I’ll bite; why not?
Because voters should all vote with roughly the same information available. People shouldn’t be voting before the debates or in between conventions. There’s a reason we had an election day for over 200 years. And it wasn’t to somehow disenfranchise minority voters.
Minority voters were actually a bit disenfranchised for most of that 200 years. Maybe these things are actually improvements to democracy.
Moving past the hilarious equating of anything from “over 200 years” and “wasn’t to somehow disenfranchise minority voters”, you’re still not answering my question about NC. Aren’t you absolutely outraged that many NC legislators voted for a law to make it harder for black people to vote? And if you’re not outraged, then what the fuck is wrong with you?
Who are you to decide on anyone else’s behalf when they’ve gotten enough information to make their voting decisions?
That’s true only because 200 years ago, we didn’t have any minority voters, just male land owners.
In fairness, male land owners were a small subset of the population.
Why not? We allow absentee voting, which are generally sent in long before election day. I can see a reason why you would want a deadline beyond which you can’t vote otherwise it would be impossible to get a final outcome, but if I am pretty darn sure that I’m not going to change my mind, why shouldn’t I be allowed to lock in my vote a few days early if its more convenient for me to do so. Who’s going to be hurt?
The only damage I see would be to those who don’t want me to vote and so want to make it as inconvenient as possible, and those who have some November surprise that they want to hold to the last minute, (generally so that no one can fact check it). Neither of these seem to be particularly sympathetic concerns.
But what if you change your mind? What if you suddenly think “Hey, this guy Trump makes a lot of sense, plus he’s a hard nosed business man, just what this country needs!”.
So, maybe you chew through the leather straps and want to change your vote? Then what? Didn’t think about that, did you?
Federal Judge in North Dakota issues preliminary injunction against the State’s Voter ID law in fairly scathing opinion.
That’s written in legal. Can we have just the translation? I tried reading it, but kept trying to skip to the end, find and hit the button that says “Accept”.
I was going to ask him where that was in The Constitution, but your answer will do. Thanks!
The Eleventh Article.
Interesting. I never thought about how this impacts native Americans; probably because I live on the east coast.
It sounds they have the greatest problems of anyone in obtaining ID.
Actually, I think it’s in the eleventy-seventh codocile of the umpteenth appendix (around the back, next to the manure pile).
I fully support that decision. The law remains in effect, but the state must restore some form of a “fail-safe” provision, such as an affidavit signed at the polling place. That’s perfectly fine.
We are not talking about apathy, but suppression, by your party and cheered for by its reflexive partisans who can conceive no higher principle. Such as you.
To repeat: Gawdamm, boy.
Then why wasn’t that in the law in the first place? Why did the new voter ID law specifically do away with the fail-safe provision that previously was in effect in North Dakota?
I don’t see you denouncing your side for fighting to exclude a fail-safe provision in the law. Why is that?
I also am interested in your response to the Judge’s findings that (1) the law would have disenfranchised at least 3800 Native Americans in the upcoming election (undisputed by Defendants) (2) that the law did, in fact, disenfranchise Native Americans in previous elections, (3) there was no evidence presented that fail-safe provision would be susceptible to voter fraud, (4) there was no evidence presented that voter fraud has ever been a problem in North Dakota, (5) there was no evidence presented that allowing someone without an ID to sign an affidavit in order to vote would decrease public confidence in the electoral process.
Are you agreeing with the Judge’s conclusion that the 2013 North Dakota Voter ID law, as passed, was a bad law that disenfranchised minority voters while providing no measurable benefits?
Funny – I remember stories in history classes about how it could take days for people to vote out on the frontier, and then weeks or months for the elected representative to arrive in Washington DC.
Well, the Legislature thought about it.
If you vote by absentee, you can request & send in another absentee ballot, and the one with the latest postmark is counted. (If it arrives before election day.) Or you can even go to the polling place and vote in person on election day, thus replacing your earlier absentee ballot.
Until now, I had no idea North Dakota added these restrictions to their previous Voter ID law, which was quite satisfactory as it was, and which will be the one in force now that the new law has been enjoined.
The judge has no business declaring that a law is “bad,” and in fact he did not.
The judge is empowered to rule on whether the law is constitutionally infirm, and whether it’s violative of federal law with respect to voting rights. That, he did.
The ruling under discussion is a preliminary injunction, not a ruling on the evidence. When you list the items for which there was “no evidence presented,” you are making a very safe statement, since there was no trial evidence presented at all. The plaintiffs presented various declarations and affidavits, but the State of North Dakota had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarants as they will in a trial. This ruling simply says that the state is not permitted to enforce the new law until a full trial can be completed.