But apparently tried to keep it hush-hush:

In a further sign of the sprawling nature of the Justice Department’s effort to collect voting records in North Carolina, prosecutors demanded eight years of information from the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by The New York Times.

The subpoena to the state D.M.V., like those to the state and county elections boards, was issued on Aug. 31 and set a Sept. 25 deadline for the records. A department spokesperson, who previously denied that the agency had been subpoenaed, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

Three things: 1) You're already neck-deep in controversy and bad press over the wait times for Real ID, 2) NC-based journalists are not likely to appreciate being scooped on this by the New York Times, and 3) Your continued refusal to acknowledge (publicly) your department has been subpoenaed makes you look foolish and timid as a new-born kitten, especially considering the Attorney General has officially challenged these subpoenas. Here's what the Feds want from the DMV:

And a former Democrat turned rabid Republican is determined to put them there:

Mr. Sellars, 44, is one of a dozen people in Alamance County in North Carolina who have been charged with voting illegally in the 2016 presidential election. All were on probation or parole for felony convictions, which in North Carolina and many other states disqualifies a person from voting. If convicted, they face up to two years in prison.

“That’s the law,” said Pat Nadolski, the Republican district attorney in Alamance County. “You can’t do it. If we have clear cases, we’re going to prosecute.”

Just a side-note, which is definitely relevant to this discussion: Pat Nadolski lost his Republican Primary for District Attorney a few months ago, which had many hoping he would relent and drop the charges against these folks. But true to form with this crazy election cycle, a local judge retired from the bench, and rumor has it Nadolski will be chosen by local R's to run. We (Alamance Dem executives) just chose our candidate Andy Hanford, who lost to Nadolski in the 2014 Democratic Primary. The year after that Nadolski switched parties to Republican, and has since allied himself with our local Latino-hating tyrant Sheriff Terry Johnson. The reason I (tried to) explain that convoluted mess was to underscore Nadolski's determination to prosecute these folks, who merely made a mistake about their qualifications. He's still got right-wing voters to impress, and maybe a little national attention to garner for himself:

As usual, Melissa Boughton is on the case:

The Senate voted along party lines Tuesday night to overturn a partial judicial redistricting bill in an apparent attempt to flex its political muscle at Gov. Roy Cooper. Sen. Ralph Hise (R-Mitchell) told his colleagues it took Cooper 243 hours and 20 minutes to veto Senate Bill 757 and that he (Cooper) wanted to make sure he caused confusion for the election.

“I promise you, he knew the moment it passed the first chamber whether or not he was going to veto this bill,” Hise said. “But instead he wanted to create some chaos. … That’s the way this Governor likes to play, so we’re going to send the message back.”

That's right, they are accusing the Governor of following the law, which specifies how much time he has to sign, Veto, or allow a bill to become law without his signature. Make no mistake, those judicial candidates who are forced to refile know exactly who to blame, the meddlers in the General Assembly:

When Fascism creeps in using specious and thin arguments:

Respondents point out that Ohio’s Supplemental Process uses a person’s failure to vote twice: once as the trigger for sending return cards and again as one of the requirements for removal. Respondents conclude that this use of nonvoting is illegal.

We reject this argument because the Failure-to-Vote Clause, both as originally enacted in the NVRA and as amended by HAVA, simply forbids the use of nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a registrant, and Ohio does not use it that way. Instead, as permitted by subsection (d), Ohio removes registrants only if they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a notice.

The very idea that not (continually) exercising a Constitutional right is grounds for an erosion of that right is such an affront to democracy I don't even know where to start. Aside from the fact we get so much junk mail we end up accidentally throwing away important correspondence on a regular basis, just the process of them "chasing down" non-voters ticks me off. And when it's based on a totally manufactured and proven fake crisis (voter fraud), it's even more infuriating. But I'll let Stephen Breyer do the rest of the talking: