Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

List of 11,000 Voters That NC Supreme Court Wants To Disenfranchise!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Jane Eyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:13 PM
Original message
List of 11,000 Voters That NC Supreme Court Wants To Disenfranchise!!

Recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court (i.e. 5 Republican judges) ruled that over 11,000 voters who voted by provisional ballot in their counties but outside their precincts on Election Day MUST HAVE THEIR VOTES CANCELLED!!!

Folks, this is big and it has national implications. We have a statewide race for Superintendant of Public Instruction which still hangs in the balance, plus there are lots of local races where the certified results could be reversed even though the person with the most votes has already been sworn into office months ago. The suit was filed by a Republican candidate who narrowly lost the statewide race in an attempt to overturn valid results WHERE THE BALLOT COUNT HAD ALREADY DETERMINED THAT HE LOST!!!

Here is a list of all the voters (less Mecklenburg County) whose ALREADY COUNTED votes would be tossed out if this outrageous rightwing edict is allowed to take effect. We need for voters on this list to step up and demand to be counted, and there will be legal assistance available for those who wish to pursue their rights.


http://www.democracy-nc.org/improving/OOPcover.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Unless someone appeals it to the
US Supreme Court, it will stand. I can't see anyone taking this election there. The NCGA has already drafted a bill to specifically define "jurisdiction" which the NCSC decided meant precinct, not county.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Eyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. It should be a federal case, IMO
I am aware of the federal appellate court ruling which took place on October 23 regarding the Ohio provisional vote challenges. This basically stated that jurisdiction meant precinct, not county, and the Democrats did not pursue it further.

This time COULD be different. The Democrat-controlled state legislature is letting it be known that the laws they wrote meant that these provisional votes could be counted. There is already little love lost between the General Assembly and the Republican Supreme Court which has blatantly tried to redistrict Democrats out of office.

Early voters almost always vote out of precinct. In Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, voters who vote early have special voting machines which program the correct ballot for each voter individually. Election Day voters do not have the advantage of having these special voting machines, so people who show up in the wrong precinct cast a provisional ballot and automatically have some of their votes invalidated when the candidates do not match those in the the person's correct jurisdiction. A very good argument could be made that more affluent voters have access to transportation and tend to vote early, whereas those who depend upon public transportation vote on Election Day and are not afforded the same privileges that more affluent out-of-precinct voters have.

There is also the issue that these votes have already been counted, and the voters were told that their votes counted after they followed all the instructions given to them by officials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. "Democratic-controlled state legislature" = music to my ears
Justice could prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Well, Dixiecrat controlled
legislature would be a bit more accurate. Except in a few enclaves, the Dems are quite conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. Can you give the wording of the
law in question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenInNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Mecklenburg
Is there a way to get the Mecklenburg list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Eyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Don't know, but not now
Mecklenburg is especially in dispute because of the Democrats' clean sweep of the County Commission. Republican incumbent Ruth Samuelson was ousted by Democratic newcomer Jennifer Roberts but only after all the provisional ballots were counted. It was a very tight race, and throwing out these provisional ballots could change the outcome even though it is clear that the Democrat received more votes. It should also be noted that there have already been several County Commission meetings and changing the person in office could even mean going back to see if there were any 5-4 commission votes which would have to be redone!

Anyway, I believe that the Mecklenburg BOE may be holding the list close to the vest for the time being because of the potential challenges. Plus, there are just a lot more voters which takes some time to compile a list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. What a bunch of crap is this ?? They must not get away with it.
Edited on Fri Feb-11-05 08:20 PM by GetTheRightVote
Good Question about the Mecklenburg question.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoBotherMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm going to pop this into 2004 Election Results for the record.
Edited on Fri Feb-11-05 08:27 PM by DanaM
Dana ; )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here are other states that do not allow provisional
ballots to be counted if they are cast in the wrong precinct:

Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, District of Columbia

Why are you singling out North Carolina?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Because there's a case there, and there's legislative intent suggesting
that the these ballots were meant to be counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Ok - I assumed that North Carolina, like the other states,
prohibited provisional ballot casting in wrong precincts in its electoral legislation. Is that not the case? What "legislative intent" are you talking about - can you quote the legislation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. A post above answers that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Don't see it - can you give the wording
of the pertinent NC election law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. 2nd paragraph, post 6.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Here is the second paragraph of post 6:
"This time COULD be different. The Democrat-controlled state legislature is letting it be known that the laws they wrote meant that these provisional votes could be counted. There is already little love lost between the General Assembly and the Republican Supreme Court which has blatantly tried to redistrict Democrats out of office."

I don't see any wording or even paraphrasing of the pertinent law in here. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. You're asking the wrong person. Ask the person you're quoting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Jane, THANK YOU for being on top of this!!
The election in North Carolina was such a republican voting machine fiasco, and now this republican supreme court is just adding fuel to my fire.

Ever since their ruling the other day, I have been SOOOO outraged! We really need to get the legislature on board about these electronic voting machines before it's too late.

I will NEVER, in this lifetime, believe that Burr beat out Bowles for the U.S. Senate race....never! I'm still pretty sure Kerry actually won the race against bush, too, just going from all the local polls and studies I watched, and from what so many people have said... long term repukes voting ABB.

:kick::kick::kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveAmerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Are you in NC Loudsue? It' s pretty nice to see someone say
what I've said here before (your 'never in this lifetime' paragraph).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Yes, I'm here! Not too far from Raleigh (closest big city).
I'm pretty far out in the country here, so I don't get to Raleigh much. Plus, I work out of state on different projects, a couple of months at a time, so I never know when I'm going to be here. (I'm home now.)

If I had a more stable schedule, I'd be a lot more active politically. It's just that, every time I make contacts & go to meetings, I can't commit to anything further, because I never know when I'll be going out to work again. It's pretty frustrating.

Where are you?

:kick::kick::kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveAmerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. I'm in blood read Cabarrus county, I've thought of
the benefits of living in a friendlier area but have decided to stay and do what I can to see how the area looks in pastel pink or baby blue (I can dream can't I? ;-) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenInNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Mecklenburg here
While I think the 6-3 county commission majority is great, there is one more seat that progressives NEED to take - District 6.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. To be fair
Bowles did a VERY poor job campaigning. He was getting slimed left and right and did nothing to fight back. He was not exactly Mr. Charisma.

You know, someone was talking the other day about who to put up against Dole in 2008 and I just thought that Mel Watt might be a good possibility.

We'll never see Edwards again since he think he should be president. If he had any sense he would come back and run for Governor. At least he's a *bit* more liberal than Easley.

Hell, I wish Ellie Kinnaird were 10 years younger.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. I think the NC legislature ought to impeach those justices
who made that politically-motivated decision to disenfranchise voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveAmerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. JE, I'm going to post this over in the NC forum, if you don't mind.
If anyone reading this is from NC open up the document for your county and call the people on the list to let them know to call the 800 number to fight for their vote. I'm calling Cabarrus county disenfranchised voters tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC