And the law (requiring a street address, not a PO box) stood up to judicial challenge.
Before you say it, every square foot of ND has a street address (per the statewide 911 system).
In Maine the address they put on your ID is your mailing address.
You can request a physical address on the back, but it isn’t mandatory
“We tried to pass a law to stop them from voting, but they banded together to fight back” is like saying the real reason for the oppression that led to the Civil Rights Movement was the friendships made along the way.
Go Green! Go White! Go State!
1966, 1986, 2007 Go Tigers, Go Packers, Go Red Wings, Go Pistons
ND passed a law requiring a street mailing address on ID used for voting to prove you live in the district you're trying to vote in. A PO box doesn't prove you live in the district you're trying to vote in. The reservations all have ND recognized street addresses.
The issue is North Dakota’s voter ID laws, which were enacted over a year ago and upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court (with votes from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, no less).
Heitkamp had little to say about ID policy when it was created by the Legislature last year, but in need of a talking point at the bitter end of her clumsy campaign the Senator suddenly sees it as a travesty.
Heitkamp and the national networks of left wing activists who are now showering her campaign with money and support (bought with the incumbent’s vote against Brett Kavanaugh, no doubt) are busy branding North Dakotans as a bunch of racist rubes out to disenfranchise Native Americans.
This isn’t true, of course, but supposing for a moment it was, where were these people when this law was passed?
Why did they wait until just weeks before election day to make a stink, when issues with tribal ID’s could have been resolved months and months ago?
Why did so many of them only start to care when it became a campaign issue?
It’s still easy for Native Americans to vote (as Heitkamp herself has been saying during visits to Indian country) but it’s politically convenient for Heitkamp and her surrogates to pretend otherwise.
Both as a way to inflame her left wing base ahead of voting, and perhaps as an excuse for losing on election day.
RoverFrenchy, Classic! Great post. iwh30I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man gregg729I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence." Ritt18you are the perfect representation of your alma mater. Miss ThundercatThat's it, you win. TBA#2I want to kill you and dance in your blood. DisplacedCornellianHahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.
And the law (requiring a street address, not a PO box) stood up to judicial challenge.
Before you say it, every square foot of ND has a street address (per the statewide 911 system).
1. Someone managing to overcome abuse...doesn't justify the abuse. Just because there's turnout doesn't mean there wasn't voter suppression.
2. There is no North Dakota voter fraud. None. The North Dakota people did what they could to suppress the NA vote. If it wasn't the people, then politicians would have been thrown out. It was the NAs themselves with some assistance that made it so that they had any kind of vote - in spite of your fellow North Dakotans.
"In the days leading up to the midterm election, indigenous leaders rallied to issue thousands of new ID cards for would-be voters. The campaign, dubbed #StandingRockTheVote, is the result of a partnership between several North Dakota tribes and nonprofit advocacy organizations fighting voter suppression. As of last week, the Standing Rock Sioux, Turtle Mountain Chippewa, and Three Affiliated Tribes had distributed more than 2,000 new ID cards to their members free of charge so that they won’t be turned away at the polls. Through a GoFundMe page, the group raised more than $230,000 for the initiative in 17 days. The Native American Rights Fund also donated $50,000." https://www.vo*****/policy-and-polit...ssion-heitkamp
3. How many NAs were involved in the decision of your judiciary? Would you actually think that the judiciary would choose the NA point of view over that of the extreme legislature elected from the same source as themselves? I don't expect you to see any of this as you've shown yourself to be just as politically corrupt.
1. Someone managing to overcome abuse...doesn't justify the abuse. Just because there's turnout doesn't mean there wasn't voter suppression.
2. There is no North Dakota voter fraud. None. The North Dakota people did what they could to suppress the NA vote. If it wasn't the people, then politicians would have been thrown out. It was the NAs themselves with some assistance that made it so that they had any kind of vote - in spite of your fellow North Dakotans.
"In the days leading up to the midterm election, indigenous leaders rallied to issue thousands of new ID cards for would-be voters. The campaign, dubbed #StandingRockTheVote, is the result of a partnership between several North Dakota tribes and nonprofit advocacy organizations fighting voter suppression. As of last week, the Standing Rock Sioux, Turtle Mountain Chippewa, and Three Affiliated Tribes had distributed more than 2,000 new ID cards to their members free of charge so that they won’t be turned away at the polls. Through a GoFundMe page, the group raised more than $230,000 for the initiative in 17 days. The Native American Rights Fund also donated $50,000." https://www.vo*****/policy-and-polit...ssion-heitkamp
3. How many NAs were involved in the decision of your judiciary? Would you actually think that the judiciary would choose the NA point of view over that of the extreme legislature elected from the same source as themselves? I don't expect you to see any of this as you've shown yourself to be just as politically corrupt.
He either doesn't know this because he's dumb and doesn't know how to use google or he knows all this and is arguing in bad faith per usual.
3. How many NAs were involved in the decision of your judiciary?
Full blooded NA's, or are we applying the "Warren Standard?"
That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment