Link to the Joint Appendix, please
You have a Pacer account?
I was rebutting the inference that they asked for racial data and then enacted the law, which proved their racial animus.
Now you say, “Hey, they knew the info anyway.”
So what’s the relevance of the request for racial data, if according to you it was superfluous?
I am sure they knew.
They also knew that Sunday voting was added in 2003.
Once added, can it be removed? Or does the legislature only get to move in one direction?
What if they had failed to add it in 2003? Could they be sued for the failure to do so?
Why was it removed? Was this a critical issue requiring legislative remedy?
Why is your question legally relevant? The GOP wanted to remove it for the same reason the Democrats wanted to add it: to gain voting advantages.
Ummm…I thought you read the ruling? They used the additional data to fine-tune their discriminatory laws:
[ul]
[li]The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A. 2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. [/li]
[li]The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012. Id. at *136-38; see also id. at *48 n.74 (trial evidence showing that 60.36% and 64.01% of African Americans voted early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.47% and 49.39% of whites). In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting. Id. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days.[/li]
[li]The district court found that legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants. Id. at *137. Prior to SL 2013-381, same-day registration allowed eligible North Carolinians to register in person at an early voting site at the same time as casting their ballots. [/li]
[li]The district court found that the racial data revealed that African Americans disproportionately voted provisionally. Id. at *137. In fact, the General Assembly that had originally enacted the out-of-precinct voting legislation had specifically found that “of those registered voters who happened to vote provisional ballots outside their resident precincts” in 2004, “a disproportionately high percentage were African American.” Id. at *138. With SL 2013-381, the General Assembly altogether eliminated out-of-precinct voting. [/li]
[li]African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration. Id. at *69. Preregistration permitted 16- and 17-year-olds, when obtaining driver’s licenses or attending mandatory high school registration drives, to identify themselves and indicate their intent to vote. Id. at *7, *68. This allowed County Boards of Elections to verify eligibility and automatically register eligible citizens once they reached eighteen. Id. at *7. Although preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it. Id. at *15, *69[/li][/ul]
Notice how they wrote laws that decreased minority voting, then amended those laws to more specifically decrease minority voting once they got more detailed data?
I’m sure they did.
They get to move in a direction that doesn’t specifically target the voting rights of minorities. In fact, if they had only removed Sunday voting they probably would have gotten away with it. Hasn’t this been explained to you already, at great length and with remarkable patience by Andy?
What if my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle?
And this is the ethical failing on your part that many of us have noticed - the GOP tries to make voting harder for groups of people, instead of doing the hard work of changing their platform to increase their appeal to those groups of people.
And, yes, of course, Democrats would do and have done the same, etc. All the more reason this kind of electoral control should not be in the hands of people who directly benefit from elections - the corrupting influence is too strong.
I don’t claim they were motivated by racial animus. I claim that they were motivated by the desire to disproportionately harm black voters’ access, but it doesn’t matter whether they wanted to do this out of hatred or electoral gain. The VRA bans actions that disproportionately harm black voters, no matter the motive.
It’s not a one way ratchet. These provisions can be removed if done so in a way that doesn’t disproportionately harm black voters (for example, if they were paired with some other provision that made up for it). But the state’s own claims, as well as the timeline for the removal of the first seven days of early voting (which was amended into the bill after they received the data about racial use of these days) demonstrates conclusively, in the opinion of the appeals court, that the legislature wanted to take an action that disproportionately harmed black voters. This was clearly their goal, even if it was in service of a larger goal, like electoral gain.
And I believe that disproportionately harming black voters is a racist action, whatever the motive.
Aside from my last paragraph, what part of my post do you disagree with?
I get how it seems like a one way ratchet, but that’s due to history and morality. History: because black voters were so historically disenfranchised, and morality: because making it harder to vote is just different them making it easier to vote, and it’s entirely reasonable that federal law treats them differently.
Bricker, if the legislature had done this out of hatred rather than electoral gain, how would we tell? What would have been different? How does the VRA protect black people if it can’t block actions that disproportionately harm black voters?
The VRA protects voters from things like poll taxes or unequal barriers. There is no evidence whatsoever that lack of early voting hurts minority voters, except to the extent that apathetic voters are “hurt” whenever there’s a voting requirement of any sort, no matter how easy. I’m sure there are a non-trivial number of people deterred from voting because they don’t want to fill out a form. Or because they believe registering will subject them to jury duty. The VRA doesn’t exist to protect people who don’t really care about voting. It’s to protect people who do want to vote from being prevented from doing so.
But it is a fair question that Democrats just don’t want to engage with, to ask why these supposed burdens are only problematic for voting. Democrats seem just fine imposing burdens on those seeking employment, welfare benefits, transportation, housing, etc. Heck, Democrats are almost gleeful about constantly imposing new burdens to do just about anything in our society. Can anyone seriously argue that these requirements don’t pose big problems for minorities? THen there’s felons, who Democrats would love to get into the voting booth, but don’t want to allow them to get occupational licenses. Ask 9 out of 10 ex-felons and I bet they’d take a job if the choice was between a job and voting.
Your first paragraph is wrong. Section 2 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,” color, or language minority status. Further, in 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to make a “results” test, which bans any voting law that has a discriminatory effect whether or not the law was intentionally enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose. It wasn’t just poll taxes, it was anything that results in abridgement of the right to vote by race, even if it’s unintentional. In the NC case, it was intentional! They clearly wanted to make it harder for black people to vote, even if it was for electoral gain. A clear violation.
Your second paragraph is a mix of straw man nonsense and plain bullshit. If you want to talk about a specific law or requirement you think is dumb, then point it out specifically in another thread and I will respond.
Yes, but it’s irrelevant to this discussion, since the provision in question (the first week of early voting) wasn’t specifically removed until amended after the legislature received the research that indicated that black voters disproportionately use this first week of early voting.
The appeals court is correct about the timeline – the legislature researched how black people used this first week of early voting, and then amended their bill to remove this first week of early voting after determining that they use it disproportionately.
So if I amend my statement to “the state tried to justify rolling back certain voting days because those were the days that more black people voted”, then you will agree?
According to the VRA “results” clause, added in 1982, it’s not the motivations that matter. Disproportionately harming the ability for black people to vote violates the VRA, whatever the motivations behind it.
Are we actually to a place where somehow its legitimate to use legislation to tilt the electoral playing field to partisan advantage? How and when did that happen?
And if this is a fundamental truth, the bedrock fact of life that all other considerations must rest upon…how come it took 200 pages to get there? That, somehow, its OK to screw with black people’s voting rights if the reason you are doing it is so you can win elections, and not because you don’t want black people to vote?
And this happy horseshit:
So, Bricker can introduce privileged information to the argument, information that he has, but will not share.
“The truth is in that locked box over there, and I have the key. I have looked at the evidence, and it totally backs my position. Trust me, its really there, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.”
Well, sure! After all, the Counselor has established a reputation for strict candor and openness that is legendary. In the sense of being a legend, like Paul Bunyan and Bigfoot.
After I got married, Dana Plato committed suicide.
And I am correct about that timeline.
The Democrats did it in 1999 and 2003.
How did that happen?
I don’t know - probably because they knew their supporters would cheer. as you did.
Public record. Just not, so far as I am aware, online for free. Pay for Pacer access.Or hie yourself to the courthouse. Members of the public can read all filings.
You are correct about the irrelevant timeline you created, and the appeals court is correct about the timeline they noted. The NC legislature did not amend their bill to remove the first seven days of early voting until after they received the research data that indicated that these first seven days were disproportionately used by black voters.
Do you deny the 2nd sentence of the above paragraph?
I get the feeling, Bricker, that you see this as a sport or something, perhaps because you’ve been personally insulted and attacked a lot in this thread. But I’m actually trying to have a discussion with you. I’m not insulting you or personally attacking you, and I’m honestly putting forward the facts as I understand them.