North Carolina hops on the voter-suppression bandwagon

Early Voting Changes In North Carolina Spark Bipartisan Controversy

Even some Republicans don’t like the new law:

And the beat goes on…

“local control” only applies when the local people are the same party that runs the state.

just like states rights only applies to things the GOP favors such as lax gun laws, lax environmental rules ,etc.

This is a bullshit law, but I take issue with the title. North Carolina isn’t hopping on the bandwagon, it’s sitting atop the bandwagon, whipping the horses and yelling “Giddyap!”

As for local control: the legislature makes no pretense of favoring local control. Urban areas in the state trend heavily Democratic, so we tend to get slivered up into primarily-rural districts to dilute our power, and even within cities the state has taken to telling us how to run our elections (for example, we must have district instead of at-large county commissioner elections, using districts that create as many Republican commissioners as possible).

So, I have 17 days to do something, and it is open 12 hours per day all week long at various, although fewer, locations throughout my state, the state is “suppressing” the activity?

I might support your argument were it not for the abject hyperbole. Hell, marriage licenses in my state are only available during business hours Monday through Friday and at a single location in each county and costs $55. Is the state suppressing my right to marry?

Oddly, today I got a text message from Vote-org reminding me to vote, encourage friends and family to vote, and to contact them for hours and locations for early voting near FAYETTEVILLE. Since I live in California, the reminder doesn’t do me much good.

North Carolina is fudged (because i can’t use the term i would choose) The Dems used a few redistricting tricks to hold on longer than they should, but the Republicans went full “Dark-side” to cluster-fudge the state government to hold onto it. They got power and are hell bent on holding on and enacting the stupid and short sided policies they want to enact.

Any attempt to reduce the availability of voting to a select population designed to disproportionately affect a group or groups for the purpose of gaining partisan advantage is voter suppression with malice aforethought. Arguing that it’s not that much of a reduction in availability is not persuasive that it’s not intended the way it appears to be.

Why don’t news stories link to the law in question? I hate when they don’t do that.

I’m not sure I understand. The law makes early voting places stay open 12 hours a day. How is that a bad thing?

Did you read the article? It will result in fewer early voting places, because the local governments cannot afford to keep all of the polling places open 12 hours a day. It will result in no weekend voting.

The state is making it harder for people to vote, not easier.

Does the law dictate how many people have to be at the polling place for it to be considered “open”?

I mean, can the county say “Sure we are open 7 - 7, but before 9 and after 5 there will be only one person there, so we can afford to have 3 people on the weekends”

Or something like that?

Here are the various versions of the bill. I couldn’t find anything in this law that spoke to minimum staff required at an advance voting site. I suspect that info can be found in another state law somewhere, but I couldn’t find it.

This is a pretty good analysis of the new law, albeit from a left-leaning organization.

But it seems to me that you are digging deeper and deeper in an attempt to justify a law that looks like it’s going to suppress rather than enable voting.

No, you have me wrong. I’m trying to find out why the people in charge say “It closes down polling places” instead of “We are going to work around this law to ensure people can vote”

Both articles that I linked clearly talked about the lack of funds to open all voting places for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week. The counties probably have budgeted a set amount for early voting, and they have figured out how to best use that money. They might stagger opening/closing times, and more than likely not all locations are open each day. Heck, the same staff could cover two locations if each location was open 3 days a week.

I get your point, but when the money isn’t available, there’s not a whole lot that can be done.

What happens if you miss your window to get a marriage license?

What happens if the county says “Sure, they will all be open!” and then just doesn’t open some of them?

Not this year. This year, Georgia is taking a bullwhip to the horses with one hand and firing a shotgun into the air with the other.


And that’s not even touching the issue of purging registered voters from the lists.

I’m always curious when I see posts like this.
Do you dispute that the measures were probably adopted to affect turnout selectively?
Never mind whether the measures were legal, whether “you guys would have done it too if you were in control and smart enough,” whether conscientious voters should be able to overcome the suppression measures. Just answer the question, please:
Do you dispute that the measures were probably adopted to affect turnout selectively?
Thanks in advance for your prompt reply.

What evidence do you have that the measure was probably adopted to affect turnout selectively?

One can make a cogent argument that having polling places open for voting 12 hours a day is a positive thing. If there are only 13 percent fewer voting places as a result, that’s not exactly a strong argument from a results standpoint that the change is intended to suppress voting. So where is your evidence?

The biggest evidence is that in 2013 republican lawmakers asked for racial data about the breakdown of early voting usage, and then modified their bill specifically to eliminate early voting methods used primarily by black voters. That one got struck down, and now they’re doing the same thing without the smoking gun of having immediately asked for racial data on voting. The whole ‘oh, it’s just a coincidence that this measure happens to have exactly the effect of cutting methods used by more blacks that whites’ defense is absurd.

I don’t know anything about North Carolina, but in my own state wrt elections and early voting several counties have closed some of the early voting sites because of low voter turnout combined with limited funding. Every time they have gone back to the public for increased funding they have been turned down.

Not saying this is the case in NC, but I’ve seen a few posters discuss funding as an issue in this thread, so I’m wondering if there might be other factors than just trying to suppress poor/minority votes.