N.C. Voter laws should be blocked
Published July 14, 2014
Editorial by Charlotte Observer, July 12, 2014.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder said last week that he will take time to consider the arguments offered about changes to the state’s voter laws that N.C. lawmakers approved last year. An array of groups have challenged the changes, saying they erect voting obstacles for minorities, the elderly and young people, and are discriminatory. They want the changes suspended until the case goes to trial next year.
The judge should suspend implementation of these new laws. They are ill-advised and unnecessary. Some have already caused confusion and wasted taxpayer dollars.
We noted that last week that lawmakers’ decision to end preregistration of teens to vote was nonsensical. It caused so much confusion about when 17 year olds who would turn 18 could register that state elections supervisor Kim Strach decreed the state will begin offering voter registration services to all 17-year-olds regardless of when they turned 18.
Suspension of the voting changes would reinstate teen preregistration, as well as same-day voter registration, out-of-precinct provisional voting, and early voting over 17 days as opposed to the 10 days set in the 2013 law. County boards of election also would still be allowed to keep polls open an extra hour. It would also forestall the preparations elections officials are making for the implementation of a state-approved voter ID. That law doesn’t go into effect until 2016, but poll workers are already asking about IDs which has confused some voters.
Lawyers defending the legislature’s voting changes contended during the four-day hearings that suspending the changes were unnecessary since the May primary results showed they have not affected African American turnout. They cited an uptick in black voter turnout from the 2010 primary of about 44,500.
The nonpartisan Democracy North Carolina said that jump was hardly uniform statewide. Their county-by-county analysis is illuminating. It showed that though more African Americans voted in the midterm primary, black voter turnout decreased in 8 of the 15 counties where blacks comprise over 39 percent of registered voters. In fact, black turnout as a percent of registered voters who cast ballots declined in 32 of the 100 N.C. counties.
The analysis also showed that two-thirds (66 percent) of the increased number of votes cast by black voters statewide came from just seven counties – counties where there were either controversial or heated races on the ballot or where more early voting opportunities were offered. In Mecklenburg, for instance, the hotly contested 12th Congressional District seat that Mel Watt held helped draw 8,282 more black votes (the largest black voter increase in the state) than were cast in 2010. Additionally, Mecklenburg had only one early voting site in 2010 but 13 this year.
Courts have overturned such laws in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arkansas. North Carolina’s should be upended too. In the meantime, the judge should block them until the courts resolve the matter next summer.
July 14, 2014 at 11:06 am
Norm Kelly says:
I've just started reading this editorial. I am not expecting much truth or useful information.
Will this editorial actually tell the truth about the lawyers representing voter law change advocates? Will the post tell us that these lawyers are all supporters of the demon party? Will they tell us that they actually support allowing voter fraud because it supports their party of choice? You may disagree with this statement/question, but ask yourself the important question before you call me a conspiracy nut. Why is it that in every case the only or most loudly claimed complaint against the Republicans or any conservative starts with the word 'racist'? What is it about libs that they believe 'minorities' are incapable of taking care of themselves in life without the help of libs? Try looking at Republican efforts through a different set of glasses. Take off your racist glasses and look at the facts. Libs always claim blacks/minorities can't conform to whatever change Republicans implement. Libs always claim that blacks need extra help, regardless of the situation. Why is it that blacks can't get to the polls in 11 days? Why is it that blacks can't get a valid picture ID? Why is it that blacks can't afford $2 per year for a valid picture ID? Plus, the state will BUY any picture ID that some black person can't afford, or simply claims they can't afford. Libs should like this idea; it's another give-away of tax dollars to their favored group. Add to the ID issue that after ID is required to vote, blacks will also be able to pick up their own prescription at the pharmacy. For some reason this is not considered racist, but ID at the polls is racist? Have you asked yourself about that conundrum? Lib pols hope not!
'poll workers are already asking about IDs which has confused some voters'. How so? Do the libs really think that the average person is so stup1d that they have no concept of what a picture ID is? Have people never been asked for a picture ID before? Have they not been to the pharmacy? Have they not cashed a check at a bank or credit union? "If you have a picture ID would you mind showing it to me? If you don't have a picture ID, then please state your name." Wow, you are right. Now that I say it in my mind as I typed it, your expectation of confusion is so true. After I finished typing those 2 sentences, I was so confused that I had to stop typing for about 30 seconds until I could regain my composure. It's high time (no ref to the occupier intended this time!) that libs are allowed to repeal a settled law!
Except, one probably must be high, like the occupier, in order to be confused by that set of sentences/questions! It's possible libs are right: one might actually be an id10t if they become confused by that process! If someone becomes confused by those 2 statements/questions, is it obvious they are demon voters?
'black turnout as a percent of registered voters who cast ballots declined'. Would this have anything to do with the fact that no black guy was running for president? Would it have anything to do with no black person running for any seat at all in that district? Is this a comparison of the election where the occupier was running and blacks turned out just for him versus a mid-term election where he wasn't on the ballot? If so, this is such an unfair comparison that even the editorial writer knows it's bogus. He's just trying to stir up low-information demon voters. Such an obvious ploy!
'Mecklenburg had only one early voting site in 2010 but 13 this year'. So more early voting places were open under the new law than the previous law? Allowing MORE blacks to vote early than in previous elections? Doesn't this automatically prove the socialist theory of suppressing black votes by Republicans is 180 degrees wrong? For libs, the 180 degrees refers to being 100% wrong; so wrong that there's no way to say it any more precisely. Absolutely wrong is what it means, even in lib speak. We'll take you at your word. You just proved our point. Thank you. Next topic!
'counties where there were either controversial or heated races on the ballot or where more early voting opportunities were offered'. Wow, I've known for a long time that the saying about concrete is so on the mark: a lib mind is like concrete, all mixed up & permanently set. There ARE reasons that black voters turn out. When there is a controversial or heated race, blacks get to the polls. Regardless of how confusing the law might be to these helpless voters, they turn out when they believe it is necessary. But then, the editorial writer admits that even under the suppression laws of the Republicans, there were more early voting opportunities. Again, proving that their entire argument is wrong. When motivated, blacks can get to the polls. The attempt by Republicans to suppress the black vote missed the mark. Our attempts to confuse didn't work. Our attempts to restrict early voting didn't work. Darn those Republicans! They can't seem to get anything right! Perhaps I should start agreeing with lib pols & socialist editorial writers more often. If conservatives are really trying to suppress demon voters, they are doing a darn poor job of it! If they fail on this issue, what's the chances they are going to fail to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes & regulation! I'm so disillusioned!
