IDK: State elections officials seeking to sabotage Voter ID law
Some of the most devious activities in politics and government happen in the shadows. Publicized good news is far too frequently accompanied by sneakiness done in the shadows.
The state’s Rules Review Commission met this week. That’s the group that tries to make sure that all new state rules and regulations are kosher and in line with the state constitution and existing rules and regulations.
The commission was asked to deal with the election board’s decision to include “not knowing” about the requirement for identification as a “reasonable impediment.” The state elections team has even produced a form allowing you to document this alleged impediment:
An attorney for the state elections board told the RRC they did not have the authority to question this move. The attorney pointed out that the RRC can questions rule and regulation changes, but not content of forms.
The RRC approved a resolution asking the legislature to tweak S747 so “I didn’t know” cannot be lawfully used as an excuse for avoiding presentation of an ID at a polling place. I am told that legislative leaders have promised action on this sometime this week.
“I didn’t know”? How many other situations would that work in? 
*Sorry, officer, I didn’t know what those signs with the two digit numbers meant.”*
Another piece of legislation in the crosshairs of the elections establishment is H772 – which standardizes the rules statewide for polling place observers. From what we’re told, GOP AND DEM elections officials in Raleigh and across the state are fighting this one. Vote integrity activists have been seeking the changes in H772 to strengthen their hand during early voting and Election Day.
The prospects for H772 look good in the House, but it may get tripped up in the Senate. Plan B, we’re told, is to stick the standardization efforts into S747 — which has already passed the Senate – as well.
Anyway, it looks like we have two more things to browbeat the, um, “honorables” on Jones Street about. You’ve got your marching orders, folks. Let’s get it done.
Having attended the hearing, Paul Cox argued that since the reasonable impediment affidavit was a “form,” it fell outside the preview of the RRC. Unfortunately, the staff attorney on this rule, Bill Peasley, had drunk the Kool Aid that Cox has served and recommended passage of the rules. As if hypnotized, nobody noticed the word, “affidavit,” in the rules and this was key. Since the rules made note of the affidavit, then it was reviewable, IMO. This was pointed out after the meeting, but not during the discussion, so it’s going to need Legislative revision.
The dem/commies treat this stuff as a “blood sport,” while the GOP is much more, shall we say….cavalier? Little wonder the Ds kick the Rs as#&s on a regular basis!