Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

[Bear Ribs]

It seems to me that you're implicitly claiming that if blacks aren't prevented from obtaining such and such ID (or at the very least if it is not made unnaturally difficult to do so), they are not being targeted by voter ID law. I think that if a change to the law is made that specifically rescinds government recognition of photo IDs disproportionately owned by blacks it is reasonable to say that blacks were targeted unless an innocuous explanation is at hand. I am open to hearing such an explanation.

Let's turn this around a bit. Does it take a major effort for black people to fly on an airplane, buy a beer, rent a home, get married, buy a cell phone, obtain cough syrup, apply for food stamps and welfare, or open a bank account? You can't go buy a T-Mobile using a bus pass. If black people are unable to handle such basic tasks perhaps the problem isn't voter ID but how their leadership is running things. Heck look at IDs you can legally use to buy booze in California, it's much, much more restrictive than the list of IDs to vote. Are most black people in California unable to drink?

I confess to not having read the full opinion I cited; in my mind if a law is changed so that the types of photo ID that blacks naturally tend to have (hypothetically, bus cards instead of driver's licenses) are excluded, without that innocuous explanation, that means they are being targeted for having to go to extra effort in order to vote (as opposed to people who tend to have a recognized ID unrelated to wanting to vote).

You can argue that people not willing to expend what is in the end hardly a herculean effort don't deserve our consideration. That is immaterial to whether they were targeted.

You can also argue that the factual finding that the disproportionately black owned types of photo IDs were excluded is just plain wrong. If that is true I certainly would like to know about it.

Yes, let's take a look at that opinion a bit closer then.

In this case, despite finding that race was not a motivating factor for enactment of the challenged provisions of SL 2013-381, the district court addressed the State’s justifications for each provision at length. N.C. State Conf., 2016 WL 1650774, at *96-116, *147. The court did so, however, through a rational-basis-like lens. For example, the court found the General Assembly’s decision to eliminate same-day registration “not unreasonable,” and found “at least plausible” the reasons offered for excluding student IDs from the list of qualifying IDs. Id. at *108, *142. But, of course, a finding that legislative justifications are “plausible” and “not unreasonable” is a far cry from a finding that a particular law would have been enacted without considerations of race.

This kind of reasoning happens throughout, though it's at its most blatant here. "Yes, the restrictions are reasonable and the justifications are plausible but that doesn't prove it wasn't racist, and in our court Republicans are racist until proven innocent!"

They start with the presumption that the law is racist from the first page (okay page 9 given the first 8 are boilerplate) with their initial logic chain 1: Politicians inevitably try to entrench their positions by suppressing people who don't vote for them. 2: Race has some unspecified correlation with voting habits in some districts. 3: Therefore laws they pass are racist.

 

[Cherico]

black people are not stupid, hispanic people are not stupid, both of them are capable of getting an id.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Are most black people in California unable to drink?

I believe I already addressed this argument.

This kind of reasoning happens throughout, though it's at its most blatant here. "Yes, the restrictions are reasonable and the justifications are plausible but that doesn't prove it wasn't racist, and in our court Republicans are racist until proven innocent!"

The next sentence: "As the Supreme Court has made clear, such deference in that inquiry is wholly inappropriate." Is that wrong? Otherwise, far from evidence of bias, this is merely evidence of adherence to precedent.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I believe I already addressed this argument.

I disagree.

The next sentence: "As the Supreme Court has made clear, such deference in that inquiry is wholly inappropriate." Is that wrong? Otherwise, far from evidence of bias, this is merely evidence of adherence to precedent.

Yes, it's utterly wrong and ridiculously misapplied. The case they cite is Arlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Development Corp.

The problem with this is that said case was decided in favor of the "Racist" law 7-2. In fact the main thrust of the Arlington decision was that a law is not contestable on grounds of discrimination if it has an unequal outcome or burden, only if the motivation behind the law was discrimination in the first place. So basically Arlington says the exact opposite of what they claim. Two significant quotes here:

Rather than applying a strict scrutiny test for a law that on its face is based on a suspect classification, the court applied a discriminatory intent test to determine whether the ordinance was actually based on a discriminatory intent which, in turn, would determine the constitutionality of the ordinance since the ordinance mentioned nothing about racial classifications. "When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, this judicial deference is no longer justified. Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available." The Court stated that the challenging party has the burden of showing that 1) the official action affects a protected class in greater proportion than others, and if such is established, 2) that the official action was intended to discriminate against a suspect or protected class.

Footnote 21 introduces an idea of causation to these cases. Namely, it states that the petitioner must prove respondent had 1) an improper intent (i.e. that his intent was to discriminate against another race). After this is proven, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent, who must prove that 2) the improper intent did not actually affect the outcome of his decision. Thus, the court is saying that to satisfy this test, you must prove improper intent, a disparate impact, and causation in-fact (i.e. that the improper intent is the cause of the disparate impact).

But they don't do this, rather they presume racism from the start and go from there. Even looking at their opening statement, they don't prove intent to discriminate. Rather, their chain of logic is that the motivation is for established politicians to entrench themselves, not to discriminate. So they've undermined the idea of Arlington from page 9. However, the all-Democrat judicial panel just assumes racism from the first even though that isn't supported by their claims.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Let's turn this around a bit. Does it take a major effort for black people to fly on an airplane, buy a beer, rent a home, get married, buy a cell phone, obtain cough syrup, apply for food stamps and welfare, or open a bank account? You can't go buy a T-Mobile using a bus pass. If black people are unable to handle such basic tasks perhaps the problem isn't voter ID but how their leadership is running things. Heck look at IDs you can legally use to buy booze in California, it's much, much more restrictive than the list of IDs to vote. Are most black people in California unable to drink?

T-Mobile, to use one of your examples, says as far as I can tell that any state or federally issued ID will do. My impression is that the North Carolina law was more restrictive.

But in any case, "major effort" suggests a misreading of the point I'm trying to make. If you put just one more modest hoop in front of people trying to do something, statistically some of them will not do that thing if what you're making more difficult is not critical for their lives. I would put voting in that category. This does not require that most people be unable to jump through the hoop.

 

[Captain X]

It is much less of a hoop to jump though than what is required to purchase a firearm, which was so important that they put it second in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Bear Ribs]

T-Mobile, to use one of your examples, says as far as I can tell that any state or federally issued ID will do. My impression is that the North Carolina law was more restrictive.

Holy smokes, are you actually, really saying that it's too restrictive that North Carolina law requires you to be a resident of North Carolina to vote in North Carolina elections? That's the level of clown world you're digging down to?

But in any case, "major effort" suggests a misreading of the point I'm trying to make. If you put just one more modest hoop in front of people trying to do something, statistically some of them will not do that thing if what you're making more difficult is not critical for their lives. I would put voting in that category. This does not require that most people be unable to jump through the hoop.

At this point you're just getting ridiculous. Freedom of the Press shall not be abridged but people still have to buy printing presses to use it. Freedom of speech exists but you still have to go out and find a soapbox to stand on. We have the right to bear arms but you can't just rattle off a dozen shots in the air in the middle of town because you're bored.

"It might require some slight effort to express a right" isn't a reasonable hurdle. Exercise of rights can, in fact, have costs to others. Not making any restriction on guns at all (and I'm pretty big on gun rights) can get people killed, which harms society much more than minor restrictions on firearms. Voting is subject to fraud and corruption which reduces the ability of people to vote (since their votes will no longer count fairly) far, far more than having to spend an hour at the DMV every five years.

 

[Zachowon]

Again, have anyone actually checked thier states rules on this?

 

[strunkenwhite]

Holy smokes, are you actually, really saying that it's too restrictive that North Carolina law requires you to be a resident of North Carolina to vote in North Carolina elections? That's the level of clown world you're digging down to?

I believe that the North Carolina law did not make acceptable all forms of its own state issued ID. Does that more clearly illustrate the point?
🤡

At this point you're just getting ridiculous. Freedom of the Press shall not be abridged but people still have to buy printing presses to use it. Freedom of speech exists but you still have to go out and find a soapbox to stand on. We have the right to bear arms but you can't just rattle off a dozen shots in the air in the middle of town because you're bored.

"It might require some slight effort to express a right" isn't a reasonable hurdle. Exercise of rights can, in fact, have costs to others. Not making any restriction on guns at all (and I'm pretty big on gun rights) can get people killed, which harms society much more than minor restrictions on firearms. Voting is subject to fraud and corruption which reduces the ability of people to vote (since their votes will no longer count fairly) far, far more than having to spend an hour at the DMV every five years.

This isn't really on point to the question of whether the fact that the North Carolina legislature celebrated the end of preclearance by abruptly changing course on its planned voting law might be because it wanted to do something it knew it couldn't get preclearance for, and whether that thing might be discriminatory.

 

[Vyor]

I believe that the North Carolina law did not make acceptable all forms of its own state issued ID. Does that more clearly illustrate the point?
🤡

Yes you are a clown. Why don't you read their law?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

I believe that the North Carolina law did not make acceptable all forms of its own state issued ID. Does that more clearly illustrate the point?
🤡

And? Being state ID doesn't make it valid. After all it might lack vital information or might not actually be proof that you are US citizen or actual resident of the state. Them not making all ID usable is entirely reasonable, only valid ID should be considered valid ID.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The problem with this is that said case was decided in favor of the "Racist" law 7-2. In fact the main thrust of the Arlington decision was that a law is not contestable on grounds of discrimination if it has an unequal outcome or burden, only if the motivation behind the law was discrimination in the first place.

The decision itself agrees with you here, per page 25. Although with the nuance that it must be "a" motivation, not necessarily "the" motivation. A feature instead of a bug, if you will.

But they don't do this, rather they presume racism from the start and go from there. Even looking at their opening statement, they don't prove intent to discriminate. Rather, their chain of logic is that the motivation is for established politicians to entrench themselves, not to discriminate. So they've undermined the idea of Arlington from page 9. However, the all-Democrat judicial panel just assumes racism from the first even though that isn't supported by their claims.

So ... the discrimination against blacks is because they're predominantly Democrats and not because they're blacks per se?

Yes you are a clown. Why don't you read their law?

Oh you mean this one? Why don't you and tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I believe that the North Carolina law did not make acceptable all forms of its own state issued ID. Does that more clearly illustrate the point?
🤡

This isn't really on point to the question of whether the fact that the North Carolina legislature celebrated the end of preclearance by abruptly changing course on its planned voting law might be because it wanted to do something it knew it couldn't get preclearance for, and whether that thing might be discriminatory.

That's not particularly surprising given we haven't discussed preclearance and I wasn't answering a statement about it. As is, if you want to discuss preclearance we can, but that's not what I was answering.

As is you're basically imputing motives you want them to have on people passing laws almost a decade ago. You're basically mirroring the exact actions of the Fourth Circuit, presuming bad faith you can't prove and using slanted language and implication in place of proof.

Again, have anyone actually checked thier states rules on this?

Yes, I did review the law in question in detail.

S.L. 2013-381

www.ncleg.gov

Most notable:

(e) As used in this section, "photo identification" means any one of the following that contains a photograph of the registered voter. In addition, the photo identification shall have a printed expiration date and shall be unexpired, provided that any voter having attained the age of 70 years at the time of presentation at the voting place shall be permitted to present an expired form of any of the following that was unexpired on the voter's 70th birthday. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the case of identification under subdivisions (4) through (6) of this subsection, if it does not contain a printed expiration date, it shall be acceptable if it has a printed issuance date that is not more than eight years before it is presented for voting:

(1) A North Carolina drivers license issued under Article 2 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes, including a learner's permit or a provisional license.
(2) A special identification card for nonoperators issued under G.S. 20‑37.7.
(3) A United States passport.
(4) A United States military identification card, except there is no requirement that it have a printed expiration or issuance date.
(5) A Veterans Identification Card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for use at Veterans Administration medical facilities facilities, except there is no requirement that it have a printed expiration or issuance date.
(6) A tribal enrollment card issued by a federally recognized tribe.
(7) A tribal enrollment card issued by a tribe recognized by this State under Chapter 71A of the General Statutes, provided that card meets all of the following criteria:
a. Is issued in accordance with a process approved by the State Board of Elections that requires an application and proof of identity equivalent to the requirements for issuance of a special identification card by the Division of Motor Vehicles under G.S. 20‑7 and G.S. 20‑37.7.
b. Is signed by an elected official of the tribe.
(8) A drivers license or nonoperators identification card issued by another state, the District of Columbia, or a territory or commonwealth of the United States, but only if the voter's voter registration was within 90 days of the election."

I'd forgotten but it does in fact allow you to vote with an out-of-state license provided you'd moved into the state and registered to vote less than 90 days before the election, so @strukenwhite's objections are even more tenuous.

"§ 163‑166.9. Curbside voting.

(a) In any election or referendum, if any qualified voter is able to travel to the voting place, but because of age or physical disability and physical barriers encountered at the voting place is unable to enter the voting enclosure to vote in person without physical assistance, that voter shall be allowed to vote either in the vehicle conveying that voter or in the immediate proximity of the voting place.
(b) Any qualified voter voting under this section shall comply with G.S. 163‑166.13(a) by one of the following means:
(1) Presenting photo identification in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13.
(2) Presenting a copy of a document listed in G.S. 163‑166.12(a)(2).
(c) The State Board of Elections shall promulgate adopt rules for the administration of this section."

The infirm can perform "Curbside voting so that they can vote without having to leave their transport.


Also if you just can't manage to get any ID at all:

"§ 163‑182.1A. Counting of provisional official ballots cast due to failure to provide photo identification when voting in person.

(a) Unless disqualified for some other reason provided by law, the county board of elections shall find that a voter's provisional official ballot cast as a result of failing to present photo identification when voting in person in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13 is valid and direct that the provisional ballot be opened and counted in accordance with this Chapter if the voter complies with this section.
(b) A voter who casts a provisional official ballot wholly or partly as a result of failing to present photo identification when voting in person in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13 may comply with this section by appearing in person at the county board of elections and doing one of the following:
(1) Presenting photo identification as defined in G.S. 163‑166.13(e) that bears any reasonable resemblance to the voter. The local election official to whom the photo identification is presented shall determine if the photo identification bears any reasonable resemblance to that voter. If not, that local election official shall comply with G.S. 163‑166.14.
(2) Presenting any of the documents listed in G.S. 163‑166.12(a)(2) and declaring that the voter has a sincerely held religious objection to being photographed. That voter shall also be offered an opportunity to execute a declaration under G.S. 163‑82.7A for future elections.
(c) All identification under subsection (b) of this section shall be presented to the county board of elections not later than 12:00 noon the day prior to the time set for the convening of the election canvass pursuant to G.S. 163‑182.5.
(d) If the county board of elections determines that a voter has also cast a provisional official ballot for a cause other than the voter's failure to provide photo identification in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13, the county board shall do all of the following:
(1) Note on the envelope containing the provisional official ballot that the voter has complied with the proof of identification requirement.
(2) Proceed to determine any other reasons for which the provisional official ballot was cast provisionally before ruling on the validity of the voter's provisional official ballot."

You can still cast a provisional ballot which will be counted once verified.

There's even a provision for people whose religion forbids the taking of photographs to have a special non-photo ID used. It's remarkably inclusive actually.

If you mean our states personally, my own state of Oklahoma is extremely similar to the supposedly racist law that was struck down. You need a picture ID, state or military issued* and if you don't have one, you can get a provisional ballot that will be counted if and when your ID is confirmed.

*Or Tribe issued, since Oklahoma's chock full of reservations it tends to have an "or Tribal" exception to just about every law that mentions state issued anything. I live on the Sac and Fox reservation my own self.

The decision itself agrees with you here, per page 25. Although with the nuance that it must be "a" motivation, not necessarily "the" motivation. A feature instead of a bug, if you will.

So ... the discrimination against blacks is because they're predominantly Democrats and not because they're blacks per se?

That's what the Democrats claimed in their opening crawl. The fact that you presume discrimination existed which you can't prove is the point of contention.

 

[strunkenwhite]

That's not particularly surprising given we haven't discussed preclearance and I wasn't answering a statement about it. As is, if you want to discuss preclearance we can, but that's not what I was answering.

As is you're basically imputing motives you want them to have on people passing laws almost a decade ago. You're basically mirroring the exact actions of the Fourth Circuit, presuming bad faith you can't prove and using slanted language and implication in place of proof.

And I wasn't discussing freedom of the press, yet you brought it up for some reason.

OK, Mr. Clown World.

 

[Bear Ribs]

And I wasn't discussing freedom of the press, yet you brought it up for some reason.

OK, Mr. Clown World.

That's really the best you can do? I compared one right to another for difficulty, you tried to change the entire subject to preclearance when you couldn't answer that. These kind of semantics games don't work when anybody can go back and read the posts.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

And I wasn't discussing freedom of the press, yet you brought it up for some reason.

OK, Mr. Clown World.

I am pretty sure he was using it as an example, and likening it to the topic we are talking about. Using examples is a perfectly valid debate or discussion tactic.

 

[Zachowon]

That's not particularly surprising given we haven't discussed preclearance and I wasn't answering a statement about it. As is, if you want to discuss preclearance we can, but that's not what I was answering.

As is you're basically imputing motives you want them to have on people passing laws almost a decade ago. You're basically mirroring the exact actions of the Fourth Circuit, presuming bad faith you can't prove and using slanted language and implication in place of proof.


Yes, I did review the law in question in detail.

S.L. 2013-381

www.ncleg.gov

Most notable:

I'd forgotten but it does in fact allow you to vote with an out-of-state license provided you'd moved into the state and registered to vote less than 90 days before the election, so @strukenwhite's objections are even more tenuous.

The infirm can perform "Curbside voting so that they can vote without having to leave their transport.


Also if you just can't manage to get any ID at all:
You can still cast a provisional ballot which will be counted once verified.

There's even a provision for people whose religion forbids the taking of photographs to have a special non-photo ID used. It's remarkably inclusive actually.

If you mean our states personally, my own state of Oklahoma is extremely similar to the supposedly racist law that was struck down. You need a picture ID, state or military issued* and if you don't have one, you can get a provisional ballot that will be counted if and when your ID is confirmed.

*Or Tribe issued, since Oklahoma's chock full of reservations it tends to have an "or Tribal" exception to just about every law that mentions state issued anything. I live on the Sac and Fox reservation my own self.

That's what the Democrats claimed in their opening crawl. The fact that you presume discrimination existed which you can't prove is the point of contention.

My stats of GA for example.

• Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a free ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
• A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
• Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
• Valid U.S. passport ID
• Valid U.S. military photo ID
• Valid tribal photo ID

And you can get a free Voter ID with extra forms as long as you have proof if residence and someway to show who you are

 

[strunkenwhite]

That's really the best you can do? I compared one right to another for difficulty, you tried to change the entire subject to preclearance when you couldn't answer that. These kind of semantics games don't work when anybody can go back and read the posts.

The point about preclearance is part of the evidence the court used in its reasoning, and the end of the sentence tied it to discrimination which has been a key point of this entire discussion. I cannot comprehend how you failed to see the relevance.

Speaking of which, regarding:

But they don't [show that discrimination was a motivation], rather they presume racism from the start and go from there. Even looking at their opening statement, they don't prove intent to discriminate. Rather, their chain of logic is that the motivation is for established politicians to entrench themselves, not to discriminate. So they've undermined the idea of Arlington from page 9. However, the all-Democrat judicial panel just assumes racism from the first even though that isn't supported by their claims.

I am curious what led you to conclude that the following passage did not do anything to show such motivation:

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. See N.C. State Conf., 2016 WL 1650774, at *15. Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race -- specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.

Keeping in mind that politically motivated racial discrimination would be illegal as well as hate motivated racial discrimination.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The point about preclearance is part of the evidence the court used in its reasoning, and the end of the sentence tied it to discrimination which has been a key point of this entire discussion. I cannot comprehend how you failed to see the relevance.

Because, again, this wasn't what we were discussing. I made a point about how it's possible to make it slightly harder to exercise a right without it being infringement, and the rather than answer that point you suddenly changed the topic to preclearance which hadn't been mentioned until then. I don't mind taking a whack at preclearance but I think you need to answer the previous statements rather than change the subject entirely first.

Speaking of which, regarding:

I am curious what led you to conclude that the following passage did not do anything to show such motivation:

Keeping in mind that politically motivated racial discrimination would be illegal as well as hate motivated racial discrimination.

"Sunday voting is not available everywhere, only in select areas. These areas happen to favor one race over another, and one party over another. Therefore removing it things reduces racism and unfairness in politics."

It's really not hard, unless you're prejudiced in your opinion and automatically attributing wrong motives to people who disagree with you.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

The point about preclearance is part of the evidence the court used in its reasoning, and the end of the sentence tied it to discrimination which has been a key point of this entire discussion. I cannot comprehend how you failed to see the relevance.

Because, discrimination has nothing to do with it.

Speaking of which, regarding:

I am curious what led you to conclude that the following passage did not do anything to show such motivation:

Keeping in mind that politically motivated racial discrimination would be illegal as well as hate motivated racial discrimination.

Sounds like to me what you are citing is the opposite. That they wanted to remove an unfair advantage that some constituencies had. Either all of them have it, or none of them.