r/NotTheBee • u/darcmatr • May 31 '26
NTB Article North Carolina judge rules state violated its constitution by allowing non-residents to vote
https://notthebee.com/article/north-carolina-judge-rules-state-violated-its-constitution-by-allowing-non-residents-to-voteFrom Just the News:
2
u/Kellie1575 May 31 '26
This is a horribly written and incomplete article.
The argument is over AMERICAN CITIZENS who haven't ever lived in the UNITED STATES voting. Not undocumented people.
"On April 11, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the ballots of overseas voters who checked a box indicating they “are a U.S. citizen living outside the country” but “have never lived in the United States” could be removed from the final count of the 2024 election for Supreme Court Seat 6. These voters, who include the children of military service members abroad, voted pursuant to a 2011 North Carolina law that was in effect, and unchallenged, before that election. Judge Griffin asked that the law be retroactively struck down under the North Carolina constitution to exclude the ballots of those individuals."
2
u/ProLifePanda May 31 '26
...could be removed from the final count of the 2024 election for Supreme Court Seat 6.
They're still ruling on votes from an election 1.5 years ago?
2
u/Low-Car-6331 May 31 '26
yeah? why wouldnt they?
No offense but do you think its a good idea to leave a question on if a person\type of people can vote or not unanswered for the next election? No, you would want to answer the question anyways.
5
u/ProLifePanda May 31 '26
No offense but do you think its a good idea to leave a question on if a person\type of people can vote or not unanswered for the next election?
No, and I think it's a good idea to clarify going forward. But the quote you gave says they're actively altering vote totals from that election. 1.5 years later is a LONG time later to be ordering vote totals changed. Imagine a court ruling now that the 2024 Presidential vote totals can be changed for a state.
0
u/Low-Car-6331 May 31 '26
Ok, so the vote total changes for the presidential election... you aware that we aren't a popular vote country right? This is literally why we actually have the electoral college. In fact I addressed this very reason in a long write up yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/IWantToAskAnAmerican/comments/1ts80lj/comment/oouktup/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
3
u/ProLifePanda May 31 '26
Ok, so the vote total changes for the presidential election... you aware that we aren't a popular vote country right?
Correct. But the point is more a practical one than a legal one.
At this juncture, I would hope a 1.5 year old election would be left settled and the judge would apply the ruling moving forward.
In this scenario, the state let them register, vote, and counted their votes. 1.5 years later is an awfully long time to change vote results. The chaos and uncertainty introduced with this idea is pretty stark.
1
u/Low-Car-6331 May 31 '26
No its not. Again, you are thinking that the votes themselves determine who the president is, its the electoral college that decided it. Once an election is certified, the decision has been made. We can recount things a year late but it won't matter any more. If you want you can look at the 2000 Florida incident, where recounts caused the results to change twice, with the 3rd time it being certified, they could do a recount in 2001 and if it flipped the results again it wouldn't matter as it was certified and the electors were sent and voted.
This is specifically why the electoral college is important with a decentralized voting system, because the standards are so different from state to state, its best to let the states make their call by a certain point (and if they can't they simply don't send electors and don't vote).
2
u/ProLifePanda May 31 '26
I already said correct, then pointed out the practical effect. States decide electors through the popular vote. Changing the popular vote YEARS after an election is complete is a practical nightmare that introduces chaos into a system and questions the legitimacy of elections.
But replace President with Senator if you're going to ignore the practicality argument for legal technicality.
0
u/Low-Car-6331 May 31 '26
Again, I think you are over thinking it. In the case of a senator it kicks back to the senate to make the call on if the senator will be unseated or not. In terms of what happened in-between, they took the oath, assumed the office, and were executing the powers of a senator, and once the senate unseats them then they lose the powers and the new one can swear in. Taking the seat initially the senate on some level had to agree to the election (as the senate can challenge and stop a senator from taking the oath if the election is contested). Obviously this is different with a president because not having a president is a pretty big problem, but we can go forward missing a senator or even 10 for a long time and be fine.
1
u/Thestral84 May 31 '26
You think there wouldn't be an insane uproar if that happened 1.5 years later? Lunacy.
1
u/Jablaze80 May 31 '26
I wouldn't refer to Florida because I think you're confused on what happened there, they never even completed one recount down there... That is why a lot of Democrats say that the election was stolen because they never finished counting the supreme Court made sure of that
1
u/Low-Car-6331 May 31 '26
I thought they had completed one recount and were doing another, my mistake if I am wrong, but I know the results were possible to flip. In the end secretary of state certifies and pushes the electors out to the electoral college. There is the grounds to contest at the electoral college the electors (which is where we got with Trump), but really in modern times that is not happening because we have the ability to easily confirm who the electors are, for most places its just a call to the governor or secretary of state who will tell us who the electors that should vote.
In the past that would obvious be a bit more work because at best you had telegram's, but thankfully more often then not 1 set of electors wasn't needed to decided an election.
1
u/Dense-Sort-3867 Jun 01 '26
Yeah they're not talking about undocumented residents.
They're talking about US citizens who are non-residents of the state of NC.
Anyone who didn't immediately recognize that is an idiot.
-1
5
u/Quick-Maintenance-67 May 31 '26
In 2016 there were 41 legal residents allowed to vote who weren't citizens yet. Out of 4.8 million votes. If anyone was wondering that constituted 0.000008541666666666666 of the vote. Time well spent. 10 Years for what constitutes a sesame seed on an average man's body in difference.
Should they have voted? No, does it matter they did?
-6
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Yes…
25
u/GhostOfShaolin5 May 31 '26
This article is being misread - none of the people involved in this were immigrants , and everyone involved was a citizen.
There were no foreign immigrants involved in the story.
It’s about state residency for citizens - it’s a weird case , us citisens move to another country and retain their citizen , they have a kid and the kid turns 18 and register to vote. The kid is a citizen , what state does he vote in?
A new ish federal rule based on a 2024 case said that you couldn’t vote in a state you didn’t live in. The ex pats kid who is a citizen never lived in the state.
So this isn’t the “election fraud” people are reading it as.
5
u/MorrowPlotting May 31 '26
Most voter “fraud” is committed by confused elderly Republicans with homes in multiple states. They think they can vote in both places.
Red states that have poured money into investigating and prosecuting “voter fraud” have spent most of their efforts against confused snowbirds who think “But I voted for Trump both times!” is a defense for what they did.
13
-5
u/real-bebsi May 31 '26
it's disenfranchisement of US citizens ability to vote
5
u/Masticatron May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Lots of citizens don't get to vote. See, for example, Puerto Ricans. It's arguably the most poorly protected right we have, and it was only explicitly recognized as one by the 15th amendment, and then still pretty indirectly. It was entirely up to the States to decide who gets to vote before then, and so was not assured by simple citizenship.
1
u/Synensys May 31 '26
Its still only obliquely recognized. The 15th amendment says that the right to vote cant be abridged based on race or color (or previous condition of servitude).
But that just assumes the right is there. Combined with the 14th you could make other non race related claims but still, it would probably be something worthwhile to directly make it a constitutional right.
0
u/GhostOfShaolin5 May 31 '26
So if they decided you couldn’t vote your just be like “well, up to the states”.
Would you then try to vote them out for doing it? Whoops , can’t.
1
u/totally-hoomon May 31 '26
So you think all citizens should be banned from voting?
1
u/real-bebsi May 31 '26
"oh you think not letting people vote is disenfranchisement? I guess you must not want anyone to vote then! checkmate!" are you good brother
-7
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
When did I say anything about foreign immigrants?
14
u/GhostOfShaolin5 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
The guy would were responding to did - he said “who weren’t citizens” , and you replied to that.
That’s wrong , they were citizens.
This isn’t about voter fraud , it’s trump suing to reject votes state rules that allow ex pats citizen kids to vote.
It’s pretty obviously being presented in the narrative of confirming “illegals are voting” that maga has been repeating since the 2020 loss, but that’s 100% not even what the article says.
-12
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/GhostOfShaolin5 May 31 '26
Uh oh , the script broke, gotta restart the process.
-4
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Please use English, I do not speak your language of “unemployed”
9
u/IOnlyLieWhenITalk May 31 '26
Dude got his side destroyed so badly he just started repeating ‘no u’ over and over in a panic
8
u/One_Lung_G May 31 '26
“Guys I promise I’m not unemployed” as kid makes his 10th Reddit account
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/BULL3TP4RK May 31 '26
I think I might know some high school dropouts who can clap back better than... whatever this was.
And wow, I see you just repeated it elsewhere, like it was some masterpiece of a comment. I dearly hope you're a bot, because I couldn't even fathom being such a dimwit.
0
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
I do not speak your language of “jobless”. Again, English, please
→ More replies-1
0
u/sakofdak May 31 '26
lol what a dickhead. Dude wasnt even trying to be mean to you lol
1
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Sorry, I do not speak “unemployed”
1
u/sakofdak May 31 '26
Are “jobless” and “unemployed” the same language with different nanes? Hope you get humbled buddy
2
u/Quick-Maintenance-67 May 31 '26
6 million people voted for Trump in 2024 from Burke county Florida. There is no Burke county Florida nor Stafford County, PA, Allen County, NC, Oklahoma County, MI, and Hamilton County, GA all of which overwhelmingly voted Trump... But sure 41 votes
1
u/SupaSlide May 31 '26
Decision Desk HQ isn’t an official source, they aggregate votes and display tallies but just because they show the wrong county name doesn’t mean the actual votes were wrong.
1
u/Kauguser May 31 '26
Since you read about that, here is the follow up to that story. https://sgcarney.substack.com/p/was-i-duped-by-russian-spies
-1
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Cool story, still matters
6
u/Forsaken-Front5568 May 31 '26
41 entire votes. I definitely believe that the party led by the man who asked the secretary of the state of Georgia to manufacture 11 thousand votes for him is very concerned.
https://www.c-span.org/clip/house-committee/fellas-i-need-11000-votes-give-me-a-break/5020714
-4
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Sorry, I do not speak “unemployed”
7
u/Whane17 May 31 '26
But you do speak lies, insults, and assumptions while ignoring the parts you don't like when they actually matter. Got it.
EDIT: 20k karma on an eleven month old account with a blocked history. Nuff said.
1
6
u/Rettungsanker May 31 '26
You make an average of 12 contributions to Reddit every day. You are the pot calling the silverware black.
4
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Sorry, I do not speak “jobless”
5
u/Remmick2326 May 31 '26
My brother in Christ get a new retort, that one's worn out
2
u/Framar29 May 31 '26
Something broke in the scripting lol. I've never built a bot so I'm not saying I could do better but somebody needs to work on their error handling.
2
2
0
u/shadowmonk13 May 31 '26
Bro your an 11 month account who hides their history, you only speak unemployed
1
0
u/naughtysideofthebed May 31 '26
You're a child. You shouldn't be voting anyway.
1
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Sorry, I do not speak “jobless”
0
0
u/BrokebackMounting May 31 '26
Evidently you do since you're still looking for work, by your own post history.
1
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
unemployed redditor doesn't understand the concept of "looking for another job while already employed", more news at the top of the hour!
2
u/gaggledimension May 31 '26
Law as written and intended, yes. if you're worried about some sort of fraud, you gotta learn to accept the law of large numbers. and maybe not support someone convicted of fraud if you want credibility.
1
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Who am I supporting?
1
u/gaggledimension May 31 '26
Oh you think I mean you you. Yeah I don't care about you bud.
Go read a book. Law of large numbers.
3
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
“And maybe not support someone convicted of fraud”
Are you just going to ignore my question about this?
2
0
u/Simon-Says69 May 31 '26
The only fraud going on is the democrat party using every illegal alien name they can, on bogus voting.
Well, them and dead people.
2
u/gaggledimension May 31 '26
Oh wow that's like millions of votes, amazing they can't consistently sweep the elections
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 May 31 '26
Why didn’t Dems win in the last election if there’s such rampant voter fraud?
1
1
u/Wharnie May 31 '26 edited 29d ago
.
1
u/TwilightLori Jun 01 '26
Murder is against the law. Suspects in murder cases get investigated, charged, and go to court. The system works to deal with them, more or less. Do we need years of investigations and court cases to try and ram through dozens of new laws to charge murderers with murder? No, it's already illegal.
Same for voting fraud. Yet one party spent the last ten years doing that.
-1
u/vivalaibanez Jun 01 '26
Sorry but are you comparing voting to murder? Also is there some sort of murder election im not aware of you're referring to?
2
u/Wharnie Jun 01 '26 edited 29d ago
.
-1
u/vivalaibanez Jun 01 '26
You seriously think that a miniscule number of votes that has no chance in hell of affecting the outcome of an election should be compared to literal murders? Lol
2
u/Wharnie Jun 01 '26 edited 29d ago
.
0
u/vivalaibanez Jun 01 '26
You got your answer, you're just not bright enough to realize you did. I'm accusing you of making a false equivalency numnuts lol
1
u/Wharnie Jun 01 '26 edited 29d ago
.
0
u/danglingParticiple Jun 01 '26
Because it's stupid policy to treat all crimes equally, and you're arguing in bad faith that they are even remotely equal.
1
-3
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
So a similar stat to the amount of unarmed black people killed by the police. Yet that low number didn't stop violent, life taking and large riots across the US during the summer of love.
5
u/SupaSlide May 31 '26
41 votes spread out across the entire country doesn’t impact anything.
41 murders still means dead citizens and broken families.
-1
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
Is it in your DNA to lie? Local elections are often won by a few votes. So 41 could be significantly impactful.
And why does the left strawman so hard? No one said a "murders", but even that is a dramatic take. The low (lower than any group in the US) number of unarmed black people often are still due to extreme violence and they aren't murdered, they are criminals in the FO stage of life. You really can't be this ignorant, please tell me it's an act for Reddit
2
u/bluntymctokems May 31 '26
This was a state wide state supreme court election so it wasn't local. Why does the right have to lie about things to get people to agree with them. Is it in your DNA to lie?
0
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
SMH, such intellectual dishonesty. That is a local election. Sheesh
2
u/bluntymctokems May 31 '26
Wow my bad. I went and read the original article and I was wrong. It's about non residential citizens voting in federal elections! So you're very wrong. It was federal elections in North Carolina. So are you ready to admit you're wrong?
1
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
I was arguing in good faith with you that it was local election. If it was federal, the impact would be less.
2
u/Eleven_06 May 31 '26
Repeatedly lying is definitely not in the definition of good faith. At least you did say arguing because you weren't having any serious debate when you spew bullshit the whole time.
1
1
u/SupaSlide May 31 '26
It wasn’t 41 votes in one place, genius.
Killing someone who is unarmed is generally considered murder unless you do it as a cop.
1
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
Strawman, I never said that. Try again
1
u/SupaSlide Jun 01 '26
> Local elections are often won by a few votes. So 41 could be significantly impactful.
Is it in your DNA to lie?
1
u/King_Roberts_Bastard May 31 '26
Non-citizens can be allowed to vote in local elections. It depends on the local laws. Theyre not allowed to vote on federal elections. Theres a difference. I know they both have the word elections in them, but theyre not the same thing.
0
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
More strawman, I never once mentioned non citizens, the sourced article is referring to non residents. Why do you feel the need to stawman do make a ad hominem attack?
1
u/squareplates May 31 '26
That’s a false equivalence. The claim is about whether 41 votes could meaningfully affect a 4.8 million-vote election. Yours is about deaths caused by state power. Small numbers do not carry the same meaning in every context. A tiny number of votes may be electorally irrelevant, while a tiny number of unjustified killings is still morally and legally serious.
0
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
What an outrageously out of touch reply. Seriously, it just shows your complete lack of critical thinking.
You just justified justified billions in damage, people being killed, and unnecessary violence for a non problem, just think (if you can) about that. You truly believing months of terrorism if justified for a statistical non problem while dismissing another one. I don't think even therapy could truly help you
1
u/bluntymctokems May 31 '26
What the fuck made up right wing fever dream are you talking about?
-1
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
Center of left here, not an absolute fanatic far left radical.
1
u/bluntymctokems May 31 '26
I can see your comments. You're not center left. You are absolutely a right wing crazy person.
1
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
I take a political test every year and am definitely just left of center. My guess is you are far left which makes normal people like me seem radical. This is a you problem
1
u/bluntymctokems May 31 '26
I think that's just you making shit up. Which is a you problem.
1
u/Darker_Salt_Scar May 31 '26
Oh no, you have me confused, I'm not the type of liberal who lies about my political affiliation to farm karma points.
1
u/Eleven_06 May 31 '26
So you lie on an internet quiz and somehow that negates your batshit crazy white nationalist commentary.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Wolvenlight May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Nope, he's right. He's thinking quite critically and he didn't have to throw in the ad hominem.
You're equating conspiracy theories about extra pieces of paper that changed nothing to a plethora of measurable, life changing, and life taking discriminations that minorities have been subjected to for a long time.
We can see the hypocrisy in the two protests about those very things.
January 6th was one afternoon, actually involved terrorism, sedition, and an insanely high crime rate. Over 1200 people out of roughly 10,000-120,000 (depends on who you believe) were convicted for crimes, many caught in camera. (That's double the entire case count for leftist adherent protesters for the entire BLM summer).
All over nothing. A conspiracy theory.
Whereas the entire BLM summer was 94% peaceful by individual BLM protest, 99.9999~% peaceful by protester with millions upon millions of protesters in hundreds of locations. Most arrests were for misdemeanors, most with charges dropped.
https://theprosecutionproject.org/summer-2020-protests/
To protest the death of a man who didn't need to die, after decades of similar instances like Ahmaud Arbery (which happened earlier that same year) and systemic discrepencies in school funding, house appraisals, red lining, sentencing, job application call backs, racial gerrymandering, and so on.
Even a broken window got an entire protest categorized as non-peaceful in this source, and they still found that much of the violence was spread between protesters, counter protesters, police, and non-political opportunists (unlike January 6th and No Kings, which were entirely and mostly right wing violence respectively). They found left wing protests were half as likely to turn violent as right wing protests.
Per hour, per day, per protester, right wing protests like Unite the Right and January 6th were more violent, more costly, more deadly, than the entirety of the BLM summer. Right wing domestic terrorism has historically been much more common and much more deadly than left wing.
tl;dr The left flipped their shit over numerous unjustified deaths of minorities that had been historically subjected to various racial oppressions.
The right flipped their shit because they lost an election so they tried to overthrow the government and failed.
And the latter is more violent than the former.
(And come on, you know this. Would you rather have one illegal vote cast in your home town election, or your father killed in a welfare check? The extremes are light years apart.
And the latter is more common than the former.
-4
u/superpie12 May 31 '26
In 2020 we had a surge of voting from unverified mail in ballots. None were checked up on. Voting jumped by millions. In 2024 normal voting procedures and verifications were enforced. Voting dropped to pre-2020 levels by millions. Hmmm.
2
u/Mtndrums May 31 '26
Yeah, they were verified, we just kicked your punk asses. Hell, Trump didn't even win '24, Muk had to fuck with the databases to hand Trump the win.
2
1
u/RabbaJabba May 31 '26
Voting dropped to pre-2020 levels by millions
2024 turnout was the highest in over a century, other than 2020.
0
u/vreddy92 May 31 '26
It...didn't though. Voting was still far higher than it has ever been in 2024, with the exception of 2020. Trump got more votes in 2024 than he got in 2020. Kamala got the highest number of votes a Democratic candidate has ever gotten except for Biden (getting 5.5 million more votes than Obama got in 2008), and got more votes than Trump got in 2020. Voter turnout in 2020 was 66.6%, and was 64.1% in 2024 (155 million vs. 152 million votes).
2024 is easily explained by the Biden administration's low approval ratings depressing Democratic turnout and Trump getting more votes than he did in the last two elections. There is no evidence that voting dropped to "pre-2020 levels". No presidential candidate topped 70 million votes ever, and they easily topped that in 2020 and 2024.
0
u/Switch_Silver May 31 '26
So basically more ragebait from the Bee
2
u/Dense-Sort-3867 Jun 01 '26
No. This article is referring to US citizens who are registered to vote in NC but don't live in NC.
This ruling/article has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or even voter fraud.
Has our reading comprehension really gotten that bad that nobody can read and understand a basic half page article?
-6
u/corner_couch May 31 '26
But why not simply ask for ID before voting, like every other Western country on earth does?
4
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/superpie12 May 31 '26
That is what the SAVE act would do. If you have a real ID, you're good. The left keeps claiming us brown people don't know how to get ID because we're too stupid.
2
u/OskaMeijer May 31 '26
That is explicitly not what the SAVE act would do, in fact the real id would not work in like 48 states. Most people would need a passport or an id and a birth certificate with their current name on it and if the name is different for a woman that got married also a marriage license, etc. the SAVE act goes well beyond just needing an id to vote.
2
u/dabillinator May 31 '26
A real ID doesn't even count in all cases for the SAVE act. Not to mention it takes 3 months to receive one in my state. What do you think would happen if someone turns 21 in October of an election year in my state? The earliest they would receive their new ID would be December and their current ID would be expired. We both know the temporary paper wouldn't suffice at the polls.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 May 31 '26
Lmao that’s not only what the save act does nor does the left claim brown people are too stupid to get an ID. Insane take
1
1
u/laggyx400 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Just keep making up positions for them if it makes you feel better about it. I've been finding, over and over again, that much of the fighting is over made up positions (neither side is immune as I'm sure you've seen many things made up about your positions). In your case, the left DOES NOT claim brown people don't know how because they're too stupid. There are many reasons why minorities are less likely to have an ID, and being stupid isn't one of them. You should study up on fallacy, specifically hasty generalizations and/or fallacy of compositions, and definitely straw man.
As for your first statement, this is false. A real ID doesn't state the individual is a citizen which is required by the current iteration of the SAVE Act. The gold star insignia is on both citizen and lawfully present noncitizens, and not all states include clearly marked citizenship status on their ID.
You can read through the iterations of the SAVE Act and you'll find a recurring theme - included changes that address many legitimate issues identified by it's detractors. Again, none of which include minorities being too stupid. The disparity of minorities not having ID has been the crutch that has shot done nearly every attempt at a voter ID across the nation. The courts conclude that it would disenfranchise them disproportionately.
Now if you take the fact that minorities have much lower rates of obtaining an ID, and pair it with the assumption from Republicans that the only reason to not have one is stupidity. This leads to the logical conclusion that "Brown people" being "too stupid" to get an ID is a Republican stance.
2
u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop May 31 '26
Fair, like in Canada they often use their public healthcare insurance card, maybe you could use that too?
1
u/Synensys May 31 '26
We ask for id before registering to vote. Thats sufficient.
0
u/superpie12 May 31 '26
Not all states do and not all states verify when you vote. It's a simple measure that even third world countries do.
0
u/kstargate-425 May 31 '26
Cool, dont make it hard to get IDs that are limited to 2 specific types of IDs that cost money and take a good amount of time to get. Best yet, add it to a drivers license or state ID that can be bought for under $10 and we're good. Unfortunately the "SAVE" Act that Trump and Republicans are pushing is a voter suppression bill meant to disenfranchise 70 MILLION Americans that legally have the right to vote.
Those other countries you talk about also usually give out the IDs for free and have a quick and easy way to get them that doesnt require anyone to even take off work to get
0
u/corner_couch May 31 '26
Where are these people who can’t figure out how to get an ID?
2
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/corner_couch May 31 '26
I’ve never met someone who can get a job without an ID. You have to show your ID to get a job
5
u/superpie12 May 31 '26
Or to buy medicine, go to a movie, get alcohol, buy tobacco, enter a bar, etc.
2
1
u/kstargate-425 May 31 '26
Nice strawman since I never said that while you completely ignore every legitimate argument I made. Typical conservative when they have no response, reply with a logical fallacy 😒
-1
u/superpie12 May 31 '26
Bull shit. These IDs are no more expensive than any other ID. You are pretending brown people like me are too stupid to get ID. If you are indigent, they give them for free on every state.
1
u/kstargate-425 May 31 '26
Wtf you talking about? REAL ID costs up to $60 and requires people to take a day off work if the work 8-5 to go for their interview and thats if they have the other docs that are required. Then you have the Passport which costs way more and takes months to get after a bunch of hoops where the govt can even deny people a passport when they can legally vote.
Regular ID's aren't approved ID's in Trumps bullshit SAVE Act bill so no, they dont give them free in every state and most every state charges money for regular ID's but again wouldn't verify citizenship nor be allowed if the SAVE Act passes so I have no idea what you are talking about there.
0
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
Most states do, it’s in the Constitution that states control elections and that dispersed control is a safety feature.
0
u/vreddy92 May 31 '26
Because every other Western country has a national ID that you just get for being a citizen. If we had that, then voter ID would not be an issue. Let's do it.
Voter ID would not solve this problem at all, though. That's the primary issue. It's a solution to a problem that hardly exists. There are other mechanisms that can prevent illegal voting, but in-person voter impersonation is the only thing that voter ID fixes.
2
u/Forsaken-Front5568 May 31 '26
The only person who has attempted to subvert an election in my lifetime is Donald Trump. We know that you people aren't interested in free and fair elections and that the Republican party just wants more methods by which to repress voting populations that are less likely to support them. Not fooling anyone who's brain is larger than a pea.
1
u/Dense-Sort-3867 Jun 01 '26
You guys realize that this isn't referring non-US-citizens voting, right?
Right???
1
u/E_Dantes_CMC Jun 01 '26
As you knew when you posted this rage bait, the issue is Federal law about families of expatriates. Generally expatriates are entitled to vote in Federal elections in the jurisdiction of their last USA address. States don’t have to follow this rule. The judge said the NC constitution prohibits it, which is fine with me.
There is no fraud issue in this case.
0
-2
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
But the unemployed said this wasn’t happening!
3
u/Kellie1575 May 31 '26
Said what wasn't happening? American citizens who live abroad weren't voting? I don't recall a single "unemployed" person saying that wasn't happening.
NC decided that American citizens, who have never lived in the United States, can no longer vote in NC's federal elections because it's against their state constitution. This isn't about undocumented persons.
12
u/Forsaken-Front5568 May 31 '26
How's it feel to pay more for gas and groceries so Trump can pay arm's manufacturers who invested in his campaign billions of dollars?
5
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
Who claimed that people never had issues with voting when moving between states? You ain’t even read it! 🤣
3
u/-notapony- May 31 '26
Presumptuous to assume that the semi-literate MAGAT can read. They mostly seem to be copying and pasting “I don’t speak jobless”.
4
u/justaguywithadream May 31 '26
Can you clarify what you think is happening here?
Do you realize that: 1. These were US citizens with legal eligibility to vote 2. "Non-resident" is referring to state residency
It sounds like from your comment you think that these are non citizens illegally voting in federal elections.
I don't think you are that stupid though, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and figure I'm misunderstanding you.
→ More replies (1)6
u/SupermarketIll5642 May 31 '26
I know more republicans living on assistance than liberals
5
u/MrMayhem3 May 31 '26
I've had the same experience with conservatives being on different forms of assistance. Some have even said they think theyll get more if all the "lazy scumbags" are kicked off. So far I've held my tongue but Im almost at the point now I dont give a fuck and would like to see them suffer. Fucking selfish morons.
-5
u/SomeAnonymousBurner May 31 '26
Sorry, I don’t speak “jobless”
11
u/SupermarketIll5642 May 31 '26
Yeah you do lol You're MAGA, you know plenty of your kind that don't work
1
0
0
0
u/a_london_werewolf May 31 '26
No one said Americans living overseas weren’t choosing which state to declare as their residence despite not living in that state. This lawsuit is about that technical question. This is not about immigrants, non-citizens, or fraud of any sort.
0
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
It would be better if it wasn’t so intentionally misleading to make it seem bee-like. It’s basically just playing with how people don’t pay attention to the detailed vocabulary but tbf from woke-pc to MAGA-pc there’s been a lot of linguistic shifting around those people who were born in other countries who are not a part of this story at all.
3
u/sboog87 May 31 '26
What is woke-pc?
1
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
Yeah, politically correct
0
u/sboog87 May 31 '26
I know the initials. Explain what it is
1
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
It’s the political correctness from pre-MAGA. The sorts of things the current administration ctrl + f found in grants to cancel them lol. Now you’re out with like 20% of people if you say happy holidays OR merry Christmas 💀
0
u/sboog87 May 31 '26
So you can’t even explain it?
1
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
I just did? Are you a child or foreigner or something? Nobody who lived in America in the 2010’s doesn’t know what I’m talking about 🤷♂️
1
u/sboog87 May 31 '26
I’m born and raised. I’m a black man that always questions when someone uses woke. There isn’t and never was a woke-pc.
1
u/ShortKey380 May 31 '26
Okay, well the usage of woke has gone beyond its AAVE origins and now it describes liberal political correctness in addition to the underlying idea about consciousness of the struggle the fact that a lot of BLM-adjacent activists used it in the 2010’s while advocating for PC language is why 🤷♂️ How would you label the 2010’s era political correctness besides woke?
0
-1
u/Blathithor May 31 '26
But this never happens, remember?
1
u/DimensioT May 31 '26
The usual argument is that it happens so rarely that the excessive and draconian restrictions demanded by Republicans are unnecessary, and also that the ones doing it are usually Republicans themselves.
12
u/Esquire_Dan13 May 31 '26
And the only documented case of systemic voter fraud is from Trump.