Skip to main content

View Diary: DOJ to sue North Carolina over Voter Suppression law (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good Stuff (5+ / 0-)

    But I wonder why we aren't seeing state lawsuits too?   The NC Constitution - unlike most - has a provision explicitly barring  the legislature from adding qualifications to vote.   That would seem to be a perfect ban on voter ID.

    Only thing I can figure is that everyone assumes the Republicans on the state Supreme Court would just ignore the constitution and rubber stamp  the law...

    •  I'm not sure they added qualifications to vote; (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, Joieau, FarWestGirl

      I think it's more like you have to prove you're qualified when you show up to do it (needing an ID, and having to vote in the correct precinct).

      Most of the other new laws "only" have to do with making voting as inconvenient as possible (limiting early voting, limiting hours for polls to stay open, restrictions on what constitutes a valid ID and on what kinds of addresses can be considered "residences" for the purpose of voting, allowing challengers to roam like Old West self-styled Regulators).

      •  But if North Carolina charges for this ID or (5+ / 0-)

        requires documents to obtain the ID that are NOT required to establish the right to vote (per the NC Constitution) then this would seem to be an "additional qualification".

        The article is dated April, 2013 - but I presume a local challenge to the law in NC courts would have to wait until the law was signed.

        •  While the ID may be 'free' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FarWestGirl

          the documents required to get it - birth certificate, marriage certificate, passport, etc., are not. For some elderly voters, birth & marriage certificates may not be available at all. Some were born at home. Some were married far outside NC. And sometimes the courthouses storing those documents burn down or flood.

          Local challenges are underway, but with the makeup of the NC Supreme Court, it's an uphill battle.

          Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

          by bear83 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:02:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The "correct precinct" requirement (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        UnionMade, FarWestGirl

        is made null and void if a voter votes early or absentee. Because the counties may have only one or two early voting sites if their population is small (like mine). The voter rolls used to note that a voter has voted - thus can't vote again in the same election - are the same either way. This is not a problem in reality (because voters can't vote twice), it's just a problem for Republicans who want to keep some people from voting at all. Hence the drastic cut-back for early voting in addition to ID crap.

        I have voted early for the past decade and a half because they moved my precinct polling place to the basement of the First Baptist Church. Where there is a giant mural of Noah and his animals on the wall, and I like to keep my politics and my religion quite separate. Early voting is held at the county courthouse, we usually do it on a Saturday and make a family outing of it (daughter and grandsons live with us, all are registered voters). We never miss a chance to vote, except in the 2008 Dem primary when we were out of state because Mother-in-Law died suddenly.

      •  Sure They Added A Qualification (0+ / 0-)

        It's not enough to "prove who you are" (which could be done in several ways not requiring an id) you have to actually meet the qualification of presenting a specific document for inspection.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site