jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (18 posts)

Are you aware of North Carolina's Senate Bill 666 and 667?

  1. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne … s-who-vote

    As per the link provided, it looks like the nauseating rightwing (aka GOP) of the state of North Carolina is engaged in a brazen attempt to punished college students and their parents if the college students register to vote in North Carolina. For a party that has a problem with taxes they don't mind raising them on Middle class families by denying parents the ability to deduct their student as a dependent. This is outrageous. I weary of all these conservatives that say that 'trimming the rolls" is a way to restore integrity to the voting process. I never seen a bigger bunch of fascists parading in sheep's clothing. This need to be broadcasted far and wide to let people see the ugly face of the Grand Old Party and the ruthless approach of how, instead of offering policies and candidates to attract voters, uses suppression whenever they cannot win legitimately.

    Oh yes , by the way, Senate Bill (666) is aptly titled and associated with the closest thing to the devil here on earth, IMHO.

    So how do you rightwingers explain yourselves in this case?

    Regardless of whether you are left, right or center, I solicit your thoughts....

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting link.
        Judging from your comment you agree with the linked post, as such it appears that the pertinent points you object to are:
        1. The issue of where a student registers to vote
        2. Loss of dependent deduction for parents
       
      But the article you support also addresses what it sees as a couple more problems;
        3. Requiring a complete and accurate voter registration form
        4. The apparent nonsense of "where the bedroom is, ie... where they lay their head to sleep.
        5. Raising tuition rates by eliminating lower in-state rates
        6. An issue with the appointment, conduct, and supervision of polling place observers
       
      Pretty heady stuff. And you're right, sounds like a GOP stink bomb to restrict student voting rights ...

      ... if you accept the articles characterizations at face value. But, if you look at the issues objectively, (I know, it's hard), AND in the context of existing state and Federal laws - you might detect the probability that theirs, (the linked article) is a biased perspective.
       
        To wit.
        1. The issue of where a student registers to vote
       
      State voting rights are intended for permanent residents of the state, and permanent residency qualifications are not new, and seem to make sense, otherwise voters could just flock into a state in time to register to vote as residents of the state.
      **the law does not say a student can't register in that state as a permanent resident.
       
      Do you see a problem with residency requirements? Or, is the concept of "carpet bagger" voters ok with you?
       
      Further, if a student is a temporary resident, ie. transient college student, so their parents can keep the dependent deduction, (by abiding by Federal IRS regulations*), why should they be granted an exemption to be considered a permanent resident so they can become a voter of that state?
      *see IRS reg below
       
      But, you counter, if 2 years is the residency requirement, then why can't that 3rd year student become a voter of that state.
       
        No, problem, they can.
       
      But again, you say, that brings us to point #2, now the parents will be penalized by the loss of their dependent deduction.

      Oops! -  although the proposed law does state this as a consequence of the student establishing their permanent status as a resident of that state, so they can vote in that state - in truth, they are just following Federal regulations as established by the IRS:

      The IRS requires a dependent child to meet 4 criteria, the second of which is that their permanent address be the same as the deducting parents permanent address.
       
      Here's their text, and a link to "their definition of a dependent child"
        Residence — has the same principal residence as the taxpayer for more than half the tax year. Exceptions apply, in certain cases, for children of divorced or separated parents, kidnapped children, temporary absences, and for children who were born or died during the year.
        http://www.irs.gov/uac/A-%E2%80%9CQuali … d%E2%80%9D
       
      As another responder already stated, the student is perfectly capable of voting, with no restrictions - by absentee ballot of the state of their permanent residence.

      And if they choose to change permanent residence to the state of their college, why do you think it is wrong for them to have to meet that state's residency requirements, and for their parents to have to abide by the same IRS regulations that any other "dependent-deducting" parent has to abide by?
       
      This is getting to be a long response already, although I also have refuting positions for the other objections listed, (of the linked site), I will leave it with the statement that they are equally as "aggrandized" to fit their agenda, as the two issues already addressed are

      But wait, a note about the really silly sounding one addressing the locations of the "bedroom"  - have you never heard of instances of towns, homes, and other buildings that were bisected by boundary lines? There is one small town on the US/Canadian border with the border running right down the center of main street ... until main street takes a turn and the border continues to bisect the town library - which actually has to abide by both US and Canadian laws - depending on where you are standing in the library.

      hmmm... I wonder if there are similar quandaries in any of NC's college towns

      ... and that same paragraph goes on to say "vacant lots and buildings are not acceptable addresses for the purpose of establishing residency. Does that sound ok to you? Or is it just as silly as the "bedroom" location issue?

      ps. you are correct in one respect; as presented by the linked website, and, your post, it does sound like the GOP is up to its usual skulduggery :o)

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi, GA, thanks for adding your wit and wisdom to this forum, so just how is every little thing? You may be in the best position to offer some of the hard answers I am looking for to explain this behavior and its philosophical underpinnings.

        You said:

        Interesting link.
          Judging from your comment you agree with the linked post, as such it appears that the pertinent points you object to are:
          1. The issue of where a student registers to vote
          2. Loss of dependent deduction for parents

        True!
         
        You said:
        But the article you support also addresses what it sees as a couple more problems;
          3. Requiring a complete and accurate voter registration form
          4. The apparent nonsense of "where the bedroom is, ie... where they lay their head to sleep.
          5. Raising tuition rates by eliminating lower in-state rates
          6. An issue with the appointment, conduct, and supervision of polling place observers

        I take no issue with these aspects of the bill except 4 and 5 which is punitive in nature.

        You said:
        Pretty heady stuff. And you're right, sounds like a GOP stink bomb to restrict student voting rights ...

        But Why, GA, why? There are no comparable tactics used by the left, why is that?

        You said:
        if you accept the articles characterizations at face value. But, if you look at the issues objectively, (I know, it's hard), AND in the context of existing state and Federal laws - you might detect the probability that theirs, (the linked article) is a biased perspective.

        Could be, I was hoping that you would come along and show us toward what you may see as a more balanced observation.....
         
        You said:
        State voting rights are intended for permanent residents of the state, and permanent residency qualifications are not new, and seem to make sense, otherwise voters could just flock into a state in time to register to vote as residents of the state.
        **the law does not say a student can't register in that state as a permanent resident.

        So, GA, what is a 'permanent resident'? Most of us are not permanent residents anywhere, really. This link provided show what constitutes residency for each of the 50 states.
        What is being proposed by the NC legislature ignored the established precident which if passed will probably be challenged in court.

        http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html

        The oversight provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 still applies to North Carolina, as the necessity of the Act is being challenged now, this is the kind of thing that makes one believe there is no reason to relax any of its provisions. 

        The requirements for voting are pretty consistent thoughout the union; must prove residency in the state for about 30 days, be a U.S. citizen and over the age of 18 years, not be serving time in prison and not declared mentally incompetent by a court of law.
           
        You said:
        Do you see a problem with residency requirements? Or, is the concept of "carpet bagger" voters ok with you?

        In our system there are no carpet bagger voters, either they are legal residents as defined  or not, if not, they have not the right to vote,  otherwise they do. It is just that basic and to add 'baggage' to the student and their parents is unacceptable.

        This tax exemption,as I understand it reflects the fact that the student is a dependent and is primarely being economic supported by the primary, so does that mean they become non-citizens without the franchise when they otherwise meet the state's residency requirement? I understand that a state may require evidence of extended residency, drivers licenses, payment of state taxes etc. in the case of being able to apply for instate tuition, for example. But the minimum for voting seems pretty clear. The choice should remain with the STUDENT as to his or her intent to become resident of the state where they attend school.
           
        You said:
        Further, if a student is a temporary resident, ie. transient college student, so their parents can keep the dependent deduction, (by abiding by Federal IRS regulations*), why should they be granted an exemption to be considered a permanent resident so they can become a voter of that state? Am I incorrect to presume that we are speaking of the federal deduction, I was of the opinion that the deduction is based primarely on dependency and that where the individual resided was not relevant.Why cannot I use the exemption of a dependent of mine, even as he or she attends college in another state, while I am still supporting them, where does that change?
        *see IRS reg below
        But, you counter, if 2 years is the residency requirement, then why can't that 3rd year student become a voter of that state.
         
        It is unprecedented, as the link provided above makes no such draconian requirement for the right to franchise by new residents to the state. If I moved to North Carolina, I could not imagined being denied the right to vote for 2 -3 years after I relocated, or does this just apply to one class of citizen?
         
        You said:
        But again, you say, that brings us to point #2, now the parents will be penalized by the loss of their dependent deduction.
        Oops! -  although the proposed law does state this as a consequence of the student establishing their permanent status as a resident of that state, so they can vote in that state - in truth, they are just following Federal regulations as established by the IRS:
        The IRS requires a dependent child to meet 4 criteria, the second of which is that their permanent address be the same as the deducting parents permanent address. 
        Here's their text, and a link to "their definition of a dependent child"
          Residence — has the same principal residence as the taxpayer for more than half the tax year. Exceptions apply, in certain cases, for children of divorced or separated parents, kidnapped children, temporary absences, and for children who were born or died during the year.
          http://www.irs.gov/uac/A-%E2%80%9CQuali … d%E2%80%9D

        I tried to go to your link and was directed, I instead found this information provided by the IRS, I did not see the residency requirement as you seem to indicate in the previous paragraph

        http://www.irs.gov/uac/Six-Important-Fa … emptions-1


        You said:
        As another responder already stated, the student is perfectly capable of voting, with no restrictions - by absentee ballot of the state of their permanent residence.

        It is still a ruse,  the GOP knows that the absentee ballot process is a natural deterent to student participation. Your state of permanent residence is whatever state you reside, while meeting the residency requirement of that specific state, you should have the right to vote there.

        You said:
        And if they choose to change permanent residence to the state of their college, why do you think it is wrong for them to have to meet that state's residency requirements, and for their parents to have to abide by the same IRS regulations that any other "dependent-deducting" parent has to abide by?

        Yes, the student should have to meet the state's residency requirements, but again it will have to be litigated if they (the state) requires parents to abandon their right to an exemption for the said student as a dependent. There is no basis for this, it will go to court, as other red states have similar schemes.
         
        You said:
        This is getting to be a long response already, although I also have refuting positions for the other objections listed, (of the linked site), I will leave it with the statement that they are equally as "aggrandized" to fit their agenda, as the two issues already addressed are.  But wait, a note about the really silly sounding one addressing the locations of the "bedroom"  - have you never heard of instances of towns, homes, and other buildings that were bisected by boundary lines? There is one small town on the US/Canadian border with the border running right down the center of main street ... until main street takes a turn and the border continues to bisect the town library - which actually has to abide by both US and Canadian laws - depending on where you are standing in the library.
        hmmm... I wonder if there are similar quandaries in any of NC's college towns

        I am sure that there is but the differences in international boundaries as compared to mere state boundaries is quite stark.

        You said
        ... and that same paragraph goes on to say "vacant lots and buildings are not acceptable addresses for the purpose of establishing residency. Does that sound ok to you? Or is it just as silly as the "bedroom" location issue?

        North Carolina is not the least discrete in revealing its hands as to the true purpose of such legislation, but your friend and mine, the judiciary will shoot them out of the sky.

        You said:  ps. you are correct in one respect; as presented by the linked website, and, your post, it does sound like the GOP is up to its usual skulduggery yikes)

        But those on the Right, this goes for you as well, Sassy Sue, can you answer this question. What do the GOP/Right hope to accomplish but to continue to antogonize a major demographic group. If they want to commit political suicide, I will be more than happy to pour them a glass of hemlock on the rocks. While their constituency is narrowing they continue to tick everybody else off.....Why is this?

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Greetings again Cred2,
          I must apologize beforehand for a really really, (hopefully not boring), long reply. But I enjoy our conversations.

          you said,
          "I take no issue with these aspects of the bill except 4 and 5 which is punitive in nature. "

          Ok, issues 4 and 5 then.

          #4 borders and boundary lines ...
          Why do you see this as punitive?
          As far as I can see from reading the law;
          SECTION 2.
          G.S. 163 - 57(1) reads as rewritten:

          (1)
          That place shall be considered the residence of a person in which that person's habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever that person is absent, that person has the intention of returning.
          a. In the event that a person's habitation is divided by a State, county, municipal, precinct, ward, or other election district (author's emphasis), then the location of the bedroom or usual sleeping area for that person with respect to
          the location of the boundary line at issue shall be controlling as the residency of that person.


          ... it seems to be intended to address two issues,
          1) assignment to the correct polling precinct - relative to address supplied for voter registration
          2) as this seems that it could only apply to residences, (perhaps large housing complexes), that could possibly straddle precinct or other state boundary lines - I can only guess that this has arisen as an issue before. True or not, I don't have a clue, but as per my earlier example of the small US/Canadian border town - it is not an unheard of possibility.

          Either way, I don't see how this could be a punitive restriction - it seems to be designed to ensure proper precinct and polling place assignment.

          You will have to explain the punitive aspects.

          #5  Raising tuition rates by eliminating lower in-state rates ...

          SECTION 3.
          G.S. 116-143.1(d) reads as rewritten:

          An individual shall not be classified as a resident for tuition purposes and, thus, not rendered eligible to receive the in-State tuition rate, until he or she has provided such evidence related to legal residence and its duration as may be required by officials of the institution of higher education from which the individual seeks the in-State tuition rate.

          Evidence of voter registration in North Carolina is not sufficient evidence in and of itself but may be provided as part of evidence related to legal residence.


          Well, once again you will have to explain the punitive aspects of this, because, as I read it ...
          It seems only to be asking that the student meet the same requirements any other student/state resident would have to  meet.

          I don't read it as asking the new registered voter to do anything anyone else would not have to do. And relative to voter registration not being enough to meet those requirements, so what? It would not be enough for another state resident - without further corroboration.

          It appears to be saying that to get in-state tuition rates - you have to meet the requirements. Well, uh... what's wrong with that? They, (newly registered resident voters), are not being singled out.

          But maybe I am missing something, if so, I hope you can point it out, because even after reading the entire bill(s) to be sure I had the context, I just don't see the punitive part.

          and too continue ...

          As for ... comparable tactics," Since we haven't yet come to agreement that the laws are tactics ...

          Could be, I was hoping that you would come along and show us toward what you may see as a more balanced observation.....

          hmmm... I thought that was what I was doing - guess I failed.

          The subsequent large section of your reply regarding residency requirements and votings rights were never disputed.

          There is nothing in the law that changes any of the existing residency requirements or voting franchise rights, and I'm fairly certain I did not indicate otherwise. So, we appear to be in agreement on this point. Any student that can meet NC's residency requirements can become a permanent voting resident. So where's the problem with that part of the proposed law?

          ps. perhaps my use of "permanent" has tainted the perspective, maybe just saying "legal" resident would have been less inciting.

          ... It is still a ruse,  the GOP knows that the absentee ballot process is a natural deterrent to student participation. Your state of permanent residence is whatever state you reside, while meeting the residency requirement of that specific state, you should have the right to vote there.

          You have lost me here. You perceive it as a ruse, but I am not convinced.
          Are you certain absentee balloting is such a disadvantage?
          You seem to be arguing feelings rather than fact.
          You want the students to be able to vote as a resident, but remain a dependent deduction for their parents. The NC laws have nothing to do with that - it's an IRS regulation. "THEY have changed or required nothing that is not already mandated by Federal law/regulations.

          Sounds like a case of wanting your cake, and eat it too - you can't have it both ways.

          And your last point - come on Cred2, your logic is more sound than to offer this;
          Yes, the student should have to meet the state's residency requirements, but again it will have to be litigated if they (the state) requires parents to abandon their right to an exemption for the said student as a dependent. There is no basis for this, it will go to court, as other red states have similar schemes.

          as has been pointed out several times- it is an existing Federal IRS regulation - the new law changes nothing. What is there to litigate?



          As for the IRS reg. and link, I offered both the regulation sub-text and a link, do you believe I made it up?

          let me try again;
          http://www.irs.gov/uac/A-%E2%80%9CQuali … d%E2%80%9D
          ps. I tested the link in preview - seems to work fine, it is not a redirect

          ...A “Qualifying Child”

          FS-2005-7, January 2005

          Uniform Definition
          A “qualifying child” may enable a taxpayer to claim several tax benefits, such as head of household filing status, the exemption for a dependent, the child tax credit, the child and dependent care credit and the earned income tax credit. Prior to 2005, each of these items defined a qualifying child differently, leaving many taxpayers confused.

          The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 set a uniform definition of a qualifying child, beginning for Tax Year 2005. This standard definition applies to all five of the tax benefits noted above, with each benefit having some additional rules.

          In general, to be a taxpayer’s qualifying child, a person must satisfy four tests:

              Relationship — the taxpayer’s child or stepchild (whether by blood or adoption), foster child, sibling or stepsibling, or a descendant of one of these.
              Residence — has the same principal residence as the taxpayer for more than half the tax year. Exceptions apply, in certain cases, for children of divorced or separated parents, kidnapped children, temporary absences, and for children who were born or died during the year.
              Age — must be under the age of 19 at the end of the tax year, or under the age of 24 if a full-time student for at least five months of the year, or be permanently and totally disabled at any time during the year.
              Support — did not provide more than one-half of his/her own support for the year.



          Again, you seem to want it both ways. That's unlike you.
           
          As for your last point, Appearances and perception are one thing, facts are quite another.
          I don't see the facts supporting your, or the linked websites contentions.
          But I also have no intention trying to explain, endorse, or many times, even understand the GOP's actions.

          So how do you score it? If your spin on the meaning of the "legalese" of the laws, is accepted as a common perception - a big IF, then you win on perception and fail on facts. Isn't that what you complain about the GOP doing?

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            GA, and Sassy, you are both right, I stand corrected, the key was the link that GA provided, I just couldn't find it. This will not be the first nor last time that I will have to eat crow, you will allow me to season to taste.....

            Thanks for clarifying this for me, perhaps you folks are not such ogres after all.  With the concern about voter suppression the right has been accused of and all that, continued suspicion remained on my part, but in this case it is clearly not warranted.   
            Thank you both for a most educational and civil exchange, you have got me to reevaluate some of these things with your points in mind.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's all good, Cred2. You're a stand up guy. After all, I was wrong once too lol

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hang in there Cred2, If you remember, way back in one of our first exchanges I said I would rescue you from the Dark Side - and no I didn't mean to the right - they're the Grey Side :)

              GA

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They aren't trying to tick people off Cred2, they are trying to stop duplicate voting, which does occur and in fact, occurred this past election cycle. When interviewed, the people didn't understand that they even did anything wrong so they willingly admitted to voting by absentee ballot and then showing up at the polls on election day. Why do those on the left continue to believe, no matter if it is a rare thing, that this is alright? Why do we not want to prevent this from happening?
          Bottom line, what you state about residency and claiming of dependents is incorrect. If my 20 something child moves out of state and claims residency, I am no longer allowed to claim them as a dependent. Why should the parent of a college student be treated differently than any other? What makes them exempt? Further, establishing permanent residency in almost every state in the union requires that your drivers' license be transferred to that state within 30 days. Are these students doing that? I'd suspect not since if they are on Mom and Pops taxes, they are probably on Mom and Pops insurance. That is a requirement of residency, so without it, there is no permanent residency. You cannot pick and choose which requirement you'd like to meet and ignore anything that proves inconvenient for you.
          I'm at a loss as to why people get so bent over the protection of our right to vote. Any law that makes it more difficult to vote twice or vote if you don't have that right should really not be an issue. If an absentee ballot is too burdensome for some students, then perhaps being knowledgeable enough to decide the direction of the country isn't a responsibility they are prepared to take on. I mean, it's mailing in a form, not overly difficult.
          Just my two cents because you asked.

  2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    It says if they register in another location.  The way college students move around it doesn't make sense to register anyplace but home and do an absentee ballot.  The bill is written in a really screwy fashion. But then that's lawyers for you.

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I hear you, tireless, but the intent of the legislation seems pretty clear to me. The regulations regarding who becomes a legal resident in each of 50 states are quite clear, and if those provisions are met the right to the franchise comes with it. We can discuss the mechanics but the intent is what ticks me off.  This just brings more negative attention to the political right as supporting this kind of legislation.... Thanks

  3. Cheeky Girl profile image88
    Cheeky Girlposted 3 years ago

    So much for telling the youth vote to come out and vote. Why does the group of people in charge create this law? Who benefits most from this? Shove it.

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      yeah, CG, it sucks, exactly my point. The enemies of democracy always start with intimidation rather than persuasion. There you go.

  4. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    *bump

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LOL
      I was going to mention the cricket chirping after you pretty much laid out how it REALLY is with these two pieces of legislation. Facts are just a nuisance though you know? smile

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Cred2 is probably busy with other stuff. He is seldom at a loss for words, especially on a thread he started - so I expect to hear from him soon.

        But you may be  right about the reason for the lack of other responders. Or maybe it's just a non-issue (seems most likely)

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, buddy, I got your comment and wanted to give it the response and consideration that it deserves. i will be with you directly.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No problem, that's why I took up for you. :)

            GA

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          She is probably right.  You laid it out pretty well - there's nothing left to say.

 
working