Judges next to examine broad NC voting changes

GARY D. ROBERTSON
Associated Press

DURHAM, NC (AP) -- Judges will now decide whether an elections overhaul in North Carolina requiring photo identification to vote and scaling back early voting is discriminatory or permitted under the law.

Several groups and voters filed two lawsuits in federal court challenging the law soon after Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill Monday. Some of the same groups also planned to sue in state court soon.

Lawyers challenging the law said at a news conference Tuesday they have a strong case and the totality of changes will be horrendous for black voters. Republicans who passed the bill disagree and say provisions are similar to those in other states.

Duke University law professor Guy Charles says the plaintiffs face an uphill battle to prevail but some provisions could be hard for legislators to justify.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

has AGAIN been suspended by a STATE judge, meaning the law cannot be enforced in the next election.
I will again say this......I have no concern with voter ID however we have to make it easy for people to get them, and as I have pointed out in SC DMV officials pick up and ID voters an bring them home. This herculean effort is apparently "reasonable" in the courts eyes.

I DO have a problem with shortened early voting and NOT accepting a government issued student ID card that they can already use in our state facilities (colleges and universities). I also think that voting in your college town is acceptable and do NOT want students to have to use absentee ballots - which are the most abused form of voting "fraud".

But the more I think of it - mandatory voting for anyone collecting entitlements seems fair to me. If you want something from the government you should be MADE to vote for that government.
Democratic Republics are "hard" - you have to work at it to make that political system work for you.

Vog

Folks love to reference the Constitution when it comes to questions of fundamental political rights, and this ought to be no exception. The Constitution was ratified by states whose signatories provided no photo id, just their signatures. None of the founders had photo id.

Why not ask why we are now allowing handgun purchases without so much as a signature, but are imposing onerous new government regulations on voters?

If fraud was really the issue, there would be reform of the mail in ballot, but no photo id will be required for that. The effects of this law will be to make it harder for folks to vote: it does much more than just requirw id. Caging will also be encouraged, and that stands to disenfranchise plenty more folks.

This comment is so far off base. Aside from the fact that photography WASN'T IN EXISTENCE until around 1839, the signatories ALL KNEW EACH OTHER.

If you really want to make sure people vote, you - you personally - help get them to the DMV to get their ID. It's not rocket science. And it's not that expensive.

With organizations like ACORN and their new incarnations out there, voter fraud is serious. And you're right - mail-in ballots need revision next. Thanks for the suggestion.

So the Pinko commie argument with this is that these folks: by that I mean the Old, young and Blacks, the usual liberal victims, don't have proper Id's and can't get to the DMV to get one. Well why don't those nice folks at the NAACP or Rosie O'Donnell lovers, get in their cars and drive these poor folks over there and get them one. You know, get those vans and buses you pile them in on election day and head them over there to get one of those new fangled ID things. Bet if all these poor lost souls need one to buy a lottery ticket they'd have them for sure. Dang on liberal cry babies.

I don't understand what the big deal is about the voter ID bill. I think this is something that should have been in place for years just as it is in 34 other states. This would certainly avoid voter fraud. People have to show ID to buy tobacco and alcohol, and you need an ID to drive. Critics of voter ID laws say that such requirements disenfranchise certain communities, such as minorities, the poor, and senior citizens. If these people can make it to the polls to vote they could get to the DMV to get an ID, and they are free if I'm not mistaken. They certainly are able to make it to the polls in droves, so why not stop get by the DMV for an ID instead of just sitting around grumbling over this.

If this law is bad, someone explain to me why it is only bad for black voters. Someone answer this, how does anyone function daily without ID? Is there someone that never buys medicine, never applies for employment, never receives medical treatment, never opens a bank account, never cash a check?

Roy Cooper must represent the state to the best of his abilities; must set aside personal beliefs and focus on the law; or frankly, he should resign his office.

I’m so sick of the NAACP screaming racism every 5 minutes. Can someone please tell me how it’s racist to require everyone of every race to show ID to vote? It’s a flat out lie that it’s a hardship for poor and elderly people to produce ID because they must have it to see a doctor thanks to the many cases of health insurance fraud. There are very few honest people left in our society today and showing ID prevents fraud. Here in Bladen County, we had a county commissioner vote twice. There were also dead people voting and people voting using someone else’s’ name. You also need an ID to prove you are 18 and an American citizen. The only people who aren’t interested in showing an ID are those planning voter fraud. BTW, the NAACP is wrong in stating that voting is a constitutional right. The constitution did not provide that right and left voter eligibility up to the states, although amendments later standardized policies such as age requirements. The 26th amendment required all states to allow 18 year old American citizens to vote (some states had a 21 year old requirement) and gave Congress the power to enforce the article through appropriate legislation. Proof of name, age, citizenship, and address is certainly appropriate to prevent multiple votes. It does not guarantee the right to vote and in many places felons can’t vote.

what do you think the republicans are up too. they do anything to stop anyone from voting but republicans, you cant trust republicans ,

So you're saying that only Republicans are smart enough to figure out how to acquire personal identification?

Do you realize how dumb your statement makes everyone else look? That's like going out of your own way to call yourself stupid.

Unfortunately, by doing that you're confirming your own stupidity, so why should we trust you?

I don't understand what the big deal is about having to show your ID before you can vote. I think this is something that should have been in place for years. By the way are many states in the USA already doing this? It will certainly do away with voter fraud which we have seen in the past years. You have to show ID to by alcohol or tobacco. The article said (Lawyers challenging the law said at a news conference Tuesday they have a strong case and the totality of changes will be horrendous for black voters. What's the difference in black voters and white voters. I think you got this one right Gov. McCrory.

there have already been some independant legal reviews which concur there really are no discrimination issues here.

The only issue they seem to agree on is that this might not allow enough time for folks to register for the November elections which some areas will be having.

But insofar as same day registering, student ids being used and so forth, this appears to be a solid one.

I have briefly looked at other state voter ID laws and I believe that both the TX and NC laws will be struck down because they don't pass the Supreme Courts test of being "reasonable".
Take SC's law, which so far has withstood challenge. There upon request, DMV officials will pick up voters and bring them to DMV centers for ID picture taking and return them home. This eliminates any argument about seniors not having transportation etc etc etc.
That said I also where there could be an easy argument made whereby the NAACP could prove that blacks are going to be discriminated against.
If a disproportionate amount of blacks have lost their license then it is in fact discriminatory against blacks to require an ID (without making it easy to get one). Same holds true for Hispanics, and Seniors. A cursory look at incarceration rates will tell you that there are more black felons in prison than white felons so, it would appear to hold true that more blacks may have had their IDs taken away than whites and the right to vote is easily regained upon appeal in most states - but, they then have to get an ID to actually cast the vote.
But I will add this caveat - we ARE talking about Judges here and I have been surprised by many rulings at state and federal levels.
But - I am a firm believer that voting should be easy and actually mandatory. Perhaps we should make "proof of voting" an element of qualifying for any form of assistance - eh?
Yeah, I know - I shouldn't have said that......)

Vog