Okay, that is fair. Now you know. Do you denounce the law for removing the fail-safe protections? Why do you suppose the law removed them?
You are right. I was imprecise with my wording. What I should have said was, given the findings that the judge made, do you agree that, from a policy perspective, this was a bad law?
Are you under the impression that Defendants were unable to challenge or refute the evidence that Plaintiffs used to support their motion or were unable to present their own declarations or affidavits in their opposition to the motion? I will concede that they were not able to cross-examine the declarants, but that is not the only method of discrediting the evidence presented by the other side. My understanding of the process is that both sides were given the opportunity to present Point and Authorities in support of their respective position, as well as presenting evidence in support of or in opposition to the respective motions. From my reading of the decision, the defendants presented no evidence in their opposition (order p8-9), nor did they attempt to refute the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs (order p8-9). I know if I were opposing a Request for Injunctive Relief, I would present evidence in my favor or at least cast doubt upon the other side’s evidence.
I’d be interested in hearing their reasons – presumably someone got up on the floor of the legislature and say, “We need to pass this bill because of __________.”
What did the bill’s sponsors aver was their motive?
Yes.
Sure, but for injunctive relief, the plaintiff’s declarations were, in essence, a collection of, “Here’s a person or group unduly burdened.” These cannot be refuted by another declaration, unless that declaration says “I investigated these specific people and they’re lying.”
I don’t know what the sponsors’ claimed motive was and I’m not sure I care. One of my main practice areas is Federal Housing Discrimination. The laws have changed quite a bit since the sixties to reflect the fact that most landlords who discriminate illegally do not overtly state their motives any more (not all, however, you might be surprised how many will still overtly state "I am not renting to you because you are black/latino/gay/unmarried/have kids etc.). I think we can both agree that politicians of all stripes do not always share the actual motives of why they take particular actions.
Good. Perhaps you should denounce the bill, even if the bill’s supporters used neutral wording in its support.
Except there weren’t just plaintiffs’ declarations. Pages 7-20 of the decision go into quite a bit of detail about how the judge weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs presented declarations, affidavits, surveys, studies, and data. And more to the point, defendants didn’t even CHALLENGE the statements, much less refute them. The bulk of the decision is an exhaustive review of the evidence presented. The judge then spends a number of pages (p20-23) distinguishing this case from Crawford, as far as the evidence presented, as well as denying the Defendants reliance on Scalia’s reasoning in the concurrence rather than the standard laid out in Stevens’ plurality decision. He also notes that the Defendants provide no evidence supporting their own claims regarding the State of North Dakota’s interest in preventing a fail-safe provisions from being implemented. I encourage you to read the full decision. The judge put a lot of work into it and was quite thorough in documenting his reasoning for making the decision that he made.
This was no rote decision based on a surface reading of the complaint. The judge did a lot of heavy lifting as far as analysis goes and I suspect the ultimate decision in the case will read similarly. I could be wrong. Perhaps the State was just sandbagging by withholding its good evidence and letting the Plaintiffs win injunctive relief in order to lull them into a false sense of security after which it will blindside them with arguments at trial. We shall see.
The outline of the conspiracy, as through a glass darkly, like the outlines of the mountain the pilot glimpses through the clouds…just a moment too late…
Hispanic Latinos hate Trump because he opposes open borders with amnesty and instant citizenship. Now that the voter id laws have been neutralized, the plan to crush Trump can go forward, Operation Pendejo. Buses rented, tents bought, CASA/ACORN revolutionary cadres trained and briefed.
Gotta wonder? How many Trump infected morans actually think this kind of stuff is real? Steal an election by massive, covert voter fraud? In person voter fraud?! How many Republicans already believed it before Trump even arrived? Is it possible that they really think this way, maybe even thought they were thwarting a covert conspiracy of national proportions?
Requiring registration before the election, having ID, voting in your proper polling place, and doing so on election day is something only male landowners can accomplish?
If that’s true, it’s easy to understand why male landowners were dominant.
If those simple requirements are onerous, then it makes you wonder how people ever manage to accomplish anything besides voting. If you can’t do those things you can’t drive, you can’t work, basically you would need a caregiver if you cannot do those things.
Democrats prove their political motives simply by the fact that they do not hesitate to put obstacles in the place of people doing literally ANYTHING else, but have decided that even requiring registration is now too onerous a requirement for voting.
Are… are you high? Because this isn’t even moving the goalposts; this is trying to kick the ball into the snackbar. It doesn’t remotely follow from anything said before.
Gosh, if only we’d had the forethought to have previously extensively debunked the “people without ID aren’t trying hard enough” argument. Why, we could have presented multiple instances of legitimate hardships faced by voters attempting to obtain one of the suspiciously-narrowly-defined pool of acceptable IDs. We could even have mentioned notable court cases where such obstacles were specifically referenced.
Hang on a minute - let me just pop into my time machine here and…okay, all done. I’ve gone back in time and ensured that all those things have been included in this thread. You can now go back and read them.
You’re welcome.
Cite that the Democrats think registration is too onerous a requirement for voting?
You, however, have amply proved your political motives by being just hunky-dory with people being hampered from exercising a fundamental Constitutional right. Good luck claiming the moral high ground from the hole you’ve dug yourself into.
Hillary Clinton wants automatic registration of all voters.
and as I pointed out, the NC decision goes way beyond ID, now claiming that not having early voting, not having same day registration, and requiring people to actually vote in their precinct somehow violates both VRA and equal protection.
I notice no one has wanted to touch my question about voting in NC even though I’m a FL resident. Because you all know that the only thing keeping me from doing it is the honor system. Except this court has basically said it’s wrong to even have residency laws. It is now a civil rights issue that I be allowed to cast my vote wherever I wish.
I’m not ignoring it, I just wasn’t aware that bad motives could annul rational laws. If we can find Democrats on record as wanting to facilitate illegals voting, does that mean we can get laws they passed to make that easier struck down?
Perhaps I shouldn’t denounce anything I haven’t made an effort to investigate.
In several previous trials in other parts of the country, similarly situated plaintiffs have been unable to substantiate under cross-examination their supposed difficulties. Admittedly those cases involved less strict versions of the concept, and admittedly I cannot imagine a strong justification for removing the “affidavit in lieu of” provisions, so I am willing to wait for a trial, with the problematic provisions enjoined in the interim.
I love, by the way, that for four years I have defended the existence of Voter ID laws by, inter alia, repeatedly citing a favorable Supreme Court decision, a full and final decision on the merits. And the opposition here has brayed and champed about the difference between “moral” and “legal,” and inveighed against the reliance on mere Supreme Court precedent.
Now comes a preliminary injunction, in advance of a trial, issued by the lowest court in the federal system of general jurisdiction, and suddenly it is as if Moses handed down the injunction from Sinai.
Right. So wanting to facilitate voter registration is the same thing as thinking “requiring registration is too onerous for voting”. Registration is still “required”. It’s right there in the term “automatic registration”. I realize that you live in Bizarro World but “universal registration” is the opposite of “not requiring registration”.
And as we pointed out, it’s not that having them is a right, it’s that removing them with discriminatory intent is wrong.
It really isn’t, and your inability to understand basic facts doesn’t make it so.
Clearly you’re unaware of the reason for the VRA in the first place. Plenty of “rational laws” were passed for malign purposes.
I can’t even begin to imagine what you’re going to trot out as “Democrats on record as wanting to facilitate illegals voting” but given your track record it should be entertaining.
And I love how, having been forced to abandon the “moral” argument early on to focus on the “legal”, once the “legal” argument also started to crumble you declared a moral victory. Keep pounding that table, dude.
I’m not talking about annulling laws – I’m asking about your personal feelings. Does this surprise you? Does it anger you? Are you okay with it, or mildly annoyed, or outraged?
This is an aspect of the continuing significance of white supremacism in America, IMO, and its remaining significance within the Republican party. Do you accept this, or disagree? Are the NC legislators complete outliers, or is there still a significant remnant in the party that wants to disenfranchise black people?
I’m trying to wrap my head around how people that I assume are good and decent (like you and Bricker) interpret and react to a significant chunk of their party supporting and advocating for white supremacist policies.
I’ll quote these excellent posts by Martin Hyde that answer my question from his point of view, and I’m wondering if other decent Republican leaners like Bricker and adaher agree: