2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPennsylvania Republican Chairman Admits Voter ID Laws Hurt Obama
Last edited Tue Jul 23, 2013, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)
July 19, 2013
GOP Official Admits Voter ID Law Hurt Obama
Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Rob Gleason admitted on PCN that the state's voter ID law limited President Obama's margin of victory in last year's presidential election.
Said Gleason: "Yeah, I think a little bit. We probably had a better election. Think about this, we cut Obama by five percent, which was big. A lot of people lost sight of that. He won, he beat McCain by 10 percent, he only beat Romney by five percent. I think that probably voter ID helped a bit in that."
Article and VIDEO here: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/19/gop_official_admits_voter_id_law_hurt_obama.html
Now check out the part below about: Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act lets courts add a state or local government to the preclearance requirement if it is found to have enacted intentionally discriminatory voting measures. The Supreme Court left that part of the Voting Rights Act intact...
Experts: Texas Possibly Subject to Preclearance Under Voting Rights Act; Suits Filed
June saw the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court collaterally attacked Section 5 of the VRA, which requires preclearance of voting and elections laws by states such as Texas, by striking down Section 4. By declaring Section 4 unconstitutional, the Court made it impossible to apply the Section 5 preclearance requirement.
Initial reaction focused on the presumptive death of the VRA and the almost certain enactment and implementation of discriminatory voting laws, yet much of that initial analysis neglected Section 3 of the VRA.
On Tuesday, Sahil Kapur wrote in TalkingPointsMemo that Texas and other states could still be subjected to preclearance requirements, despite the Court's June ruling.
"Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act lets courts add a state or local government to the preclearance requirement if it is found to have enacted intentionally discriminatory voting measures. The Supreme Court left that part of the Voting Rights Act intact; it invalidated Section 4, which includes the formula that Congress established to determine which state and local governments are to face that extra scrutiny automatically."
-snip-
Full article here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13777/experts-texas-possibly-subject-to-preclearance-under-voting-rights-act-suits-filed
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Two months after the Republican-led North Carolina House approved a voter ID bill, a common tactic used to reduce turnout among low-income, student and minority voters, Republicans in the state senate, however, apparently believe this bill does not go far enough in making it difficult for college students, who tend to vote for Democrats, to cast a ballot. According to the Charlotte Observer, senate Republicans plan to eliminate half of the forms of ID a person can show in order to cast a ballot under the house bill including cards from UNC system colleges [and] state community colleges.
This is at least the second proposal by Republicans in the state that would move the electorate rightward by making it harder for college students to vote. In April, State Rep. Bill Cook (R-NC) introduced a bill that would raise taxes on families with college students if their child registered to vote in the town where they attend school rather than the town where their parents live. In other words, the bill would discourage college students from registering to vote in the community where they actually live and spend the majority of their time by imposing a financial penalty on their family if they do so.
-snip-
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/19/2328311/two-ways-north-carolina-republicans-plan-to-keep-college-students-from-voting/
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)who has a kid in college that is registered at their school address rather than their home address. I don't think they can screw with the federal deduction as that is separate.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)to prove Republicans intended to screw people over in voting? Overall turnout looks like it was on par with 2008.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Making it more difficult to enforce the laws.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)as proper ID to vote? After all, if you're not exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, you can't be much of a citizen, right?
lastlib
(23,286 posts)they may try it
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Here she is, 80 years old and just celebrated being married to my father for 60 years, and they have the audacity to ask her for her marriage certificate. They've lived in the same house for almost 50 years .. and of course have paid their fair share of property taxes throughout .. She's a recipient of Social Security though my father since her career has been house wife and mother for 60 years. Down here in Georgia these nasty right wing religious zealots know Republican candidates are facing an uphill battle .. so these laws, that have just been implemented, are to disenfranchise blacks, seniors, and especially Hispanics. It's such bullshit .. but this is the very kind of obstacles Southern States are using to weed out non-Republican voters .. and they know who they are. One other little note: After reading the eye-exam correctly .. the DMV officer said she had read it wrong and wasn't going to give her her license .. luckily my father was with her and read it as well and told the DMV officer she indeed had read it correctly. That would have meant my mother would have had to go to an ophthalmologist to verify her vision ability .. So I am pissed at how these people treat seniors .. My parents are still very vibrant at 80. My father still works and so does my mother part-time. They live in an area that has no public transportation .. and therefore a car is a necessity. If it were not for them and not having much time left on this planet, I'd get the hell out of this Red Neck state. But then they're making it hard on people all over to vote, I suppose. We need to march on D.C big time ... millions upon millions have got take action .. even if they send out the National Guard to shoot us. ( Hey, NSA, getting all this down boys and girls?)
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)I hope they can get the situation resolved.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)besieged with ALEC Laws being Rammed Through THINK IT MEANS?
Where is Eric Holder? This stuff started right before our last election in MY STATE that went BLUE for Obama in 2008.
and..what help have we here in NC gotten from Him and Dem Party? NADA/ZILCH.
Obama needs to tell Holder to GET OFF HIS BUTT! And Dem Party Apparatus needs to GET IN GEAR...because Dem States are falling apart for lack of INPUT from the Mighty Obama Dem Machine! We are Abandoned!
dusty trails
(174 posts)I see the possibility of the GOP taking the Senate by 2016 due to the suppression of voter rights,
and maybe a Bush in the White House.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"freedom" stuff conservatives shove in our faces strangely goes out the window once we're talking people's right to vote.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They all went on major league drinking binges believing the entire Voting Rights Act had been repealed.
Telling them it wasn't is now just noise to them.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)But last time I looked, now maybe I wrong, but Obama was elected. Does it matter if it was by 10% 5%, ? granted, I want everyone eligible to vote to be able to do so, but to bring up old news...not sure its constructive..
Vadem
(2,596 posts)GOP Chairman Rob Gleason admitted on PCN that the state's voter ID law limited President Obama's margin of victory in last year's presidential election.
I kept waiting for someone to correct the title that it wasn't VA but really PA!
Although, VA, as we know, is in the waiting for the same BS.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I first read this:
http://www.alan.com/2013/07/19/virginia-republican-chairman-happy-voter-id-laws-hurt-obama/
That post said 'Virginia' in the headline - which is incorrect.
I posted that headline on the link above here on DU but edited it with the the Political Wire headline and article - but left in the wrong word 'Virginia'.
Anyway, I've now fixed the DU OP subject line up above.
Thanks
p.s. Btw, the I think the most important thing is the SECOND EXCERPT up in the DU OP regarding the VRA's Section 3 still being intact.