so the court cannot defend their decision? what does that convey?
1 Like
I really liked Maddowâs piece on what Oregon is doing. If you are eligible to vote, they automatically register you now. And of course, the mailing of ballots seems to definitely be the way to go, if only from a cost savings point of view.
Its rather sad, that the United States, so long held up as the beacon of Democracy to the world, is now working so hard to make it MORE difficult to vote and actively seeking to disenfranchise people. But, if one party is staring a demographic abyss right in the face, I suppose it should be expected.
6 Likes
If we had a working justice department, any obstacle in the way of a free photo ID would trigger an immediate criminal investigation.
3 Likes
Agree 100%. I live in SD. We have a voter ID law. You bring your ID. You vote. No problem.
Enough with the whining. Enough with the complaining. This is not a racist attack. It is not a classist attack. Itâs just a law.
If you want more people to vote, find your local League of Women Voters, talk to them, and figure out how to get IDâs to those who do not have them.
1 Like
Absolutely correct. Instead of whining (a lot of whining on this board already), get IDs to those without. BOOM! Problem solved. In fact, if they get the ID, they might be MORE willing to vote.
So are you saying that âindirect discriminationâ is OK, but âdirect discriminationâ is not? Even though they amount to the same thing in the end? Are you one of those Northerners that thinks the de jure segregation in the South was reprehensible, but the de facto segregation in the rest of the country is just fine?
In that case, I think you actually do agree with NCSteve, unless you are agreeing with Rick that those of us who are still smarting over that botched election need to âmove on.â
And letâs remember that it is not just the initial procurement of the ID that is problematic. For the vast majority of people, this ID is going to be a driverâs license. But that ID is not permanent. Not only does it have to be renewed periodically, but the state has the power to revoke it for any number of reasons: Because you didnât pay your auto insurance, for example. Or because you didnât pay a court fine. And remember the finding in the report on Ferguson: African-Americans are far and away more likely to be stopped by police and given traffic tickets than whites are. Iâm under no illusion that Ferguson is an outlier in this. Itâs true all over the country, and it is not just African-Americans who are targeted, but Hispanics as well, and any number of other minorities.
Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with these insidious laws for the present, and if we ever want to get rid of them, it is going to require finding some way to work around them at least long enough to elect a better Congress and get more liberal judges into the federal courts.
âDemocrats maintain no widespread fraud existsâŚâ
Terribly misleading: there is no voter fraud of any kind, none.
Except this massive scam spearheaded by Republicans to limit voting by requiring photo IDs.
Show me where a photo Id is required in the Constitution.
Itâs already done. You need ID to get a copy of your birth certificate and a birth certificate to apply for ID. Mail in service takes weeks. Expedited fax and FedEx. Service costs a bunch of money. It amounts to a poll tax on people who canât afford to drive.
3 Likes
Here the ultimate irony though. One of Walkerâs great âachievementsâ was to outsource the production of driverâs licenses. The temporary license DMV hands out, while you wait for your official, tamper proof ID, is on plain paper and could easily be forged by anyone with a computer and ink jet printer.
It would be easier than ever, thanks to Walker, for a dedicated vote fraudster to commit the exact crime he claims to want to prevent.
This suggests that maybe the best way to combat voter ID laws is from the right and not the left â hereâs another big government regulation, this time of my freedom to vote!
âVoter IDâ is the 21st century version of 20th century literacy tests. Minority voter suppression of any name is still voter suppression everywhere but inside this Supreme Courtâs bubble.
Wonder how they will rule on Texasâ voter ID law that OKs concealed weapons permits but not student IDs to vote? Or thisâŚ
Ok? Hardly. However, setting things up like this is left up to the States in large measure. They are not allowed to directly impede voting and there are various amendments and laws to that effect. But with something like this it is not as easy to prove. When you are arguing something a step removed I think it is harder to make the legal case. Especially given the current court.
It could simply be argued that those people still have access to the photo ID that they need to vote. The issue would then rightfully become equal access to locations that provide that function. It is a bigger concern that many of those same states reduce the place you can get IDs and then shift their hours.
Do I think it is ok? No, but it gets harder to produce the firm evidence in a case like this. Do I think it is discriminatory? Yes, but what I think does not matter. The Courts seem to generally act on evidence of the way the world would be in an idealistic setting. Anymore they tend to ignore the reality. Just like the idea that kicking the subsidy language back to Congress is a fairly valid approach in a perfect world. In the current climate it is not.
In summation, the further you get from direct discrimination it gets harder to differentiate between racist intentions, an inconvenience that disproportionately affects some more than others and so on. A smoke screen that is harder to navigate and easier to hide in than âthose peopleâ should not vote.
Unless NCSteve was being sarcastic when stating this is just more proof there was no difference between Gore and GWBush, then, yes, I missed his sarcasm and do agree with him.
I see a huge difference between Gore and GWBush â and am still pissed GWBush was selected by then then-Supreme Court.
Sometimes, even I am a little slow on the uptake with sarcasm on line. Vocal inflections and tone are key are not there, unfortunately. Thanks.
Iâve told people for some time that Iâm okay with requiring ID at the polls, as long as people can obtain the ID at the polls at no expense other than time. With online databases it should be a simple matter for most to obtain one, and those who, for instance, donât have a birth certificate would only need a verified registered voter to vouch for them. One-stop shopping at its best. Oh, and make election day a national holiday, for Jeebusâ sake.
1 Like
And if people donât have the money to pay for a copy of their birth certificate in order to get the ID, what then? Are people just SOL?
1 Like
Iâd be more inclined to âget over itâ if a) so many Nader voters werenât still contending that they bear no responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of their catastrophically stupid decisions in the most consequential election since 1932, and, more importantly, b) if it wasnât clear that the same kind of thinking isnât still very much alive among enough liberals to swing what I am terrified is going to be a very, very close election.
Iâm suggesting there are a lot of people who need to learn from history and, invariably I get a âshut up!â back from people who seem bound and determined to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
1 Like
Yes, clearly we should accept the tissue-thin pretext given for passing these laws as fact and ignore the fact THAT EVERY SINGLE GODDAMNED ONE OF THESE LAWS INCLUDE PROVISIONS PREVENTING POOR PEOPLE AND COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM USING IDâs THEY ALREADY HAVE AND MAKING IT HARDER TO GET THE ID THEY NEED BECAUSE SUPPRESSING THEIR TURNOUT IS THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF PASSING THEM!!!
Sorry about the shouting.
2 Likes
Another whining point. Geez, folks, either fix it or donât fix it. If the SC will not review the law, itâs the law, and all this whining is useless.
To answer your point, let the LWV run a campaign to raise funds. And besides, there is a free ID available.