# 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:** 499
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9961 "2016-08-05T00:59:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **Bricker** , did you read this part of the court ruling? It disputes your A-D timeline – it says that “after receipt of this data” – after the legislature got the racial breakdown of the first week of early voting – they “amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting”. Are you saying that the appeals court is lying, or was your timeline mistaken? Neither. The legislature’s amendment to eliminate early voting was not the first time the legislature attempted to eliminate early voting. I really thought the A, B, C, D thing was easy to follow. Let’s try it again. A. When the GOP gained control of the North Carolina statehouse in 2007, legislators proposed bills to eliminate the voting reforms passed in 1999 and 2003, including early voting. Do you understand that this happened? Yes, or no? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9962 "2016-08-05T01:05:20Z")
Seems to my eye it assumes a standard and notices the deviation from it. As if to say, after getting the information they sought, and seeing the special importance of those seven days to their AA constituents, they would be expected to respect that fact. The assumption that is apparent and need not be specified: that an honorable legislature would not do otherwise. And if dire necessity demanded that those seven days be trimmed? Then, at the very least, an honest and transparent explanation is owed. How much is the sacred value of voter confidence degraded when the legislature insults its citizens? ---
**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 5, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9963 "2016-08-05T01:12:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Neither. > > The legislature’s amendment to eliminate early voting was not the first time the legislature attempted to eliminate early voting. > > I really thought the A, B, C, D thing was easy to follow. > > Let’s try it again. > > A. When the GOP gained control of the North Carolina statehouse in 2007, legislators proposed bills to eliminate the voting reforms passed in 1999 and 2003, including early voting. > > Do you understand that this happened? Yes, or no? Oh boy, I think I understand your argument. It’s equivalent to “one time I killed a guy and didn’t get convicted, so now that I’ve killed a different guy I shouldn’t get convicted this time either!” I’ve killed lots of people. That’s my defence. Good job with the defense, **Bricker**! ---
**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 5, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9964 "2016-08-05T01:30:43Z")
While you’re explaining things, please also explain the following: > [@Bricker](#): > > But you, and the court of appeals, do not recount this finding of fact: > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > 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. So, the above language is a direct quote from the district court ruling _that the appeals court overturned_. Do you think maybe the appeals court didn’t read it? Is that what you’re claiming? Or are you simply arguing that because the appeals court didn’t quote in full the ruling that they overturned, that’s evidence that their finding was flawed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9965 "2016-08-05T01:35:30Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > **Bricker** , please explain the following chain of quotes: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you think it’s reasonable to call legislators who tried to justify rolling back certain voting days because those were the days that more black people voted terrible people? > [@Bricker](#): > > That never happened. > [@Court Record](#): > > As > “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, > the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours > across counties, including the fact that only some counties had > decided to offer Sunday voting. Id. The State then elaborated > on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday > voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and > “disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. In response, > SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting. Sure. **iiandy** ’s quote discusses legislators. My quote says his claim is untrue. Your quote asks me to explain some discrepancy between iiiandyiii’s quote and a line from the appellate opinion, The appellate opinion mentions some statements made at trial by the attorney arguing for the state. My best guess is that you, or iiiandyiii, or both of you believe that that the legislators were also the attorney general. Here’s a bit more from the appellate court’s opinion, with some helpful context: > [@](#): > > The record evidence is clear that this is exactly what was > done here. For example, \*\*the State argued before the district > court \*\*that the General Assembly enacted changes to early voting > laws to avoid “political gamesmanship” with respect to the hours > and locations of early voting centers. J.A. 22348. As > “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, > the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours > across counties, including the fact that only some counties had > decided to offer Sunday voting. Id. The State then elaborated > on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday > voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and > “disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. I urge you to read the Joint Appendix in full. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9966 "2016-08-05T01:40:59Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > While you’re explaining things, please also explain the following: > > So, the above language is a direct quote from the district court ruling _that the appeals court overturned_. Do you think maybe the appeals court didn’t read it? Is that what you’re claiming? Or are you simply arguing that because the appeals court didn’t quote in full the ruling that they overturned, that’s evidence that their finding was flawed? Fallacy of the excluded middle. I am arguing that the appellate court failed to include that language because it was inconsistent with their desired narrative. They did what an appellate court is not supposed to do: substitute their own findings of fact for the trier of fact. But your enthusiasm for a higher court is noted. If the Fourth Circuit rehears this en banc and affirms the district court, will you retain this great respect for them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9967 "2016-08-05T01:47:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Oh boy, I think I understand your argument. It’s equivalent to “one time I killed a guy and didn’t get convicted, so now that I’ve killed a different guy I shouldn’t get convicted this time either!” > > I’ve killed lots of people. That’s my defence. Good job with the defense, **Bricker**! No, you really don’t understand. I am rebutting the claim that the legislature was motivated by racial animus. One piece of evidence adduced in favor of that claim is the sequence of events: they asked for racial practices data and then eliminated those practices which were disproportionately used by black voters. The inference is that these two facts are related in a cause and effect manner. I rebut this by showing that the efforts to eliminate these voting practices pre-dates the request for racial data. Moreover, the efforts to eliminate the practices map exactly to the changes introduced in 1999 and 2003 by the Democrats when they controlled the legislature. The Democrats added early voting. The Republicans took it away. Your view of the world is that one change is permissible, but once it is changed, it cannot be changed back… the change is a “one-way rachet,” that can be done but never undone. That is incorrect, in my view. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9968 "2016-08-05T02:05:02Z")
