This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • jdupree Aug 15, 5:20 p.m.

    Wish they would get enthusiatic about all the drugs and killing in their community! This is for show and is race baiting of the worst kind. The NAACP is not interested in doing the heavy lifting.

  • GALNC Aug 15, 9:01 a.m.

    She also claims that voter ID provisions of the bill will force her to obtain new paperwork in order to vote. Eaton has a North Carolina driver's license, birth certificate and voter registration card, but the names vary slightly. Under the new law, those documents must match.

    Sorry, but they should match. I am a minority women who does not mind showing her drivers license to vote..in fact, I think it should be mandatory. I had to change it when my name changed..it's what you do...you don't fight trying to keep your correct legal name.

    Rev Barber..it's not discrimination...but asking you to prove who you are with id which is required to get a drivers license or buy alcohol. Get over trying to create a racial divide and do some good for a change versus spewing hateful agendas.

  • junkmail5 Aug 15, 8:50 a.m.

    Actually, Indiana has a very similar requirement as NC for voting. Here it is:Section 1. Elections Section 1. All elections shall be free and equal.- BPractical

    Actually, no, they don't.

    The Indiana one says if you meet those requirements listed you MAY vote.

    that language leaves open the door for further regulation or discretion.

    the NC one says "shall be entitled to vote" unless you fail to meet the specific requirements IN THE CONSTITUTION.

    Which doesn't.

    May and Shall are -different- words, legally.

    (In fact that specific difference was a huge issue in the the Florida supreme court ruling over the Bush/Gore election)

  • BPractical Aug 14, 7:28 p.m.

    "I'm not arguing either way on the whatever you too were arguing about, I'm talking about how does one determine the constitutionality of a law. Plenty Coups"

    That's pretty simple and was my point. "One" doesn't determine the constitutionality of a law, but can only have an opinion on it. The courts are the only places that can determine this.

  • Plenty Coups Aug 14, 7:18 p.m.

    "Actually, Indiana has a very similar requirement as NC for voting. Here it is:Section 1. Elections Section 1. All elections shall be free and equal."

    I'm not arguing either way on the whatever you too were arguing about, I'm talking about how does one determine the constitutionality of a law.

  • Plenty Coups Aug 14, 7:15 p.m.

    "It hasn't been ended. In fact, the exact same amount of voting hours were maintained. It is simply over less days."

    But why was it necessary? Why the need to not allow paying workers for voter registration drives, why the end for high school kids to preregister? Why the end for same day registration? Why does absentee balloting get no new restrictions?

  • BPractical Aug 14, 7:10 p.m.

    "If a provision of the constitution is kind of vague, you'd have a good argument. But when there's clear precedent, of if there's specific constitutional guidelines, then one can be pretty sure if a law is constitutional or not. Plenty Coups"

    Actually, Indiana has a very similar requirement as NC for voting. Here it is:Section 1. Elections
    Section 1. All elections shall be free and equal.

    Section 2. Voting qualifications
    Section 2. (a) A citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding an election may vote in that precinct at the election.

    (b) A citizen may not be disenfranchised under subsection (a), if the citizen is entitled to vote in a precinct under subsection (c) or federal law.

    (c) The General Assembly may provide that a citizen who ceases to be a resident of a precinct before an election may vote in a precinct.

    The voter ID was ruled constitutional even still.

  • BPractical Aug 14, 6:57 p.m.

    "Why is it important to end it? Plenty Coups"

    It hasn't been ended. In fact, the exact same amount of voting hours were maintained. It is simply over less days.

  • Plenty Coups Aug 14, 6:38 p.m.

    "Funny--until relatively recently there was NO early voting--you went to the polls on election day or not at all."

    Why is it important to end it?

  • Plenty Coups Aug 14, 6:12 p.m.

    "This is still not correct. It's not unconstitutional until it's ruled unconstitutional by the NC Supreme Court."

    If a provision of the constitution is kind of vague, you'd have a good argument. But when there's clear precedent, of if there's specific constitutional guidelines, then one can be pretty sure if a law is constitutional or not.

  • rebelbelle Aug 14, 6:12 p.m.

    If she has an NC drivers license and her voter registration matches that document, why would she have a problem. She has a month or so to make sure she is registered under the same name as that document.

    I'm not sure why voter ID would prevent this lady from assisting others to vote.

    I've worked elections for more than 10 years. In that time, I've encountered FOUR attempts to vote that I think were fraudulent--two of which had an NC drivers license (the address on the DL was non-existant). None of them succeeded--they were allowed to vote provisional and the elections board had time to verify their identity.

    If you cannot register to vote before the elections start, you aren't that interested in voting. A 10 day early voting window should allow most folks to get to the polls at their convenience. Funny--until relatively recently there was NO early voting--you went to the polls on election day or not at all.

  • Plenty Coups Aug 14, 6:09 p.m.

    Offshore-"http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures"

    Yeah, more of the same. A bunch of Board of lection voter rolls that need to be cleaned up. Zero cases of voter impersonation.

    "http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/05/investigations_recommend_135_c.html"

    Lots of allegations of voter fraud. Usually it turns out to be people voting in the wrong precinct or a few cases of people voting twice using absentee ballots or going to another precinct. Zero cases of voter impersonation that would be prevented by voter IDs.

  • BPractical Aug 14, 5:53 p.m.

    In case you didn't realize- that was in regard to the FEDERAL constitution. Junkmail5

    "This Law was challenged in federal court where the plaintiffs claimed that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1971, and Article 2,Sections 1 and 2 of the Indiana Constitution."

    This was after the Indiana Supreme Court upheld it. So, no it wasn't in regard to the Federal constitution. It was an appeal from the state level.

  • Offshore Aug 14, 5:39 p.m.

    Voter fraud, just one incident (of 3) at this location.

    http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures

    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/05/investigations_recommend_135_c.html

  • livinggood2 Aug 14, 5:36 p.m.

    The 92 year old lady admited she had Three different names,Oh I guess thats Three Votes that won`t happen.Why would you need Three Names?

  • Offshore Aug 14, 5:36 p.m.

    This is such a non-issue it's not funny. ID's are needed for so many things today (I know junkmail, most of them aren't constitutional rights) that having one to show voter eligibility should not create such a stir. Owning a gun is a constitutional right, I need an ID to buy one. I'll be happy to show the same ID at the voter pole. Get over it.

  • BPractical Aug 14, 5:29 p.m.

    Nope, I've given multiple, specific, factual examples proving my point.Your entire response seems to be to repeat some variation of "nu uh"Which isn't much of an argument really. JunkMail5

    You obviously think you are the NC Supreme Court. Unfortunately, you are just a blog junkie. There is nowhere in the law that states a blog junkie named Junkmail5 can determine if a law is constitutional or not. Sorry, you just ain't that important.

    It's really quite simple, a law that has passed both houses and signed by the governor is law unless it is over-ruled BY THE COURT SYSTEM, not you.

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 5:25 p.m.

    "WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.- Pirate01

    In case you didn't realize- that was in regard to the FEDERAL constitution.

    As I've been clear in pointing out, the NC law specifically violates the STATE constitution.

    Article VI of that document states your vote MUST be counted if you meet the specific criteria laid out there.

    Photo ID isn't one of them.

    Therefore a law that prevents counting the vote of someone who meets those constitutional criteria, but does not produce a photo ID, is unconstitutional.

    As would be clear to anybody who actually reads the document.

    try it!

  • Pirate01 Aug 14, 5:18 p.m.

    From the AP in 2008.....

    "WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

    In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots."

    What is funny and pathetic at the same time is that the libs here are using the same tired talking point "poor, old, minority" that they were using in 2008. And they are still saying it is un-Constitutional.

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 5:08 p.m.

    No, you have falsely given your opinion as fact, nothing more.
    BPractica

    Nope, I've given multiple, specific, factual examples proving my point.

    Your entire response seems to be to repeat some variation of "nu uh"

    Which isn't much of an argument really.

  • ups1158 Aug 14, 5:03 p.m.

    when democrats pass laws that takes away money from hard working people so they can buy there votes , and give it to the democrat supporters they tell me to deal with it where in powers and I have heard and read that, so here is my message to them.. Deal with it..

  • BPractical Aug 14, 4:00 p.m.

    no, translation is I've actually read and understood the constitution. junkmail5

    No, you have falsely given your opinion as fact, nothing more.

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 3:54 p.m.

    "If NC passed a law saying newspapers can not publish anything critical of the republican party.

    That law would be unconstitutional. Even before a court got around to ruling on it." ...translation: junkmail5 does not like the law, so therefore it is automatically unconstitutional, regardless of what the actual constitution, or courts, say about it.
    HockeyPlayerX

    no, translation is I've actually read and understood the constitution.

    Thus I can recognize clear violations of it.

    Maybe you should give that a shot?

  • HockeyPlayerX Aug 14, 3:29 p.m.

    "If NC passed a law saying newspapers can not publish anything critical of the republican party.

    That law would be unconstitutional. Even before a court got around to ruling on it." ...translation: junkmail5 does not like the law, so therefore it is automatically unconstitutional, regardless of what the actual constitution, or courts, say about it.

  • Bill Brasky Aug 14, 3:26 p.m.

    "As bad as the Dems lost without these new laws they may have get used to standing outside the legislature."

