NC Voter ID Laws Deliver Increase In Black Voter Turnout
Voter ID laws have been one of a number of bugaboos around which people have rallied, both for and against. Those who argue for them claim to want to add a level of honesty to the process, while those who are against them generally point out that the laws are racist and trend toward disenfranchising black voters.
Apparently… not so much.
Image: MSNBC
North Carolina is a state that has implemented such voter ID laws, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the results are in: in the May 2014 primary elections for federal and state offices, held under the new laws, black voter turnout increased 29.5%, in an election where turnout increased overall, with an increase of white voter turnout of 13.7%.
In a filing from Judicial Watch, Dr. Steven A. Camarota is quoted, who confirmed that the “May 4, 2010 election makes for a good comparison with the May 6, 2014 election because both were primary elections held in May of a non-presidential year.” Camarota described the result as a natural experiment, as the May 6, 2014 election was the first and only election to occur after North Carolina repealed same-day registration and out-of-precinct ballots and restricted early voting with House Bill 589.
Judicial Watch further clarifies, “The results of this analysis – which may be reproduced using the publicly available data files – show that black turnout increased in 2014 by every meaningful measure.”
Editor’s note: You can follow R.J. Carter on Twitter here.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: RJ Carter
Anomaly 100 July 2nd, 2014 at 14:50
When someone tells me I can’t do something, it makes me want to do it more.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:12
It never worked when trying to make my kids eat broccoli.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:18
Broccoli is like peas–love ’em or hate them.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:22
. . . or voting for that matter. Can’t we just do it on Facebook?
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:33
Great idea! Facebook would ensure that we had a fair and unbiased election… (thanks for the chuckle)
Seriously, I would like to see mail-in voting. I believe that at least two states are using it effectively. It would make it easier for EVERYONE to vote. We’d have better turnout and there would be no way to intimidate people at the polls or play games with how many voting machines are distributed to rich vs poor areas and so on. Of course, the GOPTP would hate it. Imagine if everyone who was eligible and registered actually voted.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 15:36
Mail in is the least effective way I could think of, in the 21st century. We have smart phones, smart cards — we ought to at least have a smart voting method.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:41
Entrusting our votes to the internet or smart phones is the least secure method that I can think of in the 21st century. I’m thinking paper ballots sent through registered mail or dropped off directly at your county clerk’s office–no electronics transmitting our votes at all. They can then be counted by scanning machines at a secure location.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 16:52
Do you trust your financial information to electronic transmissions? (Cue up the other Target story, and yes, that’s a fair point.)
Mail is at least equally secure/insecure presently. I know that I had a call myself from a credit card company asking if I’d purchased $300 in electronics as my first buying experience — because my mailed card had been intercepted by someone else. (Ironically, the postal sorter.)
neworleans878 July 2nd, 2014 at 15:41
I would agree, but what about those that don’t have access to those? It’s only recently that I even learned how to turn a computer on and only have a smart phone because my daughter pointed out I get more for the same price…and my smart phone is smarter than me.
O.K., maybe exaggerating the computer part but not the smart phone being smarter.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 16:50
I agree it’s not going to be an immediate “This is how 2016 is going to be.” But 20 years from now, the older voter demographic will be the generation that grew up with iPhones. :)
mrsgunka July 2nd, 2014 at 19:25
And your precious iPhone will be a relic, you will be an older relic demo and wonder what the hell is going on! Are you too lazy to use a black pen and mark a ballot, follow directions, put it in the proper envelope, put on a stamp and put it in the mailbox of your choice? Everyone, no matter their age or physical condition can do that and no one will be tampering with your vote. Been voting by mail for 10 years and being crippled, I have never had to stand in a line to vote in any weather or use a computer that I don’t know and it won’t record what I wished. Didn’t have to get someone to give me a ride to a polling place and walk in the snow or rain with a walker that took up more space or had to go up and down stairs. I assume we will still have the postal service in 20 years. I may not be around but now I can vote from the comfort of my home and don’t have to buy a iPhone to do anything. My land-line still connects me to the world or my computer also, too. I still write checks by hand to pay my bills and keep my financial stuff to myself. As long as we have elections, it must be possible for anyone eligible to vote. Mail-in covers that requirement. Do you ever think of anyone but yourself?
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:16
When the iPhone is a relic, imagine how antiquated Grandpa Paper will be. No one will tamper with your paper vote? How far back do you think I would have to go to find a story of “found ballots” or of someone “wandering around a locked courthouse after hours”?
Still having a Postal Service in 20 years? Maybe. So much is being done electronically now — communications, bill payments — that it’s already impacting the USPS. Stamps would be… what, would $1 be out of the realm of imagination given their rate of increase for first class postage? (And why isn’t that a poll tax! Why should I have to pay someone to send in my vote, gosh darnit!)
There’s a new world coming. The foundation has already been laid. Just because I can read the blueprints and see the finished structure in my head doesn’t mean I’m only thinking of myself.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:21
I’m hoping that we see overwhelming turnout–it’s the only way to beat overwhelming money. My state has been bombarded by Koch Bros, Big oil and other far right ads for months now and the robocalls are at least one an hour. I don’t even answer my phone anymore. The good news is they are blowing a LOT of money and the ads are childish and stupid, and most people HATE robocalls.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:52
Turn out could be higher because people are voting for their right to vote. The people being disenfranchised are getting mad. They don’t like the rich white man trying to take away their right to vote, so they are turning out to vote while they still can, to preserve their rights.
Anomaly 100 July 2nd, 2014 at 14:50
When someone tells me I can’t do something, it makes me want to do it more.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:12
It never worked when trying to make my kids eat broccoli.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:18
Broccoli is like peas–love ’em or hate them.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:22
. . . or voting for that matter. Can’t we just do it on Facebook?
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:33
Great idea! Facebook would ensure that we had a fair and unbiased election… (thanks for the chuckle)
Seriously, I would like to see mail-in voting. I believe that at least two states are using it effectively. It would make it easier for EVERYONE to vote. We’d have better turnout and there would be no way to intimidate people at the polls or play games with how many voting machines are distributed to rich vs poor areas and so on. Of course, the GOPTP would hate it. Imagine if everyone who was eligible and registered actually voted.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 15:36
Mail in is the least effective way I could think of, in the 21st century. We have smart phones, smart cards — we ought to at least have a smart voting method.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:41
Entrusting our votes to the internet or smart phones is the least secure method that I can think of in the 21st century. I’m thinking paper ballots sent through registered mail or dropped off directly at your county clerk’s office–no electronics transmitting our votes at all. They can then be counted by scanning machines at a secure location.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 16:52
Do you trust your financial information to electronic transmissions? (Cue up the other Target story, and yes, that’s a fair point.)
Mail is at least equally secure/insecure presently. I know that I had a call myself from a credit card company asking if I’d purchased $300 in electronics as my first buying experience — because my mailed card had been intercepted by someone else. (Ironically, the postal sorter.)
nola878 July 2nd, 2014 at 15:41
I would agree, but what about those that don’t have access to those? It’s only recently that I even learned how to turn a computer on and only have a smart phone because my daughter pointed out I get more for the same price…and my smart phone is smarter than me.
O.K., maybe exaggerating the computer part but not the smart phone being smarter.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 16:50
I agree it’s not going to be an immediate “This is how 2016 is going to be.” But 20 years from now, the older voter demographic will be the generation that grew up with iPhones. :)
mrsgunka July 2nd, 2014 at 19:25
And your precious iPhone will be a relic, you will be an older relic demo and wonder what the hell is going on! Are you too lazy to use a black pen and mark a ballot, follow directions, put it in the proper envelope, put on a stamp and put it in the mailbox of your choice? Everyone, no matter their age or physical condition can do that and no one will be tampering with your vote. Been voting by mail for 10 years and being crippled, I have never had to stand in a line to vote in any weather or use a computer that I don’t know and it won’t record what I wished. Didn’t have to get someone to give me a ride to a polling place and walk in the snow or rain with a walker that took up more space or had to go up and down stairs. I assume we will still have the postal service in 20 years. I may not be around but now I can vote from the comfort of my home and don’t have to buy a iPhone to do anything. My land-line still connects me to the world or my computer also, too. I still write checks by hand to pay my bills and keep my financial stuff to myself. As long as we have elections, it must be possible for anyone eligible to vote. Mail-in covers that requirement. Do you ever think of anyone but yourself?
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:16
When the iPhone is a relic, imagine how antiquated Grandpa Paper will be. No one will tamper with your paper vote? How far back do you think I would have to go to find a story of “found ballots” or of someone “wandering around a locked courthouse after hours”?
Still having a Postal Service in 20 years? Maybe. So much is being done electronically now — communications, bill payments — that it’s already impacting the USPS. Stamps would be… what, would $1 be out of the realm of imagination given their rate of increase for first class postage? (And why isn’t that a poll tax! Why should I have to pay someone to send in my vote, gosh darnit!)
There’s a new world coming. The foundation has already been laid. Just because I can read the blueprints and see the finished structure in my head doesn’t mean I’m only thinking of myself.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:21
I’m hoping that we see overwhelming turnout–it’s the only way to beat overwhelming money. My state has been bombarded by Koch Bros, Big oil and other far right ads for months now and the robocalls are at least one an hour. I don’t even answer my phone anymore. The good news is they are blowing a LOT of money and the ads are childish and stupid, and most people HATE robocalls.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:52
Turn out could be higher because people are voting for their right to vote. The people being disenfranchised are getting mad. They don’t like the rich white man trying to take away their right to vote, so they are turning out to vote while they still can, to preserve their rights.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:11
I dont see what the problem with requiring an ID to prove you are you to vote was such a problem to begin with. You need an ID for just about everything else in your life. Even if you dont drive, government ID’s are easily obtainable.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:17
Perhaps in your perfect world. There’s been a lot of real factual articles written that will explain it all to you.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:23
I dont see it In the year 2014. I think people use it more as an excuse. And my world is not perfect either.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
Well, it doesn’t matter if YOU can see it. Lots of us can.This is like a rerun of the 60s.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:37
I’ll give a story from 2008. The candidate for the state congressional distict in the northern most part of lower Michigan and my then boss had to drive five hours, with an 87 year old man in the back seat to Grand Rapids, in the southern most part of the state, in order to be able to register his own uncle so he could vote him.
He lost the election.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:47
Confused by your story. Candidate in the Northern most part, has to drive to the Southern most part ??? but again, I just dont see this as a problem. People complain about both sides cheating. Well, here it is. Just make people show their ID to be checked off.
Tell me to your Blue in the face. But I happen to agree with these laws.
neworleans878 July 2nd, 2014 at 15:52
Find timing suspicious. How come there wasn’t a big push for these laws under Bush the Younger?
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:58
He had to go to Grand Rapids to get an original BC for his uncle because his uncle didn’t have enough ID to get one from the state. Now if this voting thing was not a right I could see your argument that it’s ok to disenfranchise people based on “being lazy” or “careless” or what have you. Rights are not things you get based on your ability to keep documentation.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:49
So in other words, you are all for illegal poll taxes and apparently you do not believe that an 87 year old man should be able to vote?
The entire issue can be solved by voting by mail.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:20
Well that depends on if you believe voting to be a right. In my 20 years of voter registration drives I can point to literally hundreds of times when getting a Governement ID was a huge deal. An elderly lady in Michigan, whom I helped and drove around in my car from one governement office to another for two hours, was actually told she needed to travel to Georgia to get her Birth Documents before we finally had to go to the Attorney General’s office and in the end getting her a State ID cost us a total of $106.00 just to get enough identification together to prove her citizenship.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:27
In my state you might have to travel 200 miles to a town with any government offices at all, by air or sea. Also, these are people who were ALREADY registered to vote. Some states don’t even try to make it look fair. They will accept your NRA membership card as an approved “government-issued” ID, but not your College ID card with photo and address. A woman may find on voting day that she is now disqualified if there have been any changes to her marital status. I recommend voting early if you possibly can. It’s easier, and if there are problems you’ll have time to fix them.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:48
It isn’t marital status – it’s legal name change that stops the women. Some states require married women to have their maiden name followed by married name on their driver’s license. On the other hand, the voter’s reg will not accept that. They want the full legal name.
So is the woman to blame?
I guess I shouldn’t mention women’s rights should I?
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 17:00
Well yes–because women often CHANGE their names when they change their marital status. My point is why make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. I also encourage ALL voters to make sure that their papers are in order. I live in a State that is being sued by one voting block and that is pushing voter ID changes to fix a problem that doesn’t exist–except to GOPTP politicians running for office. My license and voter ID list my name slightly differently. I took them and my birth certificate down to my Borough Clerk’s office and she had no idea, but was “pretty sure” it wouldn’t keep me from voting. I waited while while she called the State officials and made all-the-way sure that it wouldn’t.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:57
And this elderly lady never cashed a check, government refund, needed an ID to open an account???? Sorry, Not buying it… There are just to many things in this life that require you to have some form of ID, not to have one.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 16:03
I know hundreds of elderly people who have lived 40 years without a government issued ID. Not buying it? Are you telling me that you have lived such a sheltered life that you have NEVER known anyone who didn’t have a government issued ID? I mean come on? Even in College? We’ve all known somebody in this situation at some time in our life. All of us!
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:47
Nicely said Eric. It is a problem especially among the elderly who for some reason do not have access to a birth certificate. That doesn’t mean they can’t cash checks – fortunately banks and check cashing places do NOT require proof of citizenship. But yes you are absolutely correct.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:44
Again – you are talking apples and oranges.
There is a difference between ID and Proof of Citizenship.
For some reason, you fail to see that.
Rued Gestures July 2nd, 2014 at 17:41
Hey, PeePee, your obviously limited life experience will bite you where it hurts – right in the ammo clip! Just another pathetic ammo-sexual.
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:37
hehehehehehe, you said PeePee ….. But once again, we have another one here that is so typical… But hey, it is to be expected…
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:39
-and everyone in America lives in a pretty little WHITE house with a WHITE picket fence under a blue sky with puffy WHITE clouds, a rainbow and pink flamingo statues in the front yard too!
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:32
Dont forget about the Lawn Gnomes… Got to have the Gnomes to make it Picture perfect.. SMH……
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:10
That’s Florida. We’re focused on North Carolina here.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:44
That $106 could qualify as a POLL TAX which is illegal. All citizens should be able to obtain FREE ID. Unless there is some political reason to not make that a policy.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:35
I guess you have never been poor and lost your birth certificate. Put your self in someone else’s shoes and think how they might feel and look at the challenges they might face. When you have no discretionary income and it cost money to do almost anything it can be near impossible.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:43
All excuses not to do it by everything you just said. So your going to tell me the same person needed an ID to open up a bank account, that they have the same problem ??? Sorry, But this is not something I can agree with.. If that same person had to go cash a government check at the bank, Guess what, they still need an ID..
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:53
A bank account is not a right. In the urban parts of Detroit the only ID a lot of people have is their thumbprint and the filmsy piece of paper the check cashing places give them to cash their checks. I’ve dealt with elderly people who haven’t had a governement ID in 40 years.
If you don’t believe it then you are in a bubble because the fact is there are whole blocks of people with no ID living in America’s innercities. I know know because I have worked with them and tried to get them involved in the system but then the as soon as any of us started to make a difference the rules always seem to get changed.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:43
This is true – there is a huge difference between ID and Proof of Citizenship.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:56
Maybe they don’t cash their checks at banks.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:59
You really do live in a privileged world and have no clue how the very poor survive do you?
neworleans878 July 2nd, 2014 at 16:02
Those who have never been there will never know, and those without empathy can’t ever put imagine what it’s like.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:42
He refuses to understand the distinction between proof of citizenship and just showing ID of some nature. Many businesses take a variety of ID’s – NONE of which prove citizenship.
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:31
so funny that you have no clue about me, but only assume…. But then again that is so typical..
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:41
You are assuming the poor person has money to open a BANK ACCOUNT? Seriously? Do you honestly believe that the truly poor run around with bank accounts (since they all have fees unless you have gobs of money in them)?
No one is required to prove citizenship to cash a check – that is the key here. CITIZENSHIP proof is required to vote. In many other instances other proofs of identification are acceptable.
I could go to any check cashing place and cash a check with a Utility bill.
There is a huge difference between proof of citizenship and cashing a check.
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:28
For the record….. NOT ONCE have I ever said anything about proof of citizenship… As far as I am concerned, I have no issue what so ever about a policy to create a voter ID card that is free to all citizens. BUt since you brought it up, That would not be a bad idea…
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:32
banks only require a photo ID (some will even make you one on the spot) – which may be a good way for NC to go once the WHITE GOP legislators are gone, after all, private industry is always more capable that government, are they not?
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:38
No, actually they can be as difficult to obtain as a state wants to make it. That is standard right wing bullcrap.
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:27
double triple ditto dots, Bandit.
(but of course, there could be NO DISCRIMINATION based on color of skin, it would always be a ‘matter of policy’, right?). -[wink,wink, nod,nod]
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:23
Not all family Attorneys have the same ability to ‘fabricate’ documents that are acceptable for ‘government ID’s’, such as yours, P-P. My own mother would not have qualified to vote under the ‘requirements’ to obtain ‘acceptable’ documents for those becoming the legal age to vote, as she had no ‘valid’ birth certificate. The laws so ‘christian’ in outward appearance in NC was/is nothing but a sly attempt to re-establish WHITE SUPREMACY under the guise of being lawful. You know it, I know it, for sure my fellow black citizens in NC know it, and thanks to RC, LL, Alan and citizens of LL, more and more people around the world (including our stated enemies abroad) now know it. An informed voter is a better voter, and the best way to be informed is through education (not RWNJ Radio Propaganda) – another area in NC that has been heavily damaged by the WHITE Racist GOP’s .
