a removal of the so-called “one-stop” voting in North Carolina’s even-year general elections, thus establishing “no-excuse” early voting… in other words, they allowed early voting at will. They did this because they believed the addition of more early voters would assist their electoral chances. You’re okay with this, of course. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9862 "2016-08-04T14:22:41Z")
Darn! The omnipotent, unanswerable Liberal Hypocrisy Gambit! **Bricker** wins _again_! ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9863 "2016-08-04T14:28:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A = GOP gains control of all branches of government > B = legislators propose limiting certain kinds of voting > C = legislators request specific election data > D = legislators pass law limiting certain kinds of voting > > You, and the appeals court, recite only the facts which support your preferred conclusion. > > I assume you are not equally appalled to learn that when the Democrats controlled North Carolina in 1999, they passed, in a near complete party-line vote, a removal of the so-called “one-stop” voting in North Carolina’s even-year general elections, thus establishing “no-excuse” early voting… in other words, they allowed early voting at will. They did this because they believed the addition of more early voters would assist their electoral chances. You’re okay with this, of course. If your C happened after D, then you would have a point. But in C, they are confirming their suspicions about voting behavior, prior to finalizing and passing the bill. Just because they had prejudicial suspicions of what types of things to restrict before spending tax money to confirm those prejudices does not in any way mean that it was not done with the intent to restrict specific demographics from voting. To your second point, "They did this because they believed the addition of more early voters would assist their electoral chances. " You are impugning motivations that have not been in any way established. Could it be that they just wanted more citizens to participate in the democratic process? There are many of those who believe that greater participation in democracy is a noble end in and of itself. If getting a better representation of the constituency to make their voices heard at the polls favors one party over another, then good, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. Restricting voting, to reduce the voice of the constituency, is not a good thing, regardless of which party it favors. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9864 "2016-08-04T14:28:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > But: > > (Quoting the district court’s memorandum opinion, NAACP v. McCrory, USDC Mid Dist NC 1:13CV658 2014) > > The data requests you mention all happened subsequent to that date: > > The events averted to by the appeals court then occurred, with data calls for voting information. > > Case closed, according to you. > > But you, and the court of appeals, do not recount this finding of fact: > > All of those bills happened before the data call requests you find so odious. > > In other words, you invite me to conclude that because D follows C, C caused D. > > In this case, however, you never mention A or B, which ALSO preceded D. > > To help you, in chronological order: > > A = GOP gains control of all branches of government > B = legislators propose limiting certain kinds of voting > C = legislators request specific election data > D = legislators pass law limiting certain kinds of voting > > You, and the appeals court, recite only the facts which support your preferred conclusion. > > I assume you are not equally appalled to learn that when the Democrats controlled North Carolina in 1999, they passed, in a near complete party-line vote, a removal of the so-called “one-stop” voting in North Carolina’s even-year general elections, thus establishing “no-excuse” early voting… in other words, they allowed early voting at will. They did this because they believed the addition of more early voters would assist their electoral chances. You’re okay with this, of course. This doesn’t conflict with the claims of the appeals court – the legislators could have requested the data to confirm that the bill succeeded in doing what they wanted it to do, for example, or to possibly make changes. Further, the state specifically claimed in its justification that they changed the provisions because it was too easy for black people to vote, and black people tended to vote Democratic. This last part was reasonably (IMO) described by the appeals court as a “smoking gun” that the purpose of the bill was to make it harder for black people to vote. But I don’t care that much if they wanted to make it harder for black people to vote for electoral benefits or because they hated black people. Similarly, I don’t care that much if Democrats wanted to make it easier for black people to vote because they love black people or for electoral benefits. I support provisions that make it easier to vote, and oppose provisions that make it harder to vote, in general. I’m sure you could come up with specific circumstances that I might differ from this on, but these examples are pretty clear to me. I think that it’s most likely that the Republican legislators did this with no inner bigotry or sense of white supremacy in mind. But it was still a white supremacist bill, IMO, just as George Wallace still supported white supremacism whether it was out of ideology or political benefit/convenience. Deliberately trying to make it harder for black people to vote is a white supremacist action, IMO, no matter why they try to do it. Again, how do you feel about the fact that the state used as justification for the provisions in the bill that it was too easy for black people to vote, and they tended to vote Democratic? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9865 "2016-08-04T14:29:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Darn! The omnipotent, unanswerable Liberal Hypocrisy Gambit! **Bricker** wins _again_! My advice for liberals is to cease their seemingly omnipresent hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9866 "2016-08-04T14:37:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My advice for liberals is to cease their seemingly omnipresent hypocrisy. Thanks, we hadn’t thought of that, I’ll bring it up at the next meeting. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9867 "2016-08-04T14:39:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My advice for liberals is to cease their seemingly omnipresent hypocrisy. What’s hypocritical about believing that it’s wrong to deliberately try to make it harder for black people to vote? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9868 "2016-08-04T14:42:22Z")
