Skip to main content

The North Carolina GOP, fresh off its victories in the last election giving it the governor's mansion and a supermajority in both houses, is proposing a bill that would tax the parents if their college student child registers to vote at their college campus instead of in their hometown.



In 2008, Barack Obama made his last campaign stop in North Carolina, rightly judging that a strong college student turnout would put him over the top in that state. He stopped at the University of North Carolina/Charlotte, where 25,000 people attended his speech. Obama won North Carolina that year by 14,000 votes in an election in which the youth turned out in much heavier numbers than they did in previous elections. It also gave North Carolina a Democratic governor.



However, the North Carolina GOP took back over in 2012. Now, they are proposing a bill that would curb college students from voting. In 1979, the courts ruled that students had the right to register to vote at their college campus. However, lawmakers are working around it by assessing a tax penalty for parents whose students register to vote at the college campus. This is sponsored by five GOP senators, including one from the leadership. This is a move that Rachel Maddow calls, "Amazeballs."



Not only would they do away with college students voting, they would limit early voting to one location per county and stop same-day registrations, both of which are used much more by Democrats than Republicans. Maddow notes that this was also tried in Indiana, but that it failed after a public outcry.



First of all, there is the obvious Constitutional problem of the 24th Amendment:


The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or
other election for President or Vice President, for electors for
President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
And secondly of all, there is the obvious question of what would happen if out of state parents whose children went to North Carolina were to register to vote there. Would someone in Missouri, say, have to pay taxes to North Carolina if their child were to register to vote there? And what would happen if a child doesn't have parents?



I guess that we have finally found a tax that certain Republicans like.

Originally posted to Stop the Police State! on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:50 PM PDT.

Also republished by DKos Asheville.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Also sets up a few lovely legal connundrums (39+ / 0-)

    since 18-year-olds and older do have legal privacy from parents even if financially dependent - having to fill out HIPAA disclosure forms to let the details of medical treatment be known, for instance.

    So it's entirely possible that a student could register to vote or change registration to campus and the parents simply never find out - the voter card goes to the campus address in such cases, after all. Unless they make the kid get an absentee-by-mail ballot and inspect the registration address, there's no legal way to know about the change other than asking the local elections officials in both places - and by then, the tax liability has been involuntarily assumed with no decrease in the dependency costs of the no-longer-minor child.

    And what if they don't know the student ever registered to vote at all and therefore file their state taxes as if that hadn't happened? What fines get applied when the you-know-they'd-do-it audit happens and who has to pay them?

    Prayers and best wishes to those in Japan.

    by Cassandra Waites on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:01:43 PM PDT

    •  They are adults (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      middleagedhousewife

      If they don't change it, then they are the ones who should be addressed, not the parents.  

      Streichholzschächtelchen

      by otto on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 05:54:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tax law in this country (8+ / 0-)

        allows parents to take deductions for children, grandchildren and/or others for whom they provide physical/financial support. For college students and other young adults not living on their own and providing their own support, even keep them on their insurance as dependents.

        Doesn't matter where a kid's going to college whether or not a parent can claim them as dependents under these rules. That has absolutely nothing to do with where the kid is living (on campus or in off-campus housing) if the parents are still paying the bills, or paying everything scholarships/financial aid isn't providing. If that student wishes to vote where they are living (at college), that also should have nothing to do with the parental tax situation in or out of state.

        ANY dependent 18 years of age can vote in any election. That's the law of the land. It does not matter whether or not they are still dependent on parents, and never has. I hope this ridiculous attempt at voter suppression is slammed hard sooner rather than later.

        •  totally undoable (4+ / 0-)

          Yes - I'm sick and tired of 'townie' types who regard college students as an invading, wealthy horde who don't really have a right to live anywhere. When I was 32 I lived in Santa Cruz, CA and even though I wasn't a student, I got some very unfriendly vibes from older resident neighbors who would call the police and leave nasty notes if anyone parked in front of their house and they thought it was unseemly for my other neighbors to sit on the front porch. I'll bet they complained endlessly to their friends how the students mess up the neighborhood.

