Jump to content

North Carolina counties must restore voters to rolls, judge rules


Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/north-carolina-naacp-voter-registration/index.html

 

(CNN)A federal judge in North Carolina granted a preliminary injunction to the NAACP on Friday, holding that residents whose voter registrations were canceled in recent months because of a so-called "individual challenge law" must have their registration restored.
The ruling could affect thousands of voters.
Federal judge warns Trump campaign on voter intimidation in Ohio
Federal judge warns Trump campaign on voter intimidation in Ohio
"The court concludes that the balance of the equities and public interest factors weigh decidedly in favor of protecting eligible voters who are being removed from the voter rolls," wrote Loretta Biggs of the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Kim Westbrook Strach, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, issued a statement Friday afternoon saying her office "is working quickly to establish the procedures necessary to comply with the court order between now and Election Day."
Civil Rights groups praised the ruling that comes in a the key swing state just four days before Election Day.
"The judge's order today ensures that voters improperly challenged in three North Carolina counties will be restored to the voter rolls before Election Day," said Allison Riggs, Senior Attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
Lawyers for the civil rights group argued that boards of elections in Beaufort, Moore and Cumberland counties had canceled thousands of voter registrations after a small number of individuals challenged the registration of approximately 4,500 voters based "exclusively on mass mailings that were returned as undeliverable."
They argued the "en masse" cancellation was done in violation of the National Voter Registration Act that prohibits systemic voter removal programs within 90 days of a federal election and that it disproportionately targeted African-American voters.
"The court finds that a narrowly tailored injunction is warranted to ensure that eligible voters are not deprived of their right to participate in the upcoming election due to a flawed process engaged in by the State and County Boards," Biggs wrote.
One plaintiff, James Edward Arthur Sr., said that he had planned to vote but recently learned that his voter registration was canceled, "as a result of a third-party challenge brought under North Carolina's voter challenge statute." Grace Bell Hardison, a 100-year-old African-American woman living in Beaufort County is another plaintiff. In court papers the NAACP argued that she has voted in nearly every election for the last 12 years but recently learned that her registration was challenged based on an alleged change of residence -- even though she hasn't moved since 2011. Her nephew was "ultimately successful" in presenting evidence of her residence.
The NAACP alleged the purge was done after first-class mail to the voter at the address listed on the voter registration card was returned.
"In many cases, voters purged by defendants still reside at the address where they are registered to vote, or have moved within the county and remain eligible to vote there," NAACP lawyers argued. "Nonetheless, a single item of returned mail has resulted in their ultimate removal from the voter rolls."
The Justice Department had weighed in on the case, telling the judge in court briefs that if the allegations made by the plaintiffs were true "safeguards" were absent and federal law was violated.
Kimberly Westbrook Strach, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, says that the challenges at issue were not initiated with the counties, but by private individuals.
Under North Carolina law any voter in a county can challenge the eligibility of any other county voter up to 25 days before the election. The challenge can include a residency challenge.
Strach addressed the controversy in a letter sent last week to Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. "A challenge validly entered will trigger a preliminary hearing, written notice to the affected voter and a full hearing on the merits before the appointed members of the county board of elections."
She said that in all the cases "county officials indicate that their respective boards of elections held preliminary hearings, notified the challenged voters by mail, and held hearings on the merits."
In the letter Strach emphasized that while the federal law prohibits a state from "conducting systematic list maintenance within 90 days of a federal election," the challenges involved in the case come from private citizens and were resolved through a "statutory process that ensures notice and an opportunity to be heard before the appropriate body within the county."
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed she said, "the statutes at issue are decades old and are common across the country and widely regarded as compatible with the National Voter Registration Act. If the plaintiffs are right, then most states are wrong."
After the hearing, and even before the opinion was released, Strach issued a statement saying that, "As the independent agency that administers elections in North Carolina, we will comply with any court order."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything to keep liberals from their incessant whining...good for the judge.

 

Vote early and often.

No, we aren't going to let corrupt and treasonous cons vote more than once.

 

---------------------------

 

A woman in Iowa was arrested this week on suspicion of voting twice in the general election, court and police records show.

 

The Des Moines Register reported that Terri Lynn Rote is a registered Republican who cast two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records.

 

She added she has been a supporter of Donald Trump since early in his campaign, after Republican candidate Mike Huckabee dropped out of the primary race.

 

Rote told Iowa Public Radio that she cast her first ballot for Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

“The polls are rigged,” Rote told the radio station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we aren't going to let corrupt and treasonous cons vote more than once.

 

---------------------------

 

A woman in Iowa was arrested this week on suspicion of voting twice in the general election, court and police records show.

 

The Des Moines Register reported that Terri Lynn Rote is a registered Republican who cast two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records.

 

She added she has been a supporter of Donald Trump since early in his campaign, after Republican candidate Mike Huckabee dropped out of the primary race.

 

Rote told Iowa Public Radio that she cast her first ballot for Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

“The polls are rigged,” Rote told the radio station.

 

We'll keep this in mind if Trump wins by a vote...

 

 

LOL!!!!

Voting twice?

 

But voter fraud is a myth.

 

That should be her defense...I'm statistically insignificant!!! LOL!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A victimless crime...like smoking pot.

It harms the very basis of American democracy - you know, that thing you cons have total contempt for.

 

Go vote twice, and then explain it to the judge. Let us know how that works out for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why bring it up if it is a non problem?

To demonstrate that you cons' endless lying that laws meant to deny people the right to vote are in response to "liberals" commiting mass voter fraud is your usual hypocritical, shameless whoring for your masters.

 

And, as expected, you run from my question like the cowardly, lying con whore you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It harms the very basis of American democracy - you know, that thing you cons have total contempt for.

 

Go vote twice, and then explain it to the judge. Let us know how that works out for you.

 

It harms American democracy? Similar to how American democracy is effected when non-citizens vote, for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It harms American democracy? Similar to how American democracy is effected when non-citizens vote, for example?

Yes - people voting illegally would do the same. Would you be on here whimpering that they didn't do anything really wrong? Or is all of your "sympathy" reserved for your fellow traitors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isabel.. I think there is an expected amount of vigilance required to make sure voter fraud does not happen.

Of course - even though no study has ever found that it happens except in astronomically tiny percentages, it is always good to monitor elections - but what does that have to do with cons intentionally cancelling Democratic voters' registrations, or harassing and bullying voters away from the polls?

 

I could have registered in two states but I know that is a bad thing.. The California ballot is so much more interesting than Maryland's.

 

LOL.

 

Extreme vigilance is going to be needed when voting goes online.

 

It has been needed ever since we began to use electronic voting machines, when the owner of Diebold announced he intended to help Bush win, then refused to let any government officials examine the code, and specifically prevented a paper confirm of the machines' activity - which would be standard procedure for EVERY similar computer application.

 

But I personally look forward to the convenience. 1 Vote per SSN seems a reasonable way to enforce voter fraud.

 

It is never a bad idea to put safeguards in place to prevent something that doesn't happen now, but may in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Thank you. We can agree to support all efforts to stop people from voting illegally.

Glad you agree that treasonous efforts to prevent legal voters from voting, by LYING that it is about preventing fraud, are corrupt, illegal and anti-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't....as to answer your question.

Lies like that. And that leads me to my next question - since you are clearly so PROUD of lying, why are you too ashamed to admit it?

 

Oh and the word is Committing. Now why should we take YOU seriously if you can't even muster a thought properly?

 

LOL. There is nothing funnier than watching you moronic, illiterate, white trash cons leaping onto the occasional typo - TYPOS! LOLOL - like your lives depend on it, trying frantically to massage them into something that will erase your own astonishing ignorance and comical illiteracy.

 

By the way - IT DOESN'T. But thanks for yet another example of your compulsive lying.

 

ROTFLMFAO.

 

We can agree to support all efforts to stop people from voting illegally.

We can certainly agree that treasonous efforts to prevent legal voters from voting, by LYING that it is about preventing fraud, are corrupt, illegal and anti-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - we should take steps to address something that is not happening now, but may happen in the future.

 

Glad to see we all agree that it is far more important to address the illegal suppression of legitimate voters from casting their ballots - which is happening RIGHT NOW, all over the country.

 

Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is that voters fraud through impersonation is impractical and kind of pointless. When I vote, I'm instructed to go to place X and present my name and address orally. They scratch my name off a massive greenbar printout and direct me to a voting booth.

 

It's been that way for decades. Voter fraud on the organizational side is much more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is that voters fraud through impersonation is impractical and kind of pointless. When I vote, I'm instructed to go to place X and present my name and address orally. They scratch my name off a massive greenbar printout and direct me to a voting booth.

 

It's been that way for decades. Voter fraud on the organizational side is much more likely.

Well, that would be "election fraud", not "voter fraud".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...