What's the Worst Constitutional Amendment of Them All?

[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Constitutional amendment to require voters to provide photo identification before voting in person.

That amendment language on the ballot is purposefully vague. Which photo ID? College ID? Out-of-state driver's license? Phil Berger and his boys in the NC General Assembly have said voters don’t need to know the details of what they’re voting on. Berger and his boys will sort that out in a lame-duck special session after the election, and you can bet they'll be looking out for everyone's rights. (Believe that, and we've got some real estate we'd like to sell you.)

Lawmakers’ last attempt at requiring photo IDs at the voting booth was struck down as unconstitutional after the March 2016 primary. “We know that well over 1,000 people were denied their right to vote in the 2016 primary because of the photo ID requirement,” said Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Since the legislature has not yet made it known which IDs they will permit in future elections, voters are being asked to give lawmakers a blank check on determining who would be allowed to vote in future elections and who would be disenfranchised. North Carolinians deserve better than that.”

Mina in the video below (also produced by the SCSJ) is precisely the kind of voter the Republicans would love to disenfranchise, and she was disenfranchised in that 2016 election because her Duke University photo ID wasn't acceptable. With young voters generally veering away from Republican policies and Republican politicians, of course Phil Berger and his boys will want to shut them out of the voting booth. Duh.