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:11
I dont see what the problem with requiring an ID to prove you are you to vote was such a problem to begin with. You need an ID for just about everything else in your life. Even if you dont drive, government ID’s are easily obtainable.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:17
Perhaps in your perfect world. There’s been a lot of real factual articles written that will explain it all to you.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:23
I dont see it In the year 2014. I think people use it more as an excuse. And my world is not perfect either.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
Well, it doesn’t matter if YOU can see it. Lots of us can.This is like a rerun of the 60s.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:37
I’ll give a story from 2008. The candidate for the state congressional distict in the northern most part of lower Michigan and my then boss had to drive five hours, with an 87 year old man in the back seat to Grand Rapids, in the southern most part of the state, in order to be able to register his own uncle so he could vote for him.
He lost the election.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:47
Confused by your story. Candidate in the Northern most part, has to drive to the Southern most part ??? but again, I just dont see this as a problem. People complain about both sides cheating. Well, here it is. Just make people show their ID to be checked off.
Tell me to your Blue in the face. But I happen to agree with these laws.
nola878 July 2nd, 2014 at 15:52
Find timing suspicious. How come there wasn’t a big push for these laws under Bush the Younger?
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:58
He had to go to Grand Rapids to get an original BC for his uncle because his uncle didn’t have enough ID to get one from the state. Now if this voting thing was not a right I could see your argument that it’s ok to disenfranchise people based on “being lazy” or “careless” or what have you. Rights are not things you get based on your ability to keep documentation.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:49
So in other words, you are all for illegal poll taxes and apparently you do not believe that an 87 year old man should be able to vote?
The entire issue can be solved by voting by mail.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:20
Well that depends on if you believe voting to be a right. In my 20 years of voter registration drives I can point to literally hundreds of times when getting a Governement ID was a huge deal. An elderly lady in Michigan, whom I helped and drove around in my car from one governement office to another for two hours, was actually told she needed to travel to Georgia to get her Birth Documents before we finally had to go to the Attorney General’s office and in the end getting her a State ID cost us a total of $106.00 just to get enough identification together to prove her citizenship.
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 15:27
In my state you might have to travel 200 miles to a town with any government offices at all, by air or sea. Also, these are people who were ALREADY registered to vote. Some states don’t even try to make it look fair. They will accept your NRA membership card as an approved “government-issued” ID, but not your College ID card with photo and address. A woman may find on voting day that she is now disqualified if there have been any changes to her marital status. I recommend voting early if you possibly can. It’s easier, and if there are problems you’ll have time to fix them.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:48
It isn’t marital status – it’s legal name change that stops the women. Some states require married women to have their maiden name followed by married name on their driver’s license. On the other hand, the voter’s reg will not accept that. They want the full legal name.
So is the woman to blame?
I guess I shouldn’t mention women’s rights should I?
M D Reese July 2nd, 2014 at 17:00
Well yes–because women often CHANGE their names when they change their marital status. My point is why make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. I also encourage ALL voters to make sure that their papers are in order. I live in a State that is being sued by one voting block and that is pushing voter ID changes to fix a problem that doesn’t exist–except to GOPTP politicians running for office. My license and voter ID list my name slightly differently. I took them and my birth certificate down to my Borough Clerk’s office and she had no idea, but was “pretty sure” it wouldn’t keep me from voting. I waited while while she called the State officials and made all-the-way sure that it wouldn’t.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:57
And this elderly lady never cashed a check, government refund, needed an ID to open an account???? Sorry, Not buying it… There are just to many things in this life that require you to have some form of ID, not to have one.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 16:03
I know hundreds of elderly people who have lived 40 years without a government issued ID. Not buying it? Are you telling me that you have lived such a sheltered life that you have NEVER known anyone who didn’t have a government issued ID? I mean come on? Even in College? We’ve all known somebody in this situation at some time in our life. All of us!
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:47
Nicely said Eric. It is a problem especially among the elderly who for some reason do not have access to a birth certificate. That doesn’t mean they can’t cash checks – fortunately banks and check cashing places do NOT require proof of citizenship. But yes you are absolutely correct.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:44
Again – you are talking apples and oranges.
There is a difference between ID and Proof of Citizenship.
For some reason, you fail to see that.
“some form of ID” does not qualify as Proof of Citizenship – but yes you can cash checks – the Govt has a variety of ID’s it recognizes since it actually knows the difference between ID and Citizenship
Rued Gestures July 2nd, 2014 at 17:41
Hey, PeePee, your obviously limited life experience will bite you where it hurts – right in the ammo clip! Just another pathetic ammo-sexual.
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:37
hehehehehehe, you said PeePee ….. But once again, we have another one here that is so typical… But hey, it is to be expected…
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:39
-and everyone in America lives in a pretty little WHITE house with a WHITE picket fence under a blue sky with puffy WHITE clouds, a rainbow and pink flamingo statues in the front yard too!
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:32
Dont forget about the Lawn Gnomes… Got to have the Gnomes to make it Picture perfect.. SMH……
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:10
That’s Florida. We’re focused on North Carolina here.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:44
That $106 could qualify as a POLL TAX which is illegal. All citizens should be able to obtain FREE ID. Unless there is some political reason to not make that a policy.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:35
I guess you have never been poor and lost your birth certificate. Put your self in someone else’s shoes and think how they might feel and look at the challenges they might face. When you have no discretionary income and it cost money to do almost anything it can be near impossible.
Pistol-Packing July 2nd, 2014 at 15:43
All excuses not to do it by everything you just said. So your going to tell me the same person needed an ID to open up a bank account, that they have the same problem ??? Sorry, But this is not something I can agree with.. If that same person had to go cash a government check at the bank, Guess what, they still need an ID..
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:53
A bank account is not a right. In the urban parts of Detroit the only ID a lot of people have is their thumbprint and the filmsy piece of paper the check cashing places give them to cash their checks. I’ve dealt with elderly people who haven’t had a governement ID in 40 years.
If you don’t believe it then you are in a bubble because the fact is there are whole blocks of people with no ID living in America’s innercities. I know know because I have worked with them and tried to get them involved in the system but then as soon as any of us started to make a difference the rules always seem to get changed.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:43
This is true – there is a huge difference between ID and Proof of Citizenship.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:56
Maybe they don’t cash their checks at banks.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 15:59
You really do live in a privileged world and have no clue how the very poor survive do you?
nola878 July 2nd, 2014 at 16:02
Those who have never been there will never know, and those without empathy can’t ever imagine what it’s like.
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:42
He refuses to understand the distinction between proof of citizenship and just showing ID of some nature. Many businesses take a variety of ID’s – NONE of which prove citizenship.
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:31
so funny that you have no clue about me, but only assume…. But then again that is so typical..
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:41
You are assuming the poor person has money to open a BANK ACCOUNT? Seriously? Do you honestly believe that the truly poor run around with bank accounts (since they all have fees unless you have gobs of money in them)?
No one is required to prove citizenship to cash a check – that is the key here. CITIZENSHIP proof is required to vote. In many other instances other proofs of identification are acceptable.
I could go to any check cashing place and cash a check with a Utility bill.
There is a huge difference between proof of citizenship and cashing a check.
Pistol-Packing July 3rd, 2014 at 08:28
For the record….. NOT ONCE have I ever said anything about proof of citizenship… As far as I am concerned, I have no issue what so ever about a policy to create a voter ID card that is free to all citizens. BUt since you brought it up, That would not be a bad idea…
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:32
banks only require a photo ID (some will even make you one on the spot) – which may be a good way for NC to go once the WHITE GOP legislators are gone, after all, private industry is always more capable that government, are they not?
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:38
No, actually they can be as difficult to obtain as a state wants to make it. That is standard right wing bullcrap.
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:27
double triple ditto dots, Bandit.
(but of course, there could be NO DISCRIMINATION based on color of skin, it would always be a ‘matter of policy’, right?). -[wink,wink, nod,nod]
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:23
Not all family Attorneys have the same ability to ‘fabricate’ documents that are acceptable for ‘government ID’s’, such as yours, P-P. My own mother would not have qualified to vote under the ‘requirements’ to obtain ‘acceptable’ documents for those becoming the legal age to vote, as she had no ‘valid’ birth certificate. The laws so ‘christian’ in outward appearance in NC was/is nothing but a sly attempt to re-establish WHITE SUPREMACY under the guise of being lawful. You know it, I know it, for sure my fellow black citizens in NC know it, and thanks to RC, LL, Alan and citizens of LL, more and more people around the world (including our stated enemies abroad) now know it. An informed voter is a better voter, and the best way to be informed is through education (not RWNJ Radio Propaganda) – another area in NC that has been heavily damaged by the WHITE Racist GOP’s .
uzza July 2nd, 2014 at 15:21
Correlation is not Causation
uzza July 2nd, 2014 at 15:21
Correlation is not Causation
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
I am here to leave comments because RJ and Anomaly were the only people from the old FON crew to leave comments on my first Liberaland article.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
I’d meme up Bartles & Jaymes, but I’d be showing my age. :)
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:32
Thank you for your support! (everybody already knows I’m an old fart lol)
neworleans878 July 2nd, 2014 at 15:34
Missed that one, but I’ll be sure to catch the next one and leave a comment.
Even if it’s just to say hi!
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:36
Hey – must have missed it!
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 16:43
“Invasion of the GOP Talking Points,” Monda June 30th you could still read if you wanted. There isn’t like a merger that is going to make all the articles on here disapear . . . again (at least not they’ve told me about).
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
I even tweeted the damn thing.
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
I am here to leave comments because RJ and Anomaly were the only people from the old FON crew to leave comments on my first Liberaland article.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
I’d meme up Bartles & Jaymes, but I’d be showing my age. :)
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:32
Thank you for your support! (everybody already knows I’m an old fart lol)
nola878 July 2nd, 2014 at 15:34
Missed that one, but I’ll be sure to catch the next one and leave a comment.
Even if it’s just to say hi!
BanditBasheert July 2nd, 2014 at 16:36
Hey – must have missed it!
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 16:43
“Invasion of the GOP Talking Points,” Monday June 30th you could still read if you wanted. There isn’t like a merger that is going to make all the articles on here disapear . . . again (at least not they’ve told me about).
Eric Trommater July 2nd, 2014 at 15:29
I even tweeted the damn thing.
AnthonyLook July 2nd, 2014 at 15:37
Come election day Nov 2014, know that there are no tea party birthr racists that will trade their beer drinking for waiting in long lines; there will be no conservative sexists in line, no Republican bigots in line, no GOP extremist fascist fake christians in line, no 1% money whoreshipping corporate Koch suckers waiting in line along with you. They will not stand those long hours waiting to vote. The Voter Suppression tactic will backfire more than it did in 2012.
AnthonyLook July 2nd, 2014 at 15:37
Come election day Nov 2014, know that there are no tea party birthr racists that will trade their beer drinking for waiting in long lines; there will be no conservative sexists in line, no Republican bigots in line, no GOP extremist fascist fake christians in line, no 1% money whoreshipping corporate Koch suckers waiting in line along with you. They will not stand those long hours waiting to vote. The Voter Suppression tactic will backfire more than it did in 2012.
arc99 July 2nd, 2014 at 16:47
It is certainly fine with me if laws which further the stated agenda of Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of right wing organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority, blows up in conservatives’ faces. I will be happy to admit error and relish the increased turnout of reliably Democratic voters.
We can then start voting to reclassify these GOP politicians as former Assemblyman, former Congressman, former Governor etc, and get rid of these unnecessary laws.
I have always suspected that the intent of these laws was to minimize voter turnout. It was in fact the goal of Mr. Weyrich as noted in the linked video. That video combined with Lee Atwater’s famous interview on the Southern Strategy speaks more loudly than a million right wing denials that it is all just about the integrity of the electoral process.
So in a nutshell, based on this one survey, we liberals were guilty of believing that a right wing strategy might actually work. Silly us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
Paul Weyrich – “I don’t want everybody to vote”
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 16:54
If we were trying to decrease voter turnout, this wouldn’t be the way to do it. We’d instead check the level of which the voters are informed.
It wouldn’t take long at all to count the twenty some-odd thousand votes nationwide after that. :)
mmaynard119 July 2nd, 2014 at 20:02
So you would never be able to vote.
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:05
Nor would you — depending upon who is in charge determining what “informed” means. That’s why we all get to do it, and we wind up with a wealth of ignorance determining the course of the country.
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:48
sorry to inform you, but notpotus Romney would not be the one acceptable to determine what a ‘informed voter’ would be. Neither would any RWNJ under educated rumor mongering DJ, which kinda ELIMINATES your “twenty some-odd thousand votes nationwide”.
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:07
Did I mention Romney? (Did I vote for him? Yes. Do I wish he’d have won? Yes. But did I mention him?)
Eliminating the facetiously hypothetical “twenty some-odd thousand votes” that represent, metaphorically, the percentage of voters who actually know something about the issues of the day… that would leave us with a voting populace of zero. (Notice I didn’t assign a party affiliation to being “informed.”)
arc99 July 2nd, 2014 at 16:47
It is certainly fine with me if laws which further the stated agenda of Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of right wing organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority, blows up in conservatives’ faces. I will be happy to admit error and relish the increased turnout of reliably Democratic voters.
We can then start voting to reclassify these GOP politicians as former Assemblyman, former Congressman, former Governor etc, and get rid of these unnecessary laws.
I have always suspected that the intent of these laws was to minimize voter turnout. It was in fact the goal of Mr. Weyrich as noted in the linked video. That video combined with Lee Atwater’s famous interview on the Southern Strategy speaks more loudly than a million right wing denials that it is all just about the integrity of the electoral process.
So in a nutshell, based on this one survey, we liberals were guilty of believing that a right wing strategy might actually work. Silly us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
Paul Weyrich – “I don’t want everybody to vote”
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 16:54
If we were trying to decrease voter turnout, this wouldn’t be the way to do it. We’d instead check the level of which the voters are informed.
It wouldn’t take long at all to count the twenty some-odd thousand votes nationwide after that. :)
mmaynard119 July 2nd, 2014 at 20:02
So you would never be able to vote.
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:05
Nor would you — depending upon who is in charge determining what “informed” means. That’s why we all get to do it, and we wind up with a wealth of ignorance determining the course of the country.
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 21:48
sorry to inform you, but notpotus Romney would not be the one acceptable to determine what a ‘informed voter’ would be. Neither would any RWNJ under educated rumor mongering DJ, which kinda ELIMINATES your “twenty some-odd thousand votes nationwide”.
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:07
Did I mention Romney? (Did I vote for him? Yes. Do I wish he’d have won? Yes. But did I mention him?)
Eliminating the facetiously hypothetical “twenty some-odd thousand votes” that represent, metaphorically, the percentage of voters who actually know something about the issues of the day… that would leave us with a voting populace of zero. (Notice I didn’t assign a party affiliation to being “informed.”)
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 17:10
Meaningless, RJ, not only because of the “correlation does not equal causation” truism that real statisticians are for some crazy reason compelled to follow, but especially because North Carolina’s Voter ID requirement doesn’t go into effect until 2016.
Alan, that;’s just mean, man, letting RJ make such a fool of himself.
DMANDICINO July 2nd, 2014 at 17:43
Correlation not being causation isn’t some silly truism that is followed for some “crazy reason”.
General pattern[edit]
For any two correlated events, A and B, the following relationships are possible:
A causes B;
B causes A;
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is coincidental.
Less clear-cut correlations are also possible. For example, causality is not necessarily one-way; in a predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey, but prey numbers, i.e. food supply, also affect predators.
The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.
In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:
A may be the cause of B.
B may be the cause of A.
some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B(contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
the “relationship” is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.
In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B isstatistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.
Examples of illogically inferring causation from correlation[edit]This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (July 2012)
B causes A (reverse causation)[edit]
Example 1The faster windmills are observed to rotate, the more wind is observed to be.Therefore wind is caused by the rotation of windmills. (Or, simply put: windmills, as their name indicates, are machines used to produce wind.)
In this example, the correlation (simultaneity) between windmill activity and wind velocity does not imply that wind is caused by windmills. It is rather the other way around, as suggested by the fact that wind doesn’t need windmills to exist, while windmills need wind to rotate. Wind can be observed in places where there are no windmills or non-rotating windmills—and there are good reasons to believe that wind existed before the invention of windmills.
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional causation)[edit]
Increased pressure is associated with increased temperature.Therefore pressure causes temperature.
The ideal gas law, , describes the direct relationship between pressure and temperature (along with other factors) to show that there is a direct correlation between the two properties. For a fixed volume and mass of gas, an increase in temperature causes an increase in pressure; likewise, increased pressure causes an increase in temperature. This demonstrates bidirectional causation. The conclusion that pressure causes temperature is true but is not logically guaranteed by the premise.
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 17:50
[pregnant pause]
I was being ironical.
But hallelujah anyway, and thanks for all the Wikipedia, D-Man!
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 17:51
You’re partly right — and therefore completely wrong.
It always helps to read the actual bill.
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 18:02
Nice context-free meaningless cutnpaste.
For the sake of comparison, here’s a link to the North Carolina Center for Voter Education page, which says in great big type that :
“Beginning in 2016, North Carolina voters will be required to show government-issued photo identification when voting in person.”
Go. Look. Go and Look. For God’s sake stop waving your ignorance around like some kind of damn trophy.
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:04
So it is your opinion that there’s a signed bill that is currently doing nothing but waiting out the clock? I’m sorry, Chris, but there’s definitely ignorance being waved about here, and you’re going to dent that loving cup if bang it against something.
ChrisVosburg July 3rd, 2014 at 10:58
RJ writes: So it is your opinion that there’s a signed bill that is currently doing nothing but waiting out the clock?
No, it is not my opinion, it is my argument that one cannot measure the result of an event which has not yet occurred (which Judicial Watch is pretending to do, and you fell for it).
You were not aware when you wrote this post that the Voter ID requirement doesn’t go into effect until 2016 (and Judicial Watch certainly isn’t going to tell you), were you?
Well, were you?
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 12:26
The law has occurred. Parts of it don’t go into effect until 2016.
Read. The. Freaking. Law.
“A” makes the “ah” sound that begins ‘apple’. That’s a start.
ChrisVosburg July 3rd, 2014 at 12:46
I read the law, and it supports exactly what I said. You’re not going to answer the question I just asked you, are you?
Well, are you?
mmaynard119 July 2nd, 2014 at 20:01
From the North Carolina State Board of Elections:
Beginning in 2016, North Carolina will require voters to show a photo identification (photo ID) when they present to vote in person. This change is a result of the Voter Information Verification Act or “VIVA.” (S.L. 2013-381). Until 2016, most voters will not be required to show any form of identification when they vote.
http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/voter-id
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 23:41
Well, yes, as I said. Sorry, did I not make that clear?
Look, if it is the case that the voter ID requirement does not take effect until 2016 (and it is), then the argument that RJ has mounted– that the voter ID requirement has not negatively affected voter turnout in 2014, and in fact turnout among black voters is up– is simply nonsensical and falls rather swiftly to the ground, because the voter ID requirement is not yet in effect.
Really, I don’t know know how else to explain it.
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 20:58
The ‘LAW’ has ALREADY been passed and signed by the Republican Controlled Legislature and Republican Governor – regardless of the date it goes into effect.
Perhaps if you would settle down and read the post, you wouldn’t be as quick as the GOPs to make such a fool of yourself?
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 23:48
Yes, it has, but nevertheless, the Voter ID requirement does not go into effect until 2016, just like I said.
Thus, RJ’s claim, that despite the voter ID requirement, black voter turnout is up in the 2014 primary is up, doesn’t make a lick of sense, because, again, the voter ID requirement isn’t in effect yet, and won’t be until 2016.
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 17:10
Meaningless, RJ, not only because of the “correlation does not equal causation” truism that real statisticians are for some crazy reason compelled to follow, but especially because North Carolina’s Voter ID requirement doesn’t go into effect until 2016.
Alan, that’s just mean, man, letting RJ make such a fool of himself.
DMANDICINO July 2nd, 2014 at 17:43
Correlation not being causation isn’t some silly truism that is followed for some “crazy reason”.
General pattern[edit]
For any two correlated events, A and B, the following relationships are possible:
A causes B;
B causes A;
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is coincidental.
Less clear-cut correlations are also possible. For example, causality is not necessarily one-way; in a predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey, but prey numbers, i.e. food supply, also affect predators.
The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.
In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:
A may be the cause of B.
B may be the cause of A.
some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B(contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
the “relationship” is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.
In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B isstatistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.
Examples of illogically inferring causation from correlation[edit]This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (July 2012)
B causes A (reverse causation)[edit]
Example 1The faster windmills are observed to rotate, the more wind is observed to be.Therefore wind is caused by the rotation of windmills. (Or, simply put: windmills, as their name indicates, are machines used to produce wind.)
In this example, the correlation (simultaneity) between windmill activity and wind velocity does not imply that wind is caused by windmills. It is rather the other way around, as suggested by the fact that wind doesn’t need windmills to exist, while windmills need wind to rotate. Wind can be observed in places where there are no windmills or non-rotating windmills—and there are good reasons to believe that wind existed before the invention of windmills.
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional causation)[edit]
Increased pressure is associated with increased temperature.Therefore pressure causes temperature.
The ideal gas law, , describes the direct relationship between pressure and temperature (along with other factors) to show that there is a direct correlation between the two properties. For a fixed volume and mass of gas, an increase in temperature causes an increase in pressure; likewise, increased pressure causes an increase in temperature. This demonstrates bidirectional causation. The conclusion that pressure causes temperature is true but is not logically guaranteed by the premise.
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 17:50
[pregnant pause]
I was being ironical.
But hallelujah anyway, and thanks for all the Wikipedia, D-Man!
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 17:51
You’re partly right — and therefore completely wrong.
It always helps to read the actual bill.
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 18:02
Nice context-free meaningless cutnpaste.
For the sake of comparison, here’s a link to the North Carolina Center for Voter Education page, which says in great big type that :
“Beginning in 2016, North Carolina voters will be required to show government-issued photo identification when voting in person.”
Go. Look. Go and Look. For God’s sake stop waving your ignorance around like some kind of damn trophy.
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 09:04
So it is your opinion that there’s a signed bill that is currently doing nothing but waiting out the clock? I’m sorry, Chris, but there’s definitely ignorance being waved about here, and you’re going to dent that loving cup if bang it against something.
ChrisVosburg July 3rd, 2014 at 10:58
RJ writes: So it is your opinion that there’s a signed bill that is currently doing nothing but waiting out the clock?
No, it is not my opinion, it is my argument that one cannot measure the result of an event which has not yet occurred (which Judicial Watch is pretending to do, and you fell for it).
You were not aware when you wrote this post that the Voter ID requirement doesn’t go into effect until 2016 (and Judicial Watch certainly isn’t going to tell you), were you?
Well, were you?
R.J. Carter July 3rd, 2014 at 12:26
The law has occurred. Parts of it don’t go into effect until 2016.
Read. The. Freaking. Law.
“A” makes the “ah” sound that begins ‘apple’. That’s a start.
ChrisVosburg July 3rd, 2014 at 12:46
I read the law, and it supports exactly what I said. You’re not going to answer the question I just asked you, are you?
Well, are you?
mmaynard119 July 2nd, 2014 at 20:01
From the North Carolina State Board of Elections:
Beginning in 2016, North Carolina will require voters to show a photo identification (photo ID) when they present to vote in person. This change is a result of the Voter Information Verification Act or “VIVA.” (S.L. 2013-381). Until 2016, most voters will not be required to show any form of identification when they vote.
http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/voter-id
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 23:41
Well, yes, as I said. Sorry, did I not make that clear?
Look, if it is the case that the voter ID requirement does not take effect until 2016 (and it is), then the argument that RJ has mounted– that the voter ID requirement has not negatively affected voter turnout in 2014, and in fact turnout among black voters is up– is simply nonsensical and falls rather swiftly to the ground, because the voter ID requirement is not yet in effect.
