NC Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson Blasts Democrats For Opposing Election Integrity Measures
“The notion that people must be protected from a free ID to secure their votes is not just insane—it is insulting”
North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson (R) gave yet another stellar speech in support of our Constitutional rights.
Robinson, you may recall, first rose to prominence for his outstanding defense of the Second Amendment back in 2018. He subsequently ran for and won the office of Lieutenant Governor in 2020.
Speaking at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Robinson blasted national Democrats’ racist and insulting insistence that black people cannot figure out how to get a voter ID. He also noted that Democrats are focused only on obtaining and keeping power.
The Daily Signal has the transcript. Here’s a portion of Robinson’s speech.
The sacrifices of our ancestors so I could have the opportunity to become the first black lieutenant governor of my state, to see a black man sitting in the White House for two terms, and for millions of us to be leaders in business, athletics, government, and culture add up to an incredible story of victory.
But today, we hear Georgia law being compared to Jim Crow, that black voices are being silenced and that black voices are being kept out.
How? By bullets? By bombs? By nooses? No, by requiring a free ID to secure the vote. Let me say that again: by requiring a free ID to secure the vote. How absolutely preposterous.
Am I to believe that black Americans who have overcome the atrocities of slavery, who were victorious in the civil rights movement, and now sit in the highest levels of this government could not figure out how to get a free ID to secure their votes? That they need to be coddled by politicians because they don’t think we can figure out how to make our voices heard?
Are you kidding me? The notion that people must be protected from a free ID to secure their votes is not just insane—it is insulting.
And let me tell you something about this. This doesn’t have anything to do with justice, this has everything to do with power.
Just a few days ago, the vice president went to the very place that I mentioned, the Woolworth counter in Greensboro, but you know who wasn’t there, you know who wasn’t invited? My good friend, Clarence Henderson, who is a civil rights icon. He sat at that counter and endured the suffering and pain to make sure that black voices were heard. And why was he left out? Because he’s of a different political persuasion.
You might ask why this is so, and I’ll tell you plainly. The goal of some individuals in government is not to hear the voices of black Americans at all, it’s to hear the voices that fit their narratives and ultimately help keep power with one group. And that’s what this all is all about, it’s about power.
Just look at HR 1. It’s despicable. The entire thing is designed to keep one party in power and ensure they stay there indefinitely. And how do they plan to do that? By taking away the rights of states given by the Constitution to govern their own elections, to mandate a partisan wish list that comes down from that federal government.
Some of these items include using government dollars to fund campaigns in order to give an advantage to one party; mandating that felons are allowed to vote, including illegal immigrants on voter rolls; and of course, trying to ban states from having voter ID.
Watch:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This guy is awesome.
Tired Republican trope trotted out ad nausium. The evidence suggests quite strongly that voter ID laws don’t really reduce voter fraud and restricts voting. If he could actually provide a study to the contrary maybe he would have a point.
The evidence is they do not restrict voting.
Want a study?
Just ask all the African Americans on your block if they have a drivers license, and look at the way states with voter ID laws actually have high turnout. Georgian turnout for 2018 was through the roof.
You could find political hacks to say anything. Alternatively you could just have relationships with nonwhite people and notice they have bank accounts, are as vaccinated as you are against diseases, have jobs etc.
I was about to go into rant mode but in my link searches and consequent reading of the literature. Seems like the research is that voter restriction laws neither restrict voting (although the long term impact hasn’t been studied) nor impacted on voter fraud ie there is the same rate of voter fraud before and after implementation of these kinds of laws. In other words the laws appear to be a waste of time. That said given the current attention on fraud I’m now sympathetic to the idea of voter restriction laws. On the basis that it might improve public confidence in the voting system with no negative downside.
With regard to your other comments I’m not sure that would be a great basis to make a decision but the point is moot.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research
News article with link from the article to the research. Seemed pretty coherent as research. Interesting read.