    This state is a majority Democrat, which means many Democrats switched sides and voted Republican in 2010 and 2012 to try mixing things up. Even I voted for McCrory thinking he was more of a moderate after viewing his platform and how he ran Charlotte. Like many North Carolinians, I thought Roger Dalton would make a poor governor. Currently the legislature, due to the laws they are writing and passing, has an approval rating of 20%, while Pat is polling in the 30% range. I don't see many of them making a return trip to Raleigh after 2014, and for Pat in 2016.

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 3:12 p.m.

    Sounds like the naacp and aclu trying to stir up that old race card again (and when will they understand that this type of nonsense only perpetuates the race stigma?).
    ncdedhed

    I know. Am I to believe from the NAACP that black folks are inferior and need help and breaks in everything they do in daily life? That seems to be their message everytime they cry racism

    never underestimate the power of learned helplessness.

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 3:10 p.m.

    As bad as the Dems lost without these new laws they may have get used to standing outside the legislature.
    tatermommy52

    Huh? In the congressional election in 2012 the dems actually got a MAJORITY of the vote.

    It was only thanks to gerrymandering that they ended up with only 4 of 13 seats.

    Interesting because the only time you would need to do that would be in court and you have to show ID to get into a federal building where the courtroom is!
    Steve Mchugelarg

    Wrong yet again.

    Your right to not self incriminate happens during any custodial police stop for example when the cops are questioning you. No ID needed.

    And do you really think the DEFENDANT in a case they bring in from jail needs ID to get into the courtroom?

    I do believe you may be required to show ID if you are "bearing arms"- ncdedhed

    Also wrong. Open carry is entirely legal in NC, no ID required.

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 3:10 p.m.

    And you ignore the other negatives- harder to register, harder to do provisional ballots, etc...
    junkmail5

    yah you enablers arent about doing anything hard

    What business is that of yours? There's over half a million of em in NC alone, and they seem to be doing just fine without such ID up to now

    well they have 3 years to get one thats plenty of time even for the most laziest entitlement junkie.

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 3:07 p.m.

    If NC passed a law saying newspapers can not publish anything critical of the republican party.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/12/us_backs_off_propaganda_ban_spreads_government_made_news_to_americans

  • tatermommy52 Aug 14, 2:58 p.m.

    As bad as the Dems lost without these new laws they may have get used to standing outside the legislature.

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 2:53 p.m.

    This is still not correct. It's not unconstitutional until it's ruled unconstitutional by the NC Supreme Court. Do you not understand?
    BPractical

    Yes, I understand that no matter how much you repeat that it still won't be correct.

    I've even given you multiple examples of things that are clearly unconstitutional without a court needing to rule on them first.

    Which part did you not understand?

    here's another-

    If NC passed a law saying newspapers can not publish anything critical of the republican party.

    That law would be unconstitutional. Even before a court got around to ruling on it.

    still doesnt answer how all these people seem to function fine with ID until election day- Steve M

    What business is that of yours? There's over half a million of em in NC alone, and they seem to be doing just fine without such ID up to now.

    And you ignore the other negatives- harder to register, harder to do provisional ballots, etc...

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 2:50 p.m.

    immunity from self-incrimination,

    Interesting because the only time you would need to do that would be in court and you have to show ID to get into a federal building where the courtroom is!

  • ncdedhed Aug 14, 2:47 p.m.

    "You don't need to show ID to exercise your right to free speech, freedom of religion, immunity from self-incrimination, immunity from cruel and unusual punishment, or even your right to keep and bear arms.

    Those, like voting, are basic rights."

    I do believe you may be required to show ID if you are "bearing arms", just as you may be required to show a passport on re-entry to the US if traveling abroad (which the right to live in the US if a citizen is also a "basic right").

  • Gidder Dun Aug 14, 2:42 p.m.

    "It's funny to me that you have to show an ID for anything you do now days and nothing is said,but if you have to show an ID to vote the dems go crazy.Something smells fishy here.."

    Sounds alot like the Gun right nutts and the NCGA.....

  • ncdedhed Aug 14, 2:41 p.m.

    Ummm...so exactly how is this "discriminatory, racially motivated and burdensome" to minorities when the law applies to people of ALL colors? And as to the ID requirement-you must have one to drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes (to prove one's age), and buy Sudafed, so why not in order to exercise a much greater privilege?

    Sounds like the naacp and aclu trying to stir up that old race card again (and when will they understand that this type of nonsense only perpetuates the race stigma?).

  • cool06aid Aug 14, 2:39 p.m.

    Was any journalist present? It's amazing how this bill was signed in the dark. This bill will effect women more than minorities think about it. Example you get married and take your spouses name you cant use your old i.d. or get divorce with spouses name still on i.d.

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 2:29 p.m.

    It's funny to me that you have to show an ID for anything you do now days and nothing is said,but if you have to show an ID to vote the dems go crazy.Something smells fishy here.
    mrman2a

    Yes.. your lack of understanding between what is a basic right and what isn't.