Really, I don’t know know how else to explain it.
granpa.usthai July 2nd, 2014 at 20:58
The ‘LAW’ has ALREADY been passed and signed by the Republican Controlled Legislature and Republican Governor – regardless of the date it goes into effect.
Perhaps if you would settle down and read the post, you wouldn’t be as quick as the GOPs to make such a fool of yourself?
ChrisVosburg July 2nd, 2014 at 23:48
Yes, it has, but nevertheless, the Voter ID requirement does not go into effect until 2016, just like I said.
Thus, RJ’s claim, that despite the voter ID requirement, black voter turnout is up in the 2014 primary is up, doesn’t make a lick of sense, because, again, the voter ID requirement isn’t in effect yet, and won’t be until 2016.
Tommy6860 July 2nd, 2014 at 17:49
If this doesn’t turn out to be just an anomaly, and this trend actually make the wingers lose elections, look for an alteration to these laws in the future or, a change of rules just weeks before elections, ala the antics of Jon Husted, SOS of Ohio. We all know the purpose of these laws, and they are not of the fair sorts.
An an aside, nice to see you write an article :)
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 17:52
It might very well be a “Try to stop us? We’ll show you!” event. But for that, we’d need people saying so, not a supposition.
Tommy6860 July 2nd, 2014 at 18:02
Jon Husted didn’t “suppose” he did try to change the rules on the fly. Those were laws as stated and it was a (political) inconvenience to him and his party. It seems the right makes laws that favor them, then change rules when they no longer do.
majii July 2nd, 2014 at 19:44
Since I’m a Black American, I’ll weigh in. We had to fight hard to win our civil rights and the right to vote, many were beaten and died in the process of having the federal government enact the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. When we see someone trying to take away something Black Americans suffered and died for, like the right to vote, it makes us very angry and more determined than ever to exercise that right, especially our right to vote. It is only a “supposition” to those who have little intimate contact with Black Americans because they never/rarely are party to the conversations we have with each other. There are some things that most of us won’t discuss with others. There’s one thing about Black Americans that most Americans don’t know: our common history and experience binds us together, and rarely do we NOT discuss important political issues with each other, even if we don’t know each other. We can meet each other anywhere and find ourselves discussing politics, and we usually find ourselves in agreement on issues like voting rights.
Tommy6860 July 2nd, 2014 at 17:49
If this doesn’t turn out to be just an anomaly, and this trend actually make the wingers lose elections, look for an alteration to these laws in the future or, a change of rules just weeks before elections, ala the antics of Jon Husted, SOS of Ohio. We all know the purpose of these laws, and they are not of the fair sorts.
An an aside, nice to see you write an article :)
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 17:52
It might very well be a “Try to stop us? We’ll show you!” event. But for that, we’d need people saying so, not a supposition.
Tommy6860 July 2nd, 2014 at 18:02
Jon Husted didn’t “suppose” he did try to change the rules on the fly. Those were laws as stated and it was a (political) inconvenience to him and his party. It seems the right makes laws that favor them, then change rules when they no longer do.
majii July 2nd, 2014 at 19:44
Since I’m a Black American, I’ll weigh in. We had to fight hard to win our civil rights and the right to vote, many were beaten and died in the process of having the federal government enact the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. When we see someone trying to take away something Black Americans suffered and died for, like the right to vote, it makes us very angry and more determined than ever to exercise that right, especially our right to vote. It is only a “supposition” to those who have little intimate contact with Black Americans because they never/rarely are party to the conversations we have with each other. There are some things that most of us won’t discuss with others. There’s one thing about Black Americans that most Americans don’t know: our common history and experience binds us together, and rarely do we NOT discuss important political issues with each other, even if we don’t know each other. We can meet each other anywhere and find ourselves discussing politics, and we usually find ourselves in agreement on issues like voting rights.
mmaynard119 July 2nd, 2014 at 19:58
Judicial Watch is Larry Klayman’s and Orly Tatiz’s, organization. Any “Study” done by Judicial Watch is immediately suspect because of the extreme bias of the organization sponsoring it. Orly Tatiz is queen of the birthers. Klayman claimed that a Florida Grand Jury indicted Obama and Biden.
This item claiming the indictment in Florida of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden for “having willfully released classified national security information” stems from a press release issued by Larry Klayman, founder and chairman of Freedom Watch. The referenced indictment is in the nature of a political publicity stunt: the President and Vice President were not indicted by any grand jury empaneled or authorized by the state of Florida or the federal government, but rather by a group of private citizens acting on their own as a “Citizens’ Grand Jury.”
The Citizens’ Grand Jury is a non-actionable, non-governmental organization that has no legal authority to enforce its “indictment” through prosecution or trial. When a similar group of private grand jurists declared themselves a “Super American Grand Jury” and voted to charge President Obama with treason in 2009, their filing was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge who stated that “Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/indicted.asp#TOCv98hfmEAksOiS.99
mmaynard119 July 2nd, 2014 at 19:58
Judicial Watch is Larry Klayman’s and Orly Tatiz’s, organization. Any “Study” done by Judicial Watch is immediately suspect because of the extreme bias of the organization sponsoring it. Orly Tatiz is queen of the birthers. Klayman claimed that a Florida Grand Jury indicted Obama and Biden.
This item claiming the indictment in Florida of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden for “having willfully released classified national security information” stems from a press release issued by Larry Klayman, founder and chairman of Freedom Watch. The referenced indictment is in the nature of a political publicity stunt: the President and Vice President were not indicted by any grand jury empaneled or authorized by the state of Florida or the federal government, but rather by a group of private citizens acting on their own as a “Citizens’ Grand Jury.”
The Citizens’ Grand Jury is a non-actionable, non-governmental organization that has no legal authority to enforce its “indictment” through prosecution or trial. When a similar group of private grand jurists declared themselves a “Super American Grand Jury” and voted to charge President Obama with treason in 2009, their filing was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge who stated that “Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/indicted.asp#TOCv98hfmEAksOiS.99