NAACP purportedly advocates confusion at polls to achieve crass political agenda.

[I B Hankering]

.

NAACP Speaker’s Alleged Remarks: Let’s Create Confusion During the Nov. 2014 Election By Deliberately Misleading Voters

OCTOBER 21, 2014

According to a letter from a lawyer for the State of North Carolina to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a speaker at a recent NAACP conference in North Carolina urged audience members to mislead the NAACP’s own members into believing they do not need to register to vote in advance, or that they do not need to vote at their assigned polling place. Why? The letter alleges: To create confusion and animosity during the upcoming mid-term elections in North Carolina, and to use the evidence of that confusion in the ongoing litigation between Eric Holder’s Justice Department and North Carolina and to show that North Carolina’s election integrity laws are discriminatory. From the letter:

It is also our understanding that during the [NAACP conference], Rev. Barber urged those in attendance to take unregistered voters to vote during the Early Voting period and to engage in get-out-the vote activities that included transporting registered voters to vote in precincts in which they are not assigned to vote on Election Day, or words to that effect. The stated purpose for these activities, as I understand it, was to gather evidence for and thereby enhance plaintiffs prospects of success in the litigation involving [North Carolina’s Election Integrity Laws].

Judicial Watch has been actively involved in this sprawling North Carolina election litigation for the past two years. Judicial Watch has filed two amicus briefs in this case, one in 2013 and one in 2014, supporting North Carolina and election integrity. On both occasions, we were joined in our brief by our partner the Allied Educational Foundation and by local political activist Christina Merrill. We also gave oral arguments and submitted an expert witness report to the trial court explaining that no one is harmed by these election integrity laws, but rather, these laws prevent fraud and ensure all Americans are confident that election results are fair and honest.

If true, the fact that the NAACP’s leaders appear willing to risk the confusion and disenfranchisement of their own members in order to deceive a Court about common sense election integrity laws speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of the left’s arguments. The left’s weak arguments also explain why the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 vote, recently overruled the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ temporary injunction and held that North Carolina’s laws comply with federal law and should be used during the November 2014 election. The litigation between North Carolina and the DOJ is expected to proceed further in 2015.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...eading-voters/

(sarcasm on) Yeah right, Little Timmy-tard, casting illegal votes isn't considered voter fraud. (sarcasm off)

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.

(sarcasm on) Yeah right, Little Timmy-tard, casting illegal votes isn't considered voter fraud. (sarcasm off)

Confusion at the polls ???
What, are they passing around that list of baby daddies at the ballot box again ?

[JD Barleycorn]

What they are spreading the seeds for is to have unregistered people going to the wrong polling places after they have been told that registration is unnecessary and they can go to any polling place. When they are refused then they will go upset and cry racism. The press will pick it up and say that the state is practicing voter denial. The state will be forced to start accepting bad votes and the Eric Holder legal case against the state's voter will be strengthened. It is cheating, illegal, immoral plain and simple.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What they are spreading the seeds for is to have unregistered people going to the wrong polling places after they have been told that registration is unnecessary and they can go to any polling place. When they are refused then they will go upset and cry racism. The press will pick it up and say that the state is practicing voter denial. The state will be forced to start accepting bad votes and the Eric Holder legal case against the state's voter will be strengthened. It is cheating, illegal, immoral plain and simple.

lets say you go to a voting place that does not require a picture ID
how does that work? do you just tell them your name? and they trust you?
how was voting done before IDs were needed?

[IIFFOFRDB]

oxymoron
[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-]

example: unconfused democrat

[cowboy8055]

Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

lets say you go to a voting place that does not require a picture ID
how does that work? do you just tell them your name? and they trust you?
how was voting done before IDs were needed?

No ID needed where I vote. Just need to state your name and address. They basically employ the honor system.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

lets say you go to a voting place that does not require a picture ID
how does that work? do you just tell them your name? and they trust you?
how was voting done before IDs were needed?

During the Colonial period there were frauds (usually relating to property ownership and residency), but positive ID was not among them. The candidates sat or stood on a podium and the voters came forward and shook the hand of the man they preferred. Everyone was a neighbor (there were no voting strangers), and everything was open for all to see. In the same manner, the people elected 'electors' - people they personally knew and could trust to represent them to select a president. U.S. Senators were picked by the state legislatures. American Revolutionaries in the Making by Charles Sydnor.

George Caleb Bingham's painting, The County Election, illustrates the eighteenth-century style voting in early America. Note the following:

• Initially, only property owning men with a vested interest in the community voted. That had changed by the 1850's.
• Neighbors knew neighbors, and voting was not private: there was little if any anonymity in most elections.
• The men in top hats probably depict the candidates themselves, and they were often present watching and listening to see how the community members voted.
• In the bottom left corner, a man is drinking what is most likely alcohol; thus, illustrating how candidates would often "treat" voters with free food and beverages.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[JD Barleycorn]

In smaller precincts you usually had knowledge of who everyone was.

It is more than a matter of voters not voting. They want to use the confusion to push a court case and to force the state to accept all the bad votes in order to avoid being called racists.