Supreme Court Upholds North Dakota’s Voter ID Law

Dec 2015
12,162
8,407
SoCal
#41
North Dakota accepts Tribal Identification Cards issued by the federal government as an acceptable ID to vote.

Acceptable Forms of Identification:
➣ Voting at the Polling Place – A Valid North Dakota:

  • Driver’s license
  • Nondriver’s identification card
  • Tribal government issued identification (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)
  • Long term care identification certificate (provided by North Dakota facility)
Vote.nd.gov
It seems many Native Americans don't have a residential address in North Dakota, and as a consequence will not be able to vote.
 
Oct 2014
23,677
3,671
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#43
Why in the world are talking about "racism" when this has everything to do with addresses??? Most Native American's live on reservations...not a physical home address.

But good to know that apparently you again, don't know what the actual topic is.
changing the goal posts... you said that the native tribes would be suppressed by the requirement of ID.

That is only true if you believe that they are incapable of obtaining an ID, since that's not the case then it must be something wrong with that racial group you selected (not white people, not mexicans, specifically native americans) that makes them incapable of the task of getting ID.

That is racism. You expect so little of that racial group that you feel they need your protection to simply function as part of society.

That kind of bigotry would be better suited on 8chan or a kkk forum than PH.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
56,523
44,107
CA
#44
changing the goal posts... you said that the native tribes would be suppressed by the requirement of ID.

That is only true if you believe that they are incapable of obtaining an ID, since that's not the case then it must be something wrong with that racial group you selected (not white people, not mexicans, specifically native americans) that makes them incapable of the task of getting ID.

That is racism. You expect so little of that racial group that you feel they need your protection to simply function as part of society.

That kind of bigotry would be better suited on 8chan or a kkk forum than PH.
Wow - you STILL don't know anything about this topic do you? I never brought up id either - I brought up where they live - but since you asked in your unhinged rant.


North Dakota’s 2017 voter law ID was challenged by Native residents who alleged that the law disproportionately blocked Native Americans from voting. In April, a federal district court judge blocked large portions of the law as discriminatory against Native voters. “The State has acknowledged that Native American communities often lack residential street addresses,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote. “Nevertheless, under current State law an individual who does not have a ‘current residential street address’ will never be qualified to vote.” According to the website of the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, many native residents lack residential street addresses because “the U.S. postal service does not provide residential delivery in these rural Indian communities.”As a result, tribal IDs use P.O. boxes, which are not sufficient under North Dakota’s new law—a specification that seems designed to disenfranchise native voters. Hovland’s ruling was in place during the primaries this spring.


But in September, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to go into effect. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling Tuesday. In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that the Supreme Court’s order was at odds with one of the top court’s most frequently invoked doctrines on election law: not to change the rules right before an election. By allowing a different set of ID rules in the general election from in the primary, Ginsburg warned, the court was risking widespread confusion and disenfranchisement.


The Supreme Court just made it harder for Democrats to win the Senate
 

RNG

Moderator
Jan 2015
12,540
8,201
Left coast
#47
North Dakota accepts Tribal Identification Cards issued by the federal government as an acceptable ID to vote.

Acceptable Forms of Identification:
➣ Voting at the Polling Place – A Valid North Dakota:

  • Driver’s license
  • Nondriver’s identification card
  • Tribal government issued identification (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)
  • Long term care identification certificate (provided by North Dakota facility)
Vote.nd.gov
That link is dated 2013. This law was passed since then.
 

RNG

Moderator
Jan 2015
12,540
8,201
Left coast
#48
Wow - you STILL don't know anything about this topic do you? I never brought up id either - I brought up where they live - but since you asked in your unhinged rant.


North Dakota’s 2017 voter law ID was challenged by Native residents who alleged that the law disproportionately blocked Native Americans from voting. In April, a federal district court judge blocked large portions of the law as discriminatory against Native voters. “The State has acknowledged that Native American communities often lack residential street addresses,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote. “Nevertheless, under current State law an individual who does not have a ‘current residential street address’ will never be qualified to vote.” According to the website of the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, many native residents lack residential street addresses because “the U.S. postal service does not provide residential delivery in these rural Indian communities.”As a result, tribal IDs use P.O. boxes, which are not sufficient under North Dakota’s new law—a specification that seems designed to disenfranchise native voters. Hovland’s ruling was in place during the primaries this spring.


But in September, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to go into effect. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling Tuesday. In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that the Supreme Court’s order was at odds with one of the top court’s most frequently invoked doctrines on election law: not to change the rules right before an election. By allowing a different set of ID rules in the general election from in the primary, Ginsburg warned, the court was risking widespread confusion and disenfranchisement.


The Supreme Court just made it harder for Democrats to win the Senate
Those damned facts again. The RWs are immune to them but good try.
 
Oct 2014
23,677
3,671
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#49
Wow - you STILL don't know anything about this topic do you? I never brought up id either - I brought up where they live - but since you asked in your unhinged rant.


North Dakota’s 2017 voter law ID was challenged by Native residents who alleged that the law disproportionately blocked Native Americans from voting. In April, a federal district court judge blocked large portions of the law as discriminatory against Native voters. “The State has acknowledged that Native American communities often lack residential street addresses,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote. “Nevertheless, under current State law an individual who does not have a ‘current residential street address’ will never be qualified to vote.” According to the website of the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, many native residents lack residential street addresses because “the U.S. postal service does not provide residential delivery in these rural Indian communities.”As a result, tribal IDs use P.O. boxes, which are not sufficient under North Dakota’s new law—a specification that seems designed to disenfranchise native voters. Hovland’s ruling was in place during the primaries this spring.


But in September, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to go into effect. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling Tuesday. In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that the Supreme Court’s order was at odds with one of the top court’s most frequently invoked doctrines on election law: not to change the rules right before an election. By allowing a different set of ID rules in the general election from in the primary, Ginsburg warned, the court was risking widespread confusion and disenfranchisement.


The Supreme Court just made it harder for Democrats to win the Senate
Then the court found that this racist position you are spouting is unfounded... sorry, better luck next time...
 
Likes: Goofball

Similar Discussions