Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DOJ suing NC over voter ID laws

39 posts in this topic

Posted

Someone please help me out with a link because I am doing this over the phone but they are challenging several of the provisions of the law on the basis of racial discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is gonna be good. State vs Feds. Make ur bets ladies and gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is gonna be good. State vs Feds. Make ur bets ladies and gentlemen.

Feds will always win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Holder needs to read the Shelby decision...

 

but he won't...because he's a dumb-A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Feds will always win.

Oh I know, it's just sounds cool lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So, will Holder sue the majority of US States?

14 states allow straight party voting. North Carolina now joins the 36 other states that do not.
15 states allow NO early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. (Those include NY and Mass)
32 states allow early voting ranging from 4 days prior to election day to 45 days with an average 19 days. North Carolina allows 10 days but requires the same number of hours of early voting that was available in 2012 and 2010 when the early voting period was 17 days.
Only 1 state allows same day registration during early voting. NC was the only other state to allow this and has now joined 49 states in not allowing same day registration during early voting.
11 states allow same day registration on Election Day. North Carolina does not.
5 states allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre-register to vote. 45 states do not, including now, North Carolina.

Illinois and Delaware require voter ID. Hawaii has even stricter voter ID requirements. Why is Holder not suing those states?
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Holder needs to read the Shelby decision...

 

but he won't...because he's a dumb-A.

 

the shelby decision was over sections 4b and 5 and the suit in question is reportedly on the basis of section 2

 

edited to get rid of auto emoticon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Most lawsuits require a "harmed party".  Since none of the new laws are in place and being used...there is no harmed party.  Also, there is no preclearance issue because Congress hasn't established new rules for Holder to have a basis in this. 

 

We'll see how this plays out...as I pointed out above.  NC laws are pretty much in line with most other states in the union. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

All hail the mighty and righteous federal government! Screw the 10th amendment and submit to your king's czars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

All hail the mighty and righteous federal government! Screw the 10th amendment and submit to your king's czars!

 

Unless said govt passes the affordable care act then its :rabble rabble rabble:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites