Roll Call: Who is voting early? Who is waiting til Nov. 5 (and why?)

fsclark1 said:
Just voted today, Wake County. Took over an hour, but not a huge deal. Straight Dem, Yes on the bond issues, No on the Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
What don’t you support about the constitutional amendment? I was reading my sample ballot and the amendment seemed like something I would hope almost anyone would support. Did I miss something?
 
Maybe or you're hoping to deflect others from noticing that it's unnecessary under current law and raises the possibility of challenging naturalized citizens that current law doesn't.

Did you miss something?
 
If I lived in North Carolina, I'd probably vote no on the constitutional amendment, too. Not because I disagree with the notion that only citizens are eligible to vote in elections- obviously I do not disagree with that at all- but because 1. the law is already on the books in NC, 2. it's one of those really weird performative Republican solutions in search of a problem, and 3. because it's a needless change in the language of a law that already exists and isn't being proposed to be changed.
 
Paine said:
1. There’s already a federal law barring non-citizens from voting, so the amendment is redundant.

2. I believe the voting age should be 16, so I don’t want a constitutional amendment saying that the voting age in NC is 18.

3. I believe that non-citizens should be able to vote in local elections if that locality wants it to be that way. The amendment would prevent that.

4. History shows the North Carolina Republican Party and their supermajority in the GA will use this constitutional amendment to continue their campaign of voter suppression and intimidation.
Click to expand...
I guess this goes to show you that it’s hard to have a large consensus on anything in politics. For whatever it’s worth, with the wording of that amendment I’m expecting it to pass with relative ease. Maybe not the high degree of consensus that I was expecting. But can’t imagine 50+% of people voting no for a proposal that only legal citizens be able to vote…..I agree it’s somewhat redundant but also just seems like such common sense.

Are Democrats encouraging their voters to vote no on the amendment?
 
Paine said:
I expect it to pass as well because of the wording and most people won’t look into it enough to care what the consequences may be.

I haven’t seen any messaging from the NC Democratic Party specifically to vote no, but I haven’t sought it out either.
Click to expand...
Democrats are messaging to vote no. I voted no because it just seems like an opportunity to go back and add additional qualifiers to the language as they see fit.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I guess this goes to show you that it’s hard to have a large consensus on anything in politics. For whatever it’s worth, with the wording of that amendment I’m expecting it to pass with relative ease. Maybe not the high degree of consensus that I was expecting. But can’t imagine 50+% of people voting no for a proposal that only legal citizens be able to vote…..I agree it’s somewhat redundant but also just seems like such common sense.

Are Democrats encouraging their voters to vote no on the amendment?
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's just possible that Republicans in NC think that modifying the state constitution for total non issues that serve primarily to alienate and demean is a fun sport?
 
wmheel1287 said:
Or maybe it's just possible that Republicans in NC think that modifying the state constitution for total non issues that serve primarily to alienate and demean is a fun sport?
Click to expand...
That’s not how I see it but you’re welcome to vote your conscience. Ok to disagree. But it seems like a silly thing to be against.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
That’s not how I see it but you’re welcome to vote your conscience. Ok to disagree. But it seems like a silly thing to be against.
Click to expand...
It seems silly to be against treating the state's constitution like partisan toilet paper to gin up some kind of angst that something needs to be done about this scourge of voting which isn't actually happening?

Why would you equate voting against the amendment to be against the issue? If that's the case, shouldn't we line up amendments about drunk driving? Hell, to my knowledge, the state constitution doesn't even address rape! We definitely need an amendment for that too, don't you think?
 
dukeman92 said:
North Carolina (and everywhere else that uses paper ballots) could speed up the process exponentially by having computerized voting machines. That seems so much quicker than coloring in every individual square.
Click to expand...
I want paper ballots that are fed into machines that count the votes.

Restore the ability to vote straight party - that’ll speed up voting for 40+ percent.

Or, be like Oregon - go to vote by mail. They have great turn-out by US standards and negligible fraud.
 
Last edited:
wmheel1287 said:
It seems silly to be against treating the state's constitution like partisan toilet paper to gin up some kind of angst that something needs to be done about this scourge of voting which isn't actually happening?

Why would you equate voting against the amendment to be against the issue? If that's the case, shouldn't we line up amendments about drunk driving? Hell, to my knowledge, the state constitution doesn't even address rape! We definitely need an amendment for that too, don't you think?
Click to expand...
There is nothing partisan about people needing to be citizens ages 18 and up in order to vote. The fact this is considered partisan highlights why Democrats poll so poorly on immigration.

And yeah, if there was an amendment that said drunk driving or rape was bad, I wouldn’t twist myself in a pretzel to find a way to oppose it.
 
What is the reason to change from a law that works to one that is untested and claims not to be greatly different.

Iow, since you're a fan. what specifically is the improvement over the current law?
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
That’s not how I see it but you’re welcome to vote your conscience. Ok to disagree. But it seems like a silly thing to be against.
Click to expand...
It seems to me to be a silly thing when we already have laws that accomplish the same thing. Why not have a constitutional amendment that speed limits in the state cannot exceed 70 miles per hour? The impact would be the same as this stupid amendment, which is simply political theater for dumb people.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I guess this goes to show you that it’s hard to have a large consensus on anything in politics. For whatever it’s worth, with the wording of that amendment I’m expecting it to pass with relative ease. Maybe not the high degree of consensus that I was expecting. But can’t imagine 50+% of people voting no for a proposal that only legal citizens be able to vote…..I agree it’s somewhat redundant but also just seems like such common sense.

Are Democrats encouraging their voters to vote no on the amendment?
Click to expand...
I voted against the amendment because it was put on the ballot as a political stunt to mislead voters into thinking "illegal migrants" were currently allowed to vote.

It's not a matter of common sense to vote for this trope; It's a matter of voting for this bs amendment out of ignorance
 
Paine said:
I expect it to pass as well because of the wording and most people won’t look into it enough to care what the consequences may be.

I haven’t seen any messaging from the NC Democratic Party specifically to vote no, but I haven’t sought it out either.
Click to expand...
This^
The Dems in my county passed out a sample ballot with all the Dem candidates marked accordingly but they didn’t have anything marked yay or nay for the amendment, as if to say: “whatever, we don’t care one way or another.”
 
Took my dad to vote this weekend, couldn't find his license but had it on my phone. Nope, gotta have a physical ID. Luckily, the polling place was at the Board of Elections building so we walked in and they issued him a voter card, good for 10 years. Unfortunately, when we went back to the polling place it was 3:01 and they closed at 3:00. We'll get back sometime this week...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top