Reba Miller Bowser was excited about voting in the first national election since her move to North Carolina in 2012. On Saturday, Feb. 6, she filled out her North Carolina voter registration form — and posed for a celebratory photo with her son, Ed Bowser, before mailing off the form.
Their excitement came to a sudden and unexpected end on Monday, Feb. 8, when workers at the Patton Avenue office of the Department of Motor Vehicles refused to issue Reba a photo ID. Though Reba and Ed had carefully checked the DMV’s requirements, and had brought the required documents and then some — not one but two birth certificates, a social security card, a Medicare card, an expired New Hampshire driver’s license, as well as a utility bill and a copy of the lease to her apartment — DMV workers nonetheless found an issue with the documentation.
When she married in 1950, Bowser changed her middle name to her maiden name. The DMV representatives told Bowser and her son that a copy of her marriage license was needed to provide a record of the name change. So the 86-year-old grandmother left without an ID, and without a clear idea of how long it would take to order the required documentation from Pennsylvania, where she had been married.
2016 is the first year in which voters in North Carolina will be required to show a photo ID in order to vote.
“We thought that everything would be fine, and mom would have her photo ID and she would be able to walk proudly into the polling place and vote for the first time in North Carolina,” recalls Ed Bowser.
Amy Lee Knisley, who is married to Ed Bowser, was so upset by her mother-in-law’s experience that she took to Facebook, writing an angry post that was shared over 10,000 times during the next two days.
“They were prepared,” wrote Knisley on Facebook. “And yet she left ID-less. When will she get back to try again? By her own responsible choice, she does not drive, and has no car. She’s been voting for over 60 years!”
By Wednesday, perhaps alerted to the interest Knisley’s post had generated on Facebook, state DMV officials contacted Knisley to say that the Asheville DMV employee had made a mistake in denying Mrs. Bowser’s request for a photo ID. And on Thursday, says Ed Bowser, the DMV arranged for a mobile unit to visit his mother’s apartment complex on Friday to resolve the issue.
“It’s going to be resolved on television tomorrow,” related Bowser in a telephone call on Thursday evening, referring to TV news crews who planned to cover the DMV’s visit.
“She’s had a long record of participating in elections, so you can imagine her disappointment when we were turned away,” Bowser comments. “To see all the support coming her way, and now that we think there will be a resolution, it was gratifying to see that the DMV acknowledged that it made some mistakes. Whatever the intentions of the law, the unintended consequences are affecting people like my mom. Other folks might not have the same resources to respond to this kind of situation.”
“The best possible outcome would be that other folks who face similar challenges will realize that there is help,” he says.
Correction: An earlier version of this online article used an incorrect spelling of the Bowsers’ surname. The article was corrected on Feb. 12, 2016 at 4:26 p.m.
67 thoughts on “86-year-old voter turned down by DMV to get photo ID Friday”
Thanks to the media, she gets satisfaction.
But before the media—her kids!
The system worked the way it should have. Sad it was a senior Citizen that got denied her ID card. Common sense won out and Mrs. Bowers will have what she needs to vote or do any of the many other things where a ID card is required.
LOL, exactly. Lefty loons that are all against ID better wise up. A segment of the population that believes the elections are themselves corrupt because their votes are being canceled out buy people that either should not be voting and/or voting multiple times will not end well LOL. You can’t have an election process where 50% of the populace feels they don’t matter except for the taxes on their labor lulz. Oh, they already do.
Well, I’m a lefty loon and I think YOU need to wise up. Righty round-the-benders have yet to show evidence of real voter fraud.
LOL, what’s the matter lulz? Your “feels” are hurt? Don’t you have some cats to feed LOL?
Are you even a real person? Voter fraud has never been a problem in NC. These voter I.D. laws are specifically designed to disenfranchise democratic voters (whatever your reasoning, this is the effect). Why try to keep people from voting?
because too many people are just too stupid to be voting!
Right. Just to be safe, let’s go with only White, Christian, Male Property Owners.
such sensationalism! lieberal media types were foaming at their mouths over this story! meanwhile, they refuse to publish
stories of voter fraud.
