Vote suppression -- now we have some evidence of the effects

[fromderinside]

Damn. Are you suggesting we move to Ohio and build bomb shelters?

Seems to me you people worry about immigrants - Oh, pardon me refugees - too much.

When the swine feel free to talk about feeding slop to humans that's when one should check their alt-news sources.

Chill. Have a Postah's.

 

[marc]

Actually I meant to delete Fox (hearsay) and Fairus (too distorted).

meant to maybe, but you didn't. Does that mean you would still include ballotpedia, which listed tons of links to news stories that had absolutely nothing to do with what they were claiming? And the Washington Post article that also did not have anything to do with someone voting illegally?

Do you need evidence something was used illegally when removing the possibility of it happening?

it helps to determine if something actually needs to be done, and an indicator of what should be done. We could try to protect ourselves from tiger attacks by spreading tons of defoliants to kill off the types of vegitation they would hide in. But tiger attacks in the US are pretty rare, and the defoliants are likely to do a lot more harm than the supposed benefit. Likewise these ID laws are claimed to 'protect' against an issue that can barely be shown to exist, let alone is a significant problem, and cause a lot more harm by voter suppression. To prevent 2 illegal votes you think they should go with a law that would prevent 5,000 legal votes? Which is the bigger distortion of the election?

A threat has to exist even if it were one or two that were discovered (Ballotopedia

The site that listed tons of links that did not actually have anything to do with votes cast in the name of dead people? That would make me rather skeptical of the bit you quoted there. But even if taken at face value, it lists 3 examples from the past 35 years. Not showing that it happens a lot. The first example taken at face value would indicate it wasn't enough to affect the outcome of even an extremely close election. The other two not enough information to tell if it had the chance to influence. Now, even if these examples can be shown to be part of a larger, wider spread problem, that still would not mean voter ID would be the solution. As Loren pointed out, ID laws would not do anything about absentee ballots, which are far more likely to be the source of illegal votes than in person voting. Until you can show ID laws prevent more fraudulent votes than they suppress legal votes then we have no reason to believe this 'solution' is better than the problem it claims to fix.

 

[Malintent]

Are you saying that asking a voter to identify who is, constitutes some kind of wrong? I don't find any unreasonable laws per...

A US citizen should not drive with no driving licence and likewise should have identification to vote.

The issue is not voter registration. The issue is rigged requirements for ADDITIONAL identification on top of the voter registration.

Additional on top of what? Their word?

 

[Elixir]

The issue is not voter registration. The issue is rigged requirements for ADDITIONAL identification on top of the voter registration.

Additional on top of what? Their word?

The additional requirements are set using a complex algorithm taking into account general appearance, socio-economic status, skin color, political leanings and the subjective judgment of the local election judge...

 

[Malintent]

I'd like to understand what the original forms of acceptable ID were, and what they were changed to... If the original form of id is just a persons say-so, or some piece of mail that can be pulled out of any curb-side mailbox, then I would say that there were NO requierments to establish your identity, and now there are. but, educate me... what were those original forms of ID that were previously sufficient on their own and are now no longer sufficient.

 

[KeepTalking]

Do you need evidence something was used illegally when removing the possibility of it happening?

A threat has to exist even if it were one or two that were discovered (Ballotopedia

Some recent examples of elections in which actual fraudulent votes were cast on behalf of dead people include a 2005 state senate election in Tennessee that was decided by fewer than 20 votes; in this case, a post-election verification process established that two fraudulent votes were cast on behalf of dead people. Three election workers were indicted, and the results of the election were voided. The mayoral election in Miami in 1997 was nullified by a judge because of widespread fraud, including a number of established cases of fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people. Election inspectors looking at the 1982 gubernatorial election in Illinois estimated that as many as 1 in 10 ballots cast during the election were fraudulent, including votes by the dead.[1]

The above incidents of election fraud all have one thing in common. They would not have been hampered in any way by voter ID laws. In the Tennessee and Illinois cases, it was the election officials that committed the fraud, so it was fraud that would have happened after votes were cast by people overseeing the election. They are the very people charged with checking voter ID, so checking voter ID would not have stopped them. In the Florida case, the fraud came from absentee ballots, which are not affected by voter ID laws. If there really is this problem of fraud that can be resolved by voter ID laws, certainly you can come up with at least one relevant case. Not that doing so would fix the problem of the law disenfranchising many times more voters than there are cases of fraud.

 

[Derec]

It disenfranchises people who don't have any officially accepted ID.

Then they should get ID.
I do not know how a person expects to function in the modern society without id anyway. Even if you are not driving you need id to open a bank account, cash a check, enter restricted buildings etc.

This is not a class of voter whose distribution is uniform across the political spectrum, so the result is to bias the results in favour of the parties and candidates whose supporters are most likely to have an accepted ID.

It is interesting that Republican voters are dismissed by the "intelligentsia" as idiotic rubes and yet they somehow manage to obtain id more reliably than the intelligent, enlightened Democratic voters.

This is particularly problematic in the US south, but even in other parts of the country it is mainly black people who are unable to vote as a result of these rules;

Why would it be that mainly black people are incapable of getting ids? It sounds to me like the "soft bigotry of low expectations".

and the detailed implementation of these rules - which forms of ID are and are not considered acceptable - makes very clear that the unstated purpose is to minimise the vote amongst that section of the population.

Some objections are fair - like closing DMV locations in the cities. But others, for example why certain forms of id are acceptable, isn't. That has to do which forms of id are state issued photo ids. For example, the Georgia law.

Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a free ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
Valid U.S. passport ID
Valid U.S. military photo ID
Valid tribal photo ID

I fail to see anything wrong with this list, and certainly nothing designed to suppress vote by any demographic group or other. There is even a free voter id card if you have no other form of id.

If you do not have one of the six acceptable forms of photo ID, the State of Georgia offers a free ID Card. An ID card can be issued at any county registrar's office or Department of Driver Services Office free of charge.

And that's in the South.

Or perhaps it's purely coincidental that the effect of rules imposed just happens to burden black people more than it does whites.

Even if that is the case, the solution is for those people without id to get it. As I said in the beginning, you can't really function without one anyway.

Just like it's purely coincidental that there are far fewer voting places in black dominated districts, leading to long lines and suppressed turnout.

Now that would be a legitimate concern.

It's amazing how many rules that have nothing to do with race turn out to completely coincidentally disfavor blacks in the US.

I guess next you'll say that laws against murder are totally racist too because more blacks per capita commit murder.
Disparate impact idea is bogus. Otherwise one could argue that NBA hiring criteria are unacceptable because of significatly disparate impact by race.

If the people making the rules weren't so quick to assure us that it's all purely coincidental, it could almost be mistaken for systemic racism.

What difference would it make? Certain people see systematic racism everywhere.

 

[Derec]

Bilby pretty much nailed it, but I think your question just seems so damn reasonable on the face of it,

That's because it is.

It's a trivial thing for most people, ID. But for many people it's a complicated, tedious matter.

For how many people?

Hell, my birthday is coming up and mine is due.

Happy birthday!

It costs almost 50 bucks to simply renew my license in the state of Florida, and financially for me, that's a hurt.

As you say, your license. That you need anyway to operate a motor vehicle. Just an id is $25 in Florida.

That's 50 bucks I'd really rather spend on food, or gas, or towards a bill.

Why would you need gas then?

When people are asked what appears on the surface a perfectly reasonable question, they imagine their life, and it's a simple thing to do. Instead, you have to put yourself in their life circumstances. There are a variety of reasons people don't like to do this, and one that I have found is that to admit that such a trivial thing as ID can be a financial hurt for someone is to admit that blatant, systemic inequality exists.

Id is a small expenditure and is good for several years. And benefits of id are more than just being able to vote. $25 (in FL) for id only is a good investment in your life and being able to vote is just a bonus.

Republicans complain that black people always voted for Democrats, because Democrats give them handouts. So, black people represent an unfair advantage to the Democrats in elections, so the GOP targets them without admitting they're targeting them in order to "level the playing field". This of course misrepresents Democrats, and shows the systemic racism present in the GOP that they spend so much time denying.

It's not just handouts. Blacks vote for Dems also because Dems have spent the last 50 years or more convincing blacks that Republicans are all racist. Kind of like what you're doing.

I guess thinking that blacks are as capable as whitesof going to DL office and getting their id is somehow "racist".

 

[Copernicus]

I think that the argument over national IDs is a red herring. Obviously, you have to have to be identifiable as a US citizen in order to vote in a US election. My problem is with voter registration. As a citizen, the right to vote ought to be automatic from the moment one comes of age. Why make adult citizens register at all? Almost everyone has tax ID, because the law requires people to pay taxes and show that they are qualified for government services. So it is hard to argue with the requirement that people generally have an ID, even though that makes them more vulnerable to government oppression in theory. What makes the voter ID requirement controversial for me is that it is quite often manipulated by partisan interests to suppress votes from people who are likely to vote against those interests. Some of these state requirements just use it to suppress in-person voting, because it is known that voters who support Democrats are more prone to voting in person than by mail. Also, gumming up the process by which people register to become new voters tends to harm Democratic candidates more than Republican ones because of the demographics. Younger voters and minority voters tend to vote for Democrats.

You can't use tax IDs for voting. Tax IDs prove that you're eligible to vote somewhere, they provide no proof of where. (While there is an address in the government records there's no obligation to keep it current. They simply update it when they get a new filing from you.) Since we have no required registration of an address (ID cards have addresses but they are not required and except for things that require proof of location you could use a passport card--which has no address) you need to prove where you are allowed to vote. (And, yes, this is important--otherwise you would have people where the office(s) they cared about were unopposed and vote in the next district over.)

What you say is true, but you misunderstood my point. We already have a national ID that is used all over the place, so the issue of having a national ID is a red herring. The federal government knows exactly where the vast majority people live, what they do to make a living, how much they earn, etc. Voting in the US should be a right that is automatically granted to every citizen without requirement of special registration beyond what is necessary to establish residence. Since states control the election machinery, any official interaction with the state that requires residency, e.g. a driver license, should be sufficient to count as registration, but most states require a separate process for registration to vote. These days, Republicans tend to want to keep it that way, because they don't want to open up voting to every citizen who might qualify. There are now a few states that supply automatic voter registration with drivers licenses, but the federal government should guarantee uniform voter registration processes across all states. And it should not just be restricted to driver licensing. Every legal state resident should be automatically registered.

 

[Derec]

This is from the start of the OP article. After you have read it, do you this woman should have been effectively disenfranchised given the specifics of her situation?

You can’t say Andrea Anthony didn’t try. A 37-year-old African American woman with an infectious smile, Anthony had voted in every major election since she was 18. On November 8, 2016, she went to the Clinton Rose Senior Center, her polling site on the predominantly black north side of Milwaukee, to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. “Voting is important to me because I know I have a little, teeny, tiny voice, but that is a way for it to be heard,” she said. “Even though it’s one vote, I feel it needs to count.”

She’d lost her driver’s license a few days earlier, but she came prepared with an expired Wisconsin state ID and proof of residency. A poll worker confirmed she was registered to vote at her current address. But this was Wisconsin’s first major election that required voters—even those who were already registered—to present a current driver’s license, passport, or state or military ID to cast a ballot. Anthony couldn’t, and so she wasn’t able to vote.

Losing a DL a few days before the election is bad luck. But it's the kind of bad luck that can happen to blacks and whites alike.

The poll worker gave her a provisional ballot instead. It would be counted only if she went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a new ID and then to the city clerk’s office to confirm her vote, all within 72 hours of Election Day. But Anthony couldn’t take time off from her job as an administrative assistant at a housing management company, and she had five kids and two grandkids to look after. For the first time in her life, her vote wasn’t counted.

I do not buy that she could not make time for 3 days.

Anthony said her 19-year-old daughter and 21-year-old nephew, who didn’t drive regularly and had misplaced their licenses, were also stymied by the new law. “It was their first election, and they were really excited to vote,” she said. But they didn’t go to the polls because they knew their votes wouldn’t count. Both had planned to vote for Clinton.

This is more about being irresponsible. "Misplaced their licenses". Of course them losing their licenses was all part of Scott Walker's dastardly plan to steal the election for Trump. Or maybe stealing licenses is underpants gnomes' side hustle.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a matter of intelligence. ID rules are intended to disenfranchise the poor.

How so?

