Skip to comments.Hagan demands review of NC voter law
Posted on 08/13/2013 2:47:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) on Tuesday called on the Justice Department to review her states new voter identification law, calling it one of the most restrictive in the country.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed into law a bill on Monday that would require voters to show government identification when voting, shorten early-voting days, cut off same-day registration and end a program to preregister teens who would be eligible to vote by Election Day.
I am deeply concerned that H.B. 589 will restrict the ability of minorities, seniors, students, the disabled, and low and middle incomes citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote, Hagan said in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Hagan is one of four Senate Democrats up for reelection next year in red states won by presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. Her Senate campaign will not be immediately affected by the law, which goes into effect in 2016.
Protecting the fundamental right of our citizens to vote should be among the federal governments highest priorities, she said.
Some Democrats argue that the law targets a segment of the population that traditionally votes for Democrats.
The Justice Department is considering taking action against North Carolina and a handful of states after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act earlier this year.
In a narrow decision, the justices invalidated a portion of the law that required a number of Southern states with a history of voter suppression to clear all new voting regulations with the federal government.
The court ruled that the criteria are outdated and gave Congress the option of updating it.
The Justice Department has already said it would challenge a voter ID law in Texas and has not ruled out similar action in North Carolina, where lawsuits have already been filed by other groups challenging the law.
Hagan leads all potential Republican Senate opponents in a new survey from the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling.
Some of her opponents including state House Speaker Thom Tillis (R) are dragged down by voters disapproval of the North Carolina state legislature, which has passed a number of controversial bills since Republicans won control in Raleigh.
This is why we need to repeal the 17th Amendment!
“I am deeply concerned that H.B. 589 will restrict the ability of scoundrels, communists, fascists, racists and other democrat scum to stuff ballot boxes and elect traitors and seditionists like me.”
This is excellent. Brannon can hit her as being out of touch and against voter integrity. It also means she can’t pull an Al Frankenstein.
There is much to comment on, but a quick observation is how the media fixate not on the law per-se and its positive attributes, but the vile leftist scum protesting it, because it disenfranchises those who would commit the voter fraud that feeds the democrat party crime machine. Senator Hagen can stick it.
Yeah, repeal it and empower the politicians even more.
:: I am deeply concerned that H.B. 589 will restrict the ability of minorities, seniors, students, the disabled, and low and middle incomes citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote ::
Senator Hagan, let us detail and dissect the word you used, “citizens”. How is that determined, please?
Democrats should be required to explain why they are so determined to defend electoral fraud.
I know, its self evident. But I’m tired of Repubs who are afraid of their own shadows.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Next to the 16th Amendment, the 17th was the worst amendment. The direct election of Senators defeats the whole original purpose of the Senate, which was to have the State Legislatures elect the Senators so that the Senators could represent the States and not the mob. Now we have a Senate filled with people who could care less about what their States want. People like McCain and Flake who actively work against the interests of their own states because they are elected by being able to buy advertising on daytime TV to convince the uneducated masses that they will bring them goodies from Washington.
The Framers were smarter than you, my FRiend.
The new senate beginning in 1913 is a monster, a political Frankenstein that combines the worst of long termed popularly elected politicians with incredible power tied to the executive branch.
No way would a state appointed senator think of challenging an obviously needed law.
It is way beyond time for an Article V amendment convention.
We’ve had this discussion endlessly. Repeal would result in an even disastrous situation and you’d never get another Conservative Senator again. The Democrat states would send Communists (and you’d immediately put 40 seats permanently under their control) and the Republican states would send establishment turds. Even Texas would’ve sent the likes of DewCrist and Karl Rove (the latter as a thank you to Dubya). Their legislature can’t even dump their RINO House Speaker and you think they’d send Ted Cruz to DC ?
As for states’ interests, that disappeared early in the 19th century and that won’t come back with repeal. All you’d do is empower the corrupt political interests who’d bypass the people, and that corruption would extend all the way down like tentacles from Washington to your local State Representative. To that idea, I say: “No Way !”
Greg Brannon the Conservative in this race (who’s personal hero is the late Senator Jesse Helms-this was Helms’ seat as well..).
We need to return this to conservative hands (especially since NC already has conservative momentum) from 2012 and then this recent legislative session.
He can win IF WE WILL SUPPORT HIM. He has been endorsed by Redstate.com and Erick Erickson, and I will be proud to vote for Dr. Brannon as well (a pro-life Obstetrician).
Dr. Brannon would sure be part of the “wacko-bird” alliance in the US Senate including Sens. Lee, Paul, Cruz, and others..
What crocodile tears!!! What it will do is to restrict their ability to vote multiple times!
” What it will do is to restrict their ability to vote multiple times! “
Show me ONE poor person who doesn’t have an ID, and I will show you a junkie who lives in an alley.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment is central to reestablishing a constitutional republic.
You keep living in this fantasy world of what you think it will magically be with repeal while ignoring what it was by the time repeal was made. The level of corruption was an epidemic and the entirety of the country demanded something be done about it, and that was direct accountability. You refuse to acknowledge what present political dynamics would mean for the membership. No Ted Cruz. No Rand Paul. No Mike Lee. Nothing but Democrat Communists and RINO squishes. That’s an improvement ?
I will have so much fun voting for Dr. Brannon.
In order to get the kind of Senators you want, you’d have to also limit suffrage to the same kinds of people able to vote in 1789. For those that don’t know, it would be explicitly limited to landowning White males over 21.
Are you willing to support that ? If not, it will just be the corrupt caricature of special interests it was in 1913, but far worse in the current climate.
Does P-Marlowe also favor repealing the 12th amendment so Mitt Romney will be Obama’s Vice President? The framers CLEARLY established that the runner up for President would become Vice President when they ratified the Constitution in 1788. According to the anti-17th amendment crowd, the framers were infallible when they set up the government, and we must NEVER EVER deviate from what the framers established. I guess “our Republic was destroyed” because we never got to have Vice President Gore in a Bush administration, Vice President Carter in a Reagan administration, etc, etc.
I didn't say the Framers were infallible. I said they were smarter than YOU.
I don't think you will find anyone on this forum who would say otherwise.
Uh, no. I have never promised anything of the sort. It is you who keeps assuming that I do.
The level of corruption was an epidemic.
Not true. It is what the progressives of the day repeated for decades, since the 1880s with the intent of destroying enumerated powers. Oh, and even if true, corruption is dealt with via statutes and not constitutional amendments. Sheesh.
With a hundred year track record, you can certainly defend the 17th, right? So tell me how popular election of senators has secured our rights and kept the national government within its constitutional box.
Societies make mistakes. The Leftist 17th Amendment you support is one of them.
What crocodile tears!!! What it will do is to restrict their ability to vote multiple times!
Obama/Holder tried pulling that crap here in Georgia...Georgia prevailed.
So did the passage of the twelfth amendment in 1804 destroy our Republic? Should we repeal it and get to what the framers had in mind in 1788? They must have been smarter than the people who came up with a different method of picking the Vice President years later, right?
Vice-President Goldwater under LBJ would’ve been a hoot. Vice-President McGovern under Nixon, not so much (though after a year a half of him as President with Nixon’s impeachment, he probably would’ve lost in ‘76 — although returned to VP).
Promoting fraudulent voting is an important goal for Democrats, or Hillary wouldn’t have brought it up so prominently yesterday, and Senator Hagan wouldn’t have seized on the issue to express her passionate conviction that non-citizens must continue to be allowed to vote in American elections.
Somehow the Democrats must find a way to make cheating at the voting booth COOL, or they won’t be able to continue to attract the critical illegal support they need to win elections now that states like North Carolina are cracking down on voting fraud. Maybe they can find some foreign-born celebrities whose visas ran out but continued to vote to lead ‘’Get-Out-The-Illegal-Vote!’’ drives as elections near.
Sorry, your argument for the 17th amendment lacks a good measure of reasoned thought.
Before the 17th amendment passage, we still had a strong constitutional republic. After passage, we lost our constitution and freedoms. We got gun control, abortion, restriction of private property and a dozen other attacks on our liberties.
If we had senators looking out for their states, we would have not seen the dissolution of the 9th and 10th amendments by the black-robed fascist courts over the past 100 years. Impeachment of justices would have happened.
I can’t agree with you; you need to to rethink your position and join us in the patriot movement.
The ironic thing is your beloved state legislatures overwhelmingly ratified it (only 8 states failed to do so, and only in a single state did the legislature explicitly vote it down), and it wouldn't have become the law of the land without them.
Oh, and that income tax amendment you say is as bad as the 17th? It was passed by state legislature appointed Senators, NOT popularly elected ones.
Ah, but that's precisely what you do with this foolishness.
"Not true. It is what the progressives of the day repeated for decades, since the 1880s with the intent of destroying enumerated powers. Oh, and even if true, corruption is dealt with via statutes and not constitutional amendments. Sheesh."
Sorry, but it is true. You're talking to a political historian here who knows the facts.
"With a hundred year track record, you can certainly defend the 17th, right? So tell me how popular election of senators has secured our rights and kept the national government within its constitutional box."
The hilarity here is that YOU want to entrust these same politicians with even more power... give them a blank check and absolute control over half the federal legislative branch. Given the choice of direct accountability to the people or a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "accountability" to their flunkies or puppetmasters (whichever way it goes) in the state capitols. Yeah, brilliant.
"Societies make mistakes. The Leftist 17th Amendment you support is one of them."
No, Jack, it's not a mistake. You keep repeating foolishness with the hope that if it's said enough times it will somehow be true. BTW, where's that list of great individuals that will populate that Senate of yours ? I guess you don't want Cruz or Paul or Lee. Interesting you keep refusing to acknowledge that.
Really? Half your fellow anti-17thers claim this happened in 1865, and Abraham Lincoln "destroyed our Republic". The other half of you claim we were a "storng constitutional Republic" in 1912. Your argument make more sense if the anti-17thers could get together in a room and agree on a unified talking about whether our Republic was "destroyed" in 1865 or 1913. Make up your minds.
>> We got gun control, abortion, restriction of private property and a dozen other attacks on our liberties. <<
Now you're blaming an amendment in 1913 for a bunch of legislation that didn't come up until the 60s and 70s. Liberals will blame the 2nd amendment on modern day school shootings, their argument doesn't have any more validity than yours.
You are arguing apples and oranges. I'm not interested in your idiotic analogies. The 17th Amendment basically destroyed the 10th Amendment and transferred all that State power to Washington.
Senators now represent themselves and the corporations that contribute to their re-election rather than the States to which they come from.
Previously Senators had to go before their State Legislatures every 6 years and beg for the opportunity to keep their jobs. Now all they need to do is to get enough American Idol viewers to think that they will bring them other people's money and give them goodies and they get themselves re-elected by the mob.
Senators now are beholden to low information voters and corporate sponsors. They routinely ignore the best interests of the States from which they hail.
Placing blame on this erosion on the 17th exclusively is absurd. The Senate was already corrupt by the 19th century and had been becoming moreso for decades. This was about direct accountability, plain and simple. Statesmen valiantly fighting for states rights was largely gone — it was ALL about power. You could make the argument that “looking out for the states” was effectively eviscerated with the Civil War.
Beg to keep their jobs ? Hell, by the latter half of the 19th century, they were bribing them. It was so audacious and without shame that a directly elected body was the only way to curb such open corruption of state legislators — and you want to go back to that ?
Spare me your ad hominem shrieking for someone who cares. I assure you, they have no effect.
I so hope you are nowhere near students.
Oh gee! That would be an unbiased investigation! /S
So, do you think they were smart to MAKE THE CONSTITUTION AMENDABLE so we could make changes if needed? Cause they did.
They were smarter than you.
I expose your fraud of a stance (again, WHERE is that list of names of Senators that would be serving in your magical Senate, ones defending states rights ?) and you act hysterically indignant. My query to students would be asking them the REAL reasons why the 17th was brought about (and again, ratified by the states, mind you) and how the members that served prior to it failed to live up to that Constitutional snuff you mentioned.
I’d also have them list what likely persons would serve in the Senate today (with repeal) based on the dynamics of the individual states. It would NOT be pretty.
This one is an NAACP Executive.
Hagan sounds like a standard Democrat liberal ahole. Repeating “Big Lies” like an automaton or a member of the Hitler Youth/Komsomol.
Pretty some she will be on the Endangered Feces list of Democratic politicians in No. Carolina.
Let the purges begin!
Yawn. Answer my questions.
How would they be empowered?
They’d be held more accountable by the state legislatures that send them there. And given the fact that republicans are the majority in the majority of the states right now, then I doubt we’d be having, at least, some of the problems we’re having now.
Vice-President McGovern under Nixon would have been the ONLY way to “restore our Republic”. No doubt since the original 1787 wording of the U.S. Constitution provided for that and we mustn’t EVER tamper with what the framers came up with. ;-)
Some other fun ones:
Vice President Charles Evans Hughes in Wilson’s 2nd term, when he suffers a massive stroke.
Vice President William Jennings Bryan in a McKinley administration. He would have taken oath in 1901 and veered this country on the path to socialism, 12 years BEFORE the “progressive era” the anti-17thers are screaming about.
Vice President Horace Greeley in a Grant administration
Vice President John C. Breckinridge in an Lincoln administration (talk about a Civil War!)
Vice President Winfield Scott in a Pierce administration
Also, if the 12th was repealed: we have gotten a President Winfield Scott Hancock in 1881, a President Thomas Dewey in 1945, and a President Nixon in 1963.
Here is how it should be punished:
The founders allowed modern day Americans to CHANGE what the founders had provided for in the Constitution?! Yikes! The founders must have really hated the founders. We should immediately amend the constitution to repeal the section that allows us to amend it. Only then we will be able to get back to the government that the founders provided. ;-)
Oh BTW, you know Jesse Helms? He never would have been a Senator under your plan cause the rats only recently lost control of the North Carolina legislature.
Honestly, you people. Think. Putting more power into the hands of politicians? Seriously? Jesus.
Politicians are scum, your state legislator is no more likely to have your “state’s interests” at heart than your Congressman. What matters is are they a non-corrupt conservative Republican or not, that’s all that matters. That is the only distinguishing feature. If they are they do, if they are a democrat or RINO then THEY DON’T.
You know who virtually the entire Republican membership of the Texas legislature thought should be a Senator? Why the boss of the State Senate RINO David Dewhurst. Thank goodness the people had other ideas. Can you say cronyism?
You’d have a small handful of state legislative leaders making the choices. No sale.
Aww, you’re sleepy. G’night.
Keep on reading.
“Now you’re blaming an amendment in 1913 for a bunch of legislation that didn’t come up until the 60s and 70s. Liberals will blame the 2nd amendment on modern day school shootings, their argument doesn’t have any more validity than yours.”
If you think gun control started in the 1960s, you need to sue your history teachers for fraud or buy a new set of reading glasses.
The rest of your strawmen are poorly constructed and fell down in the wind.