    You don't need to show ID to exercise your right to free speech, freedom of religion, immunity from self-incrimination, immunity from cruel and unusual punishment, or even your right to keep and bear arms.

    Those, like voting, are basic rights.

    Some others like, say, driving, or buying liquor, are a privilege, not a right, so an ID check is entirely legal.

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 2:27 p.m.

    It's funny to me that you have to show an ID for anything you do now days and nothing is said,but if you have to show an ID to vote the dems go crazy.Something smells fishy here.
    mrman2a

    Thats what I have been saying! You have to have an ID to get assistance and that doesnt seem to disenfranchise them from lining up for it.

  • BPractical Aug 14, 2:25 p.m.

    This law violates the STATE constitution. JunkMail5

    This is still not correct. It's not unconstitutional until it's ruled unconstitutional by the NC Supreme Court. Do you not understand?

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 2:24 p.m.

    This law violates the STATE constitution. It'll be struck down long before it gets anywhere near SCOTUS.

    And that's apart from all the horrible non-ID related provisions in it
    junkmail5

    still doesnt answer how all these people seem to function fine with ID until election day.
    '
    There is more to this issue than liberals are willing to say. Its not a big deal, it really isn't but the opposition and weak reasoning behind it are telling. I dont believe its racist in the least because white people are affected as well. And once again if you cant get your act together and get an ID in 3 three years then you have failed at life. And you cant ever give me a good enough excuse that you need 2 weeks to vote. Thats just ridiculous. And dont give me the longer lines nonsense. Half the people crying about this stand in longer lines on Black Friday. Im sure going in they were mindful of the state constitution and are prepared for that argument too

  • mrman2a Aug 14, 2:06 p.m.

    It's funny to me that you have to show an ID for anything you do now days and nothing is said,but if you have to show an ID to vote the dems go crazy.Something smells fishy here.

  • Spartacus Aug 14, 1:59 p.m.

    The hypocrisy is astounding! New York has no early voting at all, much less 7 days worth. AND New York does not have "no-excuse" absentee voting.
    Using the same logic I am seeing here today, I should just stop using my seatbelt, after all, I have never had an accident. Accidents don't exist for me, right?
    Here is a new concept for you: PREVENTION

  • junkmail5 Aug 14, 1:57 p.m.

    I know one thing. Youre going to need an ID to vote. The SCOTUS has no problem with the 34 other states that have similiar laws
    Click to view my profileSteve Mchugelarg

    This law violates the STATE constitution. It'll be struck down long before it gets anywhere near SCOTUS.

    And that's apart from all the horrible non-ID related provisions in it

  • Bill Brasky Aug 14, 1:49 p.m.

    "tio the victor goes the spoils. Every politician puts their toadies in office when they take charge. Why are you only mad when the GOP does it? Its Ok when your guys does it though right?"

    Wasn't aware Art Pope was running. You do realize this law was only recently changed where citizens can spend unlimited amounts of money to effectively buy a state, and buy politicans that will pass only laws that that person demands. Thats what we are seeing here in NC, a state government at its worst. Why NCGA has a current approve rating of 20%.

  • Gidder Dun Aug 14, 1:46 p.m.

    "misrepresentation is fraud..bbqchicken"

    Voting in the wrong precinct or location is not misrepresentation. If you say you are someone else and falsify who you are that is misrepresentation. Try again please....

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 1:45 p.m.

    Why is it every time you ask the far-right folks for evidence of fraud where ID would help, the only response you get is a bunch of examples where ID would NOT help?
    junkmail5

    I know one thing. Youre going to need an ID to vote. The SCOTUS has no problem with the 34 other states that have similiar laws

  • Steve Mchugelarge Aug 14, 1:43 p.m.

    The state could send a team to each household, take their pictures and hand them an ID. They would still complain they had to answer the door...
    BPractical

    sadly I think youre right and on the other hand Barry may be sending people to their houses anyway

    http://benswann.com/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/

  • Capt. Obvious Aug 14, 1:30 p.m.

    If the ap or ny times doesn't have an article about voter fraud, it doesn't exist lol...

    Just like beghazi.. no one knew about it for months.

    Like the beating of the poor white kid on the bus in florida... the msm isn't reporting it so it didn't happen.

  • BPractical Aug 14, 1:28 p.m.

    well thet have 3 years to get one and its FREE! No excuse anymore. Take some responsibility and do something for yourself for once - Steve Mchugelarge

    The state could send a team to each household, take their pictures and hand them an ID. They would still complain they had to answer the door...

  • bbqchicken Aug 14, 1:25 p.m.

    But your post is not about voeter fraud just voting in the wrong precinct only! How is voting in the wrong precinct or location voter fraud? You perpetuate a problem that does not exist.

    Gidder Dun

    misrepresentation is fraud

Oldest First