The verdict on the election laws trial
Published July 24, 2015
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, July 23, 2015.
Two weeks into the hearing over North Carolina’s 2013 election laws, we have reached some conclusions.
For starters, mainstream media coverage has been disappointing. Not only is there a lack of depth, but it appears one-sided in favor of the plaintiffs. An example: The media reported that woman, who went to vote (at a precinct where she was not registered) complained that her 2014 provisional ballot was not counted. She explained her out-of-precinct vote saying she moved around a lot so she didn’t bother to change her registration, could not get off work to vote and had to pick up her “babies.” Under further questioning she revealed she had lived in the same house for three years and that her “babies” were 19 and 21 years old, facts not reported.
Liberal media bias? More likely the inadequate coverage comes from the lack of seasoned reporters and the reductions most newsrooms, especially newspapers, have suffered.
Was the intent of the legislature to restrict minority and student voting? It is impossible to prove intent but it is highly likely. When Democrats were in charge their intent was to pass laws that made it easier for minorities to vote, because minorities vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Republicans, wanting to win those elections for their party, passed laws to encourage their followers and discourage Democratic voters, but since they’ve gerrymandered the districts the outcome is almost guaranteed.
The charge has been frequently made that the laws curbing early voting, eliminating same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional voting are disadvantaging minorities. Heck, they are making it more difficult for everyone. There was most assuredly confusion resulting from the court cases prior to the 2014 elections but was this just about race? If that can be proved it is unacceptable. Is it unconstitutional? We doubt that it is.
So far we haven’t heard any new and startling revelations coming from this trial, so U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder will hear the 90 hours of testimony, deliberate an appropriate period of time and issue his verdict. We suspect we already know it because he telegraphed his opinions last July in allowing the law to stand. What we have learned is that once you provide a benefit to someone it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrict or eliminate it.
Here are our questions. Why discourage any voters? Why not make elections as voter-friendly as possible? We want to minimize fraud, but Kim Strach, head of the Board of Elections, testified there’s little evidence of voting fraud. Costs are also a consideration but we’re not aware of any cost-benefit analysis showing the 2013 laws were justified. And aside from the fact that legislators were told they were likely to lose in court we still don’t understand why the Voter ID provisions were recently relaxed.
If our legislature did not intend to suppress voting or discriminate they can prove it with some good-faith steps, such as expanding the voter registration deadline to two weeks before the election, allowing online registrations, increasing the number of IDs that are acceptable and perhaps even requiring that employees be given time off work to vote.
Voting is a privilege, one of the undeniable rights for which our founders and subsequent generations fought. There’s nothing wrong in asking people to make some effort to exercise this right but we need to zealously ensure that we do not discriminate against anyone or suppress voting. The more who participate, the better the chances that the party and candidate with the best ideas will win.
July 24, 2015 at 8:42 am
Frank Burns says:
Here's the problem the longer number of early voting days, the more opportunity that those who want to vote multiple time have. We've seen Democracts trucking mentally retarded people to the polls and telling them how to vote. The elimination of single lever voting now makes it harder on the left wing activists. We should limit the number of days to vote so that those who are motivated to vote without someone dragging them to the polls, comes out to vote. In addition the use of photo IDs restricts those left wing activists from voting for dead people. The new voting laws have a positive effect by voters gaining confidence that the system has adequate safeguards so that their vote is counts and is not negated by cheating from the left. The increased voter turnout the last election demonstrated that the new initiatives are working.
July 24, 2015 at 10:48 am
Norm Kelly says:
Media bias is overwhelming. Leftist media allies reporting stories that support/endorse the leftist agenda is outrageous but pervasive. Even when blatant examples are readily available, excuses are made, the benefit of the doubt is given. Why can't we call these allies on their bias? One of the reasons that people support Trump is because he calls reporters on their obvious bias. Everyone needs to do it more often.
For instance, I'm not picking on Tom; I love his shows and most of his posts. But: 'Liberal media bias? More likely the inadequate coverage comes from the lack of seasoned reporters and the reductions most newsrooms'. Really? Clearly liberal media reporting favorably about their allies and never questioning the motives/intentions/facts supplied by libs/allies/the rev buffet slayer. Why? To purposely mislead the masses? Can't be. Libs just don't mislead people. Libs especially do NOT mislead/lie to blacks. Yet, libs are doing exactly that with the voting law change suit. Libs and the buffet slayer are specifically telling blacks they are incapable of properly identifying themselves to be legal voters; libs are telling the court that people are being mistreated by Republican laws when in fact the lady is telling lies about her situation and media allies are covering for them!