 

[Copernicus]

Republicans complain that black people always voted for Democrats, because Democrats give them handouts. So, black people represent an unfair advantage to the Democrats in elections, so the GOP targets them without admitting they're targeting them in order to "level the playing field". This of course misrepresents Democrats, and shows the systemic racism present in the GOP that they spend so much time denying.

It's not just handouts. Blacks vote for Dems also because Dems have spent the last 50 years or more convincing blacks that Republicans are all racist. Kind of like what you're doing.
View attachment 12867
I guess thinking that blacks are as capable as whitesof going to DL office and getting their id is somehow "racist".

It is hard to imagine how you could not have given us a more perfect example of the way Republican propagandists frame Democrats as racists. They get to target black voters while simultaneously claiming that what they are doing is not racial profiling, yet this cartoon is all about race and the image of slavery. It is no accident that white supremacists have flocked to Trump's banner. Republicans are blowing hard on that dog whistle. The GOP does not hate black voters. It loves them for giving them an instantly identifiable way to target a large bloc of Democratic voters. Truly disgusting.

 

[Derec]

I'm a legal citizen, I don't have an ID.

Look people, we got a live one! The lesser spotted non-id holder.

How do you function? Obviously you don't drive, so how do you get places?
Do you have a bank account? How did you open it without id? Do you ever have to cash a check?
Do you ever buy alcohol? How?
Do you ever enter restricted buildings? How do you manage that?
Oh, and how old are you anyway?

You have some strange ideas about our country.

Well, then enlighten us.

Firstly we don't have a national ID like most places. Just get that out of the way right now. Each state issues its own identification which pulls double duty as a driver's license which the licensee is required to pay a substantial amount of money for in cash.

- There is a national id, called the passport. But I know what you mean, the plastic card-shaped ids are state issued. However, in 2005 a law was passed to standardize id security among the states. It is called Real id.
- It's the other way around. If you have a DL, it doubles as state id. But if you don't drive you can get id only.
- I do not know what "substantial amount of money" is to you, buy to me DL fees aren't it. And id only are cheaper, and in many states with photo id voting requirements you can get a voter id for free.

 

[braces_for_impact]

That's because it is.

It's a trivial thing for most people, ID. But for many people it's a complicated, tedious matter.

For how many people?

Hell, my birthday is coming up and mine is due.

Happy birthday!

It costs almost 50 bucks to simply renew my license in the state of Florida, and financially for me, that's a hurt.

As you say, your license. That you need anyway to operate a motor vehicle. Just an id is $25 in Florida.

That's 50 bucks I'd really rather spend on food, or gas, or towards a bill.

Why would you need gas then?

When people are asked what appears on the surface a perfectly reasonable question, they imagine their life, and it's a simple thing to do. Instead, you have to put yourself in their life circumstances. There are a variety of reasons people don't like to do this, and one that I have found is that to admit that such a trivial thing as ID can be a financial hurt for someone is to admit that blatant, systemic inequality exists.

Id is a small expenditure and is good for several years. And benefits of id are more than just being able to vote. $25 (in FL) for id only is a good investment in your life and being able to vote is just a bonus.

Republicans complain that black people always voted for Democrats, because Democrats give them handouts. So, black people represent an unfair advantage to the Democrats in elections, so the GOP targets them without admitting they're targeting them in order to "level the playing field". This of course misrepresents Democrats, and shows the systemic racism present in the GOP that they spend so much time denying.

It's not just handouts. Blacks vote for Dems also because Dems have spent the last 50 years or more convincing blacks that Republicans are all racist. Kind of like what you're doing.
View attachment 12867
I guess thinking that blacks are as capable as whitesof going to DL office and getting their id is somehow "racist".

Oh. Well then. Thank you for showing me how a driver's license renewal isn't a strain on my finances, and all the incredible benefits that come with it. It's almost like you know better than I do not only my financial situation, but my life circumstances and what decisions I should make in my life. If you are SO eager to show me the way, I'm sure I don't understand why people of color think your a white splaining bigot. You sir, are a font into your people.

 

[Derec]

That depends where you live. In Mn, there is a fee ( https://www.dmv.org/mn-minnesota/id-cards.php ).

Minnesota also does not require photo id to vote. In any case, $17.25 is hardly exorbitant.

But even if the ID may have no price. But getting to a location where one can get an ID is not costless. And the hassles in getting a replacement ID are not costless. So, the notion that ID cards are free is not based on reality.

Who said that voting must be completely effortless?

 

[Derec]

Oh. Well then. Thank you for showing me how a driver's license renewal isn't a strain on my finances, and all the incredible benefits that come with it.

Compared to cost of keeping the car, $48 every 6 years ($8 per year) for the license is a drop in the bucket.

It's almost like you know better than I do not only my financial situation, but my life circumstances and what decisions I should make in my life.

I did not say that, and I do not care what decisions you make. I just corrected some of the fallacies in your post. Like that you need to spend $48 just to vote when that is the cost you have anyway if you drive. Which means that you have $0 additional cost.

If you are SO eager to show me the way, I'm sure I don't understand why people of color think your a white splaining bigot.

Also "splaining"? Seriously?
And I guess anybody who disagrees on id issue is a "bigot" in the eyes of the Leftists.

You sir, are a font into your people.

Am I a serif of sans-serif font, I wonder ...

 

[Derec]

Smart? We have seen in several states, attempts to make it harder to vote for certain demographics. North Carolina was so obvious based on what type of IDs they'd accept, which indicated which groups of people they were attempt to restrict access to the polls.

Can you give an example of the type of id that was "so obvious[sic] based" on disenfranchising "certain demographics"?

 

[laughing dog]

Minnesota also does not require photo id to vote. In any case, $17.25 is hardly exorbitant.

As usual, you miss the point. Whether it is exorbitant or not, IDs are not necessarily free nor costless.

Who said that voting must be completely effortless?

No one said that, so where did that turd of a straw man come from?

Do you think someone should have to give up an entire day of pay, along with the expense of traveling to the appropriate venue in order to buy an ID in order to vote? If so, what is the fair amount that someone should be forced to pay in order to exercise his or her constitutional right to vote in an election?

 

[laughing dog]

Losing a DL a few days before the election is bad luck. But it's the kind of bad luck that can happen to blacks and whites alike.

That is non-responsive to my question. Should she have been effectively disenfranchised? BTW, I did not bring up race. Voter suppression is voter suppression, regardless of the characteristics of the affected voters.

I do not buy that she could not make time for 3 days.

Unless you know the specifics of this person's life, her job and her boss, your opinion is pretty much pointless, and irrelevant to the issue.

So how about just answering the question - should this woman have been effectively disenfranchised?

 

[sharon45]

It's not just handouts. Blacks vote for Dems also because Dems have spent the last 50 years or more convincing blacks that Republicans are all racist. Kind of like what you're doing.

View attachment 12867

This cartoon definitely hates Hillary, because she ought to be taking a nap in that wagon.

 

[bilby]

Minnesota also does not require photo id to vote. In any case, $17.25 is hardly exorbitant.

It's not $17.25; it's another $17.25.

You think that $17.25 is hardly exorbitant in ANY case; but you are wrong - in the case of a poor person, ANY fee to vote is exorbitant.

You imagine that it's not, because you are not poor. You may well imagine that you are poor, because you never have been, so you think that being poor just means 'not being rich' - that's a very widespread misunderstanding. But you are not poor.

If you want to understand why $17.25 is exorbitant, then imagine taking the attitude that it's not - so you pay $17.25 without a fuss. No drama, right? Then you need another $17.25 for something else. Not exorbitant, so why not? Now, after the hundredth demand on you for $17.25 this week, how do you feel about it? Being poor means always being in the position of someone of ordinary means, who had to pay a 'not exorbitant' sum hundreds or thousands of times already this week.

Being poor means that ANY new expense means missing out on something you need to survive.

What is exorbitant is determined by the wealth of the individual declaring a sum to be trivial. 'Bill Gates wouldn't notice paying a $10,000 fee for the right to vote, so nobody else should mind either' is a shit argument. But it's the exact same argument as 'Derec wouldn't notice paying a $17.25 fee for the right to vote, so nobody else should mind either'.

The question is whether it's acceptable to charge a fee or tax for the right to vote. The question of what amount that tax should be is a separate issue, and pretending that you can resolve the former question in the affirmative by predetermining that the answer to the latter is (to you) a trivial sum, is just displaying a lack of understanding of anyone worse off than yourself.