Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 15, 2017

The Supreme Court is letting stand a lower court opinion from last summer that struck down North Carolina's voter ID law. The law was challenged by civil rights groups and the Obama administration, which argued that the law's photo ID requirement had a disparate impact on minority voters. The North Carolina General Assembly had urged the court to review a lower court decision that held the law targeted "African-Americans with almost surgical precision." The Supreme Court declined to weigh in, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately to stress that the denial should not be read as an endorsement of the lower court's decision.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

GOOD Voter suppression needs to stop.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-15 11:32 AM | Reply

OBAMA wins, again

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-05-15 11:45 AM | Reply

Republicans have to cheat to win, now Trump is putting together a committee to figure out ways to cheat nationwide and putting Kris Kobach on the committee, he's the crook who came up with Interstate Crosscheck which disenfranchised over 1,000,000 mostly minority voters.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 11:47 AM | Reply

"On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states with the longest histories of voting discrimination no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government. A month after that decision, North Carolina – where 40 counties were previously subject to that requirement – passed the country's most sweeping voting restrictions."

The state required strict voter ID to cast a ballot, cut a week of early voting and eliminated same-day voter registration, out of precinct voting and pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. On July 29, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit invalidated these restrictions, which it said targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision" in violation of the Voting Rights Act and 14th Amendment....

Even after the Fourth Circuit called cuts to early voting "as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times," North Carolina Republicans brazenly cut early voting days and hours in local counties. The executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, Dallas Woodhouse, urged Republican-controlled election boards to "make party line changes to early voting" by adopting fewer early voting days, eliminating polling places on college campuses and prohibiting Sunday voting, when black churches hold "Souls to the Polls" mobilization drives...

The cynical strategy worked: black turnout decreased 16 percent during the first week of early voting because of long lines and fewer polling places. The North Carolina GOP bragged before Election Day that "African American Early Voting is down 8.5% from this time in 2012. Caucasian voters early voting is up 22.5% from this time in 2012."

Then, after Democrat Roy Cooper was elected governor, the first thing the GOP-controlled legislature did, in a lame-duck legislative coup, was take away the governor's power to control a majority on the state's election boards -- the very election boards that cut early voting in Democratic areas. This is the same GOP legislature that has been found guilty of rampant racial gerrymandering and will have to hold a special election to redraw many of its seats.

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-15 12:21 PM | Reply

GOPer vote suppressionists are a disgrace to our politics.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-15 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Poor Gorsuch. Forever he will have an asterisk next to his name as having been nominated to the bench by Trump.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-05-15 12:51 PM | Reply

States right suck now?

Cuts both ways.

But I see nothing about not being able to sue the state.

Unlike sanctuary cities where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-05-15 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"States right suck now?"

Wouldn't be the first time they did in this country, in this state specifically. When "states rights" are used to disenfranchise citizens with a clear bias that the court recognized then yes, those states rights suck. Citizens rights should Trump states rights. But they won't if Trump has anything to say about it.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 08:14 PM | Reply

States right suck now?

Cuts both ways.

But I see nothing about not being able to sue the state.

Unlike sanctuary cities where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris

So you think states have the right to try and prevent poor people and minorities from voting?

What's it like to support a party that tries to thwart democracy like that? Doesn't having to cheat to win mean you're actually a loser?

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 08:21 PM | Reply

Unlike sanctuary cities where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims.

#7 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2017-05-15 12:58 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 1

What victims? Undocumented persons commit fewer crimes.

#10 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 08:38 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"States right suck now?"

When they violate the Constitution. Yes.

"Unlike sanctuary cities where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims."

What victims? There are no more "victims" of Sanctuary Cities than any other city that releases Americans from custody for nonviolent offenses.

In fact, Contrary to Trump's Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes.

www.nytimes.com

But Mr. Nowrasteh said he had analyzed the available figures and concluded that undocumented immigrants had crime rates somewhat higher than those here legally, but much lower than those of citizens.

You just made that crap up.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-15 08:41 PM | Reply

"States Rights"

Expressly granted by Article 1 Section 4, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof..." subject to further regulation by Congress and restricted by the Bill of Rights and the VRA.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2017-05-15 08:44 PM | Reply

" subject to further regulation by Congress and restricted by the Bill of Rights and the VRA.'

Which the SC gutted due to partisan political leanings by the corporate five, then Scalia died, and the Republican controlled Senate refused to follow the Constitution and "advise and consent" on Gorsuch because they wanted to deprive the sitting Democratic President of his right to appoint SC Justices and hang on to their 5-4 majority so they can please Republicans, corporations, etc. Unprecedented historically and totally not in agreement with the intent of those who wrote the Constitution.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 08:51 PM | Reply

" subject to further regulation by Congress and restricted by the Bill of Rights and the VRA.'

Which the SC gutted due to partisan political leanings by the corporate five, then Scalia died, and the Republican controlled Senate refused to follow the Constitution and "advise and consent" on Gorsuch because they wanted to deprive the sitting Democratic President of his right to appoint SC Justices and hang on to their 5-4 majority so they can please Republicans, corporations, etc. Unprecedented historically and totally not in agreement with the intent of those who wrote the Constitution.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 08:51 PM | Reply

You're wrong, both times.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2017-05-15 09:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You're wrong, both times.

#15 | POSTED BY ET_AL

FF for the part in bold.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-15 09:40 PM | Reply

Which the SC gutted due to partisan political leanings by the corporate five, then Scalia died, and the Republican controlled Senate refused to follow the Constitution and "advise and consent" on Garland because they wanted to deprive the sitting Democratic President of his right to appoint SC Justices and hang on to their 5-4 majority so they can please Republicans, corporations, etc. Unprecedented historically and totally not in agreement with the intent of those who wrote the Constitution.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Glad I could help.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-16 05:12 AM | Reply

"Glad I could help."

Appreciated.

"You're wrong, both times."

As Laura pointed out I did use the wrong name for Obama's appointee but other than that I wasn't wrong about anything.
I'd have t say, you're wrong about 80% of the time because your "opinions" are so right wing.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 08:22 AM | Reply

This whole argument is stupid.

Just get an ID. In today's times, it isn't hard.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-16 11:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

who came up with Interstate Crosscheck which disenfranchised over 1,000,000 mostly minority voters.

If you are trying to vote across state lines, you are doing it wrong.

I see nothing wrong with interstate crosscheck.

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-16 11:55 AM | Reply

#18

Even with Laura's correction, which I didn't catch, you're still wrong.

The VRA was not gutted. It is the foundation of this case.

Neither the Constitution, Senate rules or anything else directs the Senate to act in any particular manner to effectuate "advise and consent."

Can't believe I missed the Interstate Crosscheck conspiracy theory. Database matching doesn't "disenfranchise" anyone. That's all it does. It has no power to remove anyone from voter rolls. Only state and local elections officials can do that.

I don't post a lot of opinion I post fact. Since you disagree you confuse fact with opinion.

#21 | Posted by et_al at 2017-05-16 12:17 PM | Reply

This whole argument is stupid.

Just get an ID. In today's times, it isn't hard.

#19 | Posted by boaz

The whole argument is stupid because no one is trying to commit in person voter fraud. Therefore no ID is needed.

Unless your goal is to keep poor people from voting.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 12:56 PM | Reply

"In today's times, it isn't hard."

You don't know that one way or the other.

My MIL died three years ago, and I took care of all her paperwork the last 10-15 years of her life. She was born in a rural hospital in KS, and in all the years, I never saw a birth certificate. She paid taxes, but hadn't had a valid state-ID in a decade, since before her macular degeneration. Luckily, she had someone willing to do the legwork to get her a ballot each time.

Not all folks are that lucky. Voter Suppression Laws simply keep people like her from voting.

And that's the point. That's why certain folks want to pass pretend "ID" laws.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 01:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My MIL died three years ago, and I took care of all her paperwork the last 10-15 years of her life
Luckily, she had someone willing to do the legwork to get her a ballot each time."

Is she still voting?

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 01:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Is she still voting?"

Of course not. I sent the first ballot back, with a copy of her death certificate. Never got another voting notice for her.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 01:33 PM | Reply

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Law follower.....

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 01:35 PM | Reply

Whoosh.

#27 | Posted by bored at 2017-05-16 01:35 PM | Reply

#7 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS
"Unlike sanctuary cities where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims."

Unlike the North Carolina General Assembly where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims.
Unlike Congress where the decisions of a few out weigh the victims.

We could go on if you like...

#28 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-05-16 01:46 PM | Reply

"Database matching doesn't "disenfranchise" anyone."

Exxcept they didn't match exact data, things like SS numbers, middle names, etc. though different were not enough to prevent people with the same first and last names from being disenfranchised. That's why it was so effective with minorities, their first and last names are more likely to be the same than among white Americans. You can keep denying facts but then in another post you claim to post fact not opinion. That's simply not factual.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 03:01 PM | Reply

And you call it a conspiracy theory even as Donald Trump is putting together a national data base with Kris Kobach in charge and guess what? Kobach is saying he will even have access to Homeland Security data, this is nothing short of a national attempt to steal elections in the future and any fair minded person would acknowledge that but, of course, that would exclude you.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The whole argument is stupid because no one is trying to commit in person voter fraud. Therefore no ID is needed.

What? Are you kidding?

Someone is trying because people are being convicted of it. And even if no one was doing it, at some point, people will.

I'll just never understand what the problem is with proving who you are at a polling station.

We have to do it at so many other trivial places, the voting booth, in my opinion, this the most vital place over all others..

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-16 03:11 PM | Reply

#29,

that post is so stupid. Effective with minorities? WTF are you talking about? Anyone, in this day and age, that doesn't prepare before an election by getting an ID is just LAZY or wanting to cause an issue.

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-16 03:13 PM | Reply

Someone is trying because people are being convicted of it. And even if no one was doing it, at some point, people will.

I'll just never understand what the problem is with proving who you are at a polling station.

We have to do it at so many other trivial places, the voting booth, in my opinion, this the most vital place over all others..

#31 | Posted by boaz
Then you're stupid or dishonest.

You already had to prove who you were at a polling station by giving your name and address. Requiring an ID only creates a hurdle that makes it harder for the poor to vote.

Now where are these in-person voter fraud convictions you speak of?

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 03:27 PM | Reply

"Someone is trying because people are being convicted of it." - #31 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-16 03:11 PM

People? Hardly.

Further proving, once again, that all you have are lies.

#34 | Posted by Hans at 2017-05-16 03:37 PM | Reply

You see nothing wrong with interstate crosscheck? Then you aren't looking at it very closely.

Interstate crosscheck only used birthday month and day, and first and last names. It did not include address, middle name, or any other data that could provide real identification.

If the same name and birthdate appeared in two states the name was unenrolled in BOTH states.

The problem lies in the numbers. Even uncommon names are rarely unique on any given birthdate. In fact there are 26 Sean Spicers with birthdays on Sept 23. If all states used interstate crosscheck, none of them could vote with a normal ballot.

God help you if your name is Smith or Johnson or Wilson or any other common name

#35 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-16 03:37 PM | Reply

"that post is so stupid. Effective with minorities? WTF are you talking about? Anyone, in this day and age, that doesn't prepare before an election by getting an ID is just LAZY or wanting to cause an issue."

These are people who did prepare, did have the ID and weren't told they had lost their right to vote until they got to the polls at which time they could, if they demanded, vote on a provisional ballot which are not even counted in most places.

HATTER they could have easily become informed about Crosscheck but they didn't want the information because it would have caused them to face the fact that Trump was only elected due to voter suppression and they don't want that factoid in their brains.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 03:45 PM | Reply

"Anyone, in this day and age, that doesn't prepare before an election by getting an ID is just LAZY"

Or old. Or poor. Or living too much on the edge to give up a half-day (and $$) to get all the needed documents.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 03:48 PM | Reply

Exxcept[sic] they didn't match exact data, things like SS numbers, middle names, etc.

That is neither a mystery nor indicative of malevolent conduct. The PA ACLU published the Crosscheck program documentation, about 85 pages I've linked and even annotated for you. Based on program parameters a list of potential, see that word potential, matches is provided to state and local election officials for further vetting according to state and federal law. For example, NC, Palast cries about the 44k purged. Why didn't he cry about the approximate 440k potential match list provided NC like he does with other states? Side question, why did that ACLU investigation die on the vine over three years ago?

... not enough to prevent people with the same first and last names from being disenfranchised.

Here begins the conspiracy theory, conflating two disparate concepts, data matching and purging. Potential data matching by Crosscheck and list maintenance, purging, by state and local election officials required by law. Separate entities performing separate functions. Another question, why doesn't Palast tell you that list maintenance is required by law?

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2017-05-16 04:11 PM | Reply

Describe, on a state by state basis, what additional procedures take place after the CrossCheck list is provided, to ensure valid names aren't scrubbed.

If you can't tell me what those procedures are, why should I assume they even exist? Why can't it be that all the names CrossCheck provides simply get scrubbed? What evidence do you have to suggest that isn't happening? What are the procedures you can point to?

You seem very knowledgeable, please respond.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 04:59 PM | Reply

I wonder,,,,

If suppressing the African-American vote isn't one of the few policy goals of the republican party, as I'm sure many idiots up thread are claiming, why do the courts keep saying that it is???

#40 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-05-17 03:09 PM | Reply

"Here begins the conspiracy theory, conflating two disparate concepts, data matching and purging. "

"The system flagged roughly 7 million names of "potential double voters" prior to the 2014 election; however, since 2014, not a single person has been convicted of double voting pursuant to Crosscheck data."

healthofstatedemocracies.org

Interstate Crosscheck is a scheme to help Republicans win elections, anyone pretending otherwise is lying or stupid.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 03:28 PM | Reply

"We're there to fix the things that aren't broken because we're Republicans."

#42 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 03:33 PM | Reply

#41

Nice deflection, I write about voter list maintenance and you respond with something about double voting. An aspect of Crosscheck that has nothing to do with your and Palast's conspiracy theory about removing voters from rolls.

Your inability to answer simple questions is also noted. Also telling.

You linked to a self professed progressive issue advocacy group page that reads like a sales pitch for ERIC. Aside, perhaps, so few states participate in that program because of cost, $25k registration fee plus annual participation fees ranging from $25k to $75k payable to ERIC.

But let's look at the report referenced in your link.

Although the 2014 Presidential Commission on Election Administration cited Crosscheck as one option available to states to "update and check their voter registration lists against each other,"75 more recent investigations -- including Al Jazeera America's findings on the racially discriminatory effects of Crosscheck 76 (emphasis added)
So, who wrote those Al Jazeera findings? Lo, and behold footnote 76.
76 Palast, "Jim Crow returns."
So we're right back where we started from, Gregg Palast's conspiracy theory.

Want to try those questions now or do you have more deflections and rabbit trails?

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2017-05-17 07:46 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort