.
I'm shocked....SHOCKED! Are you shocked?
Note: As reported in the link above, Texas' Voter ID law was also struck down on similar grounds.
Oh man. I read that article, or tried to. It is so hard to understand WHAT they did because it is couched in so much confusing rhetoric involving "legal terms" and "political hogwash", that it is hard for that author to get through to the average person trying to appreciate the atrocity of using language to mean anything one wishes provided it supports that group's intent.
SEE WHAT I MEAN? Even I have to explain my explanation.
I think that they are trying to pretend they are protecting blacks from being discriminated against? Or something like that? When in effect, they are using that lie to support a law that really has little to do with anything black and everything to do with their own racist, homophobic agenda.
Is that about right?
@Shar -- To give the Reader's Digest summary of what I understand happened.
1) The SCOTUS struck down provisions in the Voting Rights Act which freed North Carolina from a priori scrutiny of changes to its voting laws.
2) Once those provisions were struck down, North Carolina quickly enacted changes which, the legislature claimed, were to protect the integrity of the vote from voter fraud.
3) In a lower federal court, the court accepted NC's explanation for the changes and upheld them.
4) In the appeals court, the court looked at evidence about what kinds of voting law changes would disproportionately affect Nig...er, minority populations and noted, lo and behold, the NC election law changes were almost entirely made of up of provisions which would impede Nig...er, minority voting.
5) Based on that too-improbable-to-be-coincidence match between things that would stop Nig...er, minority populations from voting and those things being in NC's voting law changes, the court ruled NC had discriminatory intent and struck down the laws.
I hope this helped.
Oh sure. What do they do with the mulattos? And that damned pesky gay Indian?
That's a colorful picture. I'm not sure how it relates to the subject at hand, but it is colorful and pretty.
I just do not understand how exactly requiring everybody to present a valid ID to vote is descrimination. I have always been required to show an ID to vote. I have lived in IL and MO. Both asked for ID before they would give me a ballot. As long as the law applies to everyone....there is no discrimination.
@m2c -- You don't understand becaues you DON'T WANT to understand, because you want to hold on to your delusional ideology-driven belief that we live in an Awesome Post-Racial Society where no institutional discrimination exists.
--If there is a voter ID requirement, and the state charges money for the ID, that's dicriminatory against poor people (and a de facto poll tax). Despite this obvious issue, several states passed Voter ID laws with such provisions, which were subsequently struck down.
--If there is a voter ID requirement, and the state strategically limits the locations where one can obtain a valid voter ID, that's discriminatory against some people. Again, multiple voter ID laws were struck down from such provisions (which made it harder for poor/urban/ethnic people to obtain IDs).
--If there is a voter ID requirment and the state arbirtarily disallows certain kinds of IDs (e.g. college enrollment IDs) but permits other similar kinds of IDs (e.g. gun license IDs), that discriminatory.
I don't know how many times federal courts have to strike down Voter ID laws (which were a complete non-issue before the Nig....er, Nazi Kenyan Marxist Communist Indonesian Socialist Terrorist Muslim was elected President) before you start accepting the obvious truth: Voter ID laws were intended to discourage only certain kinds of Nig...er, voters from voting (i.e. poor/urban/ethnic people who mostly vote Democratic).
A little digression perhaps but I have to search like I am in a scavenger hunt to even LOCATE any places that are locations to vote Democratic in Phoenix. They deliberately hide any kind of signs or directions. They take them down. You have to see it to believe it.
You can see voting booths for Republicans for blocks but Democratic offices? Good luck.
I have my ballot mailed. I got sick of it.
Thank you. I I think it's called a pictograph. In this case the meaning is somewhat subdued. Directly translated the best explication would be "flamebait."
Meaning your question is obviously worded/intended as ....
Not that there's anything wrong with that you understand, but still.
Honest they do it every time. This is Arizona. Only the brave admit they are Democratic down in Sun City OLD WHITE people town. LOL
There are a few blacks or were but I have not seen them in a while. To be fair everyone was very nice to them and they were very nice, but I think we bored the hell out of them or something because they are gone.
The Republican candidates, from those running for janitor to commissioner of whatever commissioners commission, plop themselves in front of the public libraries and ask you who you are voting for. I have told so many people off who come at me asking me to sign something that I have no idea what it even means, and expect me to just get behind some issue like "neglect in hospitals". Like I know what it is about. Like I spent 3 weeks studying the issue. If I don't know the problem and I don't have time to think about it, LEAVE ME ALONE. And they are Republicans. Always.
And yet I get a lot of perks from this weird state. But it is in spite of the Republican party not because of it.
@m2c -- Wow, that looks a lot like you read the first sentence of the "History" subsection in the Wikiepedial entry and then stopped rather than reading the whole thing.
Yes, the first voter ID law was passed in 1950. It required SOME form of ID. I've voted by showing my electric bill, which was matched up with my name and address in the voter rolls. That was the standard throughout most of the United States for decades. Almost no one has a problem with it.
But since President Obama took office, there was a flurry of Voter ID laws in multiple states. Yes, it's possible that all those GOP legislatures in all those states collectively became concerned about the almost non-existent threat of voter fraud.
Or, if you follow a more plausible line of argument (which is supported by how many of those laws had provisions that have been struck down by courts), the record Democratic turnout in 2008 had the GOP scrambling for any and all methods to suppress Democratic voting in future elections.
You have a theoretic problem which is addressed by your theoretical moral concern about Voter IDs. On the opposite side, we have a clear pattern of strict voter ID laws being struck down (North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, etc.).
@m2c --
Re: poor and gov't. assistance -- Not all poor people receive government assistance or drive cars. And a "welfare tax" is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
Re:Governmet ID -- I'd be OK with that except in NO instance I'm aware of has a strict Voter ID law been coupled with the willingness to expand availability to ensure EVERY voter can obtain one at no cost an minimal effort. To the contrary, most such laws have LIMITED access to IDs and/or limited the class of IDs. Moreover, back in the mid-1990s when the California legislature wanted to ensure every driver's license holder was automatically registered to vote, Republicans opposed THAT, too (called it "auto fraudo"). Makes you wonder, doesn't it? (Oh, that's right, it doesn't in your case...;-D...)
--I may have a point IF -- Then you concede I have a point and should be joining me in appluading the courts' stricking down these laws. Are you? Nah, I didn't think so. You're not really conceding the point. You're conceding the theoretical possiblity and ignoring the historical reality...;-D...
--Voter ID prior to Obama's election -- Yep, so did I. But that form of "ID" could be anything that established my name and address was the same as what was on the voter rolls. That's all that's needed. Unless election officials are involved in fraud (which strict Voter ID laws won't stop), the cost/befefit ratio of trying to beat an address-based voter ID is very poor. Conversely, the electoral benefits of suppressing Nig...er, poor/urban/ethnic voting for the GOP is quite substantial.
Yes I'm shocked.
Nimitz, while clever, I think most questions on here deserve that picture then. I may even change my avatar to that one. 
