Cooper rallies opposition to NC elections bill
Published August 9, 2013
By Matthew Burns, WRAL.com, August 8, 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper has posted apetition on change.org so people opposed to the sweeping elections bill passed by lawmakers last month can lobby Gov. Pat McCrory to veto the measure.
Passed in the closing days of the legislative session, House Bill 589 would require voters to show photo identification at the polls, reduce the early voting period from 17 to 10 days, eliminate same-day voter registration during early voting and end straight-ticket voting.
The legislation also would create a second primary for presidential elections, increase the maximum allowable campaign donation, loosen disclosure requirements in campaign ads paid for by independent committees and repeal the requirement that candidates endorse ads run by their campaigns.
Cooper's petition calls the proposal "regressive elections legislation." He said recently that enacting the various provisions would only invite legal challenges.
McCrory has until Aug. 25 to sign or veto the bill. If he doesn't do either, it becomes law without his signature.
August 9, 2013 at 10:18 am
Norm Kelly says:
So, the attorney general, who is charged with enforcing NC laws, is opposed to this bill becoming law. Does this mean that he will do a purposely poor job supporting the law in court once it becomes law? Is this a case of another attorney general deciding which laws to enforce/support and which laws to ignore?
Once it becomes law, will Mr. Cooper feel obligated to resign so someone who can do the job has the chance to replace him?
While I believe this bill should become law, I guess my biggest challenge with the opposition is who it's coming from.
A recent post showed how the bill is less regressive & oppressive than current law in other states. It surprised me that states where the law is more restrictive, major media outlets & other pundits (politicians?) are complaining about how offensive the proposed law in NC is. No sense pointing the finger at themselves when they can point the finger elsewhere.
Mr. Cooper should take down his petition website and let someone who is less directly involved take over the opposition. This is definitely a conflict of interest position that he has taken.
Is he a democrat, by any chance? If so, that would explain why no one has yet to call for his resignation.
August 9, 2013 at 2:30 pm
dj anderson says:
Like Etheridge, Cooper may be trying to get his name in the news to take leadership in the party. Now I see, too, why the legislature reserved the right to defend legislation themselves rather than depend on the attorney general.
August 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Johnny Hiott says:
I don't think it is the job of the state's attorney to garner signatures on petitions. If the people in this state do not like
having to show a picture ID in order to vote they are quite capable of submitting their own petitions. I personally think it is high time voter ID was required. If the socialist now in control in DC don't like NC's voter ID laws they can take the state to court and roy cooper can try doing his job in defending the legal legislation passed by the state legislature.
August 10, 2013 at 9:22 pm
John Van Noate says:
August 11, 2013 at 10:40 am
Norm Kelly says:
John:
Sorry. Roy Cooper is NOT a citizen just like anyone else. Mr. Cooper is an elected official with assigned, specific duties. I am not an elected official, I am an ordinary tax-paying citizen of NC. My role in the state, my local community, is polar opposite of Mr. Cooper.
Roy Cooper holds an elected office where he is duty-bound to uphold & enforce the laws of NC, as enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor. By creating a petition to encourage the governor to veto a bill, Mr. Cooper is possibly showing his intent to violate his duties as AG. Just because the current occupant of the white house & his appointees believe they can pick & choose which laws to support, enforce, defend, doesn't mean that NC officials get to do it. Just because you've become comfortable with pick & choose attitudes, doesn't mean that it is right.
Mr. Cooper can do anything he wants behind the scenes, lobbying the governor to veto the bill preventing it from becoming law. But being so public about his opposition to a potential law is beyond the pale. Sotamayor (or however you spell the SCOTUS judge's name) should never have been approved by the senate until after a decision on Obamacare was made by SCOTUS. The other alternative was to recuse herself from the proceedings. Mr. Cooper should do the same thing in this situation. Play behind the scenes, but leave the public opposition to those who won't eventually be charged with upholding the law. He is far from an ordinary citizen.
August 11, 2013 at 6:17 pm
John Van Noate says:
So Mr. Cooper has done something illegal, Mr. Kelly, or has he just done something that hurt your feelings? you make all kinds of assertions here, but really, if President Obama had done something illegal, don't you think the Republicans would have been in court in a heartbeat (not granting that Mitch or Johnny Boy has a heart)? if Attorney General Cooper does something illegal, then perhaps he can be impeached. i suggest you get right on that.
August 12, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Norm Kelly says:
You must be a liberal. I never mentioned my feelings. Only liberals put feelings first. Nor did I type anything that indicated Mr. Cooper did anything illegal. If you wish, I could call you and read my posts to you so you can actually understand; I'll explain the words I use if it helps. So far, you are the only one bringing up impeachment. I still don't believe Mr. Cooper is right in his public opposition and he shouldn't be doing it. You have done nothing to convince me that it's against what his position is supposed to do.
However, if Mr. Cooper were a Republican and was so public in his opposition to a Democrat legislature & governor, every liberal in the state, every News & Observer editorial would be questioning his qualifications and whether he should be removed from office.
i did not make "all kinds" of assertions. I stated that Washington has gotten quite comfortable with picking & choosing. This administration decided they didn't want to enforce DOMA. This was a law passed by Congress, signed by the President. But Obummer decided he didn't like it. Instead of standing on the side of the law when it came to SCOTUS, this administration stood on the side of overriding the law. If I had the time, and wanted to bother researching on the web, I'd come up with more examples of picking & choosing. Again, if it were George Bush picking & choosing, you liberals would be turning yourselves inside out demanding impeachment. (there. i mentioned impeachment. happy?)
