AP: In big states, tiny counties, Trump attacking voting rules

[pnewton]

We are also headed toward a constitutional crisis with the so called popular vote compact, a bald attempt at voter suppression

I do not think that would be a crisis as much as a decision. The Supreme Court would weigh in on whether it is constitutional. That would be that. I do not look for that to every go forward though.

The people outside are just obnoxious.

Having been one of those people, I still know what you mean. I just thanked people for coming out and did not engage any further unless the person was interested. Since I was only there for people down the ballot, some people were really interested. But what I liked best were the situations where parking was inside the perimeter of political ads.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The people outside are just obnoxious. They can hand out sample ballots, etc, and in my precinct set up on a walkway that you have to walk on to get to the door.

They have to have a very light touch here, or at least in that part of the state that isn’t run by machines

 

[Nepperhan]

Was the problem that they changed the law to say only people with a license (driver?) or a gun card can vote?

The problem was that a poster basically stated: "Let them eat cake.:

 

[Nepperhan]

I question the bigotry that must exist to say somehow this would disproportionately affect black people.

NC essentially admitted that the hours of voting (and restricting them) disproportionately affected black people.

From the court decision:
"As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. Id. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. In response, SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting. "

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/88...LI2qP68C1qahI8xA7t8eUozw1XACBzJqy8etoGDGiW73w

" In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision,” the court said.

The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to reinstate the law in time for elections."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

" These results add credence to what many critics of restrictive voting laws have long suspected. First, voter-ID laws and other, similar statutes aren’t passed in a vacuum, but rather in a country where people of color are significantly less likely to be able to meet the new requirements. Whether intended to discriminate or not, these laws discriminate in effect, and while there is no evidence that they’ve averted any kind of fraud, there is plenty of data detailing just how they’ve created Republican advantages. In that way, Trump’s chances in 2016 may have turned not only on the approval or disapproval of white voters, but also on how effectively state laws, access issues, and social penalties conspired to keep black and Hispanic voters away from polling places."

The Barriers That Keep Blacks and Latinos From Voting - The Atlantic

 

[JonNC]

NC essentially admitted that the hours of voting (and restricting them) disproportionately affected black people.

t no point were blacks or others treated differently. At no point did laws state or imply that some people are to be treated differently than others.

" In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision,” the court said.

The court was incorrect, perhaps biased. The sixth circuit has proven to be among the most leftist and biased in the country.

It is interesting that you would quote the Atlantic. You regularly complain about “right wing” sources then quote an extreme leftist one.

 

[Nepperhan]

t no point were blacks or others treated differently. At no point did laws state or imply that some people are to be treated differently than others.

They used to have a height requirement for police officers in this city. How do you think that affected a multi-ethnic city? Consider the legal doctrine of ‘disparate impact’. You know, who’s ox is being gored?

The court was incorrect, perhaps biased. The sixth circuit has proven to be among the most leftist and biased in the country.

1. Conservatives used to say that about the 9th circuit.
2. SCOTUS upheld the decision.
   You say the court was wrong but do not explain how. The state admitted what it had done and why and the Court called the state on its actions. Yet you find the court in error.

It is interesting that you would quote the Atlantic. You regularly complain about “right wing” sources then quote an extreme leftist one.

Philosophers say that the truth is the truth no matter who speaks it. If biased (and I don’t credit that) at least the Atlantic is a creditable source. Breitbart, TownHall and others are not credible in their reporting or in filtering opinion into their news reports.

 

[JonNC]

They used to have a height requirement for police officers in this city. How do you think that affected a multi-ethnic city?

Height is an immutable characteristic. By definition, it excludes some people. There was absolutely nothing in the law that was worded in such a way as to address immutable characteristics. Nothing. It was an example of what laws should be: color blind, blind to ethnicity. There person of color working in the same setting as me had the exact same requirements and opportunity to vote. No difference whatsoever. The difference between conservatives and progressives is we think the can handle the same laws snd opportunities equally well. Progressives don’t think they’re able to. Related to education , Bush called that the soft bigotry of low expectations. He was right.

Conservatives used to say that about the 9th circu

Trump has helped turned that.

SCOTUS upheld the decision.

Thru declined to hear the case. Different.

You say the court was wrong but do not explain how. The state admitted what it had done and why and the Court called the state on its actions. Yet you find the court in error.

Ok live here. I know that the law was equal in its wording and application.

Philosophers say that the truth is the truth no matter who speaks it. If biased (and I don’t credit that) at least the Atlantic is a creditable source.

Nonsense. It is a leftist propaganda magazine.

Breitbart, TownHall and others are not credible in their reporting or in filtering opinion into their news reports.

Far more credible that The Atlantic.

 

[Nepperhan]

There was absolutely nothing in the law that was worded in such a way as to address immutable characteristics. Nothing. It was an example of what laws should be: color blind, blind to ethnicity. There person of color working in the same setting as me had the exact same requirements and opportunity to vote.

Please research he legal precept of ‘disparate impact’ and how it relates to illegal discrimination. You seem not to understand the concept.

" Disparate impact discrimination refers to policies (often employment policies) that have an unintentional and adverse effect on members of a protected class. It is a legal theory derived from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawsuits based on disparate impact seek to change procedures that seem neutral in their language and structure but harm particular groups in practice."

What Is Disparate Impact Discrimination?

Check ‘pretextual’, too.

 

[JonNC]

Please research he legal precept of ‘disparate impact’ and how it relates to illegal discrimination. You seem not to understand the concept.

I do understand the concept of demeaning those of another race, assuming they cannot act with equal ability as others. It is the very definition of racism.

Disparate impact discrimination refers to policies (often employment policies) that have an unintentional and adverse effect on members of a protected class.

As I said, the person of another race has exactly the same requirements snd opportunity as I do. There is absolutely nothing that discriminates. Nothing.

Lawsuits based on disparate impact seek to change procedures that seem neutral in their language and structure but harm particular groups in practice."

There was no “seem” here. There was no disparate harm to anyone.

 

[Nepperhan]

There was no disparate harm to anyone.

Well, you’re wrong. The statistical harm was pointed out by the judge and admitted by the defendant state.

But you know better?

 

[JonNC]

Well, you’re wrong. The statistical harm was pointed out by the judge and admitted by the defendant state.

Statistical harm? Really? Based on what?
Here’s the fact: unless someone believes that those of a different race are incapable of following the simple requirements, there was no disparate impact.