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The court ruled that the criteria are outdated and gave Congress the option of updating it.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.
Greeley died before they even counted the Electoral Votes.
James Cox becoming President with Harding’s death in 1923 (instead of Coolidge). Theodore Roosevelt becoming Vice President again in 1912 under Wilson (since Taft placed 3rd).
You would’ve had the pompous “perfumed prince” McClellan taking the Presidency with Lincoln’s assassination (now he definitely would’ve been impeached and Lafayette Foster would’ve become President probably before 1866 rolled around, with Ben Wade next in line had he lasted until 1867).
Winfield Scott Hancock becoming President with Garfield’s assassination in 1881...
It’s curious to realize how much more dangerous the role of President would’ve become with your electoral enemy VP waiting to succeed you if any harm were to come to you. I think there would’ve been countless assassination attempts and retaliations (McClellan alone would’ve been a marked man after John Wilkes Booth, and probably considered a spiritual conspirator).
Yes, indeed, a very destabilized place we would be today. Thank heavens we could amend our Constitution to correct such unforeseen errors.
His arguments are entirely sound. Your side ignores reality. Face it, Sarge, it just won’t work... unless your goal is to keep out the last remaining vestiges of decent Conservatives in that body.
But you need an ID for government assistance, to rent an apartment, section 8 housing, get food stamps, to cash a check, get utilites,etc. Recently when I had to go get an xray, I had to show my insurance card and my driver’s license to prove I AM the person with the insurance card (due to fraud)...I wonder if folks will have to show identity cards for Obamacare....ohhh but that would be racist right?
They’ve been told that repeatedly, they choose to ignore it (you’ll note they never address the subject of individual Senators). The NC legislature of 1973 would’ve elected Helms’s opponent, the liberal Democrat Congressman Nick Galifianakis (uncle of that bearded boob actor, Zach), in a landslide (as there were very few Republicans in their leg. in those days).
Jerome Corsi writes in his book "What Went Wrong" in 2012-----that swing state Dem voter fraud is a fact of life unless voter ID happens.
“Your side ignores reality.”
Well, you and I disagree on our conclusions. In the meantime, we are both on the same side. I look forward to carrying on our discussion at a later date.
Best wishes to you and yours.
It makes a big difference if your senator sees himself working for the federal government or sees himself working for the state.
If the state is your boss, then YOU are the one standing there saying to any encroaching federal government, “Hell NO!”
My State Senator sees himself doing neither. He's is in a gerrymandered safe Democrat district and see his job as a rubber stamp whatever the Democrat Party boss tells him to. That's why they anointed him to be their standbearer and he knows how to play the game and place his overlords. He is a political hack and lifetime politician who doesn't give a hoot what's best for the state, or his constituents. Whether the 17th amendment is in place or not won't change that.
You’re talking about your state senator and I’m talking about your senator who is a member of the US Senate.
You’re the one who wants my State Senator to select my U.S. Senator for me. Anti-17th amendment freepers live in a fantasy world that career state politicians actually give a crap about “the best interests of their state”
Actually, I want your legislature and not just your senator to elect your US senator. I want your senator to look to the state as his boss and not to the fed.
Why do you think that it is the Constitutional Conservatives like Mark Levin and the Tea Party people who are leading the charge to repeal the 17th Amendment? If the old system will be better for the libs, then why aren’t they on board? Why do they all prefer the status quo?
Yep. I can’t imagine a founding father who would have expected a Seantor to turn the federal government against their own state.
Thanks for the ping!
First time I had a visit, I saw a copy of Liberal Fascism in his office. I knew he was a keeper.
Why did Tea Party groups lead the charge to nominate terrible flawed candidates like Sharon Angle and Ken Buck? Why did Mark Levin endorse RINOs Orrin Hatch & Jeff Flake in the GOP primary? Why Ann Coulter endorse Romney in the primary and join the board of the GOProud "gay rights" group? I disagreed with them on all those things. Did you? Plenty of prominent self-proclaimed "conservative leaders" have taken stupid positions before that did more harm than good to our side. This is one of them.
>> If the old system will be better for the libs, then why arent they on board? <<
Because unlike you, they realize this is political poison and they'd get killed at the polls if they ran for office on a platform of "I'm going to take away your right to elect your Senator and let politicians choose your Senators for you". They can get a ton of mileage by bashing the GOP for foolishly pursuing this. They're "against" it the same way they were "against" the President taking lots of vacation time and cuddling up the Saudis when Bush was in power. And just like how they endlessly bashed Bush for doing those things, they'd be more than overjoyed to DO IT THEMSELVES if the got the opportunity and could get away with it.
>> Why do they all prefer the status quo? <<
If that's true, why didn't Obama use the bully pulpit and use his "star power" as President-elect to push for the Illinois state government to hold a special election for his vacant Senate seat? Didn't he claim he believed voters should make that choice? Instead, he was fine with allowing the corrupt, impeached Illinois Governor (Rod Blagojevich) to APPOINT a person to fill his senate seat, and give Illinois voters NO SAY in the process. Funny how he'd act that if he "strongly believes" that the voters and not the politicians should be selecting the U.S. Senator, as he claimed in 2008 in order to win an election. Gee, it seems Obama was "against" state politicians choosing Senators the same way he was "against" gay marriage -- as in "gosh darn, polls show most Americans are against this stuff, so I have to PRETEND I'm against it too, in order to get elected" Interesting, isn't it?
They do work for the federal government, in a literal sense. And they always have. But that’s neither here nor there.
More importantly NO DEMOCRAT OR RINO IS AGAINST A POWER HUNGRY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Do you understand? A Senator’s liberalism is NOT DETERMINED BY THEIR METHOD OF ELECTION. RINOS and democrats in state legislatures ARE NOT AGAINST FEDERAL POWER. How can you people not grasp that? Are you daft? You know what they really love? Federal funding for their pet projects.
For cripes sake the state legislatures ratified the 16th amendment!! They approved the federal income tax! They also banned booze due to popular fervor over the issue, and none of them stopped drinking. BTW they ratified the 17th as well.
We don’t have a problem with the federal government in this country we have a problem with all government in this country. Federal, state and local.
State governments like all government SUCK because they are controlled by politicians. Allowing a group of politicians to elect the Senate is absolutely certain to result in worse class of Senators. Even if it would give the GOP the majority at moment (the democrats would have had a large majority for 50 years straight until the GOP started taking over state houses in the 90’s so maybe kiss the Reagan tax cut goodbye) fewer of them would be conservative. Texas and Utah 2 of our best states are infested with RINO state legislators for Christ’s sake. They are no different from congressional Republicans. Say goodbye to Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and say hello to David Dewhurst and welcome back Bob Bennett. Sure as hell won’t be many “tea party” Senators.
I urge you to get away from fantasies that sound good in your head and make you feel smart and get familiar with reality.
P-Marlowe, I don’t need Mark Levin to tell me what to think and you dropping his name isn’t an argument. When did he become God? Is that why you’re for this? Cause a few talking heads you like are for it? I wish I knew the origins of this nonsense. The first person I remember hearing spout it was Zell Miller but I’m certain it predates that. Bad ideas have a way of spreading in intellectual circles. I get the appeal, return to way it was done in the past and everything will be better.
Well no it won’t, that’s a paleocon fantasy just like hiking tariffs (another paleocon pet issue). Why do you think this amendment was passed? People were fed up with the corruption and deadlocks when the legislatures failed to elect.
By the way, this scheme
1)Will never happen
2)Would be disastrous at the polls in the we actually ran on it, associating ourselves with it undermines the conservative cause
Don’t Democrats need ID to get their welfare, food stamps, Section 8 Housing, and the rest of the handouts?
What’s the big deal about the moochers using the same ID to vote?
You are right about this but I wonder if this was the intent of the 17th Amendment or an unforeseen consequence?
What would the Senate look like without the 17th Amendment?
Its the 100th anniversary of the 17th Amendment, leading us to consider what todays U.S. Senate would look like if its members werent directly elected by voters.
The answer is simple: It would be probably be controlled by the Republicans, with a chance that it could be a filibuster-proof majority.
Related Link: Happy Birthday, 17th Amendment!
Given that the House is already controlled by the GOP, laws enacted by the Democrats in the past two years may not have fared well with a Republican-controlled Congress.
Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislatures elected two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress.
Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.
I’d like to ask Sen. Hagan if I have to show a photo ID to get into her office in DC.
I wonder if our paths ever crossed paths at his office. Small world.
So you want Illinois to elect Communist Democrats for perpetuity, preventing the likes of Peter Fitzgerald, the last great and Conservative Senator, from EVER being elected ? Because guess what, you’re going to make that a reality for at least 40 Senate seats at the minimum. If I were a Democrat, I’d be all for repeal of the 17th, because I’d never have to be accountable again.
I don’t know any Tea Party people involved in this crank notion. I can tell you that there was a movement recently in my state legislature to try to remove our right to vote on our Senators, and it went over like a lead balloon. Conservatives know that placing elections in the hands of these politicians means perpetual empowerment of the elites at the expense of the people.
If the Senate represents “The People” rather than the States, then why should we even have a Senate. The House is supposed to represent “The People” and that is why we always had direct elections for the House. If the Senate also represents “The People”, then the Senste is a redundant bastard child that doubles the opportunity for crony corruption.
Would you favor an amendment eliminating the Senate altogether?
That's another bizarro aspect of this. The anti-17th crowd seems to also adore Zig Zag Zell, and heap praise on him as some kind of heroic conservative savior. Of course Zig Zag Zell (a lifelong Democrat, as he frequently reminded us) favored politicians appointing Senators. He wouldn't have gotten a Senate career without it.
If Zig Zag Zell had replaced an Al Franken-type commie RAT, then sure, we'd have to admit that his appointment to the Senate was an improvement. However, Zig Zag Zell fans seem to have amnesia and don't remember that Zig Zag Zell was appointed to replace a rock solid conservative Republican who died. His predecessor Paul Coverdell had a 100% ACU rating. Zell's appointment by evil DemonRat Roy Barnes moved the Senate to the LEFT, and allowed the Dems to take control of the Senate when Jeffords defected and so-called "conservative" Zig Zag voted with his party to put Daschle in power.
You could make a good case that Zig Zag Zell was "the best we could get" under the circumstances, given that the person who appointed him was a scumbag liberal Democrat, and that Zig Zag turned out to be far more conservative than anyone expected, but NOT that Zig Zag moved the Senate to the right or voted with the GOP when it counted.
So basically, a state politician overrides the wishes of the voters who elected a Republican in that seat, appointing a Dem who makes the Senate more liberal. Some "conservatives" here applaud that, and applaud Zig Zag for pushing for it to happen in EVERY senate seat. I swear, some conservatives are their own worst enemy.
By that argument, why should the 49 states (save Nebraska) that have Senates exist ? Those Senates are all elected by the people. You could make the argument that those Senates were supposed to reflect the interests of the individual counties (as many did, until the Supreme Court ruled they had to reflect and be apportioned based on population). No, I believe there should be two bodies and have elected officials reflecting the will of the state at large. The Senate also serves the function of slowing down the House and its initiatives (for better or for worse).
I don’t mention it often, but I favor repeal of the 26th Amendment. Unless they are members of the military, 18 year olds should not be voting. It should be returned to 21 (if not 25). I don’t believe in limitless suffrage, either. I believe those employed by the federal government (again, with the exception of military/law enforcement) should also forfeit the right to vote, since by virtue of their employment, they must vote for larger government in order to retain their jobs.
I also believe in the abolition of civil service and a return to patronage. Eliminating armies of perpetual bureaucrats supporting limitless government expansion is paramount (and those hordes, almost uniformally Democrats, undermine Republican administrations and any attempts to shrink or reform government). By patronage, a given administration brings in their own people and exit at the end of the administration. No lifelong jobs, no lifelong benefits, and NO governmental unions.
These initiatives would go a helluva lot further into restoring small government than repealing the 17th.
The Senate provides equal suffrage to the states irrespective of population which is very important. Wouldn’t you say that’s a more important distinction from the House than the method of election? I sure would.
I see it as an outgrowth of the dixiecrat/paleocon/neo-confederate faction, it all seems to tie in with that nonsense. A lot of born and bred democrats in that crowd. Andrew Jackson democrats rather than Barack Obama democrats, but still. Or perhaps I should say Calhoun democrats since Jackson stood up to the nullifiers and secessionists and this crowd seems to be down with that.
Civil service now there is a “reform” that backfired. Chester Arthur’s folly. I’m with you 100% on that, the damn government worker unions and career bureaucrats are perhaps our biggest problem. They are all 100% loyal to the left and there’s not damn thing we can do cause they can’t be summarily canned.
The idea doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind it and the national impetus to push for it following Garfield’s assassination (although just because a job-seeking lone nutter did a heinous act shouldn’t have been the main motivating factor). What I’m not sure is how many could’ve envisioned that replacing patronage with what turned out to be armies of government bureaucrats whom are almost impossible to terminate.
Of course I don't favor a unicamerial legislature at the federal level. Even if the misguided anti-17th loons were correct that Senators and Congressman had the same purpose, having two houses of Congress makes it more difficult for them to pass legislation (especially right now when the two houses are controlled by different parties), and that's a good thing, IMO.
The anti-17th argument that "Congressman and Senators now serve the same function and are redundant since they're both elected from the same state" is also ridiculous when you look at the House delegations and Senate delegations from various states. They obviously represent VERY different constituencies. Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee of Texas would NEVER be Senator Shelia Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland would NEVER be Senator Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. The demographics and interests of their district's constituents is vastly different than the state as a whole.
Field's suggestion of abolishing the 26th amendment is a worthy idea. It would never pass, but given that most 18-20 year olds don't vote anyway, and most of the ones that do are too ill-formed and ignorant to vote (not to mention they tend to be overwhelmingly liberal and pro-Obama), it would probably benefit our country if we limited voting suffrage to people age 21 or over. I was a conservative, informed voter at age 18, but unfortunately I was in the extreme minority at that age.
Hell I probably would have been for it at the time. Meritocracy sounds good. But it turned out to be a frying pan into fire situation.
With human nature being what it is I don’t know if a meritocracy is even possible.
The anti-17thers are extremely outspoken and would have us believe that trusting big government to appoint politicians for us is the "true conservative" position and one that the "tea party" embraces, but it's interesting how they NEVER poll grassroot conservatives and tea party members to gauge the level of support for it.
I think they probably fear what most of us suspect would be the results... you'd get around 20-25% of conservatives to endorse the idea, and the 60-70% or more opposed (with everyone else "undecided"). They can't sell people on this kool-aid, so they just run around screaming that you have to agree with Mark Levin on everything or you're a liberal RINO progressive Woodrow Wilson fan who "hates the constitution" and "doesn't understand the founders".
I see a similar attitude with the "only allow creationism in public schools" crowd. They'd you believe that they speak for conservatives as a whole, but their viewpoint is actually opposed by most conservatives and it only seems more popular than it is because they're screaming about it constantly and demanding everyone else accept their worldview.
There are other such fringe positions around (there are numerous Christian conservatives who still believe alcohol is the root of all evil and the prohibition should be re-instated, for example). The difference is, they're not running around on talk radio and yelling at the top of their lungs that they speak for the Tea Party, so we don't have to worry about them embarrassing us.