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

Oldest First
  • William Sherman Mar 17, 7:00 p.m.
    user avatar

    Going back to court for sure--the GA will over ride the Gov's veto, and we'll be off to the races..

  • Andrew Stephenson Mar 17, 5:06 p.m.
    user avatar

    I went into the primaries not knowing much about the judicial candidates. A few hours before I went to the polls though, I went to www.ontheissues.org. Problem solved.

  • Nicolle Leney Mar 17, 11:39 a.m.
    user avatar

    And to equate having non-partisan judicial races with voter suppression is an INSULT to every person who has truly faced real voter suppression as well as to the people who have fought for our right to vote.

    Requesting voting data by race and then using that information to tweak a voter ID law to specifically target people of a certain race -- THAT'S voter suppression.

    Using that racial data to amend the bill to specifically EXCLUDE many of the alternative photo IDs used by a certain race (that were in the original bill before the racial data was requested) -- THAT'S voter suppression.

    Trying to DEFEND limiting Sunday early voting by saying that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black' and 'disproportionately Democratic'" --THAT'S voter suppression.

    Expecting voters to actually know the issues and what the candidates stand for -- that's NOT voter suppression. That's called being a responsible citizen.

  • Nicolle Leney Mar 17, 10:59 a.m.
    user avatar

    If voters cannot be bothered to do an hour of research before they vote to find out about the judicial candidates, then maybe they SHOULDN'T be voting in that race. Voting is a right, but it is also a RESPONSIBILITY. Regardless of making it "easier" for unaffiliated candidates, plain and simple, having the races partisan MAKES the Court more partisan. DON'T DUMB DOWN THE VOTING PROCESS.

Oldest First