Editorial: Cynical partisan attack on NC voters

Posted September 7


A CBC Editorial: Wednesday, Sept. 7. 2016; Editorial# 8052
The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company

Enough is enough. First, North Carolina citizens are gerrymandered so extensively that the politicians picked their voters. Then, there’s an election law bill that slashes voting opportunities for African-Americans and young people. So, some politicians make it more difficult for those who might oppose them to get to the polls.

Playing these cynical games with voting shows a lack of respect for our most important right and makes a mockery of our elections.

The state’s Republican leadership, party officials and power players in the General Assembly who are responsible, say it’s just politics as usual and an appropriate part of the process.

Meanwhile the courts have said that the legislature has crafted discriminatory and unconstitutional voting laws.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has a chance Thursday to begin to straighten to out this nonsense. It should start with the voters – and do everything possible to enable as many eligible voters as possible get to the polls.

Mark Ezzell, the Democrat on the Wake County Board of Elections, has presented a reasonable and workable plan to provide a full 17-day early-voting period. It includes provisions for two Sunday voting opportunities and additional polling places.

The state board should approve Ezzell’s proposal.

Further, Kim Strach, executive director of the State Board of Elections, should recommend to the state board that it direct all local board of elections to implement early voting plans that similarly offer a full 17 days of early voting – including two Sundays – and renew efforts to reach out to young voters. Cutting back on opportunities to vote, no matter the target, is wrong.

The state Board of Elections first obligation is to uphold the rights of voters and not play politics at the ballot box. Acquiescing to political gimmicks corrupts the most basic privilege and obligation citizens have in a democracy.

Thursday the State Board of Elections should unequivocally take the side of ALL voters.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Aiden Audric Sep 12, 10:55 a.m.
    user avatar

    Argumentum ad hominem. Predictable choice.

  • Aiden Audric Sep 9, 8:11 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    A person can fly without an ID. Literally. Sure, you saw there's paperwork involved but in the end, you can fly without an ID.

    Cherry picked? Check Cliff's list. He presented them, I warned folks that the list is inaccurate (benefits, such as social security and Medicare, and flying). I gave examples. I provided how to verify. Facts don't lie. That was my argument: the list is inaccurate and makes a poor foundation for "well, you need an ID for this so why is voting different?!?"

    Now, what about that preemption?

  • Skip Harris Sep 9, 4:46 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Very presumptuous of you. Your point was never valid to begin with. You cherry pick an automatic enrollment for which you have already provided ID and a TSA policy that is the equivalent of applying for an ID. Your argument is so absurd as to be laughable to all but yourself. But hang on to those strings of argument you have remaining as you wish. The examples you cite are much more stringent than the alternatives to having an ID provided for in the voter ID law. I guess those examples are OK since they fit your argument. Very selective of you.

  • Aiden Audric Sep 9, 1:48 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Okay, now that we established that using "an ID is required for (fill in the blank)" doesn't make for a good argument's foundation as it's false, we can move onto the supremacy clause.


  • Skip Harris Sep 9, 1:32 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    I hope that you loosened up for all of the stretching you are doing. I wouldn't want you pull something. We don't have a national ID because of this little thing called states rights. There is this very interesting document that discusses this called the US Constitution. It is readily available on the internet if you would be interested in reading it.

  • Aiden Audric Sep 9, 10:43 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    So, right! So ,"if you want benefits, you have to have an ID!" isn't exactly true. We agree on that.

    My ID-less flight will go exactly as described on the TSA web site. Not as smoothly, but I'll be on the plane and in the air.

    Honestly, though - ID is a red herring. We all know it's not about identifying voters or we'd have a national voting ID.

  • Aiden Audric Sep 8, 7:33 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    TSA web site.
    Medicare is auto-enrollment, from the Medicare web site.

    You may want to read those sites you referenced; the information is plainly there.

  • Aiden Audric Sep 8, 9:28 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    That's a common misconception - you actually can fly without an ID. Even in some states, you don't need an ID to apply for unemployment. Going on Medicare? No ID needed.

    The issue isn't whether one has one of IDs on the short list of acceptable IDs. It's that the republicans looked at democratic voting habits and then wrote laws to make those ways harder. Sure, one can get an ID (with some finding it quite difficult, though). But that's the red herring that makes "you need an ID to fly!" seem like a reasonable "duh! Even a caveman gets it!" justification for a law that was designed to suppress voting.

  • Skip Harris Sep 7, 5:03 p.m.
    user avatar

    Well, first of all Seth, gerrymandering is something that is done to a district not a citizen. Since you aren't actually a journalist and don't write these screeds under your own name I know that you don't really care though. However, it would be nice if you could save some of your "outrage" for those within your own party who are guilty of the same or worse. But again, I don't suppose that little things like facts or history can get in the way of your partisan propaganda.

  • Danny Basden Sep 7, 4:39 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    The reason the Republicans finally won in gerrymandered Democratically drawn districts is that a whole lot of people got tired of their mismanagement and decided to vote them out. That was a trend in our state as well as the national elections. As for our state, until that election, it was 100 years of Democrats drawing, redrawing and rigging the system. Here is the proof of what Clif wrote about. http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/REDIST/Redsum/ncsum.htm I can't remember who the quote belongs to but it was basically said of District 12 that, "if you open your car doors and drive north on I-85 from South Carolina to Durham you would hit everyone in the district." And if you look at the maps drawn by the Dems, that is a pretty good assessment. Both parties have been guilty - just the Dems have had about 86 more years of it.