RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Supremes Clear Way For Voter ID Requirement In Key Senate Race - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Supremes Clear Way For Voter ID Requirement In Key Senate Race Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • 1.4% Neanderthal
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 49,604
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 09 October 2018 - 09:21 PM

Supremes Clear Way For Voter ID Requirement In Key Senate Race

The Daily Caller
Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter
6:44 PM 10/09/2018

Excerpt:

The U.S. Supreme Court will allow a North Dakota law requiring voters to produce government ID with a current residential street address when casting ballots to take effect.

The decision, which came Tuesday and drew a brief dissent, will effect one November’s most critical Senate races.

A group of American Indians challenged the residential street address requirement, arguing that it imposes “impossible and severe burdens on the franchise for Native American voters,” as many live on reservations or otherwise lack ordinary street addresses. A federal judge agreed and prohibited the law.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted that order, so the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to restore the injunction.

North Dakota argues that the law protects the integrity of the ballot box and improves the administration of elections — the state’s filing at the high court notes there were over 800 different ballots used in the state during the 2016 election cycle, which are assigned on the basis of address.

The Supreme Court’s Tuesday order allowed the law to take effect for the general election. As is typical of orders of this nature, neither the vote count nor the reasoning was disclosed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a short dissent, which Justice Elena Kagan joined.

Ginsburg warned that the Court’s decision would create confusion in North Dakota, since the original order restraining the residential street address requirement was in effect for the primary elections in June.

“The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the secretary of state’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction,” Ginsburg wrote. “Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election.”

“If the 8th Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large,” Ginsburg added

North Dakota features a competitive Senate race in November. The incumbent, Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, faces increasingly long odds for reelection against her Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer.

*snip*

Full Article
0

#2 User is online   Howsithangin 

  • I'm dethpicable
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,237
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:45 PM

View PostLiz, on 09 October 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

Supremes Clear Way For Voter ID Requirement In Key Senate RaceA group of American Indians challenged the residential street address requirement, arguing that it imposes “impossible and severe burdens on the franchise for Native American voters,” as many live on reservations or otherwise lack ordinary street addresses.


Ok, so tie it to where their welfare checks are mailed
0

#3 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,598
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 10 October 2018 - 07:37 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 09 October 2018 - 10:45 PM, said:

Ok, so tie it to where their welfare checks are mailed


Or it can say "reservation" since they obviously don't have normal houses there. I guess 5th Tee Pee on the left after the quickie mart is too damn hard to write.
0

#4 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 33,777
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 10 October 2018 - 07:43 AM

View Postarticle, on 09 October 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

"The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the secretary of state's website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction," Ginsburg wrote.


People are Too stupid? Is that about right?
0

#5 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 16,787
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 10 October 2018 - 09:28 AM

View PostLiz, on 09 October 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

Ginsburg warned that the Court’s decision would create confusion...


...for a person like herself.
0

#6 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 23,597
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 10 October 2018 - 01:03 PM

Please please please.

This whole idea that it's going to adversely affect this group or that group is pure B.S.
The old it will especially affect poor elderly X because they often don't even have a birth certificate because they where born in Tool shed on a farm and never had a B.C. is utter B.S. So they never spent one day in school? Have never seen a doctor? Have never completed a financial transaction?
Never got married? Never PARTICIPATED IN A CENSUS, never had children? Any of those will leave a record, plus numerous states have procedures in place for events like these even though they are quite rare. Hell, 10's of thousands of people each year are denied a certain other right but yet no outrage over that.

In 2000 my Maternal Grandmother(the only Grandparent I ever really knew) passed away at age 86. Born in South Dakota and growing up on the Parries not only did she grow up without even in door plumbing or electricity neither did my mom or dad(well much later in life they did). But yet she was able to get a B.C. and I.D. Yet someone someone born around that time or later in a large city no less can't? Bull, utter bull <censored>.
If your able to get medicines, assistance, or see a doctor then you can go get a damn i.d.

Oki
0

#7 User is offline   HardRightBambi 

  • Right is Right and Left is Sinister
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 18-September 18

Posted 10 October 2018 - 03:55 PM

I smell "hanging chads" again.
0

#8 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,915
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 10 October 2018 - 04:32 PM

I wonder who paid the American Indians to put up this idiotic argument?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users