That I could and do agree with, I was taking issue just with the “restrict voting” part of the comment, and I’m impressed that you did the research to find that, particularly since I remembered research done but didn’t bother to dig it up before replying.
Looking back at my post I agree bringing in anecdotes and suggesting someone else also use their own anecdotal information was a bad argument so that was good criticism of my argument, I honestly don’t know what I was thinking doing it.
Good article by the way, I was as surprised by some of the people cited in it as the source (Vox) but it is very solid.
A paper not peer reviewed nor published in a reputable scientific journal or even reviewed by the NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH which provided the piece as simply a “Working Paper” and not anything really serious.
Great Maker, you’re going to have to do a damn sight better than simply doing a random google search and posting the first media article (a one year old Vox media article at that) that you find that just spouts the old democrat talking points in the end.
Direct Link to paper:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25522/w25522.pdf
Thank you for the kind comments, not often I get them. Vox can be ropey at times but the source it was using was ultimately a proper research paper not some think tank political piece.
@lucifer
So what, the paper sets out a coherent case and is freer from bias compared to many American publications which are heavily tainted by partisan politics. I note all you’ve done is provide an alternative link to the same paper as opposed to provide any counterpoint or research I also note that you equate the results with Democrat talking points which as discussed is not the case on the contrary it shows that voter ID laws don’t have an impact on voter turn out. The Democrats argue the exact opposite.
I’m finding you pretty disingenuous. If you have an argument state it,
The first comment was supposed to be directed towards Danny not Lucifer , could have sworn I replied to Danny – ah well
The reason voter id doesn’t appear to reduce voter fraud is nobody in law enforcement is actually looking for voter fraud. Even when someone gets nicked for voter fraud, the rather strange reaction of law enforcement is to NOT investigate the election for more evidence of voter fraud. It is always assumed that such people do not have co-conspirators or bosses. Even more strangely, the person for whose benefit that fraud is conducted is never investigated or prosecuted.
Do you have links or sources that delve into that? I’m slightly cynical about your comments given what an utter joke the voter fraud claims were when in came to 2020.
mark311,
Let’s see what the audit in AZ turns up. I would be surprised if there were not evidence such as:
1. Multiple people registered at a single non residential address.
2. Ballots whose votes were recorded but were ineligible.
3. Ballots cast by people or by others in the names of people who had moved out of AZ.
Those three things happen routinely. The problem is that a comprehensive audit searching out these things is rare. As a result we don’t really know the scope.
All of those very limited examples of fraud could be stopped with more effort in maintaining an accurate voter registration list. That is a requirement for every State under Federal law but many States/jurisdiction don’t do it. They have to be sued into compliance.
As for voter ID, any opposition to the general idea is farcical. There might be an argument that a extremely limited number of very elderly in rural areas who were born to mid wives v in a hospital setting lack a birth certificate and thus would have difficulty obtaining an ID. I can grant that.
To say that anyone else outside of that or similar situation; the remaining 99.5% of citizens have a barrier to an ID is not serious it is false.
Yes a person may no longer drive and let their DL expire, they may be illiterate, ok. Their family members could take them to the DMV. Their religious group could provide assistance.
I can’t think of a reason why someone couldn’t get an ID that isn’t mitigated by either their family, religious group or existing govt services; free ID, public transportation, adult literacy programs.
If you could list what barriers exist that have not been mitigated it would be helpful.
The levels of voter fraud over the last 20 years has been very low, I think something like 1200 cases have been confirmed over 20 years. That’s not a significant amount in context of votes.
As for the specific examples of types of fraud there just isn’t any evidence for it. It’s hard to see a case when the data.
The voter integrity laws aspect I’m open minded too, I’m not clear there is a strong case for those laws but open to the idea. I think the really irritating part for me is the conspiracy theory laden voter fraud backdrop. It’s not a great motive for changing the laws.
Mark311,
You state that ‘the levels of voter fraud over the past 20 years has been very low’.
Are you certain? I don’t believe an analysis of audit results from every election which seeks to identify fraud has been compiled.
The reason it hasn’t been compiled is that we don’t perform audits to any great extent. If you meant prosecution of cases well that is not reflective of the level of crime. Only counting successful prosecution of murder would yield a different count than actual numbers of murder committed.
Is it large? Lets say 1/2 of 1% were hinky so of 150 million ballots recorded would be 750K fraudulent ballots that were recorded.
Keep in mind that number wouldn’t reflect the number of ballots cast and discarded or cast but successfully challenged. Many, though not all, of those ballots are fraudulent.
Prosecutors don’t have the time and resources to investigate and prosecute these cases. The courts don’t have the space on their docket.
Let’s see the AZ audit results. It is one of the first comprehensive audits in modern era. The results should point the way to better ballot security and integrity measures.
Voter fraud is like credit card fraud. Very few cases of credit card fraud are successfully investigated and prosecuted. That does not mean that credit card fraud is rare. It is actually rampant.
@commochief
The issue of certainty is an interesting one there are two threads one is evidence of fraud suggesting a wider scale problem or issues with the voting system which suggests a wider ranging problem. I havent seen a coherent arguement made for either of these cases.
The issue has been looked at by the Right in detail for a long time to try and justify there position and so far the arguments and data provided have been pretty unconvincing.
You’d have to actually demonstrate some real life numbers plucking them out of thin air isn’t going to work.
Do you have stats/sources on how the state and federal level investigations take place on voter fraud?
Indeed AZ will be another data point
@Lausyl
Credit card fraud isn’t a great analogy as its pretty well reported, there are tonnes of stats on the rates of fraud in the UK vs how much money is retrieved and conviction rates etc. Accordingly lots of steps have been taken to minimise it for example pins, better cyber security, education campaigns. Its also a pervasive issue whereas voter fraud in the US really isnt there have been very localised specific examples as opposed to a wide spread campaign(s)
Mark
I agree that the amount of data doesn’t exist to form reliable conclusions. So your contention that there were 1200 or so voter fraud prosecution over 20 years isn’t reflective of the amount of actual instances of voter fraud.
The AZ audit is the first comprehensive audit in modern history. IMO, it will show that many irregularities exist and many more ‘decision points’ exist where judgment calls are made. If the result of those judgement calls tilt in one direction that is a problem.
Voting laws should have objective not subjective standards. Creating clear and transparent bright line rules that are adhered to in a non partisan and consistent manner should not be objectionable by reasonable people of goodwill.
The fact of the matter is that the many changes in procedures or how the voting system rules were applied differed in 2020 from previous elections in many if not most States.
Those changes at the State level were implemented and interpreted differently within States. One county does x one County does X + another does X -. That inconsistent application is troubling at minimum.
Let the AZ audit play out. That will illuminate the issues and identify weaknesses in the system. States can then look at the data and create best practices to strengthen ballot security.
@commochief
Well indeed we shall see what happens in AZ. No one is expecting any changes though since audits have already been carried out to a number of counties.
There is no evidence whatsoever that supports your claim
I’ve updated my view if you read the reply to Danny.
Sorry that was a DOWN vote
Literally every claim you make is easily proven wrong.
Voter turnout under voter id laws INCREASE turn out
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022822
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2013.0209
How can it restrict voting if anyone that wants to vote, already can? You are putting forth a bogus claim backed by bogus “evidence” created for use in talking points.
Integrity does not matter to you. That’s clear. Where is your concern for millions of legitimate voters that you simply dismiss them? Forgot, we’re practicing unity.
That BLM and the hustle exists is testament to actual tolerance from those you criticize, something which you seem to know little of. If your bogeyman were as evil as you depict, the “resistance” would have been quashed at the height of “tyranny.”
The actual tyranny is occuring now. More people are seeing. Robinson is exactly the type of person that shows the change. By assuming blacks have no agency like all those other superior people, and trivializing actual Jim Crow, you seem more akin to those racist bigots and how they thought about blacks. The actual bigots. Ironic how the bigotry rises in white guilt. But great job anyway!
Now you can resume your hectoring lectures.
Well let me spell it out then.
The theoretical case is that certain communities have far on average fewer forms of ID. This is exacerbated depending on the the level of laws for example is it has to be a government approved photo ID. That’s backed up by stats and the logical case. The voter ID laws disproportionately effect groups traditionally associated with Democrat votes. Hence why it’s political because it seems like it’s a way of Republicans to consolidate power for no good reason. I’m not clear how you’ve arrived at your conclusion that my evidence is bogus, is there a reason you think the link provided is erroneous?
It’s rich you talking about integrity , what’s the basis of your policy for voting ID? Don’t say 2020 elections, because the case for fraud was crap.
As for trying to link me to racist behaviour that’s a bit of stretch and rather disingenuous. Given that my points have been driven by the reading I’ve undertaken I’ve even shown in this very thread that I’m quite willing and able to adjust my opinions based on fresh understanding. You also seem to be rather prone to assigning labels to others without much basis. Point out the flaws in my argument for sure that’s fine but to instantly accuse someone of racism that’s just a dick move.
Listen to Mark Robinson. And rather than trying to reflexively dispute what he says, try to take it to heart and figure it out. You’re drowning in theory and pretend statistics, which you appear to believe cannot be manipulated to a certain end.
Perhaps you should think through and see the racism in the white privilege theory. The race hustle that addicts people to the racist view that blacks are inferior, and used to coerce white guilt, to the actual detriment of blacks over time, in the form of the welfare state and loss of the black family. By adopting the hustle, then calling others racist, it masks the underlying racism of your theories. Kendi and Coates are hustlers, all the way to the bank. So is LeBron. Mark Robinson is the one that speaks truth to power. Try to hear him, who speaks from real experience, not blessed theory.
You stating pretend statistics says it all really. If you can’t actually engage with the evidence ie provide a reason why the stats or source or argument is wrong rather than the bland statement “pretend statistics” that smacks of someone who hasn’t actually got a substantive argument.
As for your white privilege diatribe I haven’t reference it. As Ive already stated I’m data led that is to say the data doesn’t a show a significant difference either way in voting trends due to voter ID laws (admittedly the longer term affects are not as well understood). What you state hasn’t had any bearing on my thought process at all, I’m not really into critical race theory,
These matters go hand in hand. You do not comment in a vacuum.
Not as trusting as you in “the science,” especially in political matters of voting and race put forth by progressives scientists and theorists that collect data that ignores what they don’t know or accept, in the face of common sense. People that cannot get past data should not be decision makers or influencers because they lack the wisdom of context and that which makes people unique.
@oldschooltwentysix
Trust doesn’t really come into science. It’s the best available evidence to make a decision and assessing the consequence of that decision based not only on what we know but also how much we know. In the case of critical race theory I don’t know very much about it at all but as a social science it’s scientific content is likely to be fairly low and therefore I’m at the least uncomfortable with the idea of such an aggressive theory.
Perhaps I use the term data in a bland way, but as far as I’m concerned context is data. To paraphrase what I think you mean in my terms you are saying that a single or limited number of data points is a bad idea and on that I’d totally be in agreement. Which kinda answers your first part about a vacuum. There is a separate issue in that the politicised aspect especially it seems in the US is that any debate becomes polarised and a point scoring exercise which is really bad. Any nuance or actual debate about what the policy should be gets lost. The voting restrictions is a perfect example of that really where one side is must have more and the other side is no that’s bad when it seems like the data doesn’t support the principle argument of either side. So BOTH Republicans and Democrats seem to be wrong. Which is pretty rubbish when you flip a coin and you’ll lose 100% of the time on a policy debate which is why I absolutely hate polarised politics.
I think that if you were to research Mr. Robinson, you would find that he was stirred into action by the call to subvert the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. He comes from a state where a Voter ID amendment was passed by a vote of the citizens of the state only to be overturned by a radical judge sought out by the Governor, Attorney General and the President of the NC State NAACP, all of whom have aspirations for national office. One radical judge overturned the will of the people and took it upon himself to deny the citizens of the state the right to require a picture ID in order to vote (it included a provision to provide a free ID to those who could not afford it).
Without voter ID, I sincerely hope that there will no longer be a need for a driver’s license, social security number, tax identification numbers, etc required by anything associated with the federal (feral) government. The current cabal thinks it is unnecessary. Sounds like infrastructure to me! No more ID for anything if not for voting, the most sacred right an American citizen has!!
This guy would be the perfect opponent to pResident Harris ion 2024.
I’d rather have him as my NC governor to replace the lockdown loving, mask mandating jerk, Cooper.
Amen!
The media will to everything they can to destroy him.
Also check out William Marcus Chinn, who spoke the same day at a school board meeting, not much different than when Robinson first spoke way back when.
“Let me tell you something. I don’t believe, I don’t subscribe to white supremacy, because if I subscribe to white supremacy, that means I have to subscribe to black inferiority. And I am a four-time Iraqi freedom veteran. I am not inferior to anyone, period. And I’ll be damned if I teach my children that they are inferior to anyone,” he continued.
“You get out of this world what you put into it, and there’s no magical man pulling strings, holding my fate or my kids fate who are half black fate in their hands. Because of whatever agenda, this isn’t a this isn’t a black or white issue. Conservative, liberal. This isn’t right. Why would we put in our kids heads that they can’t do something or they are at a disadvantage just because of the way they were born? It makes no sense.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5jmu-qxEgU
If you actually read the links you provide the voter increase is theorised in both directions. In the upward direction by increased mobilisation of voters directly as a result of the voter law ie Voter organisations fearing a reduction in voting and therefore counteracting it. It also states in the same article that there is a theorised suppressive effect. Again a marginal impact. The longer term implications have not really been analysed.
“Theoretically, although the laws impose costs on potential voters that may lower turnout, they may also serve to spur voter mobilization, which might mitigate those effects. Empirically, assessing the turnout effects is difficult because of the laws’ relative recency and the consequently limited data available; moreover, it is necessary to employ research designs that take into account “the strategic nature of the selection of election laws” (Hanmer 2009, p. 6). To date, there is little convincing evidence that voter identification laws influence turnout substantially.”
The second link is actually talking about the effect of raising voter awareness of voter ID law requirements. So you would have to demonstrate impact of various effects and separate them out. Ie the impact of the voter ID law as well as the separate effort to mitigate against that affect. They are separate things. In this case the link suggests a 1% rise which is great of course but doesn’t address if this effect would be long term or not. That said I’ve already acknowledged through my further reading that the impact seems marginal. What’s irked me slightly is the fact you’ve provided links which you clearly haven’t fucking read.
That’s annoying … That was supposed to be a reply to paralegal
I think you missed the part that was annoying.
Let me ask you something…if these data that you found with a simple google search so easily point out that there is no suppressive harm to improving voter integrity, then why are your power-hungry heroes so vehemently against it? Does that not tell you something? Remember these are people that have small armies of researchers that can find them data and info on a whim…they have access to more information than you or I but can’t seem to find the objective case for election integrity?
As for “the 2020 evidence being a joke” you’ve brought that garbage argument here before and been slapped down for it. The truth is that the court system would not actually allow the discovery evidence and investigation power required to determine that. That’s why we won’t summarily dismiss it in the way that you seem so eager to do for the convenience of your side.
In many cases, they said the plaintiffs lacked standing (if you don’t know what that means, you can look it up but it does not dismiss a case on its merits but rather on the injury of the party bringing suit).
Lastly, voter fraud by its very nature is hard to measure when there is a decided lack of integrity in the election process. I think even you can agree that elections could be more secure, even if we disagree on the rationale and need. When an influx of measures in 2020 made elections even less secure, they created far easier ways to commit fraud. Some states even invited fraud by sending out ballots to anyone that had ever been registered in that state before. There were also the unprecedented actions of a known crooked judge (Emmett Sullivan) for no apparent reason and some irregularities in ballot procedures that were unprecedented.
Well on the first point I think there are several threads. Firstly what’s the case for the laws and either way it’s not very strong. Second we don’t know particularly well the long term effects and third the more recent more onerous laws haven’t been fully tested. As it happens the data doesn’t seem to support voter ID laws and and the question then becomes why would you. Clearly the issue here then becomes is election fraud an issue and the answer to that point is no. So the case can be made purely on practical small gov terms not to have unnecessary legislation. Of course the democrat argument is that there is a case for a suppressive effect and that’s probably partly down to cynicism and an entrenched position ie it’s become very politicised. Both parties have that tendency.
On your second point re 2020 election I’ve not been slapped down at all because no one has given a coherent argument that doesn’t come apart under scrutiny. Dealing with your points in turn in brief:
1) There were a large number of trials some of which didn’t have standing some of which showed that the fraud case was made up of bullshit. There were supposed expert witness reports that were nonsense, witness statements that turned out to be nonsense and a kraken that never appeared. That’s been borne out in general and specifically at every level of instigation of these issues.
2) it’s pretty debatable that the measures during 2020 made elections less secure it made it more accessible to postal vote and allowed greater time allowances (as a general statement). Postal vote hasn’t shown to have issues with fraud, and certainly not at scale. Sure there might be a small amount of erroneous signatures that are hard read or late ballots but not at scale at all.
3) election security yes I agree but those are issues that require understanding what the weaknesses of the election actually are as opposed to the mass of misinformation regarding the 2020 election. You aren’t going to make an election secure if you don’t have a strong understanding of what the actual issues are and frankly the issues raised by many over 2020 demonstrate considerable ignorance over what those are. There was no understanding for example by the various ‘witnesses’ of how the election process actually works in the nitty gritty detail and why what they saw didn’t really matter. There are issues of course, as I always believe any system or process can be improved. It’s just better done in a neutral thoughtful manner not with people shouting at eachother. I’ve always been of the view that there should be a non partisan commission set up to look at 2020 In a deep and meaningful way both in terms of addressing the wide ranging allegations (which clearly I think are unfounded) and perhaps more importantly whether there are specific issues with election machines, procedure and rules and perhaps establish some coherent guidance on the subject. Each state has there own rules of course and that’s there right but it makes sense to me to have an over arching set of guidelines(I mean guides as in best practise) to assist with rule setting.
My position is therefore dismissive of the claims of fraud but not of thoroughly examining election issues it’s in everyone’s best interests to both have solid elections and confidence in them
I think you’ve all got it wrong. The whole point of voter laws is EXACTLY to restrict those who can vote by ensuring ONLY those legally eligible to vote can vote.
Also anyone who claims Black’s can’t get an ID are the racists for assuming Black’s are dumb enough to NOT be able to get an ID.
Its implicit that voter ID laws would seek to restrict illegal votes otherwise the law itself is pointless.
The claim isn’t that Blacks cant get ID’s the claim is that as a population they have a reduced number of ID’s thereby providing an additional hurdle to overcome. THATS the claim, as it happens it doesn’t appear to be borne out in the data that this stat doesn’t cause a drop in voter turnout.
Using a Straw Man to justify an Ad Hominem. Cool /S
“The claim isn’t that Blacks cant get ID’s the claim is that as a population they have a reduced number of ID’s thereby providing an additional hurdle to overcome.”
And now I have to get a brand new bullshit detector, because you just let the smoke out of my old one.
What being accurate is bs is it, says a lot about you. It’s intellectual honest to attack the argument presented not one you’ve made up. There are legitimate concerns regarding voter suppression and understanding how that argument is formed allows a reasoned debate as opposed to the incessant talking past one another. It would be good for once for both sides to argue in good faith. And yes both sides are guilty of that sin.