Native American Voter Suppression In North Dakota

@tryit: Yes I do and everytime I do you question the source or just refuse to believe it.

rarely you do that. you are worse about making assertions without facts then others

@tryit: It is true. Hell you did it yesterday in regards to RDR2 where you said you refused to believe the number of voice actors they hired.

because its ridiculous but again that has nothing to do with my assertion that you rarely post evidence but demand others always post evidence

@tryit: Thats an excuse the fact is you do it. That's because I don't make ridiculous threads and yes I often do post evidence. But what's the point when you will just deny anything you find to be "ridiculous "

do what?

make assertions without posting evidence? yeah i 'do it' but MORE often I post evidence then you do

more/môr/determiner & pronoun

1. 1.comparative of many, much.
2. 2.a greater or additional amount or degree."I poured myself more coffee"

   synonyms:

   additional, further, added, extra, increased, new, other, supplementary More

1. Wait a second. You're getting angry at me for using multiple sources and citations to back up my threads? WHAT? Is this opposite day? Aren't you supposed to get mad when I DON'T DO THIS?

2. Those sites aren't far left. They ranged from unbiased to center left, or inbetween those two. All have "HIGH" factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-civil-liberties-union-aclu/

3. Those sources further link directly to the court documents, statistics, and laws. Are you saying these documents are all fabricated?

If you believe any of the links ITT, and the sources those links use (many more within each article) are false, prove it. You can't just say every single news article on this issue is "fake news" without proof. It is a wild claim.

No. I post multiple studies and/or articles. I use the FACTUAL findings in said sources to support my claims. You are never able to debunk these claims, so you just end up attacking me or making things up about the source.

You can't be serious to suggest there is something wrong with posting multiple studies on a topic and using said studies, as opposed to just saying random shit.

Example:

@blackhairedhero said: @zaryia: The right does not commit more terrorism related deaths that is a lie.

I despise Antifa. I take this random ad-hom as your concession acceptance.

@zaryia: Washington post is not in the center not even close. And you posted studies from the ACLU for **** sake. That's not an Unbias source.

So mad? Your bitching about voter suppression lmao!

Teh conspiracy!

@blackhairedhero: What sources would you find acceptable? Perhaps he can oblige.

Voter suppression is literally not a conspiracy. There are several studies and court cases on it. It is 100% a real thing.

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelby v. Holder that voting laws had resulted in voter suppression and discrimination.^[2]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/wisconsin-voters.html

Wisconsin Strict ID Law Discouraged Voters, Study Finds

Your posts are the only things that appear to be conspiratorial in nature. You couldn't counter or debunk any of the sources I posted. You expect everyone to believe your contrarian claims on a whim. You lost this debate.

High factual reporting. Center-Left. or Unbiased.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-civil-liberties-union-aclu/

@mattbbpl: Well first I would need proof that requesting a physical address besides a Po box is voter suppression. Because many companies follow that rule. Even insurance companies are not going to accept just a Po Box.

this is an example of what i am saying you

You: 'Assertion X'

Response: 'No its Assertion Y'

You: 'I need evidence"

Response: 'here is the evidence'

You: 'you provide no evidence.

meanwhile, neither to you.

also....not having a street address in rural areas is extreemly common. I know that for a fact

@zaryia: Every single article you posted is left of center.

Even by your own source.

My point stands.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DjUDTcxIqqM0&ved=2ahUKEwjbnfiLi5PeAhVSvFMKHQJLCJsQwqsBMAF6BAgJEAg&usg=AOvVaw1Bke14UowyEtncCMZjCgb-

Democrats bitching about voter suppression. Maybe because of the voter fraud?

"Get on Da Bus"

Or is he lying?

It disproportionately targets Natives, and is in line with several court cases in the past that deemed similar actions as forms of voter suppression. This was put into play directly by the Republican legislature after Heitkamp won the 2012 election, with strong help by the Native vote. It objectively makes it harder for Natives to vote. And in a 2014 county election this effect was real, they had lower turn out.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-dakota-native-american-voters/

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places

In 2016, the Harvard Law Review found that Native Americans "routinely face hurdles in exercising the right to vote and securing representation" and that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was only a partial solution to the problem.

@tryit: That evidence tells me they need physical addresses. So do insurance companies discriminate if they ask for this? You can still verify a physical address.

