North Dakota has no voter registration, so proof of identity makes sense. But Republicans made it so that one's address had to be a residential address instead of a P.O. box knowing full well that Native Americans on reservations rely exclusively on the latter in large numbershttps://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1049778552013541376 …
-
-
Lol, the GOP doesn’t do anything in good faith.
-
That is helpful.
-
It is helpful. You asked the question "do we know it isn't [in good faith]?" And the question itself is laughable because the GOP hasn't operated in good faith since at least the Reagan era.
-
*yaaaaaawn*
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
See this thread. If some residents of ND DON’T have street addresses, it’s hard to imagine the state is making a good faith effort by requiring addresses.https://twitter.com/joseyrider/status/1049800334724481024?s=21 …
-
Thank you
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
“Good faith” doesn’t matter. They wrote the law, it has the consequence of disproportionately affecting voters of a certain race. Yet they pushed it up to the Supreme Court instead of fixing it. Even if it WAS in good faith, it isn’t anymore.
-
It always matters whether your opponents are operating in good faith. Sotomayor and Breyer seem to have let it go. Why?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And there is the entire gop strategy laid bare: racism and disenfranchisement coversd by the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability. But it seems reasonable.
Laws that limit voting are on anti-democratic and unamerican. -
Laws that limited voting were in place longer than they weren't in America.
-
And wouldn’t it suit the GOP down to the ground to put us all the way back to landed-white-men-only enfranchisement.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In what conceivable scenario would a state issue a tribal ID to a person who didn't live on a reservation in that state? Wolf's right. There's no compelling reason to do this. All it does is make voting harder.
-
States don't issue tribal IDs, tribal governments do. They are acceptable on many Federal forms, including I9s, and while it's not required to live on the res, or even in the state, the ID must contain the citizen's current address.
-
(I can’t find anyone on this actually from North Dakota but ...) AsA Texas County Voter Deputy Registrar Ive visited our SoS site too many times. Here’s a list of acceptable VoterID from the NorthDakota SoS site (looks like it’s current as of this ruling) https://vip.sos.nd.gov/idrequirements.aspx …
-
The problem is the Reservation uses PO Boxes. FedEx & UPS don’t deliver there. There are gps locations and plots that can be used but it takes months to get the paperwork done. If they had 1 Central address that could be used to put on Drs Licenses that would be a compromise.
-
Did the res just start using PO boxes? This isn't the first yeat they've voted, because Heitkamp wouldn't be in office now without them, and THAT is the only problem here. If they had streets and house numbers, the GOP would find some other made-up problem to disenfranchise them.
-
That article ignores that they won’t accept ANY of those forms of ID if they have a P.O. Box listed.
-
I still think rather then getting 2 bills with a matching gps spot on the road they need 1 central address that they can use to comply with what Republicans want.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. North Dakota has 1 congressional district and reservations don’t have US local government, so a tribal ID provides 100% of what you need to validate an eligible voter. Address is unnecessary for that, so it’s inclusion is intentional for this effect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.