By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

This is such blatant misunderstanding that I wonder if you're even paying attention.  Everything that the law chose to restrict affected minorities more.  Which was the reason the court put a stop to it. 

No, I was making a real point.  It's always claimed that it affects minorities more.  No matter how laws are tightened, this is the inevitable claim.  Even a state with an absurdly long 35 day voting period like Ohio was dragged to court on the premise and lost at the district level when they lowered it to a still absurdly long 29 days before squeaking by 2-1 at the Circuit level.

So you'll excuse me if I don't take such complaints at their word and instead contemplate the merits of the laws themselves.

No, I won't excuse this blatant goalpost-shifting.  The North Carolina legislature requested and received racial data on many forms of IDs; in other words, data on which IDs whites were more likely to have (and lack) and which IDs blacks were more likely to have (and lack).  Then they passed a law that, as I understand the court's ruling, removed as legitimate voter ID exclusively forms of ID that blacks were least likely to lack.  It is not reasonable to believe that this is coincidence without justification that you have not provided meYou have to work much harder at tying this to allegedly unjustified complaints such as reducing early voting in Ohio. 

I haven't followed the Ohio case, though I have heard of it before; but take care that you don't let your personal bias against early voting color your view.  My understanding is that a thing that is done by a hypothetical corrupt legislative body to disadvantage the other party's voters can expect to be struck down as discriminatory if that motive is provable, no matter whether there is a reasonable motive that some other hypothetical pure-hearted legislative body could have done the exact same thing for.  Let me know if you believe that understanding is in error. 

I mean, look at it another way.  You are telling me that there are always claims that this or that disproportionately affects minority voters, and using that to justify your claim that a given scenario is not actually disproportionately affecting minority voters.  This doesn't follow.  If you think the claims are universal, then that is reason for skepticism; the question must therefore be decided on the merits and not whether someone is complaining.  (Arguably, one could rely on who is complaining, if there were people one trusted involved in the situation.  But anyway.)  And there's reason to suspect that such claims are justified when it grants a partisan advantage to the party pushing for the law in question, which certainly deserves extra scrutiny, though case should be taken not to take the disadvantaged party's complaints as gospel. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!