And if libs didn't engage in voter fraud it wouldn't be an issue.

so you want an arbitrary rule put in place at the last min just because of no reason at all, just randomly?

oh and the 911 call center could have been notified to provide all those people with street addresses but they (the government) avoiding making that simple call.

having a P.O. Box instead of a street address is not fraud, more over, not really relevant to being able to vote (at least logically)

they are doing it for the reasons we have said, to shut down as many native american votes as possible.

Living in a house instead of an RV or property without a mailing address should not be a requirement for voting.

1. You said far left. Not center-left. Snopes is not left btw, it says unbiased.

2. These specific articles source their claims with direct links to legal documents and stats......

Surely you can debunk all of them.

@zaryia: Everyone else has to do it. Can they not provide proof of a physical address?

not having a mail box at a physical address is rather common in rural america.

so this law would impede a lot of white voters as well.

there is no logical reason why you have to have a physical address in order to vote.

its about as relevant to voting as me informing them of my penis size

Voter Fraud is nearly non existent. Especially in ND.

https://scholars.org/sites/scholars/files/ssn_key_findings_minnite_on_the_myth_of_voter_fraud.pdf

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ohio-voter-fraud/

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Analysis.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776

I'm not sure how many studies you need on this.

@zaryia: lol Snopes

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/

"the restrictions disproportionately disenfranchised Native American voters because many Native Americans had P.O. box addresses rather than residential addresses, and the comparatively high levels of homelessness and poverty among Native Americans also meant that the requirements of obtaining the increasingly limited forms of identification were more likely to be prohibitive for them."

In the past, North Dakota allowed all citizens who were unable to provide acceptable ID’s to cast their vote under two types of “fail-safe” provisions – which were repealed in 2013. The ill-advised repeal of all such “fail-safe” provisions has resulted in an undue burden on Native American voters and others who attempt to exercise their right to vote. There are a multitude of easy remedies that most states have adopted in some form to alleviate this burden.

If the Eighth Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large. The Eighth Circuit observed that voters have a month to “adapt” to the new regime. But that observation overlooks specific factfindings by the District Court:

(1) 70,000 North Dakota residents — almost 20% of the turnout in a regular quadrennial election — lack a qualifying ID; and (2) approximately 18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID.

@zaryia: I posted a video of them doing it New York. So what's your greater point here?

Is it just North Dakota? Is it Republicans cause voter suppression and the Democrats do not engage in voter fraud.

Do not see a problem

Also, this is not specific to Native Americans, it will hit everyone in the same situation.

1. They are literally quoting court documents and historical events in my link. Good god man.

2. I'm sure Snopes doesn't always get it right, but they are generally reliable. Can you debunk the specific article I'm linking?

3. And the other 4 other articles/studies? Also all fake? Big conspiracy bro.

Voter Fraud is nearly non existent. Especially in ND.

It hits Natives much harder. This was not only predicted going by the stats, but it actually occured.

During the 2014 midterms in Rolette County, home to the Turtle Mountain tribal reservation, turnout plunged from 45 percent to 33 percent, while neighboring non-tribal areas saw no comparable decline.

It simply puts more hurdles in their way. This factually makes it harder for Natives. Similar actions have been objectively called voter suppression in the past.

That there is,

Native American Voter Suppression In North Dakota

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places

https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2018/10/brakebill_complaint.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-senate-battleground-native-american-voting-rights-activists-fight-back-against-voter-id-restrictions/2018/10/12/7bc33ad2-cd60-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-dakota-voter-id-law-upheld-by-supreme-court-could-affect-senate-race/ar-BBOiqwq

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/north-dakota-voter-id-native-americans/index.html

https://psmag.com/social-justice/native-american-activists-are-trying-to-tackle-voter-suppression-in-north-dakota

I just wanted to state that fact ITT. You know, get the word out.

@zaryia: So that's your only point? Voter suppression in ND?

we already assume you would not care about voter suppression in ND we are just informing you that it is instead of is not...that.

see isnt it easier to just say 'I dont care about voter suppression in ND' rather then try to deny its happening? refreshing to be honest no?

@tryit: I'm looking at all the side comments such as yours. " if Republicans wouldn't cheat they wouldn't win at all"... that's ridiculous claim from some of the people in this forum. Dems load people up on busses to get them to vote. Republicans don't get the same treatment. You guys don't seem to talk about that though. You act as if this one case in ND represents a greater problem.

well I cant speak to that claim sorry.

I just think you have denied that this is voter suppression. I understand (and would expect!) you to not care about voter suppression but I personally am just concerned about your claim that its not happening, which is clearly is.

@blackhairedhero: "Dems load people up on busses to get them to vote."

Is providing transportation to polling places for voters a bad thing?

Yes. Those are the facts I'm showing.

@blackhairedhero: "You act as if this one case in ND represents a greater problem."

Because it is a bigger problem as has already been illistrated in this thread.

He doesnt care about voter suppression

Calling voter id laws, voter suppression is just moronic. It´s pretty insane considering that no other place in the western world is there as a relaxed attitude towards voting.

And we all know Democrats have a problem with it because they know illegals and people who may be hit by this because of their own laziness are voting democratic.

oh so we are back to its NOT voter suppression now.

ok well here is the thing the 'laws' are created by the people who want to do the voter suppression.

so for example if the law is 'if you are black you can not vote' because its a voter law does not make it not voter suppression.

surely you thought this thru before posting that

@mattbbpl: Well it seems to be done in areas that have a disppraportiantly high number of minority voters. White neighborhoods don't seem to get that same treatment. So is that voter supression?

That's your opinion, which we have seen on this site is completely worthless and never has bearing on the facts. Objectively speaking, voter laws have been called voter suppression in the past:

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelby v. Holder that voting laws had resulted in voter suppression and discrimination.[2]

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/at-least-90000-voters-purged-from-nevada-voter-rol-33444132/

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/suppression-critics-charge-georgia-gop-33443935/

@blackhairedhero: How is helping eligible voters vote suppressing votes? Please explain, because I'm missing something.

@mattbbpl: Its unequal treatment. I don't get free transportation to vote.

It's not the government doing the busing. Are you suggesting that big guberment tell people who they can and can't give a ride to? Should we start stitching identifying embalms to peoples clothing yet?

If you're so butthurt, go rent a bus and offer rich white people rides. See how many take you up on it.

You are reading that verdict like someone is reading the bible.

The court deemed 2 provisions in the voting rights act unconstitutional, not that there had been any voter suppression.

@blackhairedhero: Suppressing votes involves hindering or stopping people from voting. That's the definition of "suppress." If Republicans took busses to nursing homes to allow senior citizens the ability to more easily exercise their vote no one would have a problem with it because it's a noble act regardless of motive. In fact, such initiatives are already in place:

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/0724/New-initiatives-make-voting-more-accessible-to-senior-citizens

And no one complains because this is a good thing. More people are able to easily exercise their constitutional rights!

Preventing people from easily exercising their constitutional righrs, however, is a bad thing and deserves scorn. We should be able to agree on this principle, no?

@zaryia: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article220152695.html

It seems voter fraud is in fact a problem. Sneaky libs.

You are reading your opinion like it is the bible. I'm sorry but clear and well defined examples beat your opinion any day of the weak.

Voter laws are at times used for voter suppression. This is just a fact.

North Carolina

In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.^[83] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.^[84][85] On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.^[86]

2012 Florida

A law was passed in 2011 by the Florida legislature which reduced the days available for early voting, barred voter-registration activities of groups like the League of Women Voters, and made it more difficult to vote for voters who since the last election had moved to a different county within the state.^[69]Jim Greer, the main source for the information cited in the Palm Beach Post article, was sentenced to 18 months for embezzling from the Florida Republican Party.^[70] A majority of early voting ballots cast in 2008 were cast by Democratic voters, and minority voters are more likely to move. The reason given by Republican politicians for the law was to reduce cost and to deter voter fraud; however, some former senior Republican officials alleged that the true drivers of the law were GOP political consultants who were seeking ways to suppress the Democratic vote.^[71]

Several factors, including the reduction in early voting, reductions in the number of polling places, and an unusually lengthy ballot that included 11 detailed constitutional amendments, all combined to produce long lines on election day, with waits of several hours.^[72] By one estimate, the result was that at least 201,000 likely voters did not vote, either leaving the line in frustration or not even getting in line when they saw how long it would take.^[72]

Hell, why don't we just put an income threshold on voting then. Can't have addicts vote, nor the homeless, why not the poor?

well then there are people with money who are also addicts.

and those people exist