Voter ID disagreement could be solved with court decision
In case you haven’t been following closely, the U.S Supreme Court made a major decision regarding North Carolina voting rights this week.
But North Carolina isn’t the only state that’s had the nation’s highest court weigh in on voting laws.
First and foremost, the Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision to allow votes casts in another precincts and same-day registration. The court has also blocked voter ID laws in Wisconsin. Ohio also had a brush with the Supreme Court, when the court blocked a lower court ruling that allowed an extra week of early voting.
In a separate but related ruling, a federal judge blocked a Texas voter ID law this week.
In all of the courts’ decisions, voter ID is perhaps the most interesting.
Voter ID laws will become increasingly relevant in North Carolina, as the state moves toward its own identification requirement in 2016.
All voters until then will be asked for identification, but won’t be required to show proof until 2016.
In nearly all cases, conservatives and republicans argue that voter ID prevents voter fraud — for example, voting for the same candidate multiple times.
Democrats and liberal minds often argue that voter ID is like a poll tax that unfairly affects minorities and the poor.
Both arguments seem to have a little weight, depending on the size of both problems. In other states, such as Alabama, identification cards are free, but for the state’s most disadvantaged, transportation remains a problem. Absentee and early voting help to alleviate transportation troubles when it’s time to vote.
As the nation approaches the 50th anniversary of one most significant events in the voting rights movement — Bloody Sunday and the Selma to Montgomery Marches — it’s only fitting that the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of mandatory voter identification at polls once and for all.
With November just around the corner, local political group La Resistance is endorsing all four incumbent members of the Rowan-Salisbury School board in the candidates’ re-election bid.
Todd Paris, the founder of La Resistance, said the members being backed by the group are chairman Richard Miller; L.A. Overcash, who fills seat two; vice-chair Kay Wright Norman and Jean Kennedy, who fills seat six.
It won’t be the only round of political endorsement that the La Resistance makes, as it’s expected to pick it county commission endorsements in the coming weeks.
La Resistance members may not choose to back candidates for all three available seats, as the group will also choose a specific number of candidates.
The most significant bit of local political news this week was the Salisbury City Council’s decision to deny a special use permit for the former Salisbury Mall and subsequently an appeal by Rowan County.
As a point of reference, Rowan County Board of Commissioners vice-chairman Craig Pierce said weeks before the council’s decision that an appeal was looming if the council denied the permit.
The appeal may have been expected, but no one can predict the length of time that the appeal will take. Estimates by county attorney Jay Dees put the hearing into the new commissioners’ terms. That doesn’t include time it’ll take for the appeal to wrap up.
Other than new ownership, the only real change at the former Salisbury Mall, now West End Plaza, since it’s purchase is the number of leases signed for commercial businesses.
Depending on the success of an appeal of if new commissioners decide to drop it, they could have full control of West End Plaza after all.
Contact reporter Josh Bergeron at 704-797-4246
Rowan County Commissioners plan to appeal a decision by the Salisbury City Council to deny a special use permit request... read more