Letter: Council antics no excuse for voter suppression

By Cordy Lavery

The Daily Advance

10 Comments | Leave a Comment

Whether you agree or disagree with the recent actions of some city councilors, this is a country ruled by law.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.


News Flash

Has anybody seen all the voter fraud that's been discovered in the state of NC? The discovery has turned up numerous dead voters and hundreds of suspects who have voted in multiple states. The large majority of them are left wing which came as no surprise. Unless Eric Holder comes to their aid, which is more than likely that he will at least try, somebody is going to jail. Voter fraud is a felony. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/hundreds-cases-potential-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/


That argument was dismissed by my learned colleague as nothing more than an argument made up of whole cloth. I suppose we should use the policies of the enlightened countries of the Middle East and have voters dip their thumbs in indelible purple ink.


Mr. Lavery - I certainly agree with your premise. Voter suppression is wrong. Mr. King earned the right to be on Council. However, your statement, "The fact that many of us do not agree with their actions is a moot point" (their actions being members of Council trying to fire our City Manager with no cause). WOW! In my dictionary (yes I looked to be sure I was correct on the definition!) moot means "deprived of practical significance" or "made abstract or purely academic". Our citizens not agreeing with Council's actions means nothing? Of no significance? Purely academic? With that attitude, you are correct about not holding your breath ..... Again, do agree with your overall sentiment, Mr. Lavery, but I do take issue with that one sentence. Bill Hiemer

What voter suppression are

What voter suppression are you talking about?

You're smarter than that sparatus.

So please don't play dumb, it doesn't become you.



Sorry, I must have truly

Sorry, I must have truly missed something. "To try and justify voter suppression by using the recent episode at the City Council meeting as an example is incredulous. Voter suppression is voter suppression and no amount of explaining or “I told you so” can change that." Who did that?

Well said avnrulz.

Voter ID is not voter suppression.

What else would you call it??


I know I wasn't asked, but

I know I wasn't asked, but I'd say that voter ID - is a means to positively ensure that each voter is who they claim to be.

What voter suppresion?

The most important duty a citizen has is to vote, and the protection of 'one man, one vote' is something that should be of everyone's concern. Putting sensible rules in place, which everyone should support, is not 'voter suppression.' People decry 'voter ID' laws. I challenge anyone to get through the day without having to show an ID for something less critical than voting (such as getting in to see the First lady last year; you guessed it, ID Check!). Cases of Democrat party members being convicted of voter fraud, video tape of people stating they voted twice, and one man's claim on Facebook that he voted four times in his surrounding districts are just some of the arguments that cause the concern of voting irregularities, not to mention the 35,000+ names on the list just published here in NC of possible dual or multiple votes cast in the same name. If you need an ID to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, you should certainly need one to cast your vote for the people you choose to represent you in the House, the Senate, both nationally and at the state level, and most assuredly in the instance of who sits in the oval office.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments