Update on Department of Justice challenge to North Carolina's voter suppression activities

Remember when I said the State Board of Elections wasn't doing its job to ensure fairness in North Carolina? Seems Mr. Holder agrees:

The complaint names the state, the North Carolina State Board of Elections, and the Executive Director for the State Board of Elections as defendants and cites several provisions of House Bill 589, the so-called “monster voting law,” as violative of the Voting Rigths Act.

Violative? As in violating? Whatever. It's all bad, including the grammar.


McCrory weighs in

“This lawsuit will only result in costly legal bills and drawn out legal battles for state and federal taxpayers,” he said.

WRONG. It will also result in North Carolina's laws being overturned in the courts as the racist acts they were intended to be.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/30/3242351/gov-mccrory-says-justice-departments.html#storylink=cpy


... is not bad grammar (look it up) & is in common use among lawyers & judges in precisely this context. Criticizing &/or making fun if something like this damages your credibility & the larger (more important) point you're trying to make.
Respectfully suggested, by one who's supportive & wants to help ...

Not being a lawyer or judge,

Not being a lawyer or judge, the word struck me as unnecessary. It would far less pretentious to say "as violating the Voting Rights Act" instead of "as violative of the Voting Rights Act."

That said, I looked it up and you are right. "Violative" is grammatically correct, but it shouldn't be.



If only someone had warned DAG McCrony that costly lawsuits were likely if he signed the voter suppression bill.

Blame the lawmakers, not the law challengers. And if Pat were concerned about cost, why is he hiring expensive outside counsel -- doesn't NC have an attorney "on retainer"?

"I will have a priority on building relationships with the minority caucus. I want to put substance behind those campaign speeches." -- Thom Tillis, Nov. 5, 2014

They have to sue the BOE

That's the entity enforcing the laws as written. That's a procedural requirement. If they didn't name the BOE, the case could be dismissed.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire