North Carolina Voter ID law --"discriminatory intent"

[Big RR]

And even if they just don't want to travel to the facility to get the ID, that is no reason to be disenfranchised either. Again, voting is a right of all citizens, not just those who will quietly jump through hoops arbitrarily set for them. We should try to encourage voting and get broader participation, not discourage it.

[Guinevere]

As we have discussed over and over, just getting to the DMV for another form of ID can be incredibly challenging.

It took my Mother and her aide FOUR tries to get her CT Non-Drivers ID earlier this year. The only way she actually got that ID is because my sister and I have enough resources to pay for someone to take her (she doesn't drive anymore, doesn't have a car, and has short term memory loss and can get confused easily), and I filled out all the forms in advance, and tracked down the ID she needed.

Luckily, she had a copy of her birth certificate in a safe deposit box, but I had to travel to Maine to get it (the other alternative was travel to the City of Baltimore). In this day and age when many people no longer live within 10 miles of where they were born, that's also an issue.

Because her previous DL had expired, CT needed a second and a third form of ID, but would not accept an expired passport (despite the fact that even the State Department lets you use an expired passport to get a new passport) or an expired driver's license (also issued according to state standards).

Once they went and had to leave because the line was 3-4 hours long and she is a little old lady with a heart condition who uses a cane and couldn't stand around that long (some chairs, not enough), and you still have to be in line for some portion of that process. Another time, the bureaucrat behind the window said her proof of residency (an envelope with a bill addressed to her) was too old (it wasn't, the poor bureaucrat couldn't do the math), a third time she forgot one of the million pieces of paper she needed to bring. FOUR tries. To get an ID, principally so she could VOTE.

Mom isn't stupid, she isn't poor, she isn't black --- but she is old and fragile and has limited mobility without a car and no ability (or strength) to use public transport to take her to the nearest DMV (30+ miles away). Imagine that process multiplied if you have a job you can't afford to miss, or young kids who rely on you to be home at a certain time.

Mom missed voting in the CT primary because this process took so long. First time she has ever missed voting that any of us could begin to remember. So yes, these laws are absolutely exclusionary and the targets are not people who are stupid, but they are people who have limited resources, limited flexibility in their lives, live on a knifes edge some times.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hence the value of the "South African" system. Everyone gets a photo ID; nobody has to struggle to get one. Everyone must prove who they are for all manner of social transactions.

Of course all citizens have the right to vote. The call therefore should be for people to prove that they ARE citizens - not just a photo ID that gives a name and an address. So forget the driver's license. National Identity cards are a must. Then only those without the franchise will be er.... deprived of it.

It's an odd thing though. All of the people I've worked with thru my part-time job this summer (disadvantaged youth, those with mental and addiction challenges) have been able to obtain photo IDs. All those amongst whom we all worked together (and I've been exposed to a very different class of persons), they also seem to have drivers licenses. Black or white seems to make no difference. Working full time and overtime - they all manage to totter to an Ohio license bureau, despite awful hours.

In fact, the preponderance of shift work actually makes it easier for blue collar workers in many cases than it is for white collar who are expected to be at their station from 8 until 5.

Society, I should say, might have an obligation to provide some kind of service to the elderly and handicapped to assist them with obtaining IDs if there's a problem. Maybe even local churches should get in on that.

Still nobody wants to tackle the issue of citizens obtaining passports, eh?

[Guinevere]

Wow, and from the 4th Circuit! Don't know the judges on this particular panel, but the 4th as a whole has a super-conservative reputation. NC files for rehearing en banc in 3...2...1...

So following up on this, I believe the 45 day period to file for rehearing en banc in the 4th Circuit has now passed. I checked the docket and I don't see any such petition filed.

On August 31, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a stay of the Fourth Circuit order. The deadline for filing a certiorari petition in that same court is ticking away. I wonder if North Carolina is just going to give up, since it's move to disenfranchise voters in this election has been set aside. In any event, its chances at the Supreme Court are not good.

[Big RR]

meade---

Still nobody wants to tackle the issue of citizens obtaining passports, eh?

apples and oranges; voting is a fundamental right of US citizens; international travel (which is the only reason anyone would need a passport) is not.

[Burning Petard]

Big RR, I would argue that the right to leave is even more fundamental than the right to vote. One need not have a passport to leave. The requirement for the passport is imposed by the country in which you wish to enter. I believe everyone has a right to leave, but does not have a right to go into any other country. The US passport is required if the US citizen wishes to re-enter. Transport providers insist on it to prevent the occasional traveler who manages to leave but is not allowed to enter at the other end and so is trapped in some kind of limbo, usually the airport lounge between the doorway leading away from the plane, and the room with the customs inspectors and border guards.

snailgate

[Big RR]

I didn't research this, but my understanding is that, at least since the 70s, any US citizen needs a passport to leave to leave the country (I'll check if I get a chance). Further, the courts have upheld the right of the president to refuse to issue any person a passport for national security reasons, and imposes the lowest level of scrutiny (that a rational basis exists linking the government interest and the action taken) in reviewing such actions.

Denial of voting, on the other hand, requires court action and the highest level of scrutiny is applied (strict scrutiny) in looking at any denial because it is a fundamental right of citizenship.

Now I agree with you that anyone who wants to should have the right to leave, but such appears not to be the case. and we have seen a number of cases where US citizens preparing to leave to fight for ISIS (or to go, e.g., on a sex tour of Thailand) were detained and not permitted to leave.

[Guinevere]

The fundamental right is to travel amongst and between states, or as the Court said in 1869: "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."

The Passport Act of 1952 requires US citizens to carry a passport to leave or re-renter the US, and BigRR has pretty correctly summarized the reasons why the President can deny a passport. Add to those reasons fleeing the law, as well. But certainly the right to travel freely has elements of the liberty right embodied within it, and those restrictions deserve some scrutiny (not sure its only rational basis, BigRR).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks Big RR and Guin for argumentation. Interesting and likely to be sound, even to me. THIS: "But certainly the right to travel freely has elements of the liberty right embodied within it, and those restrictions deserve some scrutiny" is a larger camel.

Granted citizens have a right to vote (indisputable). Non citizens have no right to vote.

What is the mechanism by which those administering the polls are to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens?
What is the mechanism by which those administering the polls are to identify a person claiming to be the registered voter?
What mechanism is to be used to register only citizens?

And not all citizens have the right to vote BTW. Some have been deprived of that right. Felons in most states, no? And is that racism or just bad luck?

[Big RR]

Meade--All of those questions are important and deserve to be answered, but as a fundamental right is involved the court must determine that the identification of the person at the poll is a compelling governmental interest and that the remedy must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest and not unnecessarily restrict the fundamental right.

Guin--it's been a long time since I looked at the issue, but I recall the courts generally just applying a rational basis to the inquiry. I'm sure there was some division, but I am not aware of any other basis for review (I would have thought intermediate scrutiny could have applied, but I am not aware that was ever used--if you know of any such cases I'd like to read them). If I get a chance I'll try to look into it.

[Bicycle Bill]

I had to point out this glaring inconsistency in Meade's earlier post.

Society, I should say, might have an obligation to provide some kind of service to the elderly and handicapped to assist them with obtaining IDs if there's a problem.

Agreed; no argument there at all.  In fact, it's an very admirable, common-sense solution to the dilemma.
But then, in the very next line, Meade welshes on his offer:

Maybe even local churches should get in on that.

HELLO!!  Voting is one of the few ways the citizenry has of being a participant in their own government.  It is the GOVERNMENT'S duty to make sure that all are enfranchised.  It is not the duty or obligation of the churches (and I won't even go into the 'separation of church and state' firestorm that would no doubt erupt if churches started registering their congregants en masse; some sleeping dogs are best left slumbering), or the senior citizen centers, or the Meals on Wheels volunteers, or organizations like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army or even Aunt Sally's weekly bingo bus to the casino group to register voters.  

-"BB"-

[Long Run]

they all manage to totter to an Ohio license bureau, despite awful hours.

“Some days at the DMV, we don't let the line move at all. We call those weekdays.” -- Patty Bouvier, The Simpsons

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ohio DMV has the least waiting time in the country. Other states are much worse - yet somehow people get licenses and drive. Amazing they can find the time.

BB - wake up, old bean. I stated "assistance in getting IDs" not "registering to vote". There is no inconsistency whatever in suggesting that government SHOULD do something and advocating that churches such as mine (and people such as me) SHOULD be able to help those with no transport get to a BMV (or DMV). And yes, if someone wants to register to vote but can't perform the steps, I don't mind helping them get to the STATE AGENCY THAT REGISTERS VOTERS. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with it.


Also too and furthermore, Big RR - what IS the remedy for Registrars to make sure people registering are citizens and not non-citizens?

[Burning Petard]

Guinevere and Big RR, this 1952 law about passport required to leave the country must have lots of footnotes and exceptions. I certainly had no passport when I was given a nice new green wardrobe and a ride on a boat from Brooklyn Navy Yard to Bremerhaven Germany in 1960. I traveled to Canada many times before 2003 without a passport. It was the normal auto route between Detroit and Buffalo NY. I visited a junkyard in Mexico searching for car parts and returned to San Diego couple of times in 1992, no passport. I think in a similar period many Americans traveled from Florida to the Bahamas without a passport.

I got my first passport in 1962, so I could visit countries in Europe that did not accept US military ID for entry. It required the usual pictures, my military ID, my birth certificate, and $30 presented at the US Consulate in Stuttgart Germany. I got my second at my employers expense when I visited in Germany on business. I got my third and still valid passport, based on the expired second, just before they raised the fees and began requiring lots of documentation.

I still argue that short of chipping and dna samples at birth, all of that paper documentation to prove citizenship or obtain a passport, can be faked--not simple and it takes some effort, but my 'common sense' tells me it happens more often than non-citizens successfully registering to vote.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

So snail, your thesis based on your 'common sense' is that of all the people who have managed to fake documents proving citizenship and obtaining a passport - of all those people, very few or none of them bother to vote?

I suppose it is common sense that if there were (say) 10,000 of these fake citizens out there, then it's unlikely that all of them would vote. Given any 10,000 genuine citizens, a significant number of them will not vote either.

So in that sense, of course there are more fake citizens out there than actually vote - since a 100% turnout only happens in strange countries where guns are required tools for party members encouraging voting and are regularly leveled at those doing the counting.

Well, that's all right then

[Burning Petard]

My common sense says that it is fake id used to produce a genuine US passport, to hide actual id for purposes of doing other crimes or breaking connection with old crimes. Lots of personal motivation to get good fake paperwork. Voting carries much shallower reward.
I have read horror stories about non-citizens voting. But the stories I have heard were all related to bad conduct by the people working the registration and polls who just did sloppy work--even stories of non-citizen being informed by officials that they need not be citizens to vote, if they had lived in the community for an extended time. Presumably there was an assumption that those non-citizens would vote the way the local official desired.

And that kind of corruption is just as bad as officials who act to prevent citizens from voting via 'common sense' id requirements, or literacy requirements, or 'civic knowledge' requirements. This time the NC lawmakers talked too freely about the real reasons for the 'common'sense' requirements. Once upon a time it was just common sense that voters should know a bit about the government before voting, little things like be able to name all the counties in the state, and then all the county seats for each county. That last one usually was enough to eliminate uppity coloreds.

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

I haven't bothered much with the latest round on this discussion, because it's pointless to argue with the Vote Fraud Deniers who simply refuse to deal with the mountain of evidence showing that thousands upon thousands of people all over the country who are not legally qualified to vote are on the voter registration rolls.

THIS is the core of the problem. Not the shiny object strawman diversion of "voter impersonation", or the tiny number of people who might falsify birth or citizenship papers in order to vote.

Unless you believe that the multitude of legally unqualified voters on the registration rolls registered for the fun of it, or out of a passionate desire to perform jury duty, this is the 900 pound gorilla in the room regarding vote fraud.

As I've said before, we wouldn't need voter ID laws if the registration process hadn't become such a complete unregulated joke. But because it has, we need voter ID laws not so the person can show that they are who they say they are, (because as the Vote Fraud Deniers keep diversionarily pointing out this is a fairly small problem) bur so they can demonstrate that they have a legal right to vote, even if they are who they say they are.

If you want to eliminate the need for citizenship verification at the polls to assure the integrity of our elections, here's how you do it:

1.Restore the voter registration process to what it used to be; where proof of citizenship at time of registration was strictly enforced.

2.Conduct a one time purge of all voter rolls across the country,and require every person to re-register under this restored system.

I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen...

This whole discussion is just a complete waste of time so long as the VFDs insist on ignoring the actual, real, widespread, and well documented problem...and instead keep trying to focus on the "voter impersonation" BS...

And as I've said before, it's no mystery as to why they do this...

People who are not legally eligible to vote are an important and reliable Democratic Party voting bloc, and they don't want to lose to those votes.

What does Ross say?

"Folks, it's just that simple."

Though to be fair, most rank and file Democrats are not making this cynical calculation; polls consistently show a majority of Democrats supporting voter ID laws, most recently with 63% in favor in this Gallup poll from last month:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four- ... oting.aspx

I applaud their fair-minded respect for the integrity of the voting process, despite the fact that their party is the chief beneficiary of non-citizen voting.

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ, this is exactly why I am trying to get any of the Freddy Freeloader supporters to prescribe exactly what processes should be available to registrars to ensure that those registering are in fact citizens and not non-citizens.

Thus far, silence. Except for snail who believes that all evidence of identity (to register) is easily faked and even he shouldn't be allowed to register or vote for that reason. I may not have put that correctly......

[BoSoxGal]

Where is the mountain of evidence of voter fraud that you assert, LJ? I'm seriously curious. I've read repeatedly that there is simply no such evidence in existence.

[Big RR]

Well Jim--you have stated again and again that there is a "mountain of evidence", but I have seen none. Just unsupported conclusory statements by people online saying what you said. If there really is documented evidence, I would like to see it--and I would also like to see your proof that this has led to voter fraud and the registrations were not administrative errors, but were done by people with the intent to commit voter fraud.

As for your contention that people not legally eligible to vote being part of the democratic block, I would love to see the proof of that as well. Many noncitizens, especially among Hispanics, are conservative and family values supporters; some (like many of the Cubans located ehere0 are even rabid anti-communists who would make Joe McCarthy proud. They are hardly a monolithic block.