It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama Shows Exactly How Voter ID Laws Can Be Used for Voter Suppression

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Shamrock6

Similar things happen in Texas, where the small towns in West Texas have mobile workers that travel to and staff the offices. Lamesa, TX is open on Monday and Tuesday, Stanton, TX is open on Friday, Big spring on Wed and Thu (for example) using the same staff.

It allows people who are not really that mobile (travelling an hour) to conduct business with the least friendly customer service staff on the planet.


They've stripped our DMV here in SW AZ on the Mexican border - - to the "bare bones". Removed all chairs - its now standing in line only, waiting for your number to be called.

There's rumor they want to close it completely. Not sure what happens then. Phoenix is 3 hours away.




posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it is intentional or not, it creates an adverse impact on black voters, and it therefore violating the civil rights of Alabama residents.

No way around it.


What does a black voter have to do that is different from a white voter?


Drive.

But you are asking the wrong question: is the closing of access to the licensing creating an adverse impact on minorities who are wanting to vote? The answer is unequivocally 'Yes".



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it is intentional or not, it creates an adverse impact on black voters, and it therefore violating the civil rights of Alabama residents.

No way around it.


What does a black voter have to do that is different from a white voter?


Drive.

But you are asking the wrong question: is the closing of access to the licensing creating an adverse impact on minorities who are wanting to vote? The answer is unequivocally 'Yes".


Not in this case, as has been shown.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Voter turnout isn't how it gets measured.

You measure adverse impact. If a government move creates an adverse impact on a protected class, then the move is a violation of civil rights. It doesn't matter if the white half of a county goes and votes.

If you are going to put licensing as a hurdle for voting, you cannot restrict licensing. It seems that someone agreed with me, as the courts made the offices reopen. It doesn't matter if you think it is "right" or not. Its the truth, and that is all that I am discussing here. The philosophy of race is for another discussion.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it is intentional or not, it creates an adverse impact on black voters, and it therefore violating the civil rights of Alabama residents.

No way around it.


What does a black voter have to do that is different from a white voter?


Drive.

But you are asking the wrong question: is the closing of access to the licensing creating an adverse impact on minorities who are wanting to vote? The answer is unequivocally 'Yes".


Not in this case, as has been shown.



Oh really?

Looks to me like the courts are using the same interpretation as I am here.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. On whom does the burden lie to ensure they meet the requirements to vote?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
How do you sleep at night after posting such nonsense? It doesn't weigh on your conscious?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. On whom does the burden lie to ensure they meet the requirements to vote?


On them.

However, you cannot put a licensing requirement on a civil right, then remove the ability to acquire that licensing from only areas where minority populations are highest.

Im shocked that you aren't seeing that, honestly. Its voter suppression, plain and simple. No matter how you try to paint it, its an attempt to suppress a voting bloc.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargamel

In the case of the DMV shenanigans? Travel further to get a state issued ID. What people need to understand is that the way suppression works is by making things a bit more of a challenge. It could be making people travel further. Or it could be something like what the GOP in NC tried just recently. Did you follow that one at all?

Insight: Emails show how Republicans lobbied to limit voting hours in North Carolina

Essentially, they identified the times/days when more blacks/Democrats were likely to vote and then set about trying to shut that # down.


In emails, state and county Republican officials lobbied members of at least 17 county election boards to keep early-voting sites open for shorter hours on weekends and in evenings – times that usually see disproportionately high turnout by Democratic voters. Reuters obtained the emails through a public records request.

The officials also urged county election boards to open fewer sites for residents to cast ballots during early voting that began on Oct. 20 and ends on Saturday.


One of the idiots straight up came out with it in email.


Garry Terry, the chairman of the Republican Party for North Carolina’s First Congressional District, sent an email on Aug. 13 to elections board members in his region, reminding them to act “in the best interest of the Republican Party” by opposing Sunday voting and restricting early voting to one location.


The GOP's 2013 Voter ID law of course not only implemented an ID requirement but also sought to end same day registration and greatly curtail early voting, because they knew that it would impact black and more generally, Democratic voters more than it would white and predominately Republican voters.

Excerpts from majority opinion in case posted by News Observer:


... The record evidence is clear that this is exactly what was done here. For example, the State argued before the district court that the General Assembly enacted changes to early voting laws to avoid “political gamesmanship” with respect to the hours and locations of early voting centers. J.A. 22348. As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. Id. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. In response, SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting.

Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race – specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.


Straight up voter suppression. What's really shocking is that they admitted that they knew that Sunday voting was disproportionately being utilized by black voters and that it was their justification for ending it.
edit on 2017-12-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it is intentional or not, it creates an adverse impact on black voters, and it therefore violating the civil rights of Alabama residents.

No way around it.


What does a black voter have to do that is different from a white voter?



Drive.

But you are asking the wrong question: is the closing of access to the licensing creating an adverse impact on minorities who are wanting to vote? The answer is unequivocally 'Yes".


Maybe it was the wrong question because it didn't support your view. The offices are still open and the law applies to everyone. So again tell me how equal application of a law adversely affects one group and not another.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it is intentional or not, it creates an adverse impact on black voters, and it therefore violating the civil rights of Alabama residents.

No way around it.


What does a black voter have to do that is different from a white voter?


Drive.

But you are asking the wrong question: is the closing of access to the licensing creating an adverse impact on minorities who are wanting to vote? The answer is unequivocally 'Yes".


Not in this case, as has been shown.



Oh really?

Looks to me like the courts are using the same interpretation as I am here.


Yes, and those offices have be opened and given more hours, as your article states.

So it is not creating an adverse situation as you said, because its has been resolved, as has been shown on this thread.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargamel

No, the offices were reopened after it was decided that Alabama was using a racist voter suppression scheme by the courts.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. On whom does the burden lie to ensure they meet the requirements to vote?


On them.

However, you cannot put a licensing requirement on a civil right, then remove the ability to acquire that licensing from only areas where minority populations are highest.

Im shocked that you aren't seeing that, honestly. Its voter suppression, plain and simple. No matter how you try to paint it, its an attempt to suppress a voting bloc.


So they removed only from black areas?

You sure about that?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: pavil

Voter turnout isn't how it gets measured.

You measure adverse impact. If a government move creates an adverse impact on a protected class, then the move is a violation of civil rights. It doesn't matter if the white half of a county goes and votes.

If you are going to put licensing as a hurdle for voting, you cannot restrict licensing. It seems that someone agreed with me, as the courts made the offices reopen. It doesn't matter if you think it is "right" or not. Its the truth, and that is all that I am discussing here. The philosophy of race is for another discussion.


You are referring to "disparate impact" which is social justice government jargon for using statistics to prove racism even when the facts say otherwise.

In other words, if you do something that results in minorities being affected disproportionately even though said act is not racist in of itself, you can still claim it to be racist.

Government uses this a lot in regulation of banks. For example, a bank may only make loans to those whose FICO scores are above 740. However, after examination, it may be determined that because of said policy, minorities are under represented because they have on average lower FICO scores, then the government will claim disparate impact and require the bank to rectify the situation... i.e., start making loans to less qualified individuals.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it is intentional or not, it creates an adverse impact on black voters, and it therefore violating the civil rights of Alabama residents.

No way around it.


What does a black voter have to do that is different from a white voter?


Drive.

But you are asking the wrong question: is the closing of access to the licensing creating an adverse impact on minorities who are wanting to vote? The answer is unequivocally 'Yes".


Not in this case, as has been shown.



Oh really?

Looks to me like the courts are using the same interpretation as I am here.


Yes, and those offices have be opened and given more hours, as your article states.

So it is not creating an adverse situation as you said, because its has been resolved, as has been shown on this thread.


Im not saying its not resolved. Im saying doing it in the first place was an obvious act of voter suppression of minorities, which is racist by its very definition.

The courts agree.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Did someone hack into your account?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. On whom does the burden lie to ensure they meet the requirements to vote?


On them.

However, you cannot put a licensing requirement on a civil right, then remove the ability to acquire that licensing from only areas where minority populations are highest.

Im shocked that you aren't seeing that, honestly. Its voter suppression, plain and simple. No matter how you try to paint it, its an attempt to suppress a voting bloc.


Your entire argument is based on the offices being closed. The offices are not closed. Further to that is the fact that of the 31 offices originally closed and reopened only 8 of them were in minority areas.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
"Take a look at the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of non-white registered voters. That's Macon, Greene, Sumter, Lowndes, Bullock, Perry, Wilcox, Dallas, Hale, and Montgomery, according to the Alabama Secretary of State's office. Alabama, thanks to its budgetary insanity and inanity, just opted to close driver license bureaus in eight of them. All but Dallas and Montgomery will be closed.

Closed. In a state in which driver licenses or special photo IDs are a requirement for voting."



Alabama has a FREE Photo Voter ID program.

At certain issuing offices around the state, a person can go and register to vote and apply for a FREE photo voter ID card.

There is an office in every single county named in the snippet you quoted (above).

*ahem* Identification that is acceptable for proof of identity for one of these cards includes:


Wholesale club or other membership card.


So it's not difficult for black people or anyone else in Alabama to obtain a state issued photo voter ID card...

...real or fictional, living or dead.

And did I mention they give these out for FREE!

Link

***

ETA: I believe I read a driver's license cost $35+. I wonder whose votes are really being suppressed -- all things considered.

edit on 12/12/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Im referring to "adverse impact" which is the legal hurdle. You don't have to like it, but its the stick that our government uses to measure equal opportunity treatment with.

If something results in minorities being affected disproportionately, it is absolutely "racist". It may not be on purpose, or it may. But at the end of the day, its racist and a violation of civil rights. You can not like that if you want. But its the way things work.

Im not going to get into banking and loans. Its not part of the topic.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Did someone hack into your account?


No. Im just trying to point out that the OP is claiming that the closings were racist, and that the law supports that claim.

To say it doesn't is ignoring the fact that courts have already supported that claim.

In response, folks here want to debate the philosophy of race instead of the reality of the law.




top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join