There is no voter fraud. It is miniscule. However, right wing voter suppression occurs consistently in red States. Here we have another Case. Had she not had an advocate, her son, she would have been denied her vote. The voter fraud reasoning is ignorant.
I’m sorry Henry but you are naive. How many people vote more than once in elections or how many non-citizens cast votes? I don’t know but am sure that it’s far more than you think. However, it’s likely a pittance compared to the REAL voting fraud.
Take your pick from the list; watch a few and be enlightened. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=voting+machines+rigged
Or read, if you prefer: https://www.google.com/#q=voting+machines+rigged
Nope, you can’t pin the rigging on only one party. Both of them cheat (but, Hillary probably qualifies as a specialist at this point). Meanwhile, they have you all distracted by this small fry stuff. Spend some time understanding the real fraud.
There is no voter fraud. It is miniscule. However, right wing voter suppression occurs consistently in red States. Here we have another Case. Had she not had an advocate, her son, she would have been denied her vote. The voter fraud reasoning is ignorant.
“There is no voter fraud. It is minuscule”.
Those are two contradictory statements. The first says there is no voter fraud, the second statement admits there is.
Let’s also not forget how close Florida was in 2000.
Let’s also not forget that arch-defender of the voiceless, Justice Stephen Bryer, was the 6th vote in the Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of voter ID laws.
Let’s not forget that Connecticut, run by democrats at the state level, elects all democrats at the federal level, and votes democratic in every presidential contest also put a voter ID law.
Or, we could forget all of this, and cling desperately to conspiracy theories for excuses as to why our preferred candidates don’t win.
While we’re not forgetting things, let’s recall that according to testimony in the pending challenge to North Carolina’s voter ID law, there were only two instances of suspected voter impersonation in the state between 2000 and 2014, even though 35 million votes were cast. In light of that minuscule number, reasonable people might characterize voter impersonation here as a nonexistent and totally hypothetical problem for which there is no genuine basis in reality. Indeed, the analysis might begin and end with the word “duh.”
In light of the foregoing, the closeness of Florida’s 2000 presidential election proves too much. A small amount of voter suppression (caused by pointless inconvenience and confusion) would be far more likely to swing a close election than the all-but-totally nonexistent amount of voter impersonation for which there is any evidence in North Carolina. Remember the butterfly ballot?
If memory serves, Justice Breyer dissented in the last voter ID case heard by the Supreme Court, and, in any event, that fractured decision did not approve all voter ID laws in the country; it merely upheld one particular state’s law against facial challenge. Moreover, the Supreme Court did not rule on the wisdom of the photo ID policy, only on its constitutional permissibility.
Also, I seem to remember that Connecticut does not require a photo ID for people to vote. See http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx. A liberal oversight?
Finally, it is hard to see how opponents of the photo ID law can be fairly accused of making excuses for electoral losses. The law has yet to affect any election in North Carolina. But people outraged by this news story – which ought to include everyone – might want to consider voting for candidates who think that it’s wrong to put an elderly and lifelong voter through ridiculous hoops solely to promote their party’s selfish (not to mention speculative) gain. And by voting I mean voting in droves. Then maybe “Henry” and his friends can have a chance to make the excuses and conjure the conspiracies in the night – research enterprises apparently well suited to their thoughtful dispositions.
Excuse me, I was mistaken. It was John Paul Stevens who authored the majority 6-3 opinion finding voter ID laws to be constitutional, stating that government has a valid interest in protecting the integrity of elections.
As for your “no genuine basis in reality” comment, in authoring his commanding opinion, Stevens relied on the (Jimmy) Carter-Baker report calling for nationwide election reform which looked into and reviewed many instances of voter fraud across the nation. Stevens, acknowledging the validity of the voter fraud studies, recognized that as voter fraud could happen anywhere, state governments have the right to take preventative action.
Your logical conclusion that “b/c we haven’t found voter fraud in NC means it will never happen” is akin to saying “there’s never been a crime in Smallville, so it will never happen.” That logic has no genuine basis in reality.
NC Voters have the ability to cast a provisional ballot in the event they cannot meet the requirements of obtaining a valid state ID. Everyone knows they are not going to be turned away at the door, but given the chance to vote. If the provisional ballots could affect the outcome, every effort will be made by those interested parties to help secure the validity of the provisional voters. Everyone will get to vote. Or as you so eloquently stated: “duh.”
There’s evidence to suggest that minority turnout goes up after voter ID laws go into effect, at least according to the right-wing-news bastion the Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/
But perhaps a better question is why do you want to stand in the way of a notion supported by 75% of this country? I guess that leaves Jimmy Carter, John Paul Stevens, and most of America disagreeing with you on this one, Peter.
Sorry, “Henry,” but you’re still wrong. Justice Stevens wrote the three-member plurality opinion.
As to why we shouldn’t try to fix what ain’t broke, this news story speaks for itself.
But you’re definitely wrong. Wikipedia, the Oyez Project, and Scotusblog all recognize the decision as being 6-3 – unless of course you know something the internet doesn’t.
Just because someone else writes what is known as a “concurring opinion” does not mean that the other opinion creates merely a plurality.
We can’t have an effective conversation if we don’t agree on basic functions, such as the effectiveness of how Supreme Court decisions work.
You can find a definition of “plurality opinion” on Wikipedia.
And you can read about the 6-3 majority (not-plurality) opinion on every single source covering the decision.
Here’s the decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf. Two justices joined in the Stevens opinion. Three justices concurred in the judgment. There was no majority opinion because a majority opinion requires five votes.
When the New York Times talks about the “6-3 Ruling” and references the “majority opinion”, they clearly got it wrong.
There’s a majority of justices that come to the same conclusion that voting can be regulated so long as there is minimal burdens or harm (requiring photo ID’s to be of minimal harm).
The opinion is a plurality opinion to the extent that different groups of justices arrived at the same conclusion through different applications, but agreed in the outcome of the decision.
Point being, there’s a majority, 6-3 precedent, that assumes requiring voter ID, based on historical evidence and future threats of voting fraud, presents little-to-no-harm to voters.
The New York Times story refers to a “splintered” decision in the lead paragraph, and it does not characterize the opinion written by Justice Stevens as a “majority opinion.” It plainly states that only two other Justices joined in the Stevens opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/29scotus.html?_r=0. So, no, the New York Times did not get the story wrong. You did.
And, just to close things out, “Henry,” your contention that the Supreme Court’s decision assumes that the photo-ID laws impose a minimal burden on voting is false. Six Justices (the plurality and the dissenters) thought that burdens on individual voters (such as the elderly and the poor) must be carefully evaluated on the basis of record evidence. The three dissenters thought the sparse record then before the Court was sufficient to tip the balance against the state, even in light of the heavy burden that plaintiffs must meet to prevail on a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law. The Stevens plurality thought the evidence was insufficient “on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation,” repeatedly noting that the factual record was very limited and opining at one point that “extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination.” The implication is that the plaintiffs in that case might have won 6-3 had they produced better record evidence. Whether the plaintiffs in the North Carolina case have done so remains to be seen.
When the NYT prints phrases such as: “The three others who made up the majority…” , it leaves me thinking there was a majority.
Stevens invited other groups to challenge the law to ensure that the law was not discriminatory against various groups, such as people who oppose having their picture taken for religious purposes, elderly, minorities, etc., to test and see if the law was discriminatory against them.
However, I think we agree that there were 6 votes to support a voter ID law as being valid on its face, in which Stevens wrote that requirements of voters did not qualify as a substantial burden – hence minimal burdens.
“For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
The implication that the other side would have one if only the facts had been better isn’t worth much weight, that’s Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Well, if only we had more evidence that there was less voter fraud, if only we had more evidence that waiting in line to get a free ID wasn’t a real burden, if only…
The point here its that plaintiffs challenged the law, and a majority of justices found that state laws regulating voting are constitutionally valid on their face, reaching this conclusion on the premise that the states have a valid interest in protecting the integrity of their elections due to existence of voter fraud.
75% of America agrees with something quite similar.
You still don’t get it, do you, “Henry”? The three-Justice plurality and the three dissenters thought the burden on voting rights should be measured differently, as a matter of law, than the three concurring Justices. On that particular legal question (which might prove crucial in future cases with more complete factual records), the majority votes are not where you think they are. That’s why a fractured decision like this — which I think you now admit did not have a majority opinion in it — must be read with a level of understanding that you do not possess.
Thank you for admitting that there was in fact a majority vote! That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Let’s break this down:
I’m telling you that 1) the majority (the word you used in your answer and as used by the NY Times) found that facially speaking, states are permitted to regulate elections by requiring a photo, ID.
That’s what the two blocks of justices, constituting the 6 votes, agreed on.
They agreed that whatever level of burden imposed by the law did not outweigh any legitimate interest the state has in requiring a photo ID, so long as that is not discriminatory towards certain groups. Period.
The split, Peter, is in that Scalia would have closed the door to all challenges moving forward, whereas Stevens encouraged those groups disaffected by the decision to challenge these laws to see if the burden did in fact disproportionally impact other groups, or if it was too much of a burden to outweigh the states’ interest.
In other words, if the plaintiffs challenging the current law can show that African-Americans will actually be suppressed, and to a much greater extent than a neighboring white heavy county, then it is likely that the law will have to change – though we can only speculate as to how.
My entire, and only point all along, has been that Stevens (as part of a concurrence, aka majority, of justices) came to the conclusion that it is permissible for states to require photo ID because there is a history of voter fraud, and the state has an interest in preventing that fraud. Period.
Your insistence on “if only the facts had been different” isn’t worth anything until that case gets brought forward.
There is a difference between say, a 4-4-1, or a 3-3-3- opinion than there is an opinion which can garner 6 votes on a topic.
Help me out here, since you’re the smartest guy on the MountainX, how did Stevens and the dissenters want the burdens to be applied differently, and why how does that undermine my point that it is currently permissible for states to require photo ID based on an opinion authored by Stevens?
You’re wasting my time, “Henry.” I have been completely consistent in everything I have said and I have made no admission of error. I trust anyone still reading will see that, whether you do or not. I linked to the decision. You can puzzle over it at your leisure. The “analysis” you just tried to articulate is beneath notice.
The Supreme Court is a hard subject to understand. Please don’t give up on it so easily!
I know that anyone still reading will see that you never were able to:
1) deny that Justice Stevens relied on national instances of voter fraud to justify the interest of the state in requiring photo ID;
2) that Justice Stevens ruled that getting a photo ID is a minimal burden
3) that there are 6 justices who upheld the legality of the photo ID regulation based 1 & 2.
Oh, but yes – you provided a link to the 10,000+ word opinion, so I guess you win.
No. Scroll up. I win because Justice Stevens wrote the three-member plurality decision, not the majority decision.
And do bear in mind that a person who doesn’t know the difference between a plurality opinion and a majority opinion cuts a very amusing figure when he tries to get smart with someone who does. You do realize that people can read your comments, don’t you?
Oh, drat. I should have said I win because Justice Stevens wrote the three-member plurality opinion. Opinion — which refers to a document signed by human beings the number of which can be counted and tallied — is the correct term. How embarrassing that the smartest person on the Mountain Xpress comment board would make such a rookie mistake. And have to admit it. In front of everyone. If I only I could think of some evasive maneuver . . .
Let’s not forget that Connecticut, run by democrats at the state level,,, also put a voter ID law.
Let’s not forget to check our facts:
“Connecticut: ID Requested; Photo Not Required. If ID is not presented, a voter provides name, date of birth, and address, and signs under penalty of making a false statement.”
LOL, is that enforced like the illegals who are caught when they cross over, freed and then never show up to their immigration hearings lulz?
voter fraud FELONY conviction in Rutherford Co. but local media refused to publish it…after being asked to run it the AC-T refused…this is how our local media is EVIL.
How many thousands of North Carolinians are going through something similar right now, but won’t get “satisfaction”? How many people can’t afford to take another day off work, can’t get back down to the DMV, can’t get necessary documents perhaps from another state, don’t have some media-savvy person advocating for them, etc.?
And how many of them belong to some demographic that tend to vote Democratic? Most of them and then, as the French say, voilà. The GOP has shaved a couple percentage points off of people who they don’t want to be able to vote.
It’s gotta suck to be forced to embrace the idea that to win, you have to undermine democracy. No wonder these people turn to charlatans like Donald Trump. “Playing fair is for losers!!”
ever hear of ABSENTEE VOTING ??? problemo solved.
“ever hear of ABSENTEE VOTING ??? problemo solved.”
You’re right – this seems much simpler:
Absentee Voting by Mail
Any North Carolina registered voter who is qualified to vote in an election can request and receive a by-mail absentee ballot for any election, whether it is a statewide primary, general election, or special election on constitutional amendments, referenda or bond proposals, or any municipal election in which absentee voting is allowed. No special circumstance or excuse is needed to receive and vote a mail-in absentee ballot.
How to Request an Absentee Ballot
To receive a mail-in absentee ballot for an election, a voter or the voter’s near relative* or legal guardian must use the State Absentee Ballot Request form to request the ballot. Request forms are available at the State Board of Elections’ office, here on the State Board of Elections website, and at county boards of elections’ offices. The form can be reproduced. A signed and completed State Absentee Ballot Request Form must be received by the county board of elections no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last Tuesday prior to the date of the election for which the ballot is being requested.
A signed and completed request form may be mailed, faxed, e-mailed or delivered in person to the county board of elections office.
Note: A request form must be received for each election that a voter desires to vote a by-mail absentee ballot.
Completing the State Absentee Ballot Request Form
The State Absentee Ballot Request Form may only be signed by the voter or a near relative or legal guardian of the voter. When completing the form, the voter or the requestor must sign and provide the voter’s name, residential address, date of birth, and an identification number for the voter (i.e., NC DMV driver license number, NC DMV identification card number, or the last four digits of the voter’s social security number.) If an identification number is not provided on the form, then the requestor must submit one of the documents listed below along with the completed request form:
· A copy of a current and valid photo identification.
· A copy of one of the following documents that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.
If a person other than the voter (a near relative or legal guardian) makes the request, then the requestor must also provide his or her name and residential address on the request form. If requesting a ballot for a partisan primary, and the voter is registeredUnaffiliated, the voter or requestor should indicate the ballot preference for the voter. Finally, the voter or requestor must provide the address where the absentee balloting materials are to be mailed, if different than the voter’s residential address.
Note: If a registered North Carolina voter (including eligible dependents) is absent due to military service or is currently living overseas, then only the actual voter should complete the State Absentee Ballot Request Form.
Receiving a Ballot
If a valid request is received, the county board of elections office will mail the voter absentee balloting materials to the address provided on the request form when absentee ballots are available. Absentee ballots are available:
· 50 days prior to the date of a statewide primary election, county bond election or any other election, except those listed below;
· 60 days prior to the date of a statewide general election;
· 30 days prior to municipal elections.
The absentee balloting materials will consist of:
· a blank official absentee ballot;
· absentee voting instructions; and
· the Absentee Application and Certificate found on the back of the return ballot-container envelope.
Voting an Absentee Ballot
In the presence of two witnesses (or one witness if the witness is a notary-public), the voter should mark the ballot, or cause it to be marked according to his or her instructions. Once the ballot is marked, the voter or a person assisting the voter must seal the ballot in the container-return envelope and must then complete the Absentee Application and Certificate on the back of the ballot container-return envelope. The voter’s witnesses must complete and sign the envelope in the space designated as Witnesses’ Certification (or Alternative Notary-Witness Certification, if using a notary-public as the witness). If someone assisted the voter, the assister must sign and date the certificate as well.
Returning the Voted Ballot
Once the Absentee Application and Certificate is fully executed with all relevant signatures, the voted ballot (contained inside of the container-return envelope) must be returned to the county board of elections no later than 5:00 p.m. on the date of the election. The envelope may be mailed or delivered in person to the board of elections’ office. Only the voter or the voter’s near relative (spouse, brother, sister, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, mother-in-law, father-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, stepparent, stepchild or qualified legal guardian) may deliver an absentee ballot in person.
An absentee ballot may also be delivered to an election official at a one-stop voting site during any time that site is open for voting. Ballots received after 5:00 p.m. on election day will be timely ONLY if they are received by mail and bear a postmark that is dated on or before the date of the election and are received no later than 5:00 p.m. on the third day following the election.
But, on the plus side, no one has suggested that absentee ballots have ever been used for purposes of voter fraud.
No one on this thread, I mean.
No one yet, I mean.
It looks to me like Peter is advocating for an expansion of the voter ID laws!
I guess he wants all of those poor, elderly citizens to mail in a copy of their voter ID card along with their absentee ballot. Won’t that make voting even harder?
Congratulations, Peter – you’ve identified an area much more susceptible to voter fraud. What’s fascinating about your observation is that you recognize the potential for voter fraud to occur, highlight a less regulated form of this voting as an example, but simultaneously demand that elections go on as planned without any chances because you claim there’s no chance of voter fraud occurring.
If there was no chance of voter fraud occurring, why are you so worried about absentee ballot voting? I’ll enjoy watching you get out of this logical pretzel.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, “Henry.” North Carolina historically has had far more cases of suspected voter fraud involving absentee ballots than involving in-person impersonation. That’s just a fact. See http://www.democracy-nc.org/downloads/SBOEFraudMemo2013.pdf. So, our friend Yep’s suggested absentee-ballot cure is worse than the “disease” for a reason in addition to the ones ably explained by Barry. I wasn’t suggesting that any new corrective measures are needed in regard to absentee ballots, however. Among other things, the number of absentee-voter fraud cases is still very small compared with the total votes cast.
But while we are on the subject of preventive measures, I don’t see anything wrong on its face with a law like Connecticut’s, which does not require a photo ID and allows people to vote without any ID at all if they simply aver under penalty of perjury that they are who they say they are. But that’s not what we are talking about here.
It is rather simple, Barry.
You call the BOE. You request a form. You can even email them.
They send you a request form. You mail it back. They send you a a ballot, you mail it back.
Someone picks up the request form for you, and returns, it, or lets you mail it back. BOE sends you a ballot, you mail it back.
Relying on the length verbiage of the literal law to set up clear and above board procedures to try and make absentee ballot voting seem difficult exposes the lack of intellectual arguments you have on this matter.
The point is that a significant number of people who used to be able to simply walk into their polling place and cast their votes, aren’t going to jump through these hoops. And that’s the intention. Throw some roadblocks in the way, and a percentage won’t vote. If these roadblocks were in the way in 2008, would Barack Obama have won North Carolina by 14,000 votes?
barry summers, your stance is SO lamea**… if a citizen does not have the ability to obtain ID then they
should NEVER expect to vote !!! You people just want it so the ILLEGALs can take over the
democrackkk party but many of them are just too smart to be slicked by evil.
Since the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that minority turnout out went up after enacting voter ID in Georgia, I think the answer to your question would probably be “yes”, if not greater.
You’re also conveniently ignoring the ability to cast provisional ballots.
This is exactly the sort of outcome the GOP hopes for – minus the helpful relative. I notice that they have managed to reduce funding for DMV to the point that people sit for an hour or more waiting their turn as well. Anything to discourage voters.
If legislators were eager to have more people vote everyone would be registered automatically at age 18. It would be remarkable simple to do it via the public schools.
18 yr olds are NOT qualified to vote after attending government screwls all their indoctrinated lives!
And don’t forget about women.
LOL what is feminism in all reality lulz? Since women have had the vote, is the culture better or worse off? And can many of the social problems such as drug abuse, school age children failing, poverty, etc be blamed on women’s lib lulz? Seems to me that women just traded in men who had a personal stake in their well being for a government model that uses them for labor on one end and as consumers on the other LOL.
I mean don’t get me wrong because when you really look at it, it was and is men who are really free now. Women still have to raise kids and more and more, be the only provider (with the government help). And now they get to go to the front lines in combat to get shot at LOL. And this nonsense about women being excluded from any future drafts is just that lulz. Oh and at the same time, people like you are all about allowing illegals in because REPLACEMENT BIRTH RATES are at an all time low. And that might effect the big crony system like social security even though said illegals don’t pay into the system lulz.
Somebody get this guy a bullhorn:
“Since women have had the vote, is the culture better or worse off?”
Does anyone doubt that that same attitude underlies the deceitful Voter ID debacle?
“Since former slaves/college students/non-propertied people have had the vote, is the culture better or worse off?”
It must suck going through life hating the United States of America this much. You have my sympathy, lulz.
as was pointed out to the AC-T editors, better the problem gets taken care of at this point than to have unregistered newcomers showing up at the polls…
Trouble with the DMV is now headline news. LOL.
One woman’s frustration with the lack of training at DMV does not justify a loss of integrity in the entire elections process. This is a DMV problem, not a voter ID problem.
And she waited for two and a half years to get ID. Now this is supposed to be a problem of the law?
House Bill 589 / S.L. 2013-381, VIVA/Election Reform, Ch. SL 2013-381 on 08/12/2013.
“After the state Division of Motor Vehicles turned her away Monday because she couldn’t prove her middle name, two DMV officials visited 86-year-old Reba Miller Bowser on Friday to help her with the paperwork for a photo ID that she’ll use when she votes this year. They came to Bowser’s Asheville apartment and allowed her to fill out an affidavit affirming what she had not been able to prove with all her identity papers: that Miller became her middle name when she married in 1950…”
REBA MILLER BOWSER, Unafilliated
Face it, we, especially here in WNC suffer because of all the ignorant people. I have never witnessed a more ignorant population.
Sez the man who sadly has lost all of his mirrors. Should we take up a collection for you, Fisher?
Only if you feel blessed by wisdom…donations gladly accepted!
I don’t approve of giving Yep a hard time on this point. He’s the only proponent of the photo-ID requirement who is willing to honestly state what the real purpose of the law is — to keep certain people (deemed unworthy) from voting by putting obstructions in their path. And he’s right — too many people in this area are ignorant about that fact. Way too many.
(except the law does not prohibit a properly registered voter from voting…;) which is why 74% of voters approve of the requirement!
I agree. Give him a bullhorn. As Aasif Madnvi said to Don Yelton (in one of the great moments of political humor in American history):
“You know we can hear you, right?”
There’s your conspiracy theory coming out again, Peter!
If we lose the election – it’s only because our people were oppressed!
I guess you know something the 75% of the people in this country who approve of showing an ID at the voting booth don’t.
If you want to conceive people that the motives of the North Carolina legislators had nothing to do with voter suppression,”Henry,” you should explain why they went beyond the requirements of the Connecticut voter-ID law for which you have previously expressed unqualified admiration. Maybe they know something you don’t.
Convince, not conceive. Accuracy in word choice is important.
see the Carter-Baker report which Justice Stevens cited in his opinion of the 6-3 Ruling upholding the constitutionality of Voter ID laws by states.
That report cited nationwide instances of fraud, and said that states were entitled to protect the integrity of their elections.
People without ID are entitled to cast a provisional ballot, much like in Indiana (the state involved in the 6-3 case decided by Justice Stevens), so they can vote onsite.
Me and 75% of America seem to think this is not an unreasonable requirement. You do.
That’s that, I suppose.
Holy crap! You went from Justice Stevens writing the imaginary majority opinion to Justice Stevens writing the actual plurality opinion to Justice Stevens deciding the case all by himself. And you wonder why I declined to explain any more difficult legal matters to you.
No, that’s not it. You still haven’t answered the question — why does North Carolina need a voter-ID law more burdensome than the Connecticut law for which you yourself have nothing but unqualified praise?