If not intentionally 'misleading', then what? More excuses? Laziness? How about we stop being politically correct when addressing libs. How about we start telling the truth when addressing libs and their lies. We all need to stop referring to lib lies as 'misleading' or 'misspoken'. It's a LIE! 'You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor. Period.' That's not a misquote. That's not a 'mislead'. That's a lie. An oft repeated lie! 'You can keep your private pay insurance if you like your private pay insurance.' Our own K repeated this one. It wasn't a 'mislead'. It wasn't a 'misquote'. It was a LIE!
Did the reporter who covered the woman whining about her vote not counting? Yes! She was lazy and used to being coddled by libs and their allies. Her full story is that she couldn't bother telling the truth, lied about her 'babies', and lied about her living condition. OR the alternative is that the reporter LIED about this womans story to make the masses believe a LIE that Republicans were purposely targeting certain groups or individuals. Like the Rev Buffet Slayer whining that blacks are disenfranchised because early voting days were reduced or that blacks can't properly identify themselves to get a valid picture ID or that blacks don't have a way of getting to the state office to get a picture taken or that blacks can't afford to purchase the picture ID (that the state would buy for them or that costs a grand total of $2 per year!). Lies that are picked up by media allies, reported without question by media allies, and repeated to the masses for the purpose of MISLEADING the masses!
Lies are LIES! Plain and simple. When my sons lied to me, they got liquid soap on their tongues to swish around. When my grandkids lie to me, they are immediately reprimanded (read that 'spoken to harshly' not 'beaten' for all you libs out there that believe disciplining children is harmful!). When I am lied to by a media ally, I respond quite negatively. Trump does it. Everyone else needs to start. When WRAL reports a story inaccurately, I email them with the facts and chide them for telling lies to their audience. We need more people to do this.
Tom could help.
July 24, 2015 at 12:19 pm
Tom Hauck says:
HI Tom,
Thank you for your many excellent columns, Sunday morning TV programs and this computer communication venue.
I agree that we should make it as easy for people to vote as possible and I think we do. We provide many more opportunities than NY, for example, which has no early voting.
Voting is a duty and also a privilege. Very few, if any, government offices offer public hours other than Monday to Friday and 8AM to 5PM yet we, the public, arrange to interact with them -- DMV for example. When we want something we will handle it.
I have lived in this area since 2002 have interacted with, perhaps 500 senior citizens in classes at OLLI at Duke University as well as Shared Learning in Chapel Hill. Three different people, over the years, have told our classes about how they went to vote and someone had already voted in their name. Fraud may not be a big deal but it exists.
Thanks again for all that you do.
July 24, 2015 at 12:33 pm
Mike says:
Your position on how restrictive NC voting laws are is a collective media lack of knowledge of the topic.
Thirteen states have ONE day to vote and an excuse is required for absentee vote.
Among them New York,Virginia,PA,Vermont,Delaware,Rhode Island,Connecticut,Massachusetts - hardly conservative enclaves.
Alabama,Michigan,Mississippi, Missouri,Kentucky,South Carolina.
North Carolina regulations are near lock step with 32 other states and could be characterized as among the most restrictive in USA.
Your criticism of the media about this topic seems unfair.
July 25, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Mike Yorke says:
I really misspoke above.
The next to last sentence should read - North Carolina regulations are near lock step with 32 other states and could be characterized among the least restrictive in USA.
July 24, 2015 at 1:46 pm
Doug says:
Thanks for the article Tom. It is nice to see someone point out the poor media coverage. While it may be possible that part of the reason for the poor coverage is the lack of experience, I feel that it goes farther than that. The reporting of stories from only the progressive perspective is way too pervasive across traditional forms of media to not believe there is a bias inherent in the industry. Sadly, much of the industry is dying as people find out they can no longer trust their local paper or TV news show. With the advent of new media on the internet where you can find news and views you can trust (or as I tend to do, visit the opposition media of one of your frequent NC Spin panelists to see narrative) the old media is dying out. What is truly sad is that they do not understand why they are dying off as they double down on reporting their narrative.
July 25, 2015 at 11:04 am
Tom Hauck says:
We keep hearing that the newspapers and old media are dying.
As someone said, the old media -- like the Raleigh N&O are not dying, they are committing suicide. Reminds me of my childhood when I was supposed to graduate from a writing three page paper to a four page paper I wrote in big print & widened the margins and my three pager became a four pager.
