Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
With state elections bill sleight of hand, NC GOP crams VoterID into Voter Safety legislation
Republicans tacked Voter ID onto it, even though such provisions have been blocked by previous suits - NC Democrats claim ignorance of it - so this is NOT good news - but is headed to Gov. Cooper's desk for signature now.http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/06/11/with-state-elections-bill-sleight-of-hand-gop-seeks-to-revive-enjoined-voter-id-law/
Republicans add language in effort to circumvent two court injunctions; final vote today
What started as a bipartisan effort to address the challenge of administering an election during the COVID-19 pandemic has devolved into a battle over another Republican attempt to require North Carolinians to show a photo ID to cast a ballot in November.
House Bill 1169 is a bill that, for the most part, addresses concerns raised by voting rights advocates: It allocates funding for the state and county boards of election to hold the November general election during a pandemic. It alters the requirements for absentee, voting-by-mail so that only one witness will be required. It provides poll workers more flexibility, and it allows voters to request blank absentee ballots by mail, email, fax or online portal.
Where the measure veers from addressing COVID-19 concerns altogether is in Section 10, which resurrects the photo voter ID law and adds a new form of acceptable identification: government public assistance IDs.
House Democrats knew their Republican colleagues were adding the language to the bill; they even vetted it with outside attorneys and organizations. No one raised concerns, and the House went on to pass the measure 116-3.
Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) said when the language was presented, it wasn’t understood to be something that Republicans could use in an immediate effort to circumvent two existing injunctions (one in federal court and one in state court) that have barred the use of voter ID in 2020.
Cue the Senate floor debate Wednesday evening. Sen. Warren Daniel (R-Avery, Burke, Caldwell) bluntly told his colleagues that the courts struck down their voter ID law because public assistance IDs weren’t included as acceptable.
“To be extremely clear, we disagree with the courts’ conclusion that the implementing legislation is in any way discriminatory, so to remove any doubt, we are adding any ID card issued by the U.S. or state government for a program of public assistance to address the courts’ concerns,” Daniel said. “This is an ID that was specifically requested to be added to the list of acceptable IDs by Democrats during debate over the original implementing legislation.”
Harrison, a primary sponsor of the measure along with Rep. Allison Dahle (D-Wake), said after the Senate voted 35-12 on the bill’s second reading (the third and final vote is scheduled for today) that House Democrats had no idea about the real intent behind the provision.
“Nobody raised an issue about it until the bill was filed,” she said in a phone interview. “There was time to pull this. We did not at the time realize the import of the photo ID provision. … It’s just unfortunate.”
What started as a bipartisan effort to address the challenge of administering an election during the COVID-19 pandemic has devolved into a battle over another Republican attempt to require North Carolinians to show a photo ID to cast a ballot in November.
House Bill 1169 is a bill that, for the most part, addresses concerns raised by voting rights advocates: It allocates funding for the state and county boards of election to hold the November general election during a pandemic. It alters the requirements for absentee, voting-by-mail so that only one witness will be required. It provides poll workers more flexibility, and it allows voters to request blank absentee ballots by mail, email, fax or online portal.
Where the measure veers from addressing COVID-19 concerns altogether is in Section 10, which resurrects the photo voter ID law and adds a new form of acceptable identification: government public assistance IDs.
House Democrats knew their Republican colleagues were adding the language to the bill; they even vetted it with outside attorneys and organizations. No one raised concerns, and the House went on to pass the measure 116-3.
Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) said when the language was presented, it wasn’t understood to be something that Republicans could use in an immediate effort to circumvent two existing injunctions (one in federal court and one in state court) that have barred the use of voter ID in 2020.
Cue the Senate floor debate Wednesday evening. Sen. Warren Daniel (R-Avery, Burke, Caldwell) bluntly told his colleagues that the courts struck down their voter ID law because public assistance IDs weren’t included as acceptable.
“To be extremely clear, we disagree with the courts’ conclusion that the implementing legislation is in any way discriminatory, so to remove any doubt, we are adding any ID card issued by the U.S. or state government for a program of public assistance to address the courts’ concerns,” Daniel said. “This is an ID that was specifically requested to be added to the list of acceptable IDs by Democrats during debate over the original implementing legislation.”
Harrison, a primary sponsor of the measure along with Rep. Allison Dahle (D-Wake), said after the Senate voted 35-12 on the bill’s second reading (the third and final vote is scheduled for today) that House Democrats had no idea about the real intent behind the provision.
“Nobody raised an issue about it until the bill was filed,” she said in a phone interview. “There was time to pull this. We did not at the time realize the import of the photo ID provision. … It’s just unfortunate.”