          Anyway - how would they even define what a college is. Remember, most students, by far, attend community colleges and trade schools. And many 4 year colleges have largely commuter or evening school populations. Unless they set an age 22 limit, they would be charging everyone taking a college course when they are age 45.

          Also, it is illegal for someone to vote where they don't live, so students can't vote where their parents live

          •  See my post below (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau

            Message from Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt of Chapel Hill.

            Not all townies are the same.

            From a Chapel Hill resident proud of our students!

            The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

            by NCJim on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:17:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, they could vote in the (0+ / 0-)

            parental precinct if that home is their "permanent address" and that's where they're registered. Just as members of the military no matter where they live at the moment, usually have a "permanent address" on record (often the parental home) attached to their absentee ballot. Students could vote absentee, but often don't think of it when they could obtain the ballot, or simply WANT to vote where they live most of the time.

            NC's Repuke legislature is wrong to even attempt this. Their justification is apparently the mess created by redistricting when they separated part of Buncombe County (A-ville and environs) to weaken its Democratic legislative strength. Students at Swannanoa College, who use Post Office boxes as mailing address but live on campus on the other side of the highway the redistricters used as a border, were challenged en masse by Repukes trying to toss their votes. When that didn't work as well as they'd hoped, they must have decided they should disenfranchise college students across the board as much as possible.

            If this is successful, I hope all the colleges will offer some real help getting students ready for crossing their t's and dotting their i's for voting. Whether it's from campus or in their home districts. Most colleges don't call extended holidays for general elections, making it very difficult for students to vote physically from parental precincts. Besides, they're far more likely to be excited about more local races affecting them where they live - on campus. None of that affects the amount of support their parents are providing, and it should not affect parents' ability to claim dependents on those terms.

    •  The very first election I voted in, I was a (7+ / 0-)

      college student in MO, and had come from UT.  I voted in MO (against St. Ronnie).  I never consulted my parents about voting.  I don't know if they had any idea whether I'd even registered to vote, exactly as you suggest.  I also held two jobs in MO, and had taxes withheld from my paychecks.  Where would my parents have entered the equation?  NC's governor is nuts. I certainly hope the NC legislature knows better than to even debate such a proposal

      "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

      by middleagedhousewife on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:35:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Voter registration is public record, though. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble, thomask

      No right to privacy there.

      "There's no ideology [t]here [on the right]. It's just about being a dick." Bill Maher, June 22, 2012.

      by caseynm on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only if they look it up. (0+ / 0-)

        There's no right or privilege of notification without the request for the public record being made. And certainly no right or privilege to veto the change of or initial registration.

        Prayers and best wishes to those in Japan.

        by Cassandra Waites on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 04:16:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well, it's not exactly the way you say it. (13+ / 0-)

    I couldn't imagine how anybody could impose a tax on something like this, so I looked it up.  It's actually a situation where, if the student registers to vote in a place other than at the parents' home (saying, in effect, that other place is the student's legal residence) the bill would deny parents the right to claim that student as a dependent, presumably on the grounds that the student has a legal residence elsewhere.  It's clearly designed to provide a financial incentive for students to continue to vote where their parents reside (their home between semesters, presumably) so the parents can continue to claim them as a dependent.  

    That's not "imposing a tax," so the prohibition against a poll tax wouldn't apply.   That's eliminating a deduction in that situation.

    It may be very bad tax policy to change the rules for when a parent can claim a student living elsewhere as a dependent for tax purposes, and it may well be done for political purposes, and it likely will increase the tax bill of the parents if they no longer get that deduction, but the reason it doesn't violate the 24th Amendment is because nobody is imposing a tax on the right to vote.  

  •  Less than leaches (10+ / 0-)

    North Carolina Republicans are ass-wipes, you know, the material one uses to remove shit from ones ass.

