Perspectives #2

[Bob Juch]

I told you, I don't want to go there. If we want to discuss the history of racism in this country, that is a whole nuther topic. It does not belong in this thread. I suggest we keep to the current topic to see if we can come to some kind of agreement on some things. If you want to go there, it should be in a different thread. And I suggest you research the history of your political party on your own before we do. You may decide you don't really want to go there either.

I have said, and I will say once again. These threads are to show there are different, valid perspectives on any particular topic. And I admit, as pointed out by someone else, I have injected myself into it more than I intended to. I'd like to keep the debate on topic as much as I can. And I am trying to do it without being hostile or calling anyone names. And I am trying to provide clarification for the 'alternate' perspectives as much as I can.

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

Unfortunately, you can't separate politics from racism. You're still using the photo of a racist movie character, so of course you don't want to discuss racism.

Bob, that was given to me by one of the trolls. Blame him, not me.

I gave that to you saying that's who you remind me of.

[flockofseagulls104]

Unfortunately, you can't separate politics from racism. You're still using the photo of a racist movie character, so of course you don't want to discuss racism.

Bob, that was given to me by one of the trolls. Blame him, not me.

I gave that to you saying that's who you remind me of.

And I wear it as a badge in your honor. If you don't like it, and I think you have complained about it, forgetting it came from you, then just tell me you were wrong, and I'll take it down. Because you are wrong, sir.

[flockofseagulls104]

My point is, rather than a state legislature pointing fingers at each other, figuring that whomever is the loudest wins, wouldn't it be better to decide that requiring that every vote is cast by the person who is supposed to be voting is the fairest thing for everyone, and that some kind of Identification to verify that, which is required for any other kind of transaction, is one way to do it? That being agreed upon, the only thing to figure out is what kinds of identification will be acceptable to all sides. Can we at least agree on that?

There is quite a logical gap between (a) requiring voter ID "is one way to do it" and (b) the only thing left to decide is what sorts of identification should we require.

Every administrative requirement we add to voting has a cost in lost votes from people who have every right to vote. Every single one. So the real question is whether the cost in lost votes outweighs the improper votes these requirements are preventing.

Since literally every investigation into the topic demonstrates that the number of voter-impersonation cases throughout the country in any single given year appears to be in the single digits (out of hundreds of millions of votes cast), and that those voters don't appear to lean predominantly in either political direction (if anything, most of the cases from 2020 seem to be Republican voters trying to cast extra votes for Donny), it doesn't take much to conclude that there is no factual case to be made that the administrative cost far outweighs the benefit, and (particularly given the history of voting rights in this country) from there it's quite easy to conclude that the expressed rationales are mere pretexts for making it harder to vote in a way that will inevitably reduce Democratic turnout more than it will reduce Republican turnout. --Bob

As pointed out in one of the 5 minute videos, the vast majority of voters in every category are in favor of requiring voter ID. I would think that since the vast majority of people already have a form of ID that would be acceptable to everyone, the only administrative cost that I can see is to find a way of identifying the few people who are somehow unable to get one now. We do it here in Georgia. Though there's a lot of yelling about it, mostly from people who don't live here, it seems to work for most people. And I admit I am not tuned in to the minutia of the 'main stream' perspective, but that is the first time I've ever heard 'administrative costs' as one of the arguments against voter id.

[Bob78164]

My point is, rather than a state legislature pointing fingers at each other, figuring that whomever is the loudest wins, wouldn't it be better to decide that requiring that every vote is cast by the person who is supposed to be voting is the fairest thing for everyone, and that some kind of Identification to verify that, which is required for any other kind of transaction, is one way to do it? That being agreed upon, the only thing to figure out is what kinds of identification will be acceptable to all sides. Can we at least agree on that?

There is quite a logical gap between (a) requiring voter ID "is one way to do it" and (b) the only thing left to decide is what sorts of identification should we require.

Every administrative requirement we add to voting has a cost in lost votes from people who have every right to vote. Every single one. So the real question is whether the cost in lost votes outweighs the improper votes these requirements are preventing.

