Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech Post by Bud Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog
In another thread which had digressed to a discussion of alleged Russian
hacking of the 2016 election, one of our most prolific posters made the
"Stay tuned to MSNBC. New documents are being released that show how the
RUSSIANS tried to hack the computers. Phising.
They also wanted to modify the voter roles to take off all black voters."
Can you imagine if they had been successful and no black voters were
allowed to vote. Gee, that wouldn't have been too suspicious.
However, SOME of the black voters could have been stopped, making it
easier to fool enough people to sway the election. The GOP tries to stop
black voters in every election and they use many tricks to do it.
Like those "WHITE ONLY" signs on the polling booths.
Libs love their contrived mythologies and false narratives.
As you well know, there are any tactics that are used to keep black
voters away from the polls. Ina number of cases the laws made for that
purpose have had to be put down by the Supreme Court.
And on and on ad infinitum.
Explain how any of these laws intended to maintain the integrity of our
elections target blacks.
Nice, but the Nazis refuse to read the Washington Post so I'll have to
cut and paste it for them:
Courts & Law
Appeals court strikes down North Carolina???s voter-ID law
A pile of government pamphlets explaining North Carolina's controversial
voting law sits on table at a polling station in Charlotte in March.
By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow July 29, 2016 Email the author
Voting rights activists scored legal victories in key presidential
election states Friday, the most important being a federal appeals court
ruling that North Carolina???s Republican-led legislature enacted new
voting restrictions in 2013 to intentionally blunt the growing clout of
African American voters.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice
Department and civil rights groups. Election law experts consider North
Carolina???s voter law one of the nation???s most far-reaching.
In Wisconsin, where one federal judge already had eased restrictions on
voter-ID requirements, a second judge found that additional elements of
the law passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker
(R-Wis.) were unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson suggested he would strike the
entire law if he were not bound by the Supreme Court???s decision that
states may use properly written voter-ID laws to guard against voter fraud.
???The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws
foster integrity and confidence,??? Peterson wrote. ???The Wisconsin
experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom
election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which
undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in
minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin???s strict version of
voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.??? The state will appeal
This year more states than ever will require potential voters to show
photo ID in order to vote in the election. Here's why this is so
controversial. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
In the North Carolina case, the 4th Circuit panel agreed with
allegations that North Carolina???s omnibus bill selectively chose
voter-ID requirements, reduced the number of early-voting days and
changed registration procedures in ways meant to harm blacks, who
overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party.
???The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical
precision??? and ???impose cures for problems that did not exist,??? Judge
Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. ???Thus the asserted
justifications cannot and do not conceal the State???s true motivation.???
[How North Carolina became the epicenter of the voting rights battle]
The rulings ??? along with that of a state court that halted an attempt in
Kansas to require proof of citizenship to register ??? marked important
wins for opponents of restrictive voting laws that are being challenged
throughout the country ahead of November???s presidential election. Put
together, the decisions suggest a growing judicial suspicion of the wave
of voting-restriction legislation passed in recent years by
??Republican-led legislatures that said it was necessary to combat voter
The decisions are likely to prompt the states to ask the Supreme Court
for emergency action. But it is far from clear whether the eight
justices, evenly divided between conservative and liberal, would get
involved. The proximity of an election is often reason for justices to
let an appeals court ruling stand.
Federal courts have been examining what are popular and, to some,
seemingly common-sense laws ??? requiring photo ID, for instance ??? to see
whether they favor one group over another.
In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that
government-issued driver???s licenses are an acceptable form of
identification but that ??government-issued public assistance cards ???
used disproportionately by minorities in the state ??? are not.
Republican leaders in North Carolina vowed an appeal to the high court.
They issued a fiery statement denouncing the ruling ???by three partisan
Democrats??? and suggested it was intended to help the Democratic
candidates for president and governor.
North Carolina is considered a key swing state, and African American
voters have played an increasing role in making it competitive.
???We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud,
potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton
and Roy Cooper to steal the election,??? said Senate Leader Phil Berger
and House Speaker Tim Moore.
[The ???smoking gun??? proving N.C. Republicans tried to disenfranchise blacks]
Motz, 73, was nominated by President Bill Clinton. The other judges on
the panel were Henry Floyd, nominated to the federal bench by President
George W. Bush and elevated to the 4th Circuit by President Obama, and
James A. Wynn Jr., a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice
nominated to the federal circuit by Obama.
Election law experts are skeptical there is evidence of widespread
cheating at the polls in this country. In particular, they find that
voting fraud is most often associated with absentee balloting, rather
than the kind of impersonation voting that ID laws are meant to combat.
Speaking to reporters in Baton Rouge on Friday, U.S. Attorney General
Loretta E. Lynch praised the court???s ruling and said the Justice
Department will continue to challenge restrictive voting laws. ???The
ability of Americans to have a voice in the direction of their country ???
to have a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this
nation ??? is fundamental to who we are and who we aspire to be,??? Lynch said.
Democrats and civil rights groups have also filed suits in Ohio and Arizona.
The North Carolina decision by the Richmond-based court on Friday
reverses a 485-page ruling by District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder that
upheld the voting measures passed in 2013.
North Carolina lawmakers overhauled the state???s election law soon after
the Supreme Court???s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which freed
certain states with a history of discrimination from a Voting Rights Act
requirement that they receive federal approval before changing voting
rules. North Carolina was one of the states.
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back
of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The
appeals court???s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights
groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by
African American voters.
Motz wrote that Schroeder???s comprehensive examination of the
legislature???s action ???seems to have missed the forest in carefully
surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to
ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the
inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.???
The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun.
???Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by
race, of a number of voting practices,??? Motz wrote. ???Upon receipt of the
race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted
voting and registration in five different ways, all of which
disproportionately affected African Americans.???
The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent,
violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that
???intentionally targeting a particular race???s access to the franchise
because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable
manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.???
Motz added: ???Our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that
any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity
toward any minority group.???
But she said the ???totality of the circumstances ??? North Carolina???s
history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting;
the legislature???s knowledge that African Americans voting translated
into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools
African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at
the first opportunity to do so ??? cumulatively and unmistakably reveal
that the General Assembly used [the law] to entrench itself.???
???Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial
discrimination,??? Motz wrote.
Such a finding could have meant that the judges could order North
Carolina back under federal supervision. But the panel declined to take
that step, saying it was enough to block the parts of the law it found
[A recap of oral arguments before the 4th Circuit]
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) issue a short statement that, like
that of the legislative leaders, said the decision would be appealed,
and he repeated claims about the partisan cast of the panel. ???Three
Democratic judges are undermining the integrity of our elections while
also maligning our state,??? said McCrory, who is in a tight reelection
battle with Cooper, the state???s Democratic attorney general.
Voting rights advocates applauded the ruling and said it sent a strong
message to legislatures throughout the country.
North Carolina was one of 17 states set to have more-restrictive voting
laws in place for this presidential election than in 2012. Laws in
several states, including Wisconsin, Texas and Virginia, also are being
challenged in court.
[Appeals court says Texas voter-ID law discriminates against minorities]
In Wisconsin, a federal judge previously ruled that voters who lack the
specific kind of identification the state requires be allowed to vote in
November by signing an affidavit as to their identity. In a separate
lawsuit, groups asked Peterson to rule on other aspects of the law.
He struck part of the law restricting hours for in-person voting before
the election, saying it intentionally discriminates. ???The legislature???s
immediate goal was to achieve a partisan objective, but the means of
achieving that objective was to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of
Milwaukee???s African Americans,??? Peterson concluded.
In Texas, the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled
that Texas???s strict voter-ID law discriminates against minority voters,
and it ordered a lower court to come up with a fix for the law in time
for the November elections.
The appeals court, one of the most conservative in the country, declined
to strike down the law completely but said provisions must be made to
allow those who lack the specific ID the law requires to be able to cast
a vote. The state has decided not to appeal that ruling to the Supreme
Court, and a district judge is to rule soon on what accommodations must