    The Carolinas and nearly all of the bible thumping, radical, racist, right-wing, rednecks need to be given lessons in morality and civics since these initiatives are un-American and not indicative of NORMAL people.

    North Carolina must have been taken over by savages.

  •  They can't do that. (36+ / 0-)

    You can claim your child - or your mama or your no-good brother - as a dependent on your tax return regardless of where he or she lives, and votes, if you are in fact paying a sufficient fraction of his or her support. You might get audited and have to prove it, but if you are paying the tuition bills at current rates, that ought to be rather easy to show. So this is a ridiculous bill and would not survive even the faintest scrutiny.

    •  You can until they pass a law that says you can't. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, Smoh

      I think I would send my kid out of state.

      "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

      by Bisbonian on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:27:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They can't do that for federal taxes... (7+ / 0-)

      ...but the North Carolina legislature does have the power to define a legal dependent for purposes of state taxes.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 09:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But, of their state only (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChemBob

        They can't define Kansas' exemptions. What is it they are trying to do? Harm other states or their own? What am I not getting? If a NC student in another state votes, why can't they vote absentee back in NC?

        I are confused.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:39:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not about other states. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bleeding blue, NWTerriD, high uintas

          It's really about getting rid of the concentration of Democratic votes around the college towns in North Carolina, which elect Democrats to the state legislature and US House, and dispersing all of those votes across various gerrymandered Republican districts where they won't make a difference.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 11:38:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Laurel - that's for federal purposes (2+ / 0-)

      and this law would not impact anyone's federal taxes or tax return. This is strictly a state income tax function and my view is that it is legal, although reprehensible.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 10:22:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I rather have trouble believing (10+ / 0-)

        that financial incentives for voting behavior would pass legal muster.

        •  FG - because it applies only to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1

          residency, I think it does pass muster. The college student can vote by absentee ballot, so there is no restriction of voting privileges. Some in this thread think it would be beneficial for the Dems as college towns are heavily Democratic and don't need every college student to carry those districts while "back home" the Dems could use some help.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:52:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If your child can't vote in their place of (0+ / 0-)

            residence then that most certainly harms their voting rights. They have a democratic interest in voting for officials in the community they live in. That's guaranteed by Supreme Court precedent. What NC is trying to do is override that Supreme Court precedent by imposing a higher tax liability on the parents of college students who elect to exercise their local voting rights. That's clearly a violation of the 24th.

            Taking it out of the college scenario since that seems to have you confused, could the state of North Carolina draw a line around the most liberal districts in the state, and then tell those voters that if they want their tax deductions they must vote in the most conservative districts in the state and not participate in the elections in their communities?

            •  Rf - your hypo makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

              First, I think the proposal is reprehensible. However, we are talking about a deduction for a college student as it relates to state income taxes of the parents. The state legislature has broad leeway to determine what attributes qualify for state income tax purposes and are under no requirement to follow federal rules. There is no cancellation of the right to vote, only the loss of a tax deduction. The legislators are taking the position that if the child voluntarily changes their legal residence, from their parents home to a new college location, the child no longer qualifies as a dependent.

              It will be interesting to see if this bill becomes law. If so, we can all watch the litigation with interest and see who was right.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 05:07:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Typical GOPers, define whether you can take a (0+ / 0-)

        dependent deduction by calling the student a dependent ... So are they or aren't they? Will they have a similar non-dependent dependent status for elderly parents registered to vote elsewhere? Or is this only of young'uns that don't know how they're supposed to vote...

      •  Yes, looking at the bill, it seems designed to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Cartoon Peril

        keep non-student residents of college towns from having to suffer the input of college students in their elections, and can only affect in state students (and their parents) who go to college in another county.  The bill is here: http://www.ncleg.net/....  This bill also requires that if a student insists on registering to vote at his or her college address rather than his or her parents' address, then his or her car's registration address needs to be transferred to the college town, and property taxes on it paid in that area.  

        It only applies to NC state taxes, and only to NC state residents.

        "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

        by middleagedhousewife on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:00:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's actually completely illegal. (0+ / 0-)

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:06:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Look why don't they (22+ / 0-)

    just cut to the chase, the law they want makes it only legal to vote if your are a Republican.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 10:12:53 PM PDT

  •  Call Grover Norquist, he will be furious (13+ / 0-)

    oh wait, these people aren't rich or corporations, Grover won't give a shit at all

    Regulate banks, not vaginas

    by MinistryOfTruth on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 05:13:27 AM PDT

  •  Financial Aid Laws (4+ / 0-)

    So the idea behind this law is obviously to suppress the vote.

    I guess I'm a little curious about the laws regarding applications for financial aid.  

    When I applied way back long ago, the rule had just been changed so that I was required to include my parents'  income.  REQUIRED.  I filled out a hardship form to say that I didn't have a mother, and that my father had sold our house when I turned 18, and that he had run off to Australia to begin his drinking again.  

    They didn't give a shit.  

    So, given that the federal government already makes the assumption that those students are dependents, would there be any way to make the argument that this constitutes conflicting rules when it comes to college attendance?

    I'm not sure how it would work, but it seems strange.  

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 05:53:31 AM PDT

  •  At age 18 I claimed myself on taxes (4+ / 0-)

    I don't see the impact from this. I started voting at age 18 in college. But that is also when I started filing my own taxes (had a summer internship and job at college). Once I claimed myself on my taxes, my father could no longer claim me as a dependent.

    Parents lose their children as dependents at age 18 anyway.  Who is going to be affected by this?  Was anyone here not filing their own taxes from 18-21?

    •  I filed my own taxes at 15 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCJan, Joieau, ichibon

      How does that work?

      I recall getting a tax refund mailed to me when I was in Germany as an exchange student.  

      Actually, I received a refund, and then my Dad took as much as he felt I owed him, and then sent me the rest.

      I was not emancipated.

      Streichholzschächtelchen

      by otto on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:35:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You didn't claim yourself at 15 (0+ / 0-)

        At 15 as a minor you would would have to file if you made more than $600 or so. But you wouldn't claim yourself yet.  Now at 18 one doesn't have to claim themselves, but one is entitled too. And parents can't claim those who claim themselves.  Parents really shouldn't expect to claim a child who is eligible to vote.

        •  How is that fair? (0+ / 0-)

          If a child depends on his/her parents, why shouldn't their parents declare them as dependent--no matter where they live?

          Are you really saying that if a parent pays rent and food and gas and car and tuition for a child living in another state--even if the child has a job for spending money--that the parent should not be entitled to declare the child a dependent?

          Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

          by NCJan on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:51:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Decision doesn't belong to the parents after 18 (0+ / 0-)

            I take issue with the word entitled. If a person 18 or over chooses to claim themselves on their taxes, the parent cannot also claim that person. That's how it works. So it may be a dick move on NC's part, but no parent is entitled to claim an over 18 adult unless that adult agrees.

        •  "parents shouldn't expect to claim a child (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bleeding blue

          who is eligible to vote."

          Except that's not the way tax law is written. If you provide more than half of someone else's expenses, even if that person is an adult, if they are among the groups of people who can legally qualify as a dependent (and an adult child qualifies), then that person is your dependent.

          The concept of dependent doesn't rest on age. In fact, if a child was supporting her parents, the child could claim the parents as dependents.

          In most of these cases, the parent is providing more than half of their adult child's expenses. North Carolina changing that with regards to children who register to vote is a clear example of a tax for voting.

           If, on the other hand, North Carolina just eliminated this deduction altogether it wouldn't be seen this way. But singling out parents of children who exercise the right to vote in the jurisdiction of the college they spend nine months a year living at, can hardly be seen as any thing other than a tax that qualifies under the 24th amendment.

        •  But (0+ / 0-)

          If the financial aid laws require that your parents' income be 8ncluded for puroposes of determining the value of the financial aid a student under twenty four receives, then the federal government is automatically assuming that the family is claimiung the student as a dependent.  

          They can't require the student to use the parents income, and then also not allow the parents to claim them as a dependent.  They could. It just seems counterintuitive.

          Streichholzschächtelchen

          by otto on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 11:22:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two different "theys." (0+ / 0-)

            Feds require student to use parents' income in applying for aid.

            NC Repug legislature disallows claiming the kid as a dependent on NC state taxes.

            No intersection, no conflict, no inconsistency.

            "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

            by NWTerriD on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:06:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Until one provides the bulk (0+ / 0-)

        of their own support, they are still dependents even if they work and file taxes. One can earn up to a certain amount (used to be $6,000, may be more now) and not be required to file taxes. But if they want the refund of money they had to pay in regardless of how much their income was, they will file anyway if they're smart.

    •  No, parents can claim (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RfrancisR

      their children as dependents - and provide them insurance on their own coverage - until age 24. Much longer if they still provide more than half the person's support. No matter where the supported person lives or votes.

      Unless the kid is emancipated (a legal procedure) or orphaned, gets married and sets up a home supported primarily by his/her own income, they are still for tax purposes dependents of the person/people who provide the bulk of support.

      Federally. For NC state purposes, we'll see how this works out.

  •  Clever framing of headline nt (0+ / 0-)

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:29:41 AM PDT

  •  How would they detect violators of the law? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago, NCJan, Joieau

    For the sake of argument, say this passes and is deemed constitutional, how will the state detect it?

    Republicans won't spend money to detect it, and I don't see any ways it is obvious to detect breaking this law.  

    •  They could cross-check (0+ / 0-)

      voter registration against dependency claims. But that's a lot of trouble. NC, however, has a rather draconian state income tax system that doesn't mind at all spending lots of extra time and effort (and money) making sure they get their allotted share, right or wrong.

      I expect if this passes they'll set up an office just for cross-checking.

  •  NC: Where Poll Tax is Legal (6+ / 0-)

    There's a vanity plate a state would be proud to sell to its drivers.

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:48:18 AM PDT

  •  It won't just be North Carolina (7+ / 0-)
    The local offshoot of the Tea Party poll-watch group True the Vote sounds excited about the prospects. The Beaufort Observer quotes this statement from the *Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina:

    "We've gotten a bill into the Senate that Progressives are going to hate almost more than they hate Voter ID.

    If other states pick up this legislation, it will shift the landscape of college town voting all across the nation and may even put "college states" like Massachusetts back into play because so many students use the same-day registration rules to vote in that state."

    Here's the thing: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 1979 that college students have the right to register and vote where they go to school. What North Carolina Republicans are proposing to do, then, essentially requires a student's parents to pay more if the student exercises that right.
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/...

    Great article by Laura Conaway on the Maddow Blog.

  •  I just want to note that penalizing parents (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694, ozsea1, ichibon, NWTerriD

    for the behavior of their children is entirely consistent with the Cons' inability to accurately connect cause and effect. The not only have ulterior motives, their own behavior being in response to external or unknown prompts is beyond their ken. They do not know why they or anyone else actually acts because they are unaware of themselves. Something sets them off. It may be their hormones; it may be a suggestion or, as they are so happy to relate, some "incentive" or encouragement. The "benefit" of this mode of behavior is that the agents, the people who act, are never responsible for their actions, although they are ready to assert that some person is. That is, persons are responsible for what people do, but which particular person is to be held accountable is up in the air because neither the doers, nor the observers know anything for sure.

    While this mode of behavior can have malicious results and often does, I don't think malice is necessarily intended. Behavior may be self-serving, but, if it is based on mis-understandings, then the "self" may well end up being badly served, as is often the case and why failure is the Cons' familiar.

    The assumption that humans know where their self-interest lies, albeit the foundation of economic theory, is worng. If the sensory input is flawed, then people aren't going to see right.

    "False attribution of agency" is a recognized logical error. However, I don't think we have a term for people who do this routinely. Moreover, we think of error as something that can be corrected. How do we account for habitual error?

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:40:05 AM PDT

    •  This isn't even conservative, it's reactionary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah

      It's amazing to me how "conservative" which was basically an honorable term, has been hijacked by the right wing to justify a whole lot of highly unconservative things.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:12:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, and in exactly the proper sense of (0+ / 0-)

        reacting to prompts. Or re-enacting behavior out of habit. Those are their two modes. Reaction sometimes introduces new behaviors. Re-enacting is just repetition. And, close observation will reveal that this repetition is mostly talk. There is very little doing with the hands.
        Sometimes I wonder if the tactile sense is dull.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 02:02:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  NC is on quite the roll lately... nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694, Smoh, davehouck
    •  Slight correction: (0+ / 0-)

      NC Republicans are on quite the roll.

      Yeah, now that they've gotten that pesky Democrat broad and her libtard veto pen out of the Governor's office, they've got a lot of accumulated Koch and Teahadist business to catch up on.

      "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

      by NWTerriD on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:23:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Antonin Scalia: (0+ / 0-)
    "...because voting is not a right.  In my strange mind, voting is an entitlement."

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:53:27 AM PDT

  •  My dad had a cow when I registered to vote (0+ / 0-)

    at college, but that had to do with establishing residence and something about my student loans. So this is nasty, but it's not exactly a new thing.

    For every vengeance there is an equal but opposite revengeance

    by mothnflame on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:03:35 AM PDT

    •  I don't know about student loans (0+ / 0-)

      But I do know that if you are dependent on your parents, it shouldn't matter where you live for them to declare you dependent.

      As far as students go, this could be a double whammy.

      You may be considered dependent and thus ineligible for certain types of work/study and student aid.

      But when it comes to voting, you'd be "independent."

      How's that for fair?

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:46:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt statement (10+ / 0-)

    Chapel Hill, of course, is the hometown of UNC-Chapel Hill.

    Via his Facebook page:

    I just got a call from a North Carolinian who is going to school in Charleston, SC. He is worried that passage SB 666 would keep his parents from being able to declare him as a dependent for tax purposes in North Carolina.

    He said he had called the sponsors of the bill to express his concern. A legislative aid in one Senator's office told him that "local cities are hurt by college kids voting there." So he decided to find out for himself and call a college town Mayor. He got lucky, I actually answered the phone.

    Needless to say, after hearing his story I got pretty upset. After a nice conversation with the young man, I called that Senator's office. I wasn't able to speak to anyone, but did leave a message.

    In sum my message was this:
    As the Mayor of North Carolina's quintessential college town, I ask that the Senator's office cease telling people that "local cities are hurt by college kids voting there." Because that is wrong! In fact, while they do vote in large numbers in general elections, I'd like them to vote in even larger numbers in LOCAL elections, because our community is not "hurt" by their participation; it benefits from it!

    I was a little "impassioned" while leaving the message, so while I invited someone to call me back, I'm not really expecting a call.

    This aptly named bill, Senate Bill 666 must be stopped.  If you would like to sign a petition, follow this link to Progress NC:

    http://statevoices.salsalabs.com/...

    Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

    by NCJan on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:43:10 AM PDT

  •  NC has no jurisdictional authority... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChemBob

    ...to tax the incomes of parents earned outside NC. No other state court would enforce such a levy.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:43:28 AM PDT

  •  They just won't quit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NWTerriD

    Bizarro-World Energizer Bunnies

    How do you stop someone who will stop at nothing?

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:43:38 AM PDT

    •  It's great they have a laser eye on their antics (2+ / 0-)

      They get to be embarrassed and have to apologize every day.

      No matter what they like to think, what these guys are doing in no way represents the state of North Carolina that I know and live in.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:54:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's more than 1 voter suppression bill (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    We Won, davehouck, ChemBob, ichibon

    in the North Carolina Legislature.  You can bet that if it succeeds in North Carolina it will spread to the other Republican-controlled states.

    A ban on voting by persons adjudicated “incompetent” –  even if the person’s mental health issues have nothing to do with their abilities to understand voting.  This is something that was no doubt inspired by reports in 2012 that a handful of residents at mental institutions were exercising their constitutional right to vote.

    A bill to eliminate automatic restoration of voting rights to felons after they receive unconditional discharge from prison. Now, such persons would have to wait five years, apply to their local board of elections and win unanimous approval from the board.

    Senate Bill 721, the so-called "Elections Omnibus" bill Cook has co-sponsored, slashes early voting -- used by more than 6 million N.C. voters since being launched in 2008 -- to just six days; eliminates same-day voter registration; delays by five years the eligibility of those with a past felony conviction to vote (and then with new restrictions); and includes the promised new photo voter ID restriction.
    Senate Bill 666, of which Cook is a primary sponsor, also cuts early voting (by a week) and cuts same-day registration at early voting sites. It further proposes a tax penalty for parents whose children register to vote at their college address, curtails early voting, and expands the rights of party-appointed "poll observers."
    Senate Bill 541, guts North Carolina's landmark Public Campaign Financing Fund -- a popular program that's been used by 80 percent of qualifying judicial candidates to help keep special interest money out of judge's elections -- and the Voter-Owned Elections Fund, which provides similar public grants to candidates for several Council of State races. (SB 39 also proposes eliminating the judicial public financing program.)
    Here's a couple of links:

    Even more voter suppression bills introduced – UPDATED

    Art Pope-backed lawmaker leads push for new voting restrictions in NC

    Art Pope is a North Carolina multi-millionaire who has bought himself a state. The Republican governor appointed him as the Assistant Budget Director.

    Jane Mayer wrote a 2011 New Yorker article about Pope

    State for Sale

    A conservative multimillionaire has taken control in North Carolina, one of 2012’s top battlegrounds.
    Now Pope's agenda is being implemented in North Carolina. I bet his success is replicated in other states by the 1%. They can create their own fiefdom (something over which one dominant person or group exercises control).
  •  I'm at the point where it is clear.... (0+ / 0-)

    ... any legislator who files legislation that violates the Constitution should be fined and or .... you know.

  •  This is doomed to failure (the GOP motto) (0+ / 0-)

    how can North Carolina impose a tax (or take away a deduction) on people who presumably don't pay taxes in North Carolina?  If I live in South Carolina, and my child goes to Duke and votes in NC, how will the state of North Carolina punish me?  How can they stop me from claiming the child as a dependent on my taxes in South Carolina and my federal taxes?  How can they stop those states and the feds from recognizing it?  How will they even detect me without investigating the vote of nearly every voter from a college campus, finding out who their parents are and than tracking down their parents tax returns?

    This is just a stupid plan.  Not to mention its unconstitutional.  

  •  So Republicans aren't against new taxes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NWTerriD

    only new taxes on Republicans.

    ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

    by gjohnsit on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:09:33 PM PDT

  •  "Constitution" Nitwits Make Unconstitutional Laws (0+ / 0-)

    But they have enough resources to try and try and try until they find a weak spot.

    I think that "Constitution" is a signal to the masses that they represent the anti-Constitutional forces.

    The Federalist Society represents the anti-Federalist "states rights" neoconfederates.

    People like Scalia who have spent decades complaining about "activist judges" now say it the courts job to legislate from the bench and reverse the legislative branch....just because.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:21:10 PM PDT

  •  Will be thrown out by a judge because of the 24th (0+ / 0-)

    amendment.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:26:34 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site