Uh-oh, he’s going for the Slow Boat to Chinatown gambit. > [@](#): > > …The Democrats added early voting. The Republicans took it away. Your view of the world is that one change is permissible, but once it is changed, it cannot be changed back… the change is a “one-way rachet,” that can be done but never undone… That’s what she said. > [@](#): > > …“We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination,” ruled Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. “When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African-American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.”… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9969 "2016-08-05T02:06:49Z")
Oh, and what’s so weird about the attorney general acting on behalf of the state legislature? Who’s _supposed_ to do that, the bailiff? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9970 "2016-08-05T02:11:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, and what’s so weird about the attorney general acting on behalf of the state legislature? Who’s _supposed_ to do that, the bailiff? The attorney general is part of the Executive Branch, and represents the state, not the legislative branch. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9971 "2016-08-05T02:12:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Uh-oh, he’s going for the Slow Boat to Chinatown gambit. > > That’s what she said. Yes, but I don’t agree. She cites no authority for that statement. She just says it, as though she is announcing a rule of law. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9972 "2016-08-05T02:19:52Z")
For that matter, where’s yours? Haven’t done it yet, but if I was to google-fu about legal wizards ridiculing and sneering at her quote, above…it being so obviously first year law school wrong? What am I likely to find? A near unanimous reflection of your opinion? Or…something else? ---
**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 5, 2016, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9973 "2016-08-05T02:25:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacy of the excluded middle. > > I am arguing that the appellate court failed to include that language because it was inconsistent with their desired narrative. They did what an appellate court is not supposed to do: substitute their own findings of fact for the trier of fact. So you claim that because the appeals court didn’t recite the findings of fact in full, it is the case that… Is it common for appeals courts to recite in full the findings of fact from a case they are ruling on, or are those findings of fact, unless specifically contested, incorporated by reference? Is it possible that the appeals court was aware of the findings of fact from the case they were reviewing? That they didn’t need to recount them all in their decision? [/quote] > [@](#): > > But your enthusiasm for a higher court is noted. And your lack of enthusiasm for a higher court is likewise noted. ---
**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 5, 2016, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9974 "2016-08-05T02:28:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, you really don’t understand. > > I am rebutting the claim that the legislature was motivated by racial animus. Well on the one hand we have **Bricker** , and on the other hand we have the appeals court… You of course have the advantage, having read the findings of fact. > [@](#): > > That is incorrect, in my view. And not incorrect in the view of the appeals court, right? ---
**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 5, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9975 "2016-08-05T02:35:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > **iiandy** ’s quote discusses legislators. > > My quote says his claim is untrue. > > Your quote asks me to explain some discrepancy between iiiandyiii’s quote and a line from the appellate opinion, > > The appellate opinion mentions some statements made at trial by the attorney arguing for the state. > > My best guess is that you, or iiiandyiii, or both of you believe that that the legislators were also the attorney general. Ah, so our mistake was thinking that the state accurately represented the justifications of the General Assembly? You, of course, know the state was not accurately representing the justifications of the General Assembly because…? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9976 "2016-08-05T02:48:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > For that matter, where’s yours? > > Haven’t done it yet, but if I was to google-fu about legal wizards ridiculing and sneering at her quote, above…it being so obviously first year law school wrong? > > What am I likely to find? A near unanimous reflection of your opinion? Or…something else? You might find the Supreme Court’s words. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9977 "2016-08-05T02:51:14Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > So you claim that because the appeals court didn’t recite the findings of fact in full, it is the case that… > > Is it common for appeals courts to recite in full the findings of fact from a case they are ruling on, or are those findings of fact, unless specifically contested, incorporated by reference? Neither. > [@](#): > > Is it possible that the appeals court was aware of the findings of fact from the case they were reviewing? That they didn’t need to recount them all in their decision? When a specific finding weakened their conclusion? Sure they were aware of it. > [@](#): > > And your lack of enthusiasm for a higher court is likewise noted. I am always reading to accept a final disposition from the judicial system. But that’s the difference between us. You are perfectly happy to declare that a final court ruling in your favor is correct, and one against your preferred outcome is immoral, and without legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9978 "2016-08-05T02:52:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Ah, so our mistake was thinking that the state accurately represented the justifications of the General Assembly? > > You, of course, know the state was not accurately representing the justifications of the General Assembly because…? I can read, and I read the Joint Appendix. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9979 "2016-08-05T02:53:36Z")
What _was_ the reason given (if any) for reducing the voting time? Is it expensive to have the extra days? If it was solely a cost-cutting gesture and the extra days added 10% to the cost of an election while being used by only 2% of the voters, I could picture it. Of course, having asked about demographic information beforehand taints any decision about what to cut because it creates the appearance of (and Bricker is known for caring about appearances when it suits him) seeking partisan advantage rather than economy. ---
**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 5, 2016, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9980 "2016-08-05T03:02:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am rebutting the claim that the legislature was motivated by racial animus. One piece of evidence adduced in favor of that claim is the sequence of events: they asked for racial practices data and then eliminated those practices which were disproportionately used by black voters. The inference is that these two facts are related in a cause and effect manner. > > I rebut this by showing that the efforts to eliminate these voting practices pre-dates the request for racial data. So, you don’t think the legislature had any idea which voting restrictions would disproportionately affect black voters before they got racial practices data? That people who need to get elected for a living are unaware of the voting habits of the people who vote for them? Do you suppose there’s any possibility at all that people who deal intimately with voting issues on a day-to-day basis are aware that lots of black voters take advantage of Sunday voting? Or perhaps your position is that members of the NC legislature are clinically retarded? In that case, I agree! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=498) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=500)