Since literally every investigation into the topic demonstrates that the number of voter-impersonation cases throughout the country in any single given year appears to be in the single digits (out of hundreds of millions of votes cast), and that those voters don't appear to lean predominantly in either political direction (if anything, most of the cases from 2020 seem to be Republican voters trying to cast extra votes for Donny), it doesn't take much to conclude that there is no factual case to be made that the administrative cost far outweighs the benefit, and (particularly given the history of voting rights in this country) from there it's quite easy to conclude that the expressed rationales are mere pretexts for making it harder to vote in a way that will inevitably reduce Democratic turnout more than it will reduce Republican turnout. --Bob

As pointed out in one of the 5 minute videos, the vast majority of voters in every category are in favor of requiring voter ID. I would think that since the vast majority of people already have a form of ID that would be acceptable to everyone, the only administrative cost that I can see is to find a way of identifying the few people who are somehow unable to get one now. We do it here in Georgia. Though there's a lot of yelling about it, mostly from people who don't live here, it seems to work for most people. And I admit I am not tuned in to the minutia of the 'main stream' perspective, but that is the first time I've ever heard 'administrative costs' as one of the arguments against voter id.

The people who can get in front of television cameras probably don't have any real problem getting their hands on an ID. And voting rights are (or at least should be) one of those things that's subject to neither negotiation nor majority rule. It's a fundamental right that is properly outside the ordinary democratic process.

And I have no interest in watching a five-minute video that just makes arguments, particularly when you're not willing to do the work to summarize those arguments. --Bob

[Beebs52]

It's non binary extended learning.

Hi! My name John Q Adams and I'm an astrophysicist. The world is round and revolves around the sun.

You are NOT John Q Adams and certainly are not an astrophysicist! What you are saying can't be correct so I will ignore it.

As far as I am concerned, this tangent is closed. Perhaps you can take it to salon.com and discuss it there while you get a pedicure.

I'm disappointed you missed the diss about messenger name vs message. I think the pedi comment could apply to many of these posts. Did I miss something?

[flockofseagulls104]

There is quite a logical gap between (a) requiring voter ID "is one way to do it" and (b) the only thing left to decide is what sorts of identification should we require.

Every administrative requirement we add to voting has a cost in lost votes from people who have every right to vote. Every single one. So the real question is whether the cost in lost votes outweighs the improper votes these requirements are preventing.

Since literally every investigation into the topic demonstrates that the number of voter-impersonation cases throughout the country in any single given year appears to be in the single digits (out of hundreds of millions of votes cast), and that those voters don't appear to lean predominantly in either political direction (if anything, most of the cases from 2020 seem to be Republican voters trying to cast extra votes for Donny), it doesn't take much to conclude that there is no factual case to be made that the administrative cost far outweighs the benefit, and (particularly given the history of voting rights in this country) from there it's quite easy to conclude that the expressed rationales are mere pretexts for making it harder to vote in a way that will inevitably reduce Democratic turnout more than it will reduce Republican turnout. --Bob

As pointed out in one of the 5 minute videos, the vast majority of voters in every category are in favor of requiring voter ID. I would think that since the vast majority of people already have a form of ID that would be acceptable to everyone, the only administrative cost that I can see is to find a way of identifying the few people who are somehow unable to get one now. We do it here in Georgia. Though there's a lot of yelling about it, mostly from people who don't live here, it seems to work for most people. And I admit I am not tuned in to the minutia of the 'main stream' perspective, but that is the first time I've ever heard 'administrative costs' as one of the arguments against voter id.

The people who can get in front of television cameras probably don't have any real problem getting their hands on an ID. And voting rights are (or at least should be) one of those things that's subject to neither negotiation nor majority rule. It's a fundamental right that is properly outside the ordinary democratic process.

And I have no interest in watching a five-minute video that just makes arguments, particularly when you're not willing to do the work to summarize those arguments. --Bob

So, you are admitting you are not interested in even listening to anyone's viewpoint but your own?

Sir, I deliberately left it to you with no hostility. I think you are wrong about the North Carolina case you tried to rub my face in. As I read it, a 3 judge panel found TODAY that the original ruling was based on bias as to the perceived history of North Carolina, not what they actually did, and overruled the ruling you cited. If you want to participate in this discussion, at least give us the courtesy of listening to a perspective other than your own before criticising it. I suspect, sir, that you didn't even bother reading the link I gave to you in a courteous manner.

[Bob78164]

So, you are admitting you are not interested in even listening to anyone's viewpoint but your own?

Sir, I deliberately left it to you with no hostility. I think you are wrong about the North Carolina case you tried to rub my face in. As I read it, a 3 judge panel found TODAY that the original ruling was based on bias as to the perceived history of North Carolina, not what they actually did, and overruled the ruling you cited. If you want to participate in this discussion, at least give us the courtesy of listening to a perspective other than your own before criticising it. I suspect, sir, that you didn't even bother reading the link I gave to you in a courteous manner.

I'm interested in facts. I'm not interested in taking the time to watch a video, or read a long post, expressing an opinion when you can't be bothered to summarize the points made.

You're wrong about the North Carolina case. This was North Carolina's third try at passing a Voter ID statute. As I pointed out, the law that targeted minorities "with almost surgical precision" (that's a direct quote from the Fourth Circuit's opinion) was passed about a decade ago. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

So, you are admitting you are not interested in even listening to anyone's viewpoint but your own?

Sir, I deliberately left it to you with no hostility. I think you are wrong about the North Carolina case you tried to rub my face in. As I read it, a 3 judge panel found TODAY that the original ruling was based on bias as to the perceived history of North Carolina, not what they actually did, and overruled the ruling you cited. If you want to participate in this discussion, at least give us the courtesy of listening to a perspective other than your own before criticising it. I suspect, sir, that you didn't even bother reading the link I gave to you in a courteous manner.

I'm interested in facts. I'm not interested in taking the time to watch a video, or read a long post, expressing an opinion when you can't be bothered to summarize the points made.

You're wrong about the North Carolina case. This was North Carolina's third try at passing a Voter ID statute. As I pointed out, the law that targeted minorities "with almost surgical precision" (that's a direct quote from the Fourth Circuit's opinion) was passed about a decade ago. --Bob

You are making the same mistake as was cited in today's ruling. That was a decade ago. Why are you citing that?
Please, Bob. I am trying very hard to be civil.

[flockofseagulls104]

Believe it or not, Bob, I am busy too. I cannot give you an answer for every thing you are pissed off about when you scattershoot from one tangent to another. Pick one specific thing you want me to address for you, from my perspective, and I will try to answer you. Either from someone who knows more about the subject and has facts to support it, or from my own personal, nonfluent in legalese perspective. But at least give the common courtesy of listening to it and trying to comprehend it before you go off on a ranting huff.

Oh, and try and keep it somehow related to the topic that's being discussed.

[Bob78164]

So, you are admitting you are not interested in even listening to anyone's viewpoint but your own?

Sir, I deliberately left it to you with no hostility. I think you are wrong about the North Carolina case you tried to rub my face in. As I read it, a 3 judge panel found TODAY that the original ruling was based on bias as to the perceived history of North Carolina, not what they actually did, and overruled the ruling you cited. If you want to participate in this discussion, at least give us the courtesy of listening to a perspective other than your own before criticising it. I suspect, sir, that you didn't even bother reading the link I gave to you in a courteous manner.

I'm interested in facts. I'm not interested in taking the time to watch a video, or read a long post, expressing an opinion when you can't be bothered to summarize the points made.

You're wrong about the North Carolina case. This was North Carolina's third try at passing a Voter ID statute. As I pointed out, the law that targeted minorities "with almost surgical precision" (that's a direct quote from the Fourth Circuit's opinion) was passed about a decade ago. --Bob

You are making the same mistake as was cited in today's ruling. That was a decade ago. Why are you citing that?
Please, Bob. I am trying very hard to be civil.

I'm citing laws passed in the immediate aftermath of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Republican caucus because the legislators' "racially discriminatory intent" (as found by the Fourth Circuit) is a damn good reason to believe that the same legislators (who rushed the bill through in a lame duck session before legislators who had been voted out of office lost the power to override the Governor's veto) were acting with the same intent. Even if the Supreme Court's Republican caucus requires the courts to turn a blind eye to that history. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Except, of course, for the Fourth Circuit ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that North Carolina did exactly that. And the Texas District Court ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that Texas legislators had discriminatory intent when they enacted voting legislation a decade ago.

But yes, except for the court rulings that expressly so found, I guess you could say it's a matter of conjecture.

If you close your eyes tightly enough and squeeze your fingers really, really hard into your ears. --Bob

I told you, I don't want to go there. If we want to discuss the history of racism in this country, that is a whole nuther topic. It does not belong in this thread. I suggest we keep to the current topic to see if we can come to some kind of agreement on some things. If you want to go there, it should be in a different thread. And I suggest you research the history of your political party on your own before we do. You may decide you don't really want to go there either.

I have said, and I will say once again. These threads are to show there are different, valid perspectives on any particular topic. And I admit, as pointed out by someone else, I have injected myself into it more than I intended to. I'd like to keep the debate on topic as much as I can. And I am trying to do it without being hostile or calling anyone names. And I am trying to provide clarification for the 'alternate' perspectives as much as I can.

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

Flock, seriously. You're trying to engage in "constructive conversation" with individuals who claim to believe Biden is a competent president.
I'm happy to "see" you, but you, my friend, are pissing in the wind.

[flockofseagulls104]

I told you, I don't want to go there. If we want to discuss the history of racism in this country, that is a whole nuther topic. It does not belong in this thread. I suggest we keep to the current topic to see if we can come to some kind of agreement on some things. If you want to go there, it should be in a different thread. And I suggest you research the history of your political party on your own before we do. You may decide you don't really want to go there either.

I have said, and I will say once again. These threads are to show there are different, valid perspectives on any particular topic. And I admit, as pointed out by someone else, I have injected myself into it more than I intended to. I'd like to keep the debate on topic as much as I can. And I am trying to do it without being hostile or calling anyone names. And I am trying to provide clarification for the 'alternate' perspectives as much as I can.

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

Flock, seriously. You're trying to engage in "constructive conversation" with individuals who claim to believe Biden is a competent president.
I'm happy to "see" you, but you, my friend, are pissing in the wind.

I was pretty sure I would be, but I figured "What the hell?".

[Bob Juch]

My point is, rather than a state legislature pointing fingers at each other, figuring that whomever is the loudest wins, wouldn't it be better to decide that requiring that every vote is cast by the person who is supposed to be voting is the fairest thing for everyone, and that some kind of Identification to verify that, which is required for any other kind of transaction, is one way to do it? That being agreed upon, the only thing to figure out is what kinds of identification will be acceptable to all sides. Can we at least agree on that?

There is quite a logical gap between (a) requiring voter ID "is one way to do it" and (b) the only thing left to decide is what sorts of identification should we require.

Every administrative requirement we add to voting has a cost in lost votes from people who have every right to vote. Every single one. So the real question is whether the cost in lost votes outweighs the improper votes these requirements are preventing.

Since literally every investigation into the topic demonstrates that the number of voter-impersonation cases throughout the country in any single given year appears to be in the single digits (out of hundreds of millions of votes cast), and that those voters don't appear to lean predominantly in either political direction (if anything, most of the cases from 2020 seem to be Republican voters trying to cast extra votes for Donny), it doesn't take much to conclude that there is no factual case to be made that the administrative cost far outweighs the benefit, and (particularly given the history of voting rights in this country) from there it's quite easy to conclude that the expressed rationales are mere pretexts for making it harder to vote in a way that will inevitably reduce Democratic turnout more than it will reduce Republican turnout. --Bob

As pointed out in one of the 5 minute videos, the vast majority of voters in every category are in favor of requiring voter ID. I would think that since the vast majority of people already have a form of ID that would be acceptable to everyone, the only administrative cost that I can see is to find a way of identifying the few people who are somehow unable to get one now. We do it here in Georgia. Though there's a lot of yelling about it, mostly from people who don't live here, it seems to work for most people. And I admit I am not tuned in to the minutia of the 'main stream' perspective, but that is the first time I've ever heard 'administrative costs' as one of the arguments against voter id.

If you haven't heard of 'administrative costs' as one of the arguments against voter id, you haven't been listening. That's an end run around the Twenty-fourth Amendment. When the poorest citizens can't afford to get a state-issued ID, nor pay for a way to drive to get one, that effectively amounts to a poll tax.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm interested in facts. I'm not interested in taking the time to watch a video, or read a long post, expressing an opinion when you can't be bothered to summarize the points made.

You're wrong about the North Carolina case. This was North Carolina's third try at passing a Voter ID statute. As I pointed out, the law that targeted minorities "with almost surgical precision" (that's a direct quote from the Fourth Circuit's opinion) was passed about a decade ago. --Bob

You are making the same mistake as was cited in today's ruling. That was a decade ago. Why are you citing that?
Please, Bob. I am trying very hard to be civil.

I'm citing laws passed in the immediate aftermath of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Republican caucus because the legislators' "racially discriminatory intent" (as found by the Fourth Circuit) is a damn good reason to believe that the same legislators (who rushed the bill through in a lame duck session before legislators who had been voted out of office lost the power to override the Governor's veto) were acting with the same intent. Even if the Supreme Court's Republican caucus requires the courts to turn a blind eye to that history. --Bob

Since I asked you to pick ONE topic you wanted me to give you an answer to, and you came back with this one, I'll be happy to give you an answer that includes facts.

1. You are citing a law that, as far as I can tell, never saw the light of day, because, as you state, it was struck down by the Fourth Circuit.
2. That non-law is at least a decade old, by your own admission.
3. It is very unlikely that exactly the SAME legislators that passed that law a decade ago are all still in office today. (A 'literal' point, but I'll go with the precedent that was established earlier).
4. It is not up to you, nor in your power, to determine anyone's intent.
5. Is it admissible in court to cite a non-existant law that is decades old as a precedent? I mean, "Hey, Your Honor, this current law made by the current legislature should be struck down because the legislature 10 years ago passed a law kinda like this, and the judges back then didn't like their tone.'
6. The 3 judge panel that overturned the current Fourth Circuit's ruling on the CURRENT law in question apparently did so because they believed the ruling in question was made with the same mindset and prejudice that you are showing RIGHT NOW.
7. If I were to give you an estimate of how many laws currently on the books that were passed by lame duck legislatures of ANY party, that estimate would be in the thousands. Anyone care to dispute that?
8. Currently, as of today, the law in question stands. It is the law of North Carolina. Passed by the legal representatives that were put into office by the people of North Carolina, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
9. Today's ruling apparently, is subject to appeal, and there are many people that will try and strike it down again. But not because of its merits or flaws, but because of their blind and intolerant partisanship. Proof of which is the argument you made above. You didn't say the bill was flawed in any way. you said SPECIFICALLY the 10 year old bill was "a damn good reason to believe" the current legislature had the same intent, not that the current bill had anything you could cite that was wrong with it. Are they any less biased than the people who crafted the original bill that was struck down a decade ago?

There's my answer to your chosen topic. And since you said you don't have, what? the time or patience to read long-winded posts, I can probably assume, based on your past actions and statements, you won't read this one, and just go on another rant about something else. But, I figure "What the hell?"

When I decided to come back to the board, I decided I would NOT engage in the back and forth name-calling and vitriol. And I won't. For what it's worth, I apologize to you, Bob, for the nasty things I posted to you and about you. That is not me in real life. It is easy to act that way on the internet, and many people do that. I recognized that I was doing just that, and it troubled me. All I ask in return is that you act in a civil manner to me. I may have a different viewpoint than you have, but I come by it honestly, and whatever insults you or anyone else want to throw at me will only reinforce my belief that I am correct. If that's all you got, go for it. If you have rational, cogent arguments that will show me the error of my judgment, I will listen and ponder.

[Bob78164]

4. It is not up to you, nor in your power, to determine anyone's intent.

People prove intent in court all the time. Hell, it even happens in sports. You've heard of "intentionally grounding the football," right?

But you've completely missed my point. I cited that law because it gives voters of color damn good reason to be suspicious of the motives of legislators who are passing restrictive voter ID laws (such as Georgia's) in the complete absence of evidence that ineligible people are actually trying to cast votes. If legislators are creating administrative barriers in order to solve a non-problem, if those barriers fall disproportionately on voters of color, and if in the recent past (not to mention throughout American history) legislators have passed barriers to voting with racially discriminatory intent, then why the hell should voters of color believe that this time the legislators' motives are pure and it's a mere coincidence that the burden falls disproportionately on them? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

4. It is not up to you, nor in your power, to determine anyone's intent.

People prove intent in court all the time. Hell, it even happens in sports. You've heard of "intentionally grounding the football," right?

But you've completely missed my point. I cited that law because it gives voters of color damn good reason to be suspicious of the motives of legislators who are passing restrictive voter ID laws (such as Georgia's) in the complete absence of evidence that ineligible people are actually trying to cast votes. If legislators are creating administrative barriers in order to solve a non-problem, if those barriers fall disproportionately on voters of color, and if in the recent past (not to mention throughout American history) legislators have passed barriers to voting with racially discriminatory intent, then why the hell should voters of color believe that this time the legislators' motives are pure and it's a mere coincidence that the burden falls disproportionately on them? --Bob

I'm sure you didn't bother to read it, but I already addressed this subject. I linked to an article that rebutted, I thought very effectively, the whole premise of your argument above. Go find it.

I just answered the one topic I gave you, and you chose to question the ONE thing that was unquestionable. Bob, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYONE'S INTENT IS. ONLY GOD AND THAT PERSON KNOWS. YOU CAN ONLY GUESS. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS BE WRONG! You then gave an irrelevant analogy to a football rule, that is subject to arbitrary rules and is often disputed. And then you switched back to another subject that I already addressed because you didn't bother to read it. I know you didn't read it because you gave no reference to it. Neither here or where I posted it. Do judges in your courtroom put up with that?

[silverscreenselect]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion going on about the North Carolina decisions. North Carolina drew up maps following the 2010 census. Those maps were ruled unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit in 2016. The state then drew up virtually the same maps which were ruled unconstitutional again by the Fourth Circuit in 2018. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that partisan gerrymanders were usually a political question beyond the purview of federal courts. However, the same group of plaintiffs filed a case in North Carolina state court that resulted in the state court ruling that the Congressional districts violated the North Carolina constitution's guarantee of free elections. The state again redrew the lines without resort to political or racial data and Democrats gained two seats in the 2020 election. going to 8-5 from 10-3.

North Carolina gained one seat in the census, so new lines have to be drawn for 2022 in any event. Those new lines were the subject of the latest suit, also filed in state court. The state court last week ruled that those new lines, which would appear likely to result in an 11-3 Republican majority. The court today said that redistricting is a politcal process and does not affect the right to vote. That decision would appear to contradict the trial court decision in 2019 (which was never appealed to the NC Supreme Court). Plaintiffs have already indicated they will appeal last week's decision to the NC Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 Democratic majority currently. That decision should come fairly soon, since primaries are scheduled for May with qualifying deadlines in March. Any decision would be based on the NC Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constituion and would not be subject to review by the US Supreme Court.

There were a second set of cases in North Carolina last year, this time on the issue of photo ID requirements. This law is currently being challenged in both state and federal court. A state court has ruled the law, passed in 2018, to be unconstitutional for intentionally discriminating against black voters. That decision is currently on appeal to the mid-level appellate court in North Carolina, which has stayed the law pending its decision. Whichever way that decision goes, an appeal to the NC Supreme Court is likely. The lawsuit in federal court is scheduled for trial this month but no decision has been reached. That decision would likely be appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The case that Flock cited was related to a separate issue, whether the District Court should issue a preliminary injunction against the North Carolina law. The Fourth Circuit ruled in December 2020 that the District Court used the wrong criteria in issuing the preliminary injunction and could not rely on the North Carolina legislature's history. No federal court has issued a ruling upholding the law on its merits; that's what this month's trial is the first step indetermining. And as the North Carolina state courts have blocked the law, it's not going to be in effect for the 2022 election. Flock may have been confused by the webpage link, which shows today's date. But it also notes that it refers to a back issue, and the original article was dated December 2, 2020, the date of the court decision.

[flockofseagulls104]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion going on about the North Carolina decisions. North Carolina drew up maps following the 2010 census. Those maps were ruled unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit in 2016. The state then drew up virtually the same maps which were ruled unconstitutional again by the Fourth Circuit in 2018. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that partisan gerrymanders were usually a political question beyond the purview of federal courts. However, the same group of plaintiffs filed a case in North Carolina state court that resulted in the state court ruling that the Congressional districts violated the North Carolina constitution's guarantee of free elections. The state again redrew the lines without resort to political or racial data and Democrats gained two seats in the 2020 election. going to 8-5 from 10-3.

North Carolina gained one seat in the census, so new lines have to be drawn for 2022 in any event. Those new lines were the subject of the latest suit, also filed in state court. The state court last week ruled that those new lines, which would appear likely to result in an 11-3 Republican majority. The court today said that redistricting is a politcal process and does not affect the right to vote. That decision would appear to contradict the trial court decision in 2019 (which was never appealed to the NC Supreme Court). Plaintiffs have already indicated they will appeal last week's decision to the NC Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 Democratic majority currently. That decision should come fairly soon, since primaries are scheduled for May with qualifying deadlines in March. Any decision would be based on the NC Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constituion and would not be subject to review by the US Supreme Court.

There were a second set of cases in North Carolina last year, this time on the issue of photo ID requirements. This law is currently being challenged in both state and federal court. A state court has ruled the law, passed in 2018, to be unconstitutional for intentionally discriminating against black voters. That decision is currently on appeal to the mid-level appellate court in North Carolina, which has stayed the law pending its decision. Whichever way that decision goes, an appeal to the NC Supreme Court is likely. The lawsuit in federal court is scheduled for trial this month but no decision has been reached. That decision would likely be appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The case that Flock cited was related to a separate issue, whether the District Court should issue a preliminary injunction against the North Carolina law. The Fourth Circuit ruled in December 2020 that the District Court used the wrong criteria in issuing the preliminary injunction and could not rely on the North Carolina legislature's history. No federal court has issued a ruling upholding the law on its merits; that's what this month's trial is the first step indetermining. And as the North Carolina state courts have blocked the law, it's not going to be in effect for the 2022 election. Flock may have been confused by the webpage link, which shows today's date. But it also notes that it refers to a back issue, and the original article was dated December 2, 2020, the date of the court decision.

Yes, looking back at it, it is referring to back issues. I appreciate the correction. Even more so the civil way you presented it. Thank you.

[Bob Juch]

https://bipartisanreport.com/2022/01/25 ... -gop-maps/

A panel of three federal judges has blocked a new Congressional district map in Alabama from going into effect in response to legal challenges outlining how the map negatively impacts Black voters. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Black residents comprise over one-fourth of Alabama’s population, but the Congressional redistricting plan that was pushed by Republican state leaders gave just one U.S. House district — out of seven — to a Black majority. Now, that federal judicial panel has concluded that challengers taking on the Congressional map are “substantially likely” to come out ahead in their arguments that the set-up violates the Voting Rights Act. The judges added that, with the map in place, Black Alabama residents would have “less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect the candidates of their choice to Congress.”

[Bob78164]

https://bipartisanreport.com/2022/01/25 ... -gop-maps/

A panel of three federal judges has blocked a new Congressional district map in Alabama from going into effect in response to legal challenges outlining how the map negatively impacts Black voters. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Black residents comprise over one-fourth of Alabama’s population, but the Congressional redistricting plan that was pushed by Republican state leaders gave just one U.S. House district — out of seven — to a Black majority. Now, that federal judicial panel has concluded that challengers taking on the Congressional map are “substantially likely” to come out ahead in their arguments that the set-up violates the Voting Rights Act. The judges added that, with the map in place, Black Alabama residents would have “less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect the candidates of their choice to Congress.”

Note, by the way, that Donny appointed two of the three judges joining that unanimous decision. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Yeah. Trying to have conversations with people who only talk to themselves. Pissing in the wind.

[tlynn78]

Yeah. Trying to have conversations with people who only talk to themselves. Pissing in the wind.

Bingo!

[silverscreenselect]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion going on about the North Carolina decisions. North Carolina drew up maps following the 2010 census. Those maps were ruled unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit in 2016. The state then drew up virtually the same maps which were ruled unconstitutional again by the Fourth Circuit in 2018. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that partisan gerrymanders were usually a political question beyond the purview of federal courts. However, the same group of plaintiffs filed a case in North Carolina state court that resulted in the state court ruling that the Congressional districts violated the North Carolina constitution's guarantee of free elections. The state again redrew the lines without resort to political or racial data and Democrats gained two seats in the 2020 election. going to 8-5 from 10-3.

North Carolina gained one seat in the census, so new lines have to be drawn for 2022 in any event. Those new lines were the subject of the latest suit, also filed in state court. The state court last week ruled that those new lines, which would appear likely to result in an 11-3 Republican majority. The court today said that redistricting is a politcal process and does not affect the right to vote. That decision would appear to contradict the trial court decision in 2019 (which was never appealed to the NC Supreme Court). Plaintiffs have already indicated they will appeal last week's decision to the NC Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 Democratic majority currently. That decision should come fairly soon, since primaries are scheduled for May with qualifying deadlines in March. Any decision would be based on the NC Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constituion and would not be subject to review by the US Supreme Court.

There were a second set of cases in North Carolina last year, this time on the issue of photo ID requirements. This law is currently being challenged in both state and federal court. A state court has ruled the law, passed in 2018, to be unconstitutional for intentionally discriminating against black voters. That decision is currently on appeal to the mid-level appellate court in North Carolina, which has stayed the law pending its decision. Whichever way that decision goes, an appeal to the NC Supreme Court is likely. The lawsuit in federal court is scheduled for trial this month but no decision has been reached. That decision would likely be appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The case that Flock cited was related to a separate issue, whether the District Court should issue a preliminary injunction against the North Carolina law. The Fourth Circuit ruled in December 2020 that the District Court used the wrong criteria in issuing the preliminary injunction and could not rely on the North Carolina legislature's history. No federal court has issued a ruling upholding the law on its merits; that's what this month's trial is the first step indetermining. And as the North Carolina state courts have blocked the law, it's not going to be in effect for the 2022 election. Flock may have been confused by the webpage link, which shows today's date. But it also notes that it refers to a back issue, and the original article was dated December 2, 2020, the date of the court decision.

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected the state's new Congressional maps and maps for the state General Assembly as violating the State Constitution "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause and the freedom of assembly clause of North Carolina’s constitution." The vote was 4-3 on party lines and the legislature will now have to draw up new maps. Because this decision was based on the State Constitution, it cannot be appealed to federal courts.The primaries are in May so they have to act quickly.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/polit ... 75758.html

[kroxquo]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion going on about the North Carolina decisions. North Carolina drew up maps following the 2010 census. Those maps were ruled unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit in 2016. The state then drew up virtually the same maps which were ruled unconstitutional again by the Fourth Circuit in 2018. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that partisan gerrymanders were usually a political question beyond the purview of federal courts. However, the same group of plaintiffs filed a case in North Carolina state court that resulted in the state court ruling that the Congressional districts violated the North Carolina constitution's guarantee of free elections. The state again redrew the lines without resort to political or racial data and Democrats gained two seats in the 2020 election. going to 8-5 from 10-3.

North Carolina gained one seat in the census, so new lines have to be drawn for 2022 in any event. Those new lines were the subject of the latest suit, also filed in state court. The state court last week ruled that those new lines, which would appear likely to result in an 11-3 Republican majority. The court today said that redistricting is a politcal process and does not affect the right to vote. That decision would appear to contradict the trial court decision in 2019 (which was never appealed to the NC Supreme Court). Plaintiffs have already indicated they will appeal last week's decision to the NC Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 Democratic majority currently. That decision should come fairly soon, since primaries are scheduled for May with qualifying deadlines in March. Any decision would be based on the NC Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constituion and would not be subject to review by the US Supreme Court.

There were a second set of cases in North Carolina last year, this time on the issue of photo ID requirements. This law is currently being challenged in both state and federal court. A state court has ruled the law, passed in 2018, to be unconstitutional for intentionally discriminating against black voters. That decision is currently on appeal to the mid-level appellate court in North Carolina, which has stayed the law pending its decision. Whichever way that decision goes, an appeal to the NC Supreme Court is likely. The lawsuit in federal court is scheduled for trial this month but no decision has been reached. That decision would likely be appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The case that Flock cited was related to a separate issue, whether the District Court should issue a preliminary injunction against the North Carolina law. The Fourth Circuit ruled in December 2020 that the District Court used the wrong criteria in issuing the preliminary injunction and could not rely on the North Carolina legislature's history. No federal court has issued a ruling upholding the law on its merits; that's what this month's trial is the first step indetermining. And as the North Carolina state courts have blocked the law, it's not going to be in effect for the 2022 election. Flock may have been confused by the webpage link, which shows today's date. But it also notes that it refers to a back issue, and the original article was dated December 2, 2020, the date of the court decision.

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected the state's new Congressional maps and maps for the state General Assembly as violating the State Constitution "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause and the freedom of assembly clause of North Carolina’s constitution." The vote was 4-3 on party lines and the legislature will now have to draw up new maps. Because this decision was based on the State Constitution, it cannot be appealed to federal courts.The primaries are in May so they have to act quickly.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/polit ... 75758.html

Am I mistaken in thinking that cases heard at the state Supreme Court level can be appealed to SCOTUS?

A couple interesting points about this -
Apparently, the NC state constitution does not promise "fair" elections. Only that they be "free and frequent."

State Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger, Jr. refused to recuse himself from the case even though his father, the President Pro Tem of the state Senate, was one of the parties named in the case.

[silverscreenselect]

Am I mistaken in thinking that cases heard at the state Supreme Court level can be appealed to SCOTUS?

A decision by the highest court in a state on a matter of state constitutional law cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The states are the final arbiters of the meaning of their constitutions. A decision on a matter of federal constitutional law can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

By the way, the younger Berger was one of the justices who dissented in the case.