What percentage of black voters do you believe are more outraged by “being on the losing side” than by the idea than a significant number of legislators want to make it harder for them to vote?
Early voting may have a discriminatory effect, but there is actually no particular reason anyone needs early voting. We had elections for decades without early voting, which is a fairly new phenomenon.
Also, courts aren’t supposed to strike down laws unless they violate the Constitution or state constitutions, or if they have no rational basis. But if there is a rational basis for having early voting, there is also a rational basis for not having early voting. And same day registration has actually been shown to be a fraud machine, so there’s definitely a basis for not having that. The court even said that votes have to be counted when cast in the wrong precinct. That’s a really novel interpretation of… something. Does this mean I can vote in NC’s Senate race if I’d rather not vote in Florida’s?
Speaking of “fairly new”, let’s hear it for Black people being allowed to vote in the first damn place! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
You’re not doing your party any favors with this approach.
They are supposed to strike down laws that violate equal protection, especially if they have no rational basis And they just did. Pay attention.
You actually think that’s a logically valid statement, don’t you? Okay, tell us the rational basis for not having early voting. Then tell us the reasons for eliminating it if you do. Gawdammm, boy …
Let’s just say “cite” this time.
You really need to do your homework. Unless, as it seems, you actually enjoy looking bigoted along with partisan, ignorant, and foolish.
When yours do even more, you applaud it. Only a morally hollow person such as yourself could think that Yay Team is the highest standard.
I asked earlier if he’s a liar or just a dupe. I think the answer is “both, and more”.
Someone with even a basic understanding of democracy and its importance could not post anything Bricker, or lately adaher, has posted here.
The same is true about your premature glee: it was due not to the justice of the lower court decision, it was only your conservative hypocrisy showing.
If democracy is so important than let’s vote for the Fed governors. Oh wait, you want us to elect leaders, you just don’t want elected leaders to actually be accountable for anything. That’s what unelected “experts” are for, and the idea of giving power to the people over such matters is “lunacy”.
We might as well vote for SCOTUS justices too now, given how politicized the process already is.
So it’s okay for the government todiscriminate against a segment of the population so long as nothing in the statute says that that’s what they’re doing. We could practically recreate Jim Crow under that standard.
So, you ascribe motivations to your opponents and then decry those motivations? Saves time, I guess.
Better than admitting your own motivations are the same, and that you recognize none higher.
There is no need to read any further in that post. :rolleyes:
Please. Democrats had little concern for voter apathy until it started costing them elections. Back when voter apathy affected both parties equally, it was just something analysts shook their heads over. When Democrats started being adversely affected, it became a moral crusade to make voting easier. The next step seems to be automatic registration. Automatic registration is of course a civil rights issue now.
Legislators writing laws to suppress Black voting is not voter apathy. This is an obvious statement…to most people.
You act like having a political motivation invalidates the morality of the anti-voter-suppression cause. Bullshit. One side is trying to make it harder for black people to vote. That’s wrong, period. It doesn’t matter if the people fighting against this are doing so, wholly or partially, because their supporters include lots of black people.
It’s not voter suppression to have normal election procedures or to reverse procedures that don’t make a whole lot of sense, such as letting people vote before debates. Early voting only needs to be a week. If we’re going to have 30 days, why not just let people vote after the GOP convention?
The court found that NC legislators specifically targeted provisions that black voters used to greater degrees. Why do you keep talking in generalities when we know the specific reasons these provisions were targeted?
That’s still activist. There is no provision in law or in precedent to allow rational laws that do not violate the Constitution to be struck down. Stating “equal protection” is a very novel approach, but one which won’t survive when NC appeals to SCOTUS.
The voter ID law may indeed be struck down, but states have a right to have early voting or not have early voting, to have same day registration or not have same day registration. And the idea that precincts don’t matter, that people can vote wherever they want to, is going to be laughed out of any court not stocked with partisan Democrats.
I ask again. Any particular reason I can’t vote in NC?
Bullshit. It violates the VRA, which prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right … to vote on account of race,”.
Why are you so keen on defending suppressing black votes? Doesn’t it bother you that NC legislators wanted to make it harder for black people to vote?
Jesus. Be a human.
Are voting procedures spelled out anywhere in the constitution? Is there any constitutional reason a particular venue couldn’t, for example, decide the polls should only be open for 20 minutes?
To be rigorously fair to adaher (if one would be so inclined), the linked article did not specify under what grounds (constitutional or statutory) the NC law was struck down. One had to clink the link inside that article that took you back to a more original source in order to see that court said both, but even then it didn’t specify which parts of the law violated the constitution vs those parts that violated the VRA.
Granted, adaher should have considered that even though it wasn’t in the article. But some folks seem to be incredulous that he could have read the article and not understood when in fact the article didn’t actually say.
Like I said, to be rigorously fair, which is unlike to happen in the Pit. 