How do you answer when a two-dollar Shanghai waterfront hooker suggests that you are not as chaste as you ought to be? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9869 "2016-08-04T14:47:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > How do you answer when a two-dollar Shanghai waterfront hooker suggests that you are not as chaste as you ought to be? Lower your prices to $1.50 ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9870 "2016-08-04T14:50:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My advice for liberals is to cease their seemingly omnipresent hypocrisy. The TL;DR version of 90% of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9871 "2016-08-04T15:14:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You, and the appeals court, recite only the facts which support your preferred conclusion. Appeals courts are known for that, Mr. Believes-In-The-Legal-Process. You have contorted your argument from “it’s morally and legally correct” to “it’s legally correct” to “it’s legally wrong” without changing your position at all. I suspect the best way to debate you would be to throw in a “it’s duck season!” and watch you shoot yourself in the face. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9872 "2016-08-04T15:22:41Z")
Shooting lawyers in the face is only legal in Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9873 "2016-08-04T15:30:13Z")
God damn it, I got my post all wrong. And too late to edit, fuck. I wanna do-over…hey **Bricker** , say something stupid again. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9874 "2016-08-04T15:34:29Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Oh please, cut the crap, if you thought better of black people, with the new demands you might actually expect most of the black people who vote without relying on ids that did not have them, to go out and get them. But no, that would be TOO much effort for poor little black people. Hey, earlier you intimated that you were black. Kindly post a picture to imgur of you holding a sign with your username written on it. Don’t need to see your face, just want to see your skin color. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9875 "2016-08-04T15:57:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What’s hypocritical about believing that it’s wrong to deliberately try to make it harder for black people to vote? Nothing. But that’s not an accurate description of what happened. Some members of the legislature deliberately made it harder for Democratic voters to vote. And because black people vote so strongly Democratic, the effect of that change – but not the intent – was to make it harder for black people to vote. And what makes the hypocrisy exist is that you don’t object to the legislature deliberately making it easier for Democratic voters to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9876 "2016-08-04T16:00:04Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Appeals courts are known for that, Mr. Believes-In-The-Legal-Process. True. But I am rebutting **iiiandyiii** mistake concern animus towards black voters, so it’s necessary to highlight where the appeals did, in this case, what appellate courts are wont to do. > [@](#): > > You have contorted your argument from “it’s morally and legally correct” to “it’s legally correct” to “it’s legally wrong” without changing your position at all. I suspect the best way to debate you would be to throw in a “it’s duck season!” and watch you shoot yourself in the face. None of that description is remotely accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9877 "2016-08-04T16:01:31Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > God damn it, I got my post all wrong. Why would you expect this particular post to be different from the rest of your contributons? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9878 "2016-08-04T16:05:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why would you expect this particular post to be different from the rest of your contributons? Zing! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9879 "2016-08-04T16:09:05Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > I have the solution. > > -get estimate of % decrease of black people being eligible to vote at the polls from requiring an id > -Take that % and enact a mix of other policies that would essentially double that percentage loss, as a net gain of black people being eligible to vote. > -Require ids to vote. > > Problem solved. Then I can stop hearing condescending liberals tell me how much of a f_cking cripple I am for being part of a race that is so inept as a group that merely needing to show a picture id would meaningfully impact their ability to vote. If it’s true, then my attitude is to those black people to get your f_cking shit together… > Liberals : They’re ONLY black, they can’t be EXPECTED to have ids in the same rates as other groups! > > Me: FU assholes. I don’t care if republicans only want IDs to prevent black people from voting, the fact that that’s even a possible effective tactic at all is a god damn disgrace. Get better, EXPECT better. I don’t understand your “solution.” It sounds like you propose to manipulate voting requirements to target a particular racial mix. _ **That’s what we’re complaining about.** _ And many or most of us **do not object to voter ID** … _as long as any voter ID program is implemented fairly._ Nobody (except defenders of GOP malice like **Bricker** ) is saying blacks are too lazy to get IDs and vote. To the contrary, Blacks vote at a much higher rate than Hispanics, Asians, or poor whites. The complaint is about deliberate obstacles against voting. I admit that, when I hear stats like "new Pennsylvania voter ID program will disenfranchise 100s of thousands, I am also baffled. Most Americans already need ID, right? But when you read some of the individual anecdotes you realize there are severe problems. _ **For example** _, most Americans who never applied for a passport have _ **never** _ had an _ **official** _ copy of their birth certificate. \*One black was turned away because the original birth certificate had a spelling error. \* (It would have been easy for a low-level official to let this “error” slide … if he liked applicant’s skin color.) **Bricker** ’s sarcastic answer was “He’s been using the wrong name for sixty years; serves him right; nanner nanner nanner!” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9880 "2016-08-04T16:18:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing. > > But that’s not an accurate description of what happened. > > Some members of the legislature deliberately made it harder for Democratic voters to vote. And because black people vote so strongly Democratic, the effect of that change – but not the intent – was to make it harder for black people to vote. > > And what makes the hypocrisy exist is that you don’t object to the legislature deliberately making it easier for Democratic voters to vote. They used as their justification, the “smoking gun” as the appeals court called it, that it was too easy for black people to vote. That seems pretty clear that they were aiming at black people – probably because they were Democratic-leaning, but the provisions were admittedly aimed at black people. So it’s accurate to say that they were aiming to make it harder for black people to vote. And how is it hypocritical to be in favor of legislation making it easier for people to vote and to be opposed to legislation that makes it harder for people to vote? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=493) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=495)