N.C. To Appeal Voter ID Ruling

[Webster]

Talking Points Memo: North Carolina Gov: We Will Appeal Ruling That Blocked Voter ID Law

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) plans to appeal a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked parts of North Carolina's much-criticized voter ID law.

The circuit court suspended parts of the law that cut same-day registration for early voting and voided ballots that were cast on Nov. 4 outside of the precinct of the person who cast the ballot. It still left major parts of the law, such as the part that eliminated early voting over a seven-day period.

"I am pleased that the major parts of this popular and common sense bill were intact and apply to the upcoming election," McCrory said, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. "I have instructed our attorneys to appeal to the Supreme Court so that the two provisions rejected today can apply in the future and protect the integrity of our elections."

Attorney General Roy Cooper's office told TPM that he would appeal the ruling on behalf of McCrory's administration.

This actually puts Cooper in something of an awkward position. Cooper who is strongly believed to be planning to run governor in 2016 and has quarreled with McCrory about voter ID laws publicly. In October 2013, TPM reported that McCrory warned that Cooper needed to not advertise his opposition to voter identification laws.

"Regarding the attorney general, my only comment regarding this is he can have his personal opinion but as a lawyer he should not publicize your personal opinion if you're going to be defending the people who are promoting this commonsense law," McCrory said during an appearance at the Heritage Foundation. Those comments came in response to Cooper expressing disagreement with the law.

More recently, Cooper said that the 2016 election would be a pivotal moment for North Carolina.

"That’s when we take the state back from the extremists," Cooper said.

...you know, this may sound weird coming from a progressive like myself but even in a state like N.C. it ain't that damn hard to get the appropriate I.D...even I can't figure out what's so bad about having to show I.D. prior to voting. Yes, I know that instances of in-person voter fraud are like unicorns (i.e. they practically don't exist) but how does having to get an I.D. to vote restrict the actual right to vote?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I do not agree with you on voter fraud a tiny problem but as for the rest HALLELUJAH!

 

[Webster]

I do not agree with you on voter fraud a tiny problem but as for the rest HALLELUJAH!

You might want to rethink the voter fraud thing there, Liberty.....as a local BOE official said to me earlier in the year when I went to vote in the 2014 NC primary, 'there are far easier ways to throw an election than by in-person voter fraud', which is true if you think about it.

I mean, if I were wanting to throw an election, why would I do that one-at-a-time when it would be far easier to do it behind-the-scenes, especially now that most voting is done using electronic counters and such.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not really. The 2012 presidential election had it like a ebola plague in Africa.

 

[DrLeftover]

You MUST show a photo ID to buy over the counter cold medication.

but not to vote


Excuse me, I need a drink.

 

[Webster]

Not really. The 2012 presidential election had it like a ebola plague in Africa.

You MUST show a photo ID to buy over the counter cold medication.

but not to vote

Excuse me, I need a drink.

@Liberty: Or like a Tea Party rally, either one...here's another thought, though: why is it that we're the only country that seems to not require identification before going to vote? Yes, I know I'm going to probably regret asking that question, but its' still a valid question...
@Doc: I've never understood that one either, to be honest....don't we also need IDs' in order to cash checks, enter certain government buildings, etc.,etc...hell, at this rate, I may need a drink as well.

 

[DrLeftover]

The only logical reason to NOT require it is that the various authorities WANT those who are not supposed to vote, to do so.

 

[Webster]

The only logical reason to NOT require it is that the various authorities WANT those who are not supposed to vote, to do so.

Still, I go back to my earlier point: why go to the time and effort to commit in=person voter fraud when you can throw an election on the other hand through vote-rigging schemes of one sort or another?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx5YyiyWOH4
Princeton University Technical Paper

...now, the video and adjacent info are a few years out but the premise is still valid and that is, if you get into a voting machine and hack the results, then you change the results to whatever result you so choose...