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.
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?
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!
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?
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?
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.
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?
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]
And your lack of enthusiasm for a higher court is likewise noted.
When a specific finding weakened their conclusion? Sure they were aware of it.
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.
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.
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!