Question for those who support Voter ID laws in the US

[repoman]

Who says that Republican lawmakers actually want to plug up all employment holes for illegals? Just enough to scare the workers and encourage their base to vote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can imagine a homeless person, someone living off their parents or siblings (who should be able to help them get ID), or perhaps someone living out in the wild without one, but how is life otherwise survivable otherwise without one? Any form of income or welfare, other than black market under the table work, is going to require it.

It's required to get that income or welfare. It's not required to keep it.

If you don't drive and your ID gets stolen (remember, poor people tend to live in high crime areas--pickpockets & purse snatchers) replacing it isn't going to be high on your priority list. And renewing it might not be high on your priority list, either.

 

[fast]

I would speculate that many people that do favor voter ID laws are not therefore in favor of taking away civil rights.

Except for the civil right to vote for those who have difficulty getting an approved voter ID.

The right to buy a Lamborghini doesn't dissipate upon recognizing you have no money. Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I duct tape someone's mouth, I haven't taken away their right to free speech. Their right remains intact. To take away a right requires some legislative prowess.

Suppose it is hard for some folk to get an ID. Suppose I want to make it harder for them and vote for that purpose. They do not lose any rights for my efforts. Rights, they still have. I can kidnap a couple Democrats, cut off their arms and chain them in a basement all in an effort to take away their right to vote, but their right to vote will remain.

So no exception. I do not want people that a have a difficulty in making their way to the polls to lose their right to vote. When I flatten their tires and the poll closes as they walk in the rain, rest easy in knowing that they maintained their rights throughout the entire ordeal.

By the way, (on a side note), I don't know if it's just me, but there seems to be an equivocation of sorts going on. I can't tell who is talking about voter ID laws versus those talking about laws concerning special voter ID's. I think we should have some voter ID laws (which I guess is a subset of voter laws), but the whole issue of SPECIAL ID's for those that want to vote, well, that's another matter entirely.

Going back to you. If I do something and there's a cost to it, that might mean I'm willing to pay that cost, but to say that the cost itself is what I desire is offbase. It's especially odd to say I set out in want of the cost if the cost itself was unknown. So, either way, knowledge of or ignorance of a cost or negative side to something is not the goal. People relentlessly conflate an incidental consequence with a targeted aim.

 

[laughing dog]

The right to buy a Lamborghini doesn't dissipate upon recognizing you have no money. Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I duct tape someone's mouth, I haven't taken away their right to free speech. Their right remains intact. To take away a right requires some legislative prowess....

You can quibble about it all you want: raising the cost of exercising a right is functionally equivalent to taking away that right to those who cannot bear that cost. That is the reality whether you like it or not.

 

[Arctish]

I think this aspect of it is going to give people a hard time understanding what the deal is. Having an ID is such a basic, easy and essential thing to obtain I have no comprehension on how someone isn't able to get one that wants one nor how someone can get by in life without one.

I can imagine a homeless person, someone living off their parents or siblings (who should be able to help them get ID), or perhaps someone living out in the wild without one, but how is life otherwise survivable otherwise without one? Any form of income or welfare, other than black market under the table work, is going to require it.

Well, yes. The Progressive thesis appears to be that certain groups of people are simply too stupid to know how to get ID; thus, the virtual-signal brigade comes out as the savior of the stupid against those who do not want foreign interference in our elections. ID is so easy to get, and at such minimal cost, and is so necessary for so many other things in life, that the self-righteous cackling on this issue is obvious bullshit.

Argument from Ignorance.

It shows no understanding of the problem. Some people don't have birth certificates, either because one was never issued or because the records were lost or destroyed in some local catastrophe. They can't get replacements for lost or damaged ones. Some people allowed their drivers licenses to lapse, or never got a DL because they can't pass the eye exam or have some other medical condition that precludes safe driving. Some people never travelled outside the US and so never got a passport. Some people recently discovered that their names were misspelled on some document somewhere and now have to come up with hundreds of dollars and make multiple court appearances to correct it. The list of possible reasons why someone might not be able to overcome obstacles to voting set by a state legislature goes on and on.

And none of the posters arguing for restrictive ID laws appears to know or remember what happens when distinct segments of the population are denied the vote by those in power. Jim Crow laws and grotesque corruption, anyone?

 

[Trausti]

I think this aspect of it is going to give people a hard time understanding what the deal is. Having an ID is such a basic, easy and essential thing to obtain I have no comprehension on how someone isn't able to get one that wants one nor how someone can get by in life without one.

I can imagine a homeless person, someone living off their parents or siblings (who should be able to help them get ID), or perhaps someone living out in the wild without one, but how is life otherwise survivable otherwise without one? Any form of income or welfare, other than black market under the table work, is going to require it.

Well, yes. The Progressive thesis appears to be that certain groups of people are simply too stupid to know how to get ID; thus, the virtual-signal brigade comes out as the savior of the stupid against those who do not want foreign interference in our elections. ID is so easy to get, and at such minimal cost, and is so necessary for so many other things in life, that the self-righteous cackling on this issue is obvious bullshit.

Argument from Ignorance.

It shows no understanding of the problem. Some people don't have birth certificates, either because one was never issued or because the records were lost or destroyed in some local catastrophe. They can't get replacements for lost or damaged ones. Some people allowed their drivers licenses to lapse, or never got a DL because they can't pass the eye exam or have some other medical condition that precludes safe driving. Some people never travelled outside the US and so never got a passport. Some people recently discovered that their names were misspelled on some document somewhere and now have to come up with hundreds of dollars and make multiple court appearances to correct it. The list of possible reasons why someone might not be able to overcome obstacles to voting set by a state legislature goes on and on.

And none of the posters arguing for restrictive ID laws appears to know or remember what happens when distinct segments of the population are denied the vote by those in power. Jim Crow laws and grotesque corruption, anyone?

If people have the issues you list, then why not address those issues? <personal attack deleted--staff edit>

 

[RavenSky]

Suddenly everybody is up in arms. The root cause of the move for photo ID is illegal immigration. Photo ID is part of the anti immigration narrative, if you haven't been paying attention.

False!!!

The Republican lie in 2011 was that their voter restrictions were needed for "uniformity". They also claimed it was to prevent Democrats from voting twice.

But regardless what they claim the reason is, it is a lie.

 

[RavenSky]

The security of the computer system US usesfor voting is laughable. Fix that first, then you can discussing voter ID.

Agree

But really, its 2018 and you guys doesnt have US-wide state issued IDs...
Ridiculous...

It's because the very same people demanding ridiculously selective types of ID to suppress liberal-leaning votes will scream to high heaven about government overreach for a national ID.

 

[RavenSky]

Found this OpEd in response to Juma's last post about a national ID, and really had to laugh...

5 Reasons Why America Should Steer Clear of a National ID Card

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...national-id-e-verify-illegal-immigration.html

First, every worker would have to ask permission from the federal government to get a job. American workers shouldn’t have to beg or plead to anybody to get permission to work. Being employed should be a private agreement between an employer and employee. Period. The government should get out of the way.

But government getting in the way of the constitutional right to vote is fine?

Second, carrying around government papers with biometric identification on it conjures up images of a more technologically savvy Oceania or East Germany. No thanks.

Apparently, Republicans are fine with playing the part of volkspolizei when it suits their objectives.

Third, the system will exclude millions of legal workers by accident and fail to catch the majority of undocumented immigrants.

Yet they are totally fine with millions of legal voters being disenfranchised in spite of virtually zero evidence of voter fraud at the polls.

Fourth, it will cost businesses up to $800 to buy a scanner.

The cost! The cost! No no no no, we can't have the cost burden of national ID... but hey, it's no problem at all to force poor voters to incur additional costs in order to vote.

Fifth, it would treat every American like a criminal by requiring them to enter their most intimate and personal data into a government database.

And yet Republicans want to disenfranchise millions of voters as if they are criminals...

 

[Arctish]

Argument from Ignorance.

It shows no understanding of the problem. Some people don't have birth certificates, either because one was never issued or because the records were lost or destroyed in some local catastrophe. They can't get replacements for lost or damaged ones. Some people allowed their drivers licenses to lapse, or never got a DL because they can't pass the eye exam or have some other medical condition that precludes safe driving. Some people never travelled outside the US and so never got a passport. Some people recently discovered that their names were misspelled on some document somewhere and now have to come up with hundreds of dollars and make multiple court appearances to correct it. The list of possible reasons why someone might not be able to overcome obstacles to voting set by a state legislature goes on and on.

And none of the posters arguing for restrictive ID laws appears to know or remember what happens when distinct segments of the population are denied the vote by those in power. Jim Crow laws and grotesque corruption, anyone?

If people have the issues you list, then why not address those issues? <personal attack deleted--staff edit>

I do address those issues.

One of the ways I do it is to discuss the issue with people like my co-worker, who once glibly told me that Arizona has more important things to do than restore the voting rights it took away from it's elderly citizens when it passed a law requiring people to present their birth certificate when registering to vote. For some reason he doesn't value the right to vote, most likely because he has no idea how easy it would be to deny him his civil rights if he can't protect them at the ballot box.

Another thing I do is keep a sharp watch on the local Republican efforts to gerrymander my state into a guaranteed Republican victory. They aren't making birth certificates an issue because they can't. Alaska didn't become a state until the 1950s and people born in the villages didn't get them from the Territorial government. But there are other ways the folks in power are working to create advantages for themselves and disenfranchise political opponents.

 

[fast]

The right to buy a Lamborghini doesn't dissipate upon recognizing you have no money. Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I duct tape someone's mouth, I haven't taken away their right to free speech. Their right remains intact. To take away a right requires some legislative prowess....

You can quibble about it all you want: raising the cost of exercising a right is functionally equivalent to taking away that right to those who cannot bear that cost. That is the reality whether you like it or not.

Functional equivalence. I saw that coming. It's about as moving as "tacit agreement" when there's no intersection for a meeting of the minds. I like to embrace truth when it's spot on. It provides a good foundation for moving forward and making progress. When people claim that I have took, took, and taken taken, I prefer to wrangle and quibble when I've been the only one giving giving but that has stopped stopped. It's the only way to get the SPIN out of everything.

Emotions run high and people twist things 180 degrees. Listening to the reasons for how people are disenfranchised and what race is targeted and how intentional everything is, it's done with a tone of sidewalk propaganda. It's like we're supposed to pity the thief who can manage to trade food stamps, drive to pick up free clothes on the other side of town, and smoke pot (let's not forget pot) but they are the epitome of suffering in the wake of white mans greed--over 5 dollars and a 10 miles of travel from the damn boggy swamps of no mans land.

Damn, just be realistic, level headed, and try to speak as if the sky isn't falling.

 

[Copernicus]

...The problem with permitting school ID is what exactly constitutes a school? I see the potential for abuse.

The Supreme Court already settled this issue. They did not see a huge potential for abuse. Kids tend to get fake IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes, not to sneak into voting booths. You are fixing problems that don't exist, when we know that the real problem being addressed by the law is people voting for Democrats.

 

[laughing dog]

The right to buy a Lamborghini doesn't dissipate upon recognizing you have no money. Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I duct tape someone's mouth, I haven't taken away their right to free speech. Their right remains intact. To take away a right requires some legislative prowess....

You can quibble about it all you want: raising the cost of exercising a right is functionally equivalent to taking away that right to those who cannot bear that cost. That is the reality whether you like it or not.

Functional equivalence. I saw that coming. It's about as moving as "tacit agreement" when there's no intersection for a meeting of the minds. I like to embrace truth when it's spot on. It provides a good foundation for moving forward and making progress. When people claim that I have took, took, and taken taken, I prefer to wrangle and quibble when I've been the only one giving giving but that has stopped stopped. It's the only way to get the SPIN out of everything.

Emotions run high and people twist things 180 degrees. Listening to the reasons for how people are disenfranchised and what race is targeted and how intentional everything is, it's done with a tone of sidewalk propaganda. It's like we're supposed to pity the thief who can manage to trade food stamps, drive to pick up free clothes on the other side of town, and smoke pot (let's not forget pot) but they are the epitome of suffering in the wake of white mans greed--over 5 dollars and a 10 miles of travel from the damn boggy swamps of no mans land.

Damn, just be realistic, level headed, and try to speak as if the sky isn't falling.

Is there an actual point that is relevant hidden in that word salad other than to spin away the arguments that show that the reasons proferred for voter ID are, at best, ill-conceived?

 

[Rhea]

The right to buy a Lamborghini doesn't dissipate upon recognizing you have no money. Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I duct tape someone's mouth, I haven't taken away their right to free speech. Their right remains intact. To take away a right requires some legislative prowess....

You can quibble about it all you want: raising the cost of exercising a right is functionally equivalent to taking away that right to those who cannot bear that cost. That is the reality whether you like it or not.

And indeed is the basis for the Poll Tax being deemed unconstitutional.

Functional equivalence. I saw that coming.

Mmm hmmm. So did the Supreme Court when they ruled against the Poll Tax. Do you feel that decision was badly decided?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the ways I do it is to discuss the issue with people like my co-worker, who once glibly told me that Arizona has more important things to do than restore the voting rights it took away from it's elderly citizens when it passed a law requiring people to present their birth certificate when registering to vote. For some reason he doesn't value the right to vote, most likely because he has no idea how easy it would be to deny him his civil rights if he can't protect them at the ballot box.

Another thing I do is keep a sharp watch on the local Republican efforts to gerrymander my state into a guaranteed Republican victory. They aren't making birth certificates an issue because they can't. Alaska didn't become a state until the 1950s and people born in the villages didn't get them from the Territorial government. But there are other ways the folks in power are working to create advantages for themselves and disenfranchise political opponents.

Arizona wants to require a birth certificate to register?

Hmmm...

My wife comes from a country where they don't exist. Births are recorded in record books, not on individual certificates. There is a document that one can get that is an official declaration of what those record books contain that serves the same purpose as a birth certificate but it is not one. The federal government understands this, apparently Arizona does not.

And what good does it serve, anyway? One can have a US birth certificate but not be eligible to vote (child of diplomats, someone who has renounced their citizenship), one can have a foreign birth certificate and be eligible to vote (born to US citizen parents, or naturalized.)

Sounds purely like an attempt to disenfranchise the poor.

 

[Rhea]

Argument from Ignorance.

It shows no understanding of the problem. Some people don't have birth certificates, either because one was never issued or because the records were lost or destroyed in some local catastrophe. They can't get replacements for lost or damaged ones. Some people allowed their drivers licenses to lapse, or never got a DL because they can't pass the eye exam or have some other medical condition that precludes safe driving. Some people never travelled outside the US and so never got a passport. Some people recently discovered that their names were misspelled on some document somewhere and now have to come up with hundreds of dollars and make multiple court appearances to correct it. The list of possible reasons why someone might not be able to overcome obstacles to voting set by a state legislature goes on and on.

And none of the posters arguing for restrictive ID laws appears to know or remember what happens when distinct segments of the population are denied the vote by those in power. Jim Crow laws and grotesque corruption, anyone?

If people have the issues you list, then why not address those issues?

As long as the issues have not been addressed, why not hold off on voter ID laws?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...The problem with permitting school ID is what exactly constitutes a school? I see the potential for abuse.

The Supreme Court already settled this issue. They did not see a huge potential for abuse. Kids tend to get fake IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes, not to sneak into voting booths. You are fixing problems that don't exist, when we know that the real problem being addressed by the law is people voting for Democrats.

The main problem is the poor, not university students.

 

[Rhea]

a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.

Some seem to have missed this.

 

[laughing dog]

a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.

Some seem to have missed this.

The key will be if 5 members of the current SCOTUS miss/ignore/contradict this.

 

[Rhea]

Also, you people with states that require an ID to see the doctor are weird.