The movement that required you show ID to attend their rally opposing voter ID is planning yet another event. Will ID be required at this one too?
#MoralMarch will protest NC’s new “racist” #VoterID, but you’re req’d to bring photo ID to the march. #ncpol pic.twitter.com/w14mzejdSn
— Stacey-SisterToldjah (@sistertoldjah) February 8, 2014
The announcement of a new Occupy Monday event earned 4 short paragraphs from the Associated Press via Blueridge Now:
RALEIGH, N.C. — A caravan of people urging the restoration of the Voting Rights Act will join North Carolina activists in Raleigh in a protest.
The groups will rally Tuesday outside the state Capitol. The Forward Together Moral Movement, led by the state NAACP, will be joined by the Saving OurSelves Movement for Justice and Democracy.
That group coordinated last weekend’s 49th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Ala. They’re stopping in various states as they make their way to Washington, D.C., where they’ll rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court for restoration of the Voting Rights Act.
Last June, the Supreme Court threw out the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get Washington’s approval before changing the way they hold elections.
Voter ID is popular in North Carolina. It’s a non-starter issue, yet Occupy Monday continues to beat their drum on it. Have fun with that. *Yawn*
Related Reads:
LL1885 
Well, they ARE trying a end-run on this. Nationally, voter ID is seen as a return to a “poll tax” (yeah, well, I don’t understand that either) so Sen. Kay and the Justice Dept are fighting the need for the ID.
However, last I heard (and I admit that I don’t go to Moral Monday events) the locals were protesting “other stuff in the bill.” You know, like that draconian suggestion that a couple of fewer days to vote somehow impacts black people in an unfair manner. (I pause to note that, in Detroit, people — most of whom are black — have exactly 1 day to vote.)
Perhaps their last statement, about those 15 states, should be looked at as well. ‘Cause I don’t recall that decision in exactly